User talk:MichaelMaggs

This talk page is automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. Any sections older than 90 days are automatically archived.

Subscriptions are at User talk:MichaelMaggs/Subscriptions

Esse quam videri

Michael, Yes, I made that note about Tycho Brahe. Though I tried I couldn't find a suitable reference, so I left it without in the hope that someone with better luck than me would find a reference and add it. No such luck, it seems, and I haven't got the time to search. If you take any interest, I can assure you Tycko did use this bon mot, or a slightly different wording to the same effect. Carystus (talk) Carystus (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Would be worth adding if someone can dig out a source. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coefficient of restitution

Hi Michael. I hope I'm writing you in the correct place. I have a correction to the page "Coefficient of restitution". The equation there, which claims that the "Coefficient of restitution" is the squar root of the final energy divided by the initial energy is simply not true. To explain this, let's look what happened when e=0. that mean, the collision is perfectly inelastic collision, but the final energy is not 0. (The bodies are still moving...)

The numerator should be, instead: (The final energy - the minimal energy) and the and denominator should be: (The initial energy - the minimal energy).

The minimal energy is a term that can be easily computed. I also can proof the whole claim, but prefer to do so in a different platform where I can send pictures or write equation. I'll be glad to explain everything further :) Knowledge1135813 (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledge1135813, thanks for your comment. I see you've posted a this query on the article talk page, and I have replied there. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find, but any way, I can mathematically proof it. Is it possible to send here files, I can show you. Knowledge1135813 (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge1135813 It needs a reliable published source such as a textbook. Wikipedia facts always have to be supported by published not private statements. By the way, comments should be posted under the one you're replying to, not above. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphenation of "fairy tale"

Hi, Michael! To answer your question on your revision of the "Sylvie and Bruno" section of the Lewis Carroll page, both "fairy tale" and "fairy-tale" are used in the same paragraph because the former is the noun form, while the latter is the adjectival form used before a noun. Here's a link to the Cambridge Dictionary's entry to support this. Thanks. JustAMuggle (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will concede that. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	Thank you for helping update and add short descriptions to Wikipedia articles. With your help, we have cleared the WikiProject's top 3000 list for November 2024! Your work has made Wikipedia better. Keep it up! LR.127 (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Literary characters introduced in 1821

A tag has been placed on Category:Literary characters introduced in 1821 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, decided after all that it wasn't needed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, MichaelMaggs. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

LR.127 (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think I'm realistically in a position to help with that, sorry. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable non-free use File:Lorna Doone, first edition 1869.png

Thanks for uploading File:Lorna Doone, first edition 1869.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 11:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to this deletion. I have uploaded a different 1869 image. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Recently some mass edits of a now blocked editor were reverted. In the process, I think some of your edits to some of those pages may have been reverted as well (to go back to a more stable version of a page). You may wish to check the edit histories to see if any of your edits may need to be redone, if appropriate. - jc37 04:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you want to keep those pages a jumbled, confusing mess. If things were more carefully checked, none of this would have happened. And I'm not just talking about Wikipedia pages. 103.82.39.42 (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowlege whatsoever of these things, and I'd be grateful if any discussions could take place somewhere else. Many thanks. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you realized this, but the original comment was referring to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction and Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. 103.82.39.42 (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]