User:Tooto

I have resently arrived at wikipedia. ooked at it befor, but hay, tryin to acrtually do somthing now, not just look.

im also called 195.137.54.92 , when i cant be botherd to log in... (or befor i created this account. probabvly not the best person to ask todo copyediting ect, as my spelling aint that hot. more a get the content, check spelling a week later when i look over what ive done.

Wikipedia Growth

Ok, looking into the size of wikipedia, and in particular taking some inspiration from Wikipedia:Modelling Wikipedia's growthit became clear that um, well while doing my coarswork, it became bious that w had missed a measure of size predition, mainly using logarithms... so ho it works, take a log of the article count, and then take a log of the month (or probable day0 sinsethe project has been running... and guess what, you get a streat line! big deal! BUT its a very good fit (ok, so it wokes well for en, and probably only en. hm, takes to long to do stuff in real life, annouying)

Footnots and the wiki

do we need all of those footnots? -- from cleanup

my persional oppinion is yes, yes, YES. infact i would go as far to sa that this is what most wikipedia articals lack. i am sure this is how other ensyclipedias can offer so few disclaimers, they keep refrances, foonotes, discussion pages, refrances for all the articals they wright. even half well writted fact-bassed novals usialy have some footnotes so that they cant be accused of making it all up. Think about if all the news channles relied on only one source for all there majour news stories, why, you would end up with somthing like the hutton enquirie into the BBC and the goverment, wouldent that be just great. the only troubble is that at the moment, wikipedia isn't double or tripple source checked, infact, its more a case of it being 0 sorsed,(counting that the auther could just be making it all up)

Lists

For Me, Lists have no value. I think that they should come uop with a way to use the catogary system better so that you can add a bit of text at ether end to describe that catogary, and you remove the need for most of the multipe lists. my pet hate is pages needing to be mearged (mainly what i do), but espessialy lists needing to be mearged.

The percevied problem with this wiki. there is a very simple problem witrh this wikipedia(w), and it is that it cant be relied apon. there is no way to tell which artticals may have been made by a pHD proffessor, or one made mainly by an 8 year old (there have been cases). +++or more importantly by people out to make trouble, (8 year old peices of work are normallly easy to spot). This is why W has such a drastic disclaimer: Wikipedia:General_disclaimer. this is where the w problems start.no one is able to use w as as source of reliable informationm when we cannot garantee it. this has been the cornerstone of all other ensyclapedias, and is why they arnt that woored about their future. they will probably acnkologe that w is the largest, but isnt reliable, contains a skew of articals that thwy do not suffer, and unless we can safly say, what you are readong is true, then they will say to their coustoers, just look at their discalmer, thats somthing you dont see with us. the neutpedia(n) project was originaly set up to provide that ensyclapedia that was open and accurate. the trouble is, that w was meant to feed into n, and so at the end of that process get its accountability. so, esentuall what we have at the moment on w, afgter the death of n, is thousands of people all swarming over the sourcscode of the enslcipedia, with very little refrences, to where the info came from, which is required if it is to be moved onto a more accountable platform.

bookmarks:

Wikipedia:Image markup

Wikipedia:Picture tutorial

Meta:MediaWiki User's Guide: Using tables

Wikipedia:Blank maps

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax

User:Yann/Untagged Images note, the ne im into mostst the mo...

Help:Formula

Math test

testing my skills to test my tex markup... not bad? oh, if you dont know them, there the equations of motion (under constant accelaration) appaently at any rate...

4*(3/(2*Pi*c))^(3/2)*Pi*r^2*exp(-3*r^2/(2*c)) $P=4\left({\frac {3}{2\pi c}}\right)^{3/2}\pi \,{r}^{2}{{\rm {e}}^{\frac {-3{r}^{2}}{2c}}}$

$3\,{\sqrt {3}}{\sqrt {2}}\left({\frac {1}{\pi \,N{a}^{2}}}\right)^{3/2}\pi \,{r}^{2}{{\rm {e}}^{-3/2\,{\frac {{r}^{2}}{N{a}^{2}}}}}$ $v=u+at$

