User talk:Sanders muc

Add new stuff at the bottom please, with new heading, if appropriate.

For the APS report on boos-phase interception, it seems to me that ti's better to try to keep that article confined to the facts of that report and discuss the related controversies in other articles which link to it for the details. That may help to keep the report article itself relatively uncontroversial. JamesDay 16:15, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi Sanders, I was just wondering, why did you remove the "v2" from the e-print reference on hypercomputation? It links to a version of the paper with a somewhat later date, which presumably has some errors corrected in it. -- pde 22:50, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The e-print archive will always output the newest version (here: v3) if you omit the version number. And I assume that this is what we want. -- sanders_muc 17:44, 17 Dec 2003 (CET)

Ahhh, how strange. I hadn't noticed that the current version was numbered v3 — but I had noticed that it was dated 8th of October 2003, while v2 is dated 13th of October 2003. I guess that LaTeX is making trouble somewhere, because the correct date for v2 is the 9th of November 2001. -- pde 02:32, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi Sander, the correct syntax for creating a redirect is #REDIRECT [[page]]. Thanks, Maximus Rex 21:45, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

from the pump

A lot of stamps and bank notes display well-made portraits of important persons, and we might want to use this source to fill up missing portraits for Wikipedia biographic articles, cf. e.g. http://www.th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de/~jr/physstamps.html . On the one hand, these images are of course copyrighted by the respective national banks and postal authorties that have issued them, but on the other hand, a bank note or a stamp is such a hugely distributed and often displayed object, that it could be considered fair use if we used them for our purposes, too. Opinions? Simon A. 12:29, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'd be very wary of doing this (other than with images of cancelled stamps, which are generally OK). You may run up against some country's counterfeiting law. -- Jmabel 21:15, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

I noticed that you moved Helmholtz Association to Helmholtz-Gesellschaft. I am under the impression that in the english wikipedia, articles about foreign language institutions go by their english names. see, for example, President of Germany, Munich, States of Germany, Russian Aviation and Space Agency, etc etc.

I don't know if there is a wikipedia policy about this, I think there is not, because you can find articles named with the other convention too, i.e. with their foreign names.

So why do you move them? Are you trying to enforce some consistency? Are you planning on taking your policy across the entire encyclopedia?

No, don't worry. It's just that in the scientific world it is common to refer to institutions primarily by their native name as long as it is writable in roman script. Often, the translation is then given. In a way, it depends on the area: For example, the French would never even think of giving a translation of, say, Ecole Normale Superieure, while it would be odd to insist on Universität Karlsruhe instead of University of Karlsruhe, as this is just a desprictpive name with no "proper-name like" content.

In a way, it doesn't really matter, as long as redirects are present, does it? In the cases I changes the redirects where missing, although pages linked to them (or tried to). So, I added them, and just out of personal aesthetic consideration, did it the other way round than you might have done it.

A special problem in German are Technische Universitäten, which are often translated as Technical University, which is IMHO plain wrong. The German technisch means technological, i.e. relating to the science of technology, while the English technical rather means in principle but not really. So, my alma mater, the Technische Universität München should better be called Munich University of Technology (or even, following US customs, Munich Institute of Technology) and never Technical University of Munich as one reads often. Hence, the university actually wished to be called by its German name even when refenced in an English text. Simon A. 10:15, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi! Does the title Herr Geheimrat still exist in Germany or not? There was not explanation for the deletion at Geheimrat--Jondel 14:33, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I saw the talk page. My question was answered. --Jondel 14:38, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

When you have a chance, please would you reconsider your objection: at the moment. There have been some changes, and you are currently the only person to object. Many thanks. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:05, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for noting that the revisions are ok - when you have a moment, would you mind striking through your objcetion. Thanks! -- ALoan (Talk) 15:38, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi! I would love to add your wire chamber article to Template:Did you know, but frankly I'm so non-technical I'm not sure to begin. I'm going to do my best, but will you dive in and edit if I missed the fundamental point? Thanks!! :) jengod 16:39, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

The article seems fine to me; I have no idea why User:Eequor placed the attention tag on it. I have removed the tag. Thue | talk 19:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following images:

