User talk:Noe

/archive1 archived --Niels Ø 10:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC) (including restored stuff from "history" that was previously deleted)[reply]

Before you post here, please note that I think most discussions

are more appropriately carried out at article talk pages rather than at user talk pages,

and that new topics (here or there) should should be posted at the bottom,

usually by clicking the "+" tab above the talk page!

I usually copy post made at this user talk page to the relevant article talk page, and reply there.

Pascal triangle

Dear Noe! I did not notice that there is also a history section. I think we can have a short mention like the one I just wrote. Are you happy with my recent changes ? Sangak 15:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I am surprised to see the history section at the end of the article! Normally we have the history section after a short introdutory paragraph in articles. I personally don't care much, but I can understand such concerns. Sangak 15:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for your conditional probability example

I put a couple of suggestions in the talk section for conditional probability

Thanks for the example. I'm still having a hard time developing a good intuition for conditional probability, bayes' theorem, etc.

Clemwang 04:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Noe! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. «Snowolf ^{How can I help?}» 00:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optical illusions

link: [1]

Running-fight games

Niels: If you can, get your hands on Board Games Studies vol. 4 (2001). This is the single source in English (apart from your wiki articles) on either Daldøs or Sáhkku, and it is very informative on both counts. For abstracts, see [2]. I am working on my own descriptions of these games for a pamphlet, so may be able to contribute something later. However, I'm new to wiki, and perhaps not editorially competent. How new? I got my account yesterday to put my comments on the Daldøs discussion page!--Phil wink 21:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Running-fight. Or should it have been Running-fight games? At any rate, you may want to edit or link to it.--Phil wink 23:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing citations

Utterly agree about citaitons in the Lead, but you cannot just remove them. If you are going to remove a citaiton in the Lead, you have to put it where it belongs in the body of the text. It isn't as if you were removing cruft or vandalism, so please act with more care when relocating citations, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World population/milestones

Hi Noe! I've moved the above sub-article to User:Noe/World population milestones as it appears to be a test page. We don't create sub-articles and prefer testing to be done in userspace. Hope this helps. Thanks ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 16:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I should have called it talk:World population/Milestones or something like that.--Niels Ø (noe) 08:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yahtzee score

Why did you delete Nipsey's yahtzee score? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.126.109 (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I copy this to talk:Yahtzee, and reply there.--Niels Ø (noe) (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Golden ratio

Per your notice, I have replied at the article talk page to elicit wider input and feedback. Adam McCormick (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RPS / Impossibility

Hello--Can you come talk about it? Cretog8 (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP's systemic bias

Hi, back in 2007 you commented on Talk:Systemic_bias#Bias_in_wkipedia. I was the original author of the paragraph. I have now worded it differently, and I would like your feedback to have it included? -- Eiland (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic bias

Noe, I posted a question for you in Talk:systematic bias. Paolo.dL (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spherical dice

You're correct, I've never seen such a die. I was trying to clear up the phrasing, not the content. And, If I misunderstood the content, as you seem to think, it appears that the phrasing did indeed need repair as it allowed readers to misunderstand the content.

I think your sense of things may be right (the energetics suggest the most stable situation is with the ball sitting in the dip an tan edge), but there is another possibility, which is what I think my understanding was, and that is that there is a "ledge of stability" for balls resting on a facet which suggests that a rolling die may settle with the internal ball sitting on the facet as it oscillates while losing energy of motion. I think, as in some theoretical situations, that we require resort to experiment. Science rules!

My admiration for being a high school maths teacher. There is great need, and more as superstition and similar brain-rotting dumbth becomes more and more prominent.

And last, soemthing you might be able to use with your students, do you, enjoy puzzles? If so, I'll be glad to pass one on to you. Let me know. ww (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

puzzle

OK, here goes.

Imagine a pond (still water, no currents or waves), in which there is an air bubble between the bottom and the surface. Part one is, which direction will the bubble move, and why?

