User talk:Oneismany/Oldtalk

My old talk page:

Welcome to my talk page!

Why do I need my own talk page?

A Welcome From EinsteinMC2

Hello, Oneismany/Oldtalk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your excellent contributions and future influence on Wikipedia. I hope you find pleasure and enjoyment from other Wikipedians. We are glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for you and others to educate yourself more on what being a Wikipedian really means:

If you have not already, drop by the New User Log and tell others a bit about yourself.
Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
Simplified Ruleset
How To Edit A Page
Editing, Policy, Conduct, and Structure Tutorial
Picture Tutorial
How To Write A Great Article
Naming Conventions
Manual Of Style
Wikipedia Glossary
If you are ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there is also the Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make mistakes, here is What Wikipedia Is Not. If you have any questions or concerns, do not hesitate to see the Help Pages or add a question to the Village Pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Have a wonderful experience!

Feel free to ask me or other Wikipedians questions any time. If you have any issues that you cannot resolve, contact me at Talk Page.

Greeting From EinsteinMC2

Thanks for the greetings! oneismany 12:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hitchhiker's Guide edit

Hi. Any reason why you reverted my edit re:the stuff about Trillian being half-human? This is verifiable in at least three sources -- the making of book, the DVD commentary, and the film tie-in edition of the novel. Cheers. 23skidoo 23:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as I said in the talk page, this is not an example of a difference between the film and prior versions, because it isn't in the film. I'm sure we can think of many other examples of things that are not in the film, or in the books; but since the topic is differences between things that are in the film and things that are in the books, the things that are not included in any version of the story belong to another topic. oneismany 10:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Dealing with the Inevitable

I have no doubt that imaginary antecedent will be deleted. Adding information to it — regardless of how quickly or how much — will not save it. Welcome to the world of wikipedia. I suggest that you save your work offline before it becomes inaccessible, and don't be discouraged from continuing to contribute to this project, which is enormously worthwhile despite its deletionist tendencies. — JEREMY 12:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement and I figured as much. Honestly, this phrase isn't important to my subject anymore. I ought to have gathered more information before beginning my entry. The new entry will be 'make-believe' and it will be substantially the same but agnostic about the "antecedent" aspect of imagining. In other words it must reference both a priori and a posteriori imagining. The concept-space for the subjects of thought, imagination, and so forth is currently quite narrow on Wikipedia and I hope to expand it. I always save my stuff offline. :)

By the way do you think I should 'move' the entry to 'Make-Believe', or just begin a new topic? If I moved it would I have to retain the deletion notice? What if I began a new entry? oneismany 12:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting for deletion to go ahead, then starting something afresh and unconnected with the original VfD. That way, a hypothetical hardcore deletionist is less likely to stalk you to your new article. (You may want to ensure you replace any links to imaginary antecedent from other articles, too.) — JEREMY 16:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, as I've just re-discovered, creating a substantially similar copy of an article under a different title is a criterion for speedy deletion (#4), so be careful how you go about reviving the article. (You'd think I'd remember this stuff by now, but I haven't bothered with administrative minutiae since I had my first and only VfD back in May.) — JEREMY 18:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Imaginary antecedent deletion

Hello. The deletion log says that you deleted imaginary antecedent on March 12. Did you see its previous article for deletion? The result of that discussion was no consensus. Was there any discussion about deleting the article this time around? I've been trying to find any discussion on deleting the article, but can't find one. How many times can deletion be debated or performed? Oneismany 16:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I found the discussion here. I would like to request a deletion review. I am sorry I didn't contribute to the March 7 discussion, but I was unaware of it because I did not know that the previous deletion discussion could be overruled without any notice. The article is already deleted, and this is the first I knew about it. Oneismany 17:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to submit the following considerations for the advocation of a deletion review. Firstly although the article does admittedly need to be cleaned up and peer-reviewed and provide better citations, it is arguably not 'original research'. The article cites fiction and philosophical essays as its sources and does not contribute new information from outside these sources. Secondly although the number of Google hits mentioned in the deletion discussion is low, some of those hits are articles in alternate reference materials which have copied the Wikipedia text verbatim. At least one of them quotes an old version of the article, now without any reference to the updated version. Meanwhile, the attribution in these articles is lost because the attribution was only kept at the Wikipedia article. According to the GFDL, attributions and the history of changes to a text must be preserved. Oneismany 17:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the deletion be reviewed, and the article be replaced. With more work, I am sure this article can live up to Wikipedia standards. Oneismany 17:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for an undeletion review has been granted : Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Imaginary_antecedent. Regards, (aeropagitica) 20:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Measuring parallax

Hi. You don't need to send a probe to a planet to measure parallax. Just send some number of probes out of the solar system in different directions in Voyager-like trajectories. Every year that goes by, the probes get farther apart, so the parallax measurements get more accurate. --Doradus 02:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I imagine though that there are advantages to both approaches. With two widely-spaced planetary orbiting telescopes, we could have virtually-real-time binocular parallax (in theory). With extrasolar probes, we could leave a trail of telescopes in galactic orbit, with the benefit you mentioned. Oneismany 03:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-ADHD

I didn't expect to find "Anti-ADHD" in the category Child Psychiatric Disorders. What are your motivations, beyond simple vandalism? --Bronwyn Gannan 00:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Motivations? I'm not sure what you mean. I didn't create that article, but I am trying to improve it. I only wish to report the criticism of the ADHD diagnosis, as neutrally as possible. Oneismany 00:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Covariant entropy bound (test)

S[L(B)]\leq {\frac {A(B)}{4}}

N[L(B)]\leq e^{\frac {A(B)}{4}}

"N, the number of degrees of freedom (or the number of bits times ln 2) involved in the description of L(B), must not exceed A(B)/4."

$radius={\sqrt {11}}$

test

PET scans that show the energy output of the brain. Does it mean that one brain is thinking more than the other brain? Does it mean that one brain is normal and the other brain is abnormal? Does it simply mean that one brain is trying harder than the other? Or, does it mean that one brain needs more energy than the other, to perform the same task? Each hypothesis is a possible answer.

Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]