Misplaced Pages

User talk:Fresheneesz

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Omegatron (talk | contribs) at 17:00, 8 November 2005 (→[] to the []). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:00, 8 November 2005 by Omegatron (talk | contribs) (→[] to the [])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome to the Misplaced Pages

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!
Be bold!



Sam Spade 11:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

op amp edits

Please see Talk:Operational_amplifier_applications#Recent_edits_by_Fresheneesz

Generally, we want to cover opamp circuits the way they are used, not as variations of a universal configuration, so I'm not sure these recent edits are that helpful. Maybe you could put something like that in the differential amplifier article, showing the connection between diff amps and all the other varieties? (I did the same thing with a "universal transistor amplifier", and it's not a great idea. See Talk:Common collector, for example.)

Although the use of HTML to represent math in articles is somewhat contentious, using complicated HTML to simulate the same effect as TeX is definitely bad, and mixing both within the same equation is very bad. Can you restore them to TeX? — Omegatron 16:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Total relations

I have my doubt about your recent edit to Binary relation, in which you change the definition of total relation from "for all x and y in X it holds that xRy or yRx" to "for all x and y in X it holds that either xRy or yRx (but not both)". In my experience, the first definition is more common; in fact, I don't remember ever seeing the second one. Can you provide a reference in which the second definition is used? In any case, the next sentence, which says that "is greater than or equal to" is an example of a total relation, does not make sense after your change. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Cross product

You cut a huge chuck off Cross product and marked that as a minor edit, without giving an edit summary. That is not good. Please go to talk:Cross product and explain your change. Thank you, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the edit I mention above was done rather carelessly. The first thing you cut is the wording talking about the volume of a parallelogram, but you left in however the formula for that volume, so that thing does not make any sense now. Also, you put two links at the bottom which are obviously misspelled. Taking into account that you did not put an edit summary, this edit amounts to basically vandalism. Please use more care. Thank you. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)