Houshuang

If anyone has anything they want to tell me, feel free to put it here.

Houshuang

Hi Houshuang. Please don't add speedy VfD notices to pages until they're more than a few minutes old. Sometimes people are in the middle of shuffling articles around or whatnot, and links may become (very) temporarily broken as a result. —Psychonaut 02:16, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Keeping schools

Thanks for your message. I agree that this particular issue should be finally decided. However, the two camps are so fiercely divided on it that I fear there will never be a consensus. The reason there is no big vote is probably that whichever side proposed it would lose by not being able to gain a large enough majority.

The sad thing, I feel, is that people spend so much time trying to tear down pages that practically no one will ever see, when they could be working on content. The same is true for those who fight to keep things like schools. Dr Zen 02:43, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

University of Toronto

The law and medical programs (as well as dentistry, physiotherapy, etc.) are considered undergraduate programs in Canada, even though they typically require a bachelor's degree before matriculation. The reason for this is not clear: it may be because they are "first-level" degrees in the sense that entry into a MD program is typically the person's first exposure to medicine (whereas beginning a master's in biochemistry typically requires a bachelor's degree in a related field). This may also be because they are considered to be "professional" programs and thus do not accurately fit under the rubric of "graduate education." Regardless of the reasoning, the fact is that U of T considers these programs to be undergraduate when considering their population counts. Darkcore 18:05, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

UWC

Hi ho Houshouang ! I just uploaded the official logo of the UWC and changed it where appropriate (the navigational bar etc).I have the native eps file should you be interested. Maybe you want to ask the blue logo to be deleted, as it is not official ;-). Cheers. notafish }<';> 16:34, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) (Delphine, AHUWC 87-89)

Coriolis effect

Hi Cleon, I see you've done quite a lot of work on the Coriolis effect webpage. I think it should really be reformatted a bit, so that the long text in the beginning can be split into a few subheadings and stuff. Otherwise really good article. Houshuang 19:29, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) (who has an envirosci exam in a few hours)

Hi Houschuang, I agree it should be reformatted. I'm halfway constructing an animated GIF to illustrate the dynamics of the coriolis effect. My intention is to reformat the article when the animation is finished. (But I have zero experience in creating animations, so it's tedious work.) I'm also halfway constructing some pictures to illustrate the working principle of the straight tube coriolis flow meter. Check out the animations of the Micro Motion tutorial, coriolis flow meters are really cool applications of dynamics.

I think the article should be rearranged: first the dynamics, then the formula, then the blah-blah, divided into subheadings. I intend to rewrite the exposition of the dynamics section I wrote, it can be condensed somewhat, especially if it is supported by illustrations. Check out the article on tidal force, I'd like to model the coriolis effect article on the style of that article, and have a look at the centrifugal force article, that I wrote.

I want to give coriolis flow meters a separate wikipedia article. I'm considering deletion of the weather stuff, it is probably duplication of information on other wikipedia articles. --Cleon Teunissen 08:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cleon Teunissen 16:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Houschuang, I finished the article on coriolis flow meters Please let me know what you think about it.

I have done a lot of work on the coriolis effect article but in a sense the biggest job still needs to be done. The current article starts as follows:

In changing from an essentially inertial coordinate system (such as the "frame of the fixed stars") to a rotating frame of reference (such as that of the Earth's surface), a term appears in the equation of motion described by the formula for Coriolis force:

I get the impression that this is written from a philosophy of observer created reality. I have read the discussions on Talk:Coriolis_effect, and I get the impression that some people really believe that coriolis force is caused by a change of coordinate system. Also I get the impression that some people believe that the theory of relativity is a theory that logically implies the concept of 'observer created reality'. Currently the coriolis force article is inconsistent, I hope to correct that. --Cleon Teunissen 16:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Houshuang,
I have now rewritten and reformatted the coriolis effect article. I settled for pictures instead of animations. Maybe someday I will finish the animations. --Cleon Teunissen 10:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This looks very good! Don't have the time to go through it word for word now, but a lot more readable and easy to understand. Our physics prof actually encourages us to use Wikipedia, so having these kind of articles accessible and well written is a big boon. THanks Houshuang 00:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Houshuang
last night I was looking up some things, and to my astonishment I discovered I have way underestimated the subtleties of the coriolis effect. I am yet again rewriting the sections on the dynamics, in order to do justice to the intricacies of the coriolis effect. Before, I hadn't fully realized the fact that the coriolis effect in the dynamics of atmospheric motions is closely related to orbital dynamics. Stay tuned... --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 18:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Votes at Wikipedia:MoS

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Houshuang, can I just confirm that you voted at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles? I'm only wondering because whoever is voting under your name is doing so with an anonymous IP, which makes it impossible to track (in general, it's best to be logged in when voting).
Thanks! — Asbestos | Talk 21:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Confirm your Vote

The following information was posted to the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles discussion list by Ann Heneghan. If someone is impersonating you, you ought to know the details. If this was in fact you, then in order for your votes to be counted, you must sign in to your user account and either re-vote or re-sign your votes using four tildes: ~~~~ or else they will be discarded as invalid votes from an unregistered user. Whig 09:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Votes from bogus user?

I don't want to offend anyone, and I hope I'm posting this message to the right page. I have a query about two votes which were posted anonymously (from computer number 66.82.9.22) according to the history of the page [1], yet were signed as from houshuang according to the page itself. The first vote, at 19.54 on 9 May, was First choice for Alternative 4. The diff is here [2]. The second vote, made one minute later, was Second choice for Alternative 3. The diff is here [3]. Houshuang seems to be a valid user - I had a look at his page yesterday - and I have no wish to deny him a valid vote. But if he was not logged in, then the ~~~~ would not have produced his user name. If he was logged in, then the history of the page would show that those two edits were made by him, rather than by a computer number.

As far as I can see, any anonymous user could look through Wikipedia to find some users that are unlikely to visit this particular page, and could then enter this page anonymously, and vote by signing something like [[User:A.N.Other|A.N.Other]]. It would then appear on the page as A.N.Other, and the time could be added.

I have had a look at the contributions of computer 66.82.9.22 [4] and there are very few. I can see nothing that would connect it to houshuang.

Whig, since you seem to be organizing this vote, perhaps you could check this out? Many thanks. Ann Heneghan 09:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)Reply