Flying fish

Archives:

User talk:Flying_fish/Archive_1 (archived on March 24, 2007)

Voltage divider

'You wrote: I was thinking of moving Voltage divider rule to Voltage divider, and then I noticed that you had moved the page in the other direction. I was thinking of adding information about the use of voltage dividers, and with that it makes more sense to have the page be "Voltage Divider". Do you have any objection to me moving it back in the other direction?Flying fish 23:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember for sure, but I think I was merging the two pages then. I'm not oriented in the subject, so I can't advise you or object to anything. Karol 19:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

'Prediction market failure' removal

I removed the "Evidence of prediction market failure" section you added to the Prediction market article in accordance with the Wikipedia:No original research policy. Moreover, I think your analysis confuses accuracy and precision. Benstrider 19:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Please allow me to apologize for my rudeness. My actions were brash, and I thank you for reminding me of my manners with far more courtesy than I extended to you.

Also, you did indeed addressed the issue of uncertainty. I suggested otherwise far too flippantly and without taking the time to carefully read what you had written.

As for the content of your text, I agree that two markets predicting the same event should, under ideal circumstances, reach the same prediction. I also agree that both this reasoning and the numbers you provide from Intrade and IEM are plain enough not to need citations. Indeed, you raise a valid point and I would support including this information in the "Theoretical challenges" section. Where I feel your analysis went too far is the way in which it seemed to suggest that discrepancies between two specific markets demonstrate a flaw in the underlying theory. Although you identified other sources of error such as insufficient liquidity and market manipulation, your analysis seemed to reach this conclusion, especially considering the section title: "Evidence of prediction market failure". I feel this conclusion is not sufficiently supported by the data provided and ventures into argument, which is why I identified it as original research.

Again, I apologize for my rudeness and recognize that you were acting in good faith. If you still feel I have misjudged the text or have other concerns, I politely suggest we continue this discussion on the article Talk page. Benstrider 03:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Philly Sound Clash

A tag has been placed on Philly Sound Clash requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, 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 assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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. Carados (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear fusion

Hi, Flying fish. I understand that you rated the Nuclear fusion articleas an A-class article. I think that it is worth to be nominated to be FAC, if it will be better referenced. However, without additional references it should be downgraded to the B-class. Maybe you could add the missing references? Beagel (talk) 07:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

standard solar model

Hello. I undertook an edit of this article to explain solar models at as elementary a level as I could manage. I noticed that you placed an image [1] with a fair usage claim. I wanted to add something like Figure 11.1 from Ostlie and Carroll's "An Introduction to Modern Stellar Astrophysics" An introduction to Modern Stellar Astrophysics, to the evolution of the sun section, with a similar claim. I've not used images before and can't find a suitable file. Any help would be much appreciated. Puzl bustr (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Flying fish! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. James Shapiro (physician) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Volkspark Friedrichshain

Materialscientist (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Philly Sound Clash for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Philly Sound Clash 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/Philly Sound Clash until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Flying fish. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bahcall-Serenelli 2005.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bahcall-Serenelli 2005.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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)