User talk:Numsgil

Welcome!

Hello Numsgil, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! - Vsmith 17:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Jungle.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jungle.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 00:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobi method, etc

Thank you for the new Jacobi method and Gauss-Seidel (which I moved to Gauss-Seidel method). But, as you noticed, they are indeed in very sorry state. Somebody may one day work on them, or may be not. For that reason, if you do know what those methods are about, it would be nice to do work more on them. Especially the article Gauss-Seidel method. I mean, that can't even be called a stub, it is just a link to mathworld, and I am not sure if that's better than no article at all. :) Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital organism simulators

Please justify your revert on Talk:Digital_organism_simulators --Karnesky 02:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial Life figures

Tom Barbalet, creator of Noble Ape and co-founder of biota.org
Steve Grand, creator of Creatures
Thomas Ray, creator of Tierra
Karl Sims,
Jeffrey Ventrella, creator of Darwin Pond

User 150.176.202.5

I suggest that the systematic reversion of this user's "contributions" is best. Paul Beardsell 20:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial life

Thanks for the note, I think I got it now by using the tags on the Digital organism simulators article. That way this edit is part of the Category:Lists of software, but when it is transcluded into Artificial life in this edit is not. — MrDolomite | Talk 13:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Numsgil, I disagree about the comment on "art form". The article is not about evolutionary music or art, it is about alife. Furthermore, the creation of programs and algorithms to produce music and art is not artistic in of itself, to the extent that science in general is not artistic but creative. I guess this is just semantics, but I think people are less likely to take alife seriously if they read that in the opening paragraph. From reading the article as it stands now, I feel like taking alife less seriously. :'[ MattOates (Ulti) 08:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inelastic collisions at the molecular level?

(regarding your edit here) I have reason to believe that molecular collisions are entirely elastic. I am removing that part from the article for the time being. I just thought I'd point that out to you. →Ed Gl 18:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added Mass

Hey there... Sure, I'll put an addition to the added mass effect to my list of things to do. Thanks for the suggestion!

Rtfisher 16:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Effort - Maybe A Paper.

Jay:

I have a proposal for you. It is clear that you have strong interest in nomenclature, and it is probably the case that no papers have been written to address the issue. Artificia life/ALife/Alife/alife and perhaps other forms are to be found in extant literature. Might you be interested to jointly pen a paper, an argument for selection of form? William R. Buckley 20:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you given me an email address for you? Mine is bill.buckley at gmail, and I would like to begin the process of paper writing, if you retain interest, and have any time to now devote. William R. Buckley 20:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wet alife

I didn't delete Wet alife, I deleted Wet artificial life.

Here is the story:

An IP created Wet alife back in the times when it was possible for IPs to create new articles.

You expanded the article.

Amorrow (a banned user) (as SallyForth123) created Wet artificial life. It is forbidden for banned users to create articles.

Apparently, then Amorrow as SallyForth123 redirected Wet alife to Wet artificial life.

So I deleted Wet artificial life as an article created by a sockpuppet of a banned user.

In other words, i was deleting a different article created by a banned user. I am sorry if this screwed up any work you did - I blame it on the banned user. I have restored Wet alife, but I urge you to keep an eye out for blocked users screwing with it. I do regret the trouble this caused you. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion of Grey thumb society

A tag has been placed on Grey thumb society requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jeodesic (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DarwinBots

Hi Numsgil, I just thought you should know that I've started an AfD discussion for Darwinbots, if you'd care to make a comment. Marasmusine (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Evolve 4.0

The article Evolve 4.0 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Insufficiently verifiable (WP:V). Whilst I was able to track down an interview with Ken Stauffer on the Biota podcast (which I would accept as a WP:SPS), the topic ought to have coverage in published sources also.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Marasmusine (talk) 12:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restitution formula

Hey I wanted to ask you whether I can show the proof for the restitution coefficient equation for vertical height namely the fraction of the two height square roots. Nazrath10R (talk) 03:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bessel function trig identites

I saw an interesting identity on the List of trigonometric identities that I think you added?

\cos(t\sin(x))=J_{0}(t)+2\sum _{k=1}^{\infty }J_{2k}(t)\cos(2kx)

where J₀ and J_2k are Bessel functions.

However it's unsourced and I can't find any similar identity anywhere else. Do you think you could point me to either a source for it or give me a rough derivation? It looks like interesting math and would greatly help me out on a problem I'm working on.

Thanks!

--Numsgil (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abramowitz and Stegun, formula 9.1.42. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

. . . also, Robert Israel wrote this comment about it on stackexchange.com:

It comes via Fourier series from the integral representation of the Bessel functions,

Failed to parse (syntax error): {\displaystyle J_n(t)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^\pi \exp(inx−it\sin(x)) \, dx }

Michael Hardy (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Artificial life organizations

The article Artificial life organizations has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability not established for topic as a whole, appears to be three organizations sourced to primary sources lumped together to skirt the fact they aren't notable on their own.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Reywas92^Talk 15:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Artificial life organizations for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Artificial life organizations is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artificial life organizations until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Reywas92^Talk 04:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]