User talk:Sullivan.t.j/Archive1

Your block log doesn't show you ever being blocked, the block message likely said something about autoblocked, you can read details about autoblocks by following that link. If you get hit by such a block we need to know the full details of the block message otherwise we are also none the wiser as to your block and can do nothing about it. --pgk^(talk) 14:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Improving TeX"

Your edit summary in an article said you were "improving TeX". What you did was change non-TeX mathematical notation to TeX. When TeX is used in the normal way, as opposed to the more limited way it's used on Wikipedia, that would be appropriate. But on Wikipedia, although TeX looks good when "displayed", thus:

\int _{-\infty }^{\infty }1\,dx,

nonetheless when its "inline" as opposed to "displayed" it can get badly misaligned and on some browsers make characters appear comically gigantic by comparison to the surrounding text. I prefer to "display" all cases of mathematical notation in which TeX must be used and to write, e.g. x − y² rather than $x-y^{2}$ . Michael Hardy 21:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally uniformity of style is good. But using TeX in "display" and "italicized text" in inline notation seems preferable to me, because of the sometimes ugly output.

Also, please note that

One should italicize variables but NOT digits and NOT punctuation; this matches TeX style;
a blank space should preceded and follow "+", "=", "−", etc. In some cases it's a good idea to use the "non-breakable" blank space (so that no line-break will come between the two characters).

Michael Hardy 21:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: You can sign your postings on talk pages by putting four tildes (~~~~) at the end; then the software automatically puts your user name and the date and time there. Michael Hardy 21:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

list of probability topics

You may want to add some of the pages you've created to the list of probability topics. Michael Hardy 22:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

context-setting

Very often math articles on Wikipedia should begin with "In mathematics, the XYZ theorem states that..." rather than with "The XYZ theorem states that...", or sometimes "In geometry, ..." or "In number theory, ..." or "In mathematical analysis, ...", because a non-mathematician reading it may fail to realize that mathematics is what it's about and read confusedly through a couple of paragraphs before finding out. For example, considering the conventional meaning of the word "schismatic" and the conventional meaning of "temperament", when I came across the article titled schismatic temperament, I naturally thought at first that it's about a psychiatric disorder. I had to read several sentences before getting oriented and realizing it should start with "In music, schismatic temperament is...". Michael Hardy 22:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(1) singular titles; (2) alignment of punctuation

Two other points:

Generally titles of articles should be singular. That is why I moved finite-dimensional distributions to finite-dimensional distribution. Exceptions are such things as things that are always plural (e.g. orthogonal polynomials), or things like the Beatles, or some other cases when there's some special reason for using a plural.

Final punctuation should be INSIDE of "displayed" TeX, since otherwise it can appear much too high or too low.

Michael Hardy 22:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page names

I fixed Radonifying function. But actually, you do have the authority to do it yourself -- use the "move" tab at the top of any edit screen. :) NawlinWiki 00:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, I didn't know that (though it makes sense that new users would be restricted from doing page moves -- they can be really disruptive if done improperly). NawlinWiki 01:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I have been very positively impressed by the amount and quality of your contributions. Keep up the good work! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Topology of compact convergence

Welcome to wikipedia. Just thought I give you a short note, because I rewrote Topology of compact convergence and copied it to compact convergence. My main reason was the somewhat clumsy title and compact convergence is more common anyway. Cheers MathMartin 14:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Existence of invariant measures

In the future, please create the main page before creating a redirect to it. -- Mapetite526 18:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Sullivan.t.j, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Also, you may be interested in the discussions at WP:WPM. I just posted a question there a few days ago, called "name of theorem?" and it seems that you just wrote an article that partly answers my question: Krylov-Bogolyubov theorem. Ah, synchronicity ...

You might also be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics as well. linas 23:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

Thank you for creating articles on mathematics topics. Please, however, always cite your sources in the articles right from the start. It saves a lot of effort all around when editors in specialist fields cite sources in articles right from the point of creation. In particular, it will save you work, down the line, because it will avoid the problems that unsourced articles in specialist fields run in to — problems that will involve you expending time and effort. See User:Uncle G/On sources and content#Always_work_from_and_cite_sources.

If you want to think of this another way: ISBN 1584883472 has references for every single entry. Wikipedia should aim to be at least as good as that. By having editors who habitually add references right from the start whenever they create (mathematics) articles, it will be.

If you see other editors not citing sources right from the start when creating articles, please give them similar encouragement to cite sources. Uncle G 16:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong convergence of measures

Hello Sullivan. I would like to ask you were did you find this concept of strong convergence of measures that you wrote in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergence_of_measures

Now I am needing to study it.