$s={1 \over 2}(u+v)t$

$s=ut+{1 \over 2}at^{2}$

$s=vt-{1 \over 2}at^{2}$

$v^{2}=u^{2}+2as$

Quadratic equasion: $x={-b\pm {\sqrt {b^{2}-4ac}} \over 2a}$

A random table: taken from Fraunhofer lines

Designation	Element	Wavelength (nm)		Designation	Element	Wavelength (nm)
y	O2	898.765		c	Fe	495.761
Z	O2	822.696		F	H β	486.134
A	O2	759.370		d	Fe	466.814
B	O2	686.719		e	Fe	438.355
C	H α	656.281		G'	H γ	434.047
a	O2	627.661		G	Fe	430.790
D1	Na	589.594		G	Ca	430.774
D2	Na	588.997		h	H δ	410.175
D3 (or d)	He	587.565		H	Ca+	396.847
E2	Fe	527.039		K	Ca+	393.368
b1	Mg	518.362		L	Fe	382.044
b2	Mg	517.270		N	Fe	358.121
b3	Fe	516.891		P	Ti+	336.112
b4	Fe	516.751		T	Fe	302.108
b4	Mg	516.733		t	Ni	299.444

more (randomish maths) $a={-1 \over 10}t$ $a={dv \over dt}$ $v=\int a\;dt=\int {-t \over 10}dt$ $v=-{{1 \over 10}t^{2} \over 2}+c=-{t^{2} \over 20}+c$ $v={-0^{2} \over 20}+c$ $V=c$ $v=-{t^{2} \over 20}+V$ $0=-{10^{2} \over 20}+V$ $V={100 \over 20}={10 \over 2}=5$ $v={-t^{2} \over 20}+5$ $v={\frac {ds}{dt}}$ $s=\int v\;dt=\int {-t^{2} \over 20}+5dt$ $s=-{{\frac {1}{20}}t^{3} \over 3}+5t+c$ $s={-t^{3} \over 60}+5t+c$ $0={-0^{3} \over 60}+5\times 0+c$ $c=0$ $s={-t^{3} \over 60}+5t$ $s=-{10^{3} \over 50}+5\times 10$ $s=50-{\frac {100}{6}}$ $s={\frac {-100+300}{6}}={200 \over 6}={\frac {100}{3}}\approx 33.3(3sf)$ $\int t^{n}dt={t^{n}+1 \over n+1}$ ${\frac {({\frac {t^{3}}{20}})}{3}}={\frac {t^{3}}{20}}\times {1 \over 3}$

Random (physicy maths) $n={\frac {\sin i_{1}}{\sin r_{1}}}$ $n={\frac {\sin r_{2}}{\sin i_{2}}}$ ${\frac {\sin i_{1}}{\sin r_{1}}}={\frac {\sin r_{2}}{\sin i_{2}}}$ $i_{2}=60^{\circ }-r_{1}$ ${\frac {\sin i_{1}}{\sin r_{1}}}={\frac {\sin r_{2}}{\sin {(60^{\circ }-r_{1})}}}$ $\sin i_{1}\cdot \sin {(60^{\circ }-r_{1})}=\sin {r_{2}}\cdot \sin {r_{1}}$ ${\frac {\sin i_{1}\cdot \sin {(60^{\circ }-r_{1})}}{\sin {r_{1}}}}=\sin {r_{2}}$ ${\frac {\sin {(60^{\circ }-r_{1})}}{\sin {r_{1}}}}={\frac {\sin r_{2}}{\sin i_{1}}}$ $\sin {(A-B)}\equiv \sin {A}\cos {B}-\cos {A}\sin {B}$ ${\frac {\sin {60^{\circ }}\cos {r_{1}}-\cos {60^{\circ }}\sin {r_{1}}}{\sin {r_{1}}}}={\frac {\sin r_{2}}{\sin i_{1}}}$ ${\frac {\sin {60^{\circ }}\cos {r_{1}}}{\sin {r_{1}}}}-{\frac {\cos {60^{\circ }}\sin {r_{1}}}{\sin {r_{1}}}}={\frac {\sin r_{2}}{\sin i_{1}}}$ ${\frac {\sin {60^{\circ }}\cdot \cos {r_{1}}}{\sin {r_{1}}}}={\frac {\sin r_{2}}{\sin i_{1}}}+\cos {60^{\circ }}$ $\sin {60^{\circ }}\cot {r_{1}}={\frac {\sin r_{2}}{\sin i_{1}}}+\cos {60^{\circ }}$ $\cot {r_{1}}={\frac {{\frac {\sin r_{2}}{\sin i_{1}}}+\cos {60^{\circ }}}{\sin {60^{\circ }}}}$

$\theta _{c}=\arcsin \left({\frac {1}{1.33}}\right)$ $\theta _{c}=48.75^{\circ }...$