User talk:BenRG
Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki ‒ it is really easy. More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing. |
| |
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?) |
--SieBot 00:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Something weird happened -- I was just trying to upload fixed SVG file, but somehow the entire previous comment of the image description page was nuked (never seen that happen before). AnonMoos 00:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing it. (For future reference, how did you fix it? I don't doubt it was broken, since it didn't display correctly in Firefox.) -- BenRG 00:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Changed several things, but the one which was critical was that the BBox was wrong (viewBox="0px 676px 300px 116px" in old file, viewBox="0 0 300 116" in new file), which caused the image to display a region of the plane where nothing had been drawn... AnonMoos 05:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Tip: Categorizing images
[edit]
Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.
Here's how:
1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:
2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.
[[Category:Category name]]
For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:
[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]
This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".
When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").
Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.BotMultichillT 05:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Image:Jpeg-text-artifacts.gif was uncategorized on 28 August 2009.
- Image:Cone-fundamentals-with-srgb-spectrum.svg was uncategorized on 23 September 2009.
- Image:Cone-fundamentals-with-srgb-spectrum.png was uncategorized on 9 August 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
File:CIExy1931 fixed.svg
[edit]http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CIExy1931_fixed.svg . Beautiful. But how accurate would it be with the SVG blur? OK, I don't know much, but wouldn't it be inaccurate if the spectral colours are from a JPEG image?
File:Schwarzschild_surface_plot.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Avron (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Milne Explosion
[edit]Hi Ben,
I was just remembering a usenet discussion from at least a decade ago, where you explained to me that the Lorentz invariant matter distribution was equipartition in rapidity instead of equipartition of energy. I mentioned it at Researchgate today in a discussion about the relativity of simultaneity and linked to My "Milne Explosion" page I see this has something in common with your Boosted Milne Universe with CMBR here
I don't know whether you think the Milne model is just a "toy model" or a legitimate hypothesis for the actual "shape" of the universe, but I feel pretty serious about thinking that what I call the "Modified Milne Model" is probably correct.
I've got a number of videos on youtube, that describe my evolving conception of this model.