Diego Torquemada 07:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valkyrie..

Don't worry your content isn't lost.. I've merged it to the list. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could use a ruler yes but then it isn't verifiable and could also very easily be reconed as it is not specifically stated on the blueprint its self. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could be done yes, it still ain't verifiable nor fool proof or is it a sound solution as it would still be a fan calculation. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not.. You see six engine pods.. You don't see anything stating the length on those blue prints.. It also doesn't state the scale and hence doing multiplication is to speculation like for Wikipedia. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only settle for what is stated or seen on screen or officially stated (ZOIC, RDM, etcetera) - As you said it is an aprox. and if its within 100m it isn't very exact is it? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See here, you can easily cite it has 6 flight pods to an actual episode because they are "published" works, you can;t cite the length as it has no verifiable source. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are twisting words now.. I have plainly said: The size is not verifiable, it is fan speculation based on a simple comparison image released, fan speculation is not citable. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It _doesn't matter_ how interesting it is, what does matter is the verifiability - You are GUESSING the length.. The length is _not_ stated or seen on screen or released on a publication and hence is is guesswork.. Guesswork has _no_ place here.. If you wish to speculate then take it to BattlestarWiki. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, quit twisting words. The image is _genuine_ the fan speculation is _not_ thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Aaron Kelly.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Aaron Kelly.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Battlestar Valkyrie links

I appreciate that you're trying to plan ahead, but I think the best thing to do for now is to leave the piped links in place to avoid redirects. A URL like Battlestar Valkyrie#Valkyrie is a bit confusing, especially when the destination is in the middle of the page and there's no indication that the article reached is a list. If the Valkyrie is ever split, the links can be changed then, but I'm not sure it's a good idea to do it pre-emptively. I expected to find myself at the list, and the URL combined with the location on the destination page still threw me off a little... --Fru1tbat 04:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(re: [1]) Hmm, I'm looking at the list now (never paid much attention to it before), and while it's a few pages long, it's actually pretty short relative to a lot of other stuff out there. I think it could benefit from some categorization (civilian fleet, colonial military, etc), but I'm not sure if (barring significant further growth) some of the longer sections warrant their own articles right now. If any sections were split into their own articles, they'd be more or less stub-class, and there doesn't seem to be a whole lot that could be added without stretching the bounds of significance and original research... Actually, there may even be some details in the ship sections that could be trimmed, although they're certainly not overly bloated. There are some plot synopsis lines that don't relate to the ship and could probably be removed and replaced with just a reference to the episode (actually, there should be a lot more episode links in the article anyway).

For instance, the first paragraph in the "history" section for the Valkyrie largely contains episode plot synopsis that belongs more in the episode article. It could be replaced with something like 'The Valkyrie, under Adama's command, was involved in a failed special ops mission approximately one year prior to the Cylon assault on the Twelve Colonies (see "Hero").' There are some lines in the Astral Queen section as well that could be trimmed and referenced.

Categorization would make the list read a little better and solve some of the cluttering problems (though the list is really pretty clean, overall), and make the TOC much more useful as well. As for the redirects, I don't feel that strongly about them (though I usually try to avoid them if possible). It's just the "Valkyrie#Valkyrie" in the URL that's bothering me, I guess.

-- Fru1tbat 14:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basestar

My thoughts are that it delves to much into original research, we know the Basestars use nukes, what we don't know is that they use conventional missiles, if they do we'll find out eventually. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 01:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Elie Cartan.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Elie Cartan.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Bs-valykrie-launch-missile.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bs-valykrie-launch-missile.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 19:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Battlestar-Valkyrie.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Battlestar-Valkyrie.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 19:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:BSG Gemenon Traveller.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:BSG Gemenon Traveller.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we nearly there yet equation

You created the article Are we nearly there yet equation. It has very few articles linking to it, only 2, both of which I created. From your userboxes, I'm guessing that you would know better where to link it to than I. So? --Millancad 09:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes about bounded variation and Helly's selection theorem

Hello, I saw your corrections to the notation in the definition of bounded variation for functions of one variable, and I partially agree: it was too simplistic. Anyway I am trying to improve it, since as is (and as was in the original Planetmath voice, it is formally incorrect and not informative. Please have a look and tell me what do you think. Also I followed your link to your voice Helly's selection theorem: it is a very nice voice, so I added a "see also" section linking bounded variation related voice. Also, I added the \scriptstyle command in order to make inline TeX fit better with text, without sacrificing rigor and clarity: I hope you'll like it. Daniele.tampieri 21:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]