Now imagine a bunch of water (endless, so issues of starting ans stopping don't arise -- think of the Missoula Floods which produced the Columbia River Gorge, or the abrupt filling of the Black Sea or the Mediterranean as sea levels rose), on a 45 deg slope (nothing special about 45, it's just 1/2 way between vertical and horizontal, though someone with a highly mathematical sense of physics might find it useful somehow). And there is again a bubble between the slope surface and the water's surface. Ignoring the translational motion of the water, (everybody understands it's rushing down the hill), part two is: which direction will the bubble move, and why?

As with many puzzles, this one is deeper (sorry!) than it at first appears. Unfortunately, it's not primarily mathematical (except perhaps for Euler or Gauss) but more a Fermi sort of thing. But nevertheless, quite fascinating.

If you inflict it one your students (Stockholm syndrome is involved in the enjoyment of student torture, I'm sure; but then maybe it's just schadenfreude), you may also find useful, if you haven't already done so, getting them to memorize (so as to be eternally readily at hand) and use (always harder) the heuristic algorithm chart in the fist few pages (left hand page, perhaps page 4 or 6?) of George Polya's How to Solve It (still in print the last time I looked, from Princeton Univ Press). It's intended for high school math teachers and may be useful, but I've been most impressed with the chart itself. There's another, longer, one in The Experience of Mathematics by Hirsch(?) et al. but it's less easy to memorize. ww (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.9 lead

Hi, The lead paragraph here may be excessively long; a good indication is that the table of contents is mainly invisible on the first screen. Perhaps it is worth including the actual equation .9.=1 in the lead; why be coy about it? Katzmik (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kuriki

The article was deleted long ago: it simply reappeared, and no one noticed. Joyous! | Talk 13:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Harsh Words

Dear Noe, I'm quite hurt by your scathing attack on the validity of my contributions. I fail to see what substantiates these cruel allegations, and feel that I was only putting forth valid information which I had painstakingly gathered for the purpose of expanding Wikipedia. Have I done something to warrant a grudge on your part? Summerteeth87 3:24pm, 09/11/2009 (EST)

At the time where I made the comments in question, User:Summerteeth87 had made no contributions to Wikipedia that in any way suggested that (s)he might have any good intentions. I am not going to spend time discussing with this user, unless (s)he can point to at least one edit prior to my comments that was in any way useful.--Noe (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Noe,

I still fail to see an expanation as to exactly what substantiates your attack on my intergrity. I honestly felt that my contributions to the Birdwatching article were valid and verifiable, a sentiment which obviously did not resonate with you. However, instead of discussing my amendments with me and the broader Wikipedia community, you've taken it upon yourself to relegate my contributions as invalid. I can understand a difference in opinion, but to make a personal attack on me for a valid contribution of knowledge is both confusing and hurtful. I apologize for my lack of knowledge RE: deletion of talk protocol (I'm a relatively new Wikipaedian), I have archived these as you suggested. Summerteeth87 15:11, 10 November 2009 (EST)

For the record, the edits in question are [these] - unsourced fringe material, if (s)he didn't just make it up. They are perhaps the least obviously disruptive of this user's [contributions].--Noe (talk) 08:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross and circle games

Noe, I've been editing cross and circle game and I see you had a hand in there somewhere. I wonder if you wouldn't mind checking me on my use of "topologically equivalent". I believe I'm using the term correctly (you'll see what I mean), but I'm not a mathematician (or geometer?). I realize that my pictures are not topologically equivalent (if I'm using the term correctly), but I think this is a necessary evil: I wanted to start out with a real Nyout board (not a notional board of a non-existent game), and when "collapsed" this does not give the even ends of a pachisi-like board, so I had to add 1 space to each quarter of the outside track. Thanks. Phil wink (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied this and replied at the talk page, talk:cross and circle game#Recent changes.--Noe (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Noe! 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 676 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Thorkild Grosbøll - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hijacking?

Recently, someone (not me) has twice requested a password change for this account. If you have a legitimate reason, please discuss it with me here - and please leva a note on my current talk page User talk:nø too.--Nø (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Pounce!

The article Pounce! has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced article about a non-notable drinking game. I can find a few (unreliable) mentions of various card games called Pounce but they do not seem to be about this game.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Reyk _YO! 17:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]