User talk:Nimur

Looking to Contact You

Hey Nimur,I'm the one who wrote both the articles about the vacuum and about the Ankitium. I think what I am thinking of is not impossible to develop because I've already found many reasons to believe in it. I've also some other theories on the facts which are yet to be proven. The "TOE" is one of them. I think it could be possible to construct the "TOE" equation. But I may not be able to explain it through the articles only as many things are still unknown to me and need a definite person who could help me. You've asked that why I am unable to research on it. Here's the answer. I'm a boy of just 20 and nobody is believing in me that a boy of my age who is a engineering student could be able to construct it. But I can assure you,if you could arrange a meeting between me and a proper guide who could help me on this things, it may not be going to failure because nothing is impossible in Physics. What I'm telling that may be wrong. But there has a possibility that it may be right. I just want to found whether it could be right or not. If you are interested then contact me through my email-id (soumyaroy.rocks@gmail.com). There you could ask for my cell no also. Being a student,I don't have sufficient money to make an I.S.D call.

One more thing,if you've found possibility to have something true in my words,then contact me as early as possible. I promise you to go to there to complete this research at once you've replied me leaving behind my Engineering college.

Hope that you would be kind enough to check my words at least.

You deserve this

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		for explaining that two pigeons can make a half-wave antenna (just not a very useful one) [1] Physchim62 (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

re: Pigeons on my TV aerial?

"two pigeons in a row constitute a half-wave antenna at 700 MHz" That's a pretty cool intersection of radio invisible waves seems-like-magic and real-life objects! On the other hand, did you perhaps just crack the secret for implementing RFC 1149? DMacks (talk) 05:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

My reply to your post

Hi Nimur. I thought you might be interested in my reply to your post at WP:Reference desk/Science#light pulse intensity with time. So I'm pointing it out to you here, because I figured you might not otherwise notice it, since the thread has been otherwise dead for a day and a half, and the topic is old enough that it's transcluded from the archives, so my reply doesn't show up in the ref desk's history. I've been too busy with real life to reply in a more timely manner. Red Act (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I figured there could be some unusual "edge effects" and wave packet shape effects, plus geometry, that might make the situation more complicated; but as I mentioned, "I don't know how..." - it's been a while since I did anything numerical with optical wave interference so I'm not the most well-equipped to evaluate the idea. Anyway, it's a neat concept, I've been thinking a lot lately about ways to create optical frequency-mixing. This is a hard problem. Nimur (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Fall 2010 USRD newsletter

Volume 3, Issue 3 • Fall 2010 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup News in brief Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Bot automates graphics creation, saves work Featured Article, eh? Reviews needed at ACR	State and national updates Project reports for Delaware Maryland Michigan Minnesota
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

— JCbot (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanx!

The Refdesk Barnstar For helping me vanquish the despicable Ariel font once and for all. DRosenbach (Talk

My bad

As per header - Cheers for the heads up about including SERPs on the helpdesk Darigan (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference desk

Sorry for using your thread to moan about you. As you can probably guess my gripe was primarily that you had asked me to prove facts that were in the article BLU-82 and which I thought easily confirmable by a web search. eg searches for "BLU-82" or "GSX explosive" eg eg an example that should be reliable (snippet only).

By the way one of Melvin Cook's competitors to supply the explosive for the BLU-82 gives a simple account of why it was successful: archived conversation between Gerald Hurst and someone else (Gerald Hurst is this guy ,inventor of Astrolite)

Anyway sorry about what might seem a lot of fuss about nothing. I just got annoyed. I do however have a proper question (see reference desk talk page again).

I shouldn't have blown up like that, sorry.Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries, we're all human (except the bots and search-engines). I'll work on my part, which is to keep my contributions up-to-snuff. I may be a "regular" but I do make mistakes, thank you for checking my work. It keeps me honest. Nimur (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

reply

Replied here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#running_a_c.2B.2B_program). thanks--180.234.38.71 (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Hubble.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Hubble.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I have added a fair-use rationale template for that image: File:Hubble.jpg. Nimur (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hubble.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hubble.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Edwin Hubble

I'm sorry, I can't see any discussion on the talk page. In any case, non-free content cannot be used in favour of free content, even if it is of a higher quality. Our deliberately strict non-free content criteria are quite clear that free content must always take precedence, even if the free content has yet to be found. However, in a case like this, where we already have a free image of the subject, it's pretty much black and white. If you disagree, that's fine, but your problem is with the policy, not with me; please do not add the non-free image back into the article in the mean time. J Milburn (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I apologise, I didn't actually see the message on my talk page, I assumed you meant the article talk page. If you are concerned that the "free" image has been uploaded under a false license, then perhaps you could nominate it for deletion? J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I will try to investigate the exact copyright status of both images, including the original photographer and institution. This is a bit difficult because both photos have been reprinted in thousands of different websites and print sources. Nimur (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm sorry about my rather curt message above, as I say, I hadn't seen your message to me. I disagree that we should use "the higher quality image" necessarily- we should use the smallest amount of copyrighted material possible. As you argue, the pipe image is more useful, but it should certainly be reduced drastically in size, and perhaps cropped down significantly (just face and pipe?) J Milburn (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Before we take any action, can you give me a day or two to try to track some more authoritative copyright information down? I agree that we need to minimize the amount of "encumbered" content, but I'm not sure either image has a currently valid copyright, because I don't know the actual original author/photographer of either image (except that to the best of my current research, both images originated from Mount Wilson). Nimur (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Winter 2010 USRD newsletter

Volume 4, Issue 1 • Winter 2011 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features The Year in Review Royal Award Conferred USRD busy at work at FAC	State and national updates Project reports for CA MI MN NE NJ UT WA
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—

JCbot (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)