User talk:Dannya222

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Dannya222, welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips:

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, Alphax τεχ 07:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kuramoto model

Hello, and also a warm welcome from me. I noticed your impressive work on the Kuramoto model, thanks. You might have noticed that I changed some small things. In particular, I removed "Whew. Step back, take a breath, and now look at the above equations." I'm think this does not have the proper encyclopaedic tone, but feel free to add it back in if you want to.

I do have some questions, though. In what sense is the model exactly solvable? I can only find some particular solutions valid in the limit as N goes to infinity. In the definition, do "the most popular version" and "the simplest form" refer to the same thing? You say that the oscillators' equation decouple after you introduce the order variables, but aren't they still coupled though r and ψ? Or are r and ψ constant?

The plans you list on the talk page sound good (by the way, you should sign your comments on the talk page by typing four tildes, as Alphax suggests above). Perhaps keep in mind that videos do not work well when the article is printed. You might also want to talk a bit about applications. I believe I once attended a talk in which it was claimed that the Kuramoto model (or a very similar model) can model epilepsy; I'll try to find it in my notes.

I saw you ask on Help:Formula:

"Is it possible to include line numbers in mathematically-intensive pages? If not, where can I suggest adding this?"

I am not sure what you want (do you want numbers for the equations, or numbers for every line, and if the latter, why?), but the answer is almost certainly that it is not possible. Requests for software enhancements should go at MediaZilla, but the developers are very busy so don't expect a quick response.

You might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics, which is where some of the mathematicians on Wikipedia hang out. You can find some math-specific information and guidelines there, and also ask questions. I will also do my best to answer any of your questions at my talk page.

Most importantly, continue contributing, and enjoy your stay here!
Best wishes, Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jitse,
Thanks for your useful comments on my Kuramoto model page. I've changed the wording a bit in response to several of the ambiguities that you pointed out. There is definitely quite a bit still lacking, including applications (as you suggested). I've vaguely heard things about Kuramoto models & epilepsy, but there are other more concrete applications that I could put in.
About line numbers, I meant to say equation numbers. It's tough to refer to equations without being able to insert those. It's doable with the level of detail that I included in the Kuramoto page, but if I ever wanted to show a real calculation I think it would be next to impossible. Is it frowned upon to put a lot of math into Wikipedia pages? I don't see any real drawbacks to it as long as the introduction is clear to non-math people...
Anyway, thanks again for your comments. Feel free to correct me when my contributions are unclear.
Dannya222 05:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections. There is no need to rush; I know that writing a good article cost a lot of time.

My opinion, which is shared with most mathematicians and physicists around here, is that we should try to make things as simple as possible, but not oversimplify so much that it hampers understanding. I wouldn't worry about having plenty of formulas. The level of detail is a bit of a grey area. Personally, I think that detailed calculations or proofs do not belong in an encyclopaedia in general. However, this depends very much upon the specific case (and on who you ask). For instance, I think the explanation in the section called Transformation suffices; we do not need to include the computation on how to derive the transformed equation,

Equation numbers would be very useful, but they are unfortunately not supported. You can emulate them by hand, for instance: "Consider the transformation

\xi = t-cx. \qquad\qquad (1)

Substitution of (1) into the equation yields …" It's a bit ugly, but better than nothing. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


A nice article. Let me take a wild guess - would your advisor be Steve Strogatz?! Paul Matthews 07:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Good guess, Paul. --Dannya222 02:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Question on Dupuit assumption page

Check it out here. +mt 03:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Howard wilson emmons

A tag has been placed on Howard wilson emmons requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, 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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  superβεεcat  04:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


Danny, I've declined the speedy (but no guarantees another admin won't delete it). I've also moved the article here: Howard Wilson Emmons and I've removed the lists of his students and colleagues etc. I don't think that sort of material is appropriate for an encyclopedic article unless there is a particular collaboration which was particularly notable for some reason, in which case you can write a couple of lines about it in the text of the article. If you need more time on these articles, I recommend you work on them in your userspace where people will leave you in peace and then move them into the mainspace when you're finished. Cheers, Sarah 05:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Richard Ernest Kronauer

A tag has been placed on Richard Ernest Kronauer 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. Please take no offense. Basketball110 i'm not yik ginlyùn 04:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your articles

Danny, I've moved your new articles here:

You can work on them there until you've finished and feel they're up to article standards and then we can move them back into the article space. They can't stay in userspace forever, though, so if you can't establish these scientists are notable, they'll have to be deleted. But at least you'll be able to work on them in peace for the time being without people trying to have them deleted before you've even finished. Sarah 05:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Great, that works fine for me. I was surprised by the attention---I've created other articles before without any problems. Dannya222 (talk) 05:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] new articles in progress

User:Dannya222/John_Finnie_Downie_Smith

User:Dannya222/Charles_Harold_Berry