• Image:Inn.jpg
• Image:Innsbruck-Daecher.jpg

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 21:50, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Secretlondon 18:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Servus Sanders, deine Angabe zur Herkunft des Weiß in Weißbier war falsch. Weiß kommt nicht von Weizen, obwohl sich dieses Gerücht hartnäckig hält. Stattdessen leitet es sich von der weißen Farbe des beim obergärigen Brauen an der Oberfläche entstehenden Schaums ab.--84.146.188.151 10:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Echt? Wieder was gelernt. Simon A. 10:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful not to remove AFD tags from articles, as you did in this case. This particular article isn't eligible for WP:PROD. If you look in the history, you'll see that it was already tried early on, but User:Bosssauce removed the PROD tag. So, the next step is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boss Sauce. Cheers, FreplySpang 17:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. Somebody else had put the PROD tag and the spammer removed it. It seems that I was reverting the removal, while you were simultaneously replacing the PROD tag with the more apropriate AfD tag. Somehow, with the spammer complicating the edit conflict to a three-party mess, the wrong version got stored. But keep an eye on your AfD tag: the guy will certainly remove it soon. Simon A. 17:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I figured it was something like that. But do keep in mind that, under the terms of WP:PROD, the spammer article creator is allowed to remove the PROD tag. FreplySpang 17:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information you provided about my question here. I am Meno25. I am intrested in knowing more. However, I must leave the computer now. I will try to talk to you about this subject later.

--196.202.91.54 14:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I keep close tabs on my posts so I can make an immediate respond. I went ahead and responded on the help desk topic but I wanted to let you know that I was sorry for the delay. Adaptron 10:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. For your amusement, check out the summary on this earlier edit. - Jmabel | Talk 04:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and all that!

I'm working on getting the article up to FA-standards and your input would be much appreciated. Don't be shy now. Any and all comments (or criticisms) are beneficial.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A DRV has been opened for W00t. Please comment. Thanks! -- weirdoactor ^t|c 01:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:JPsi.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 19:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Beetle in Tyrol.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Fritz S. (Talk) 21:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Schrdngr.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 16:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Minerva logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:Minerva_logo.gif as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sanders,

Last year (August 07) you left a comment on my talk page regarding the image here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Breadboard_complex.jpg). Sorry for not replying earlier! I can confirm that it does indeed work - if you want more information, have a look at my site at www.helmpcb.com (look under Electronics on the left).

Amr (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on URW, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because URW is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting URW, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your interest in Ghosts of departed quantities. Certainly the Weierstrassian notion of limit in the context of an infinitesimal-free Archimedean continuum provided a foundation for derivatives and integrals, as you wrote. However, it did so by eliminating infinitesimals. Berkeley's criticism is generally understood as addressed at the concept of infinitesimal, and at the definition of the derivatives using infinitesimals. It is widely recognized in the literature that THAT puzzle was first sorted out by Robinson. In other words, the Weierstrassian solution was an indirect one, by eliminating the object of Berkeley's criticism altogether. In that sense, it is the sweeping under the rug of a paradox, rather than a resolution of a paradox. All in all, I don't think Weierstrass's solution is that relevant to Ghosts of departed quantities. Tkuvho (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assume a reader unfamiliar with the history of mathematics reads the article in its current form. He will conclude that calculus started off on a pretty unclear footing, harbouring a serious paradox that was only resolved in the 20th century. Mathematical rigour is an idea of the early 19th century, but before Weierstrass ( I thought it was Cauchy, but I guess you know better), calculus was on such shaky foundations that even 18th century mathematician felt uneasy and would not know how to defend against a criticism such as Berkeley's. This is what the concept of limits resolved. You are not fair to 19th century mathematics by saying they swept it under the rug; rather, they found a way of defining derivatives that avoids giving rise to the paradox. Certainly, Berkeley might have liked Robinson's solution more. But the point is that at Berkeley's time, there was no proper riposte to his criticism, and after Weierstrass, calculus was freed from this blemish and the issue was settled, and thing were rigorous. Hence, the introduction of limits downgraded Berkeley's criticism from a serious attack on the core of calculus to a mere aesthetic argument regarding its presentation. This is why I think, limits should at least be mentioned. Simon A. (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on ThyssenKrupp requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. BigDwiki (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Core memory frame, 16x16 cm.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]