User talk:Keenan Pepper/Archive 2

BJAODN

I wanted to see how long it took before someone caught my little Magritte joke. Thanks for giving it a place of (quasi)-honor, and not simply reverting it.Sr.Wombat 03:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Buckminster Fullerene

I did search for the article I created, but of course the Fullerene article did not showup - Buckminster Fullerene should already have been a redirect to Fullerene, and the Fullerene article should be renamed Buckminster Fullerene because that is the full name. — Wackymacs 11:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for RD answer

Thanks so much for your RD answer to my relativity question. I really appreciate it! -- Doubleplusungood

proposed merge of Quickie Aircraft and Rutan Quickie

These are two different articles, and should remain as such. What you've proposed is the equivalent of merging Cessna with Cessna 172. Quickie Aircraft was the manufacturer which built Rutan Quickie kits. Please consider reverting your own edit. ericg ✈ 17:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I’m glad you think this is a ‘ridiculous’ suggestion. Most of my suggestions are viewed as merely absurd. I have replied on the talk page. ericg ✈ 00:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for being reasonable. :) ericg ✈ 01:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Rutan Quickie has been expanded a bit, and I've saved some links to fill out some more over the next few days. I'll get to Quickie Aircraft after that. Just so you see I wasn't making things up! ericg ✈ 04:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hiii...

Hii..

Just dropped by to greet you...! How ya doin??! And keep up your good work on wikipedia... ! Cheers!! Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 16:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

A userbox for your amusement:

This user is not fond of equal temperament.

cheers, Just plain Bill 04:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

List of everyone who has ever lived

Thanks for contributing.

And btw, Just tuning >> Equal temperament. Kurt Weber 23:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

adminship

Hi Keenan. I was thinking I might nominate you for adminship. Would you be interested in taking on that responsibility? -lethe ^{talk +} 05:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please! —Keenan Pepper 05:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's my nomination:

Keenan Pepper (talk · contribs) has been a wikipedian for a year and a half, and very active for about 7 months. As of the last time Interiot's tool worked, Keenan's edit count was at a healthy 5127. Keenan is very active at all the Reference Desks, and an active participant at WikiProject Physics, and started and maintains a Wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tunings, Temperaments, and Scales. My personal experience with this editor hs been very positive: Keenan uses talk pages a lot and has always been courteous when disagreeing. I also appreciate Keenan's preference for using BJAODN for silliness, which I think indicates a good grasp of wikipedia culture and policy. Perusing Keenan's edit history, one sees a lot of janitorial work: reverting vandalism, marking images, getting people to adhere to policies, some welcoming of newbies and warning of vandals. Anyone with the natural inclination to janitorial work ought to be handed the mop and bucket in my opinion.

So I'll take it to WP:RfA, if you're ready. Anything you'd like to add? Any work you'd like to brag about, or skeletons in your edit-history closet? If not, let me be the first to wish you luck on the ordeal of the tar pit, as Jitse calls it. -lethe ^{talk +} 06:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've made the page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Keenan Pepper. You should go there, accept the nomination, answer the questions, then transclude the page in the main WP:RfA page. Once again, good luck! -lethe ^{talk +} 06:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit Count

Hi Keenan Pepper,

I'm giving you your edit count, as I thought it might help you in your RfA. I used Flcelloguy's Tool (the others are out of whack), so the information is correct as of 08:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC).

And now (drum roll, please), your stats:

Statistics for: Keenan Pepper
(Permissions: N/A)
- Total: 5586 -
Main: 3417
Talk: 449
User: 68
User talk: 194
Wikipedia: 1277
Wikipedia talk: 32
Image: 9
Image talk: 4
Template: 72
Template talk: 13
Category: 46
Category talk: 5
-------------------
Total edits: 5586
Minor edits: 2299
Edits with edit summary: 5350
Edits with manual edit summary: 4165
Percent minor edits: 41.15%  *
Percent edit summary use: 95.77%  *
Percent manual edit summary use: 74.56%  *
-------------------
* - percentages are rounded down to the nearest hundredth.
-------------------

Wow! What a number! --Primate^#101 08:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!

All I could bring were these lousy balloons. _-M _o P-_

Congratulations! on becoming an administrator! A 100% success rate; congrats! And it isn't official yet, but that is because the bureaucrats are resting. Oh, and I would bring champagne, but I was low on money. Anyway, enjoy the new tools! :D _-M _o P-_ 07:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This image is so clichéd... whoops... I mean... tasty.

Oh, well, I brought it! Congratulations... minutes/hours await. Well done. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Congrats! A perfect vote with no opposition. Impressive! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You're a sysop!

Hi, Keenan Pepper/Archive 2, Congratulations on Becoming a Sysop

Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, ban anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on Votes for deletion (provided there's a consensus) for more than one week, protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.

Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! =Nichalp «Talk»=

Please also add your name to WP:LA. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Congrats dude!! I would have congratulated earlier but i just found out you became an admin.. anyways.. keep it up and see ya around!! Cheers!! Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 15:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Solar Eclipse

Well, looks like it's time to modify the edit history again...—G.He 00:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Currently cleared.—G.He 00:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Better late than never

Fantastic, so now you are an administrator! I would have come earlier, but could not on account of my sickness from 3rd April to 24th April 2006 resulting into my wiki-absence. I convey my congratulations to you on your elevation as an administrator, and wish you all the best! Have you ever seen me around? I am just curious! --Bhadani 15:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Isotope boxes

User:Jclerman has been blanking (via comments) various instances of Template:Isotope sequence. As far as I can tell, he is not intending vandalism whatsoever, but rather wants to understand what everything means. Unfortunately for the readers, he wants them blanked (by commenting them out) until he understands them. I've been having a dialogue with Jclerman, and we seem to be making progress, but he still wants them blanked.

I can't think of a Wikipedia policy that covers this, but it doesn't seem justified to me. Would it be ok for me to restore them without getting in trouble? I don't think I'm really having a conflict with him; rather, I want to know if the information can be displayed while we work through this.

Hopefully you are an appropriate person to contact about this, since you are familiar with the template in question and have had contact with Jclerman in the past. Otherwise, just point me in the right direction. Thanks, Ardric47 03:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a side comment, I think you noticed some of this as I was typing. Ardric47 03:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the example at Template talk:Isotope sequence, nitrogen-14 and lithium-6 are not the previous steps in a decay chain to tritium, because they don't decay radioactively into tritium. On the other hand, hydrogen-4 does decay (via neutron emission) into tritium. Ardric47 05:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. It's supposed to be all-purpose. =P —Keenan Pepper 05:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I almost added an example earlier, but couldn't find an existing table that has both multiple parent and daughter isotopes. Ardric47 06:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Physics

I asked this question on the reference desk and everyone thought it was homework. Can you help me? How many Joules of energy would be procured by a wire 1 metre away from a single iron dipole in a magnetic iron lattice (not counting other atoms in lattice) at 20^oC (293.83K)? Thanks 69.17.182.114 18:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No energy is transfered from a fixed single dipole to a wire. A fixed magnetic dipole produces a constant magnetic field, but to induce current in a neighboring wire, there must be magnetic field which varies in time. If you don't know the time dependence of your dipole moment, then you can't answer the question. If the dipole moment is constant, then the answer is 0. If you do figure out the time dependence of your dipole moment, you still need to know the relative configuration of the wire and the dipole. -lethe ^{talk +} 19:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey cool, someone already answered. —Keenan Pepper 00:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but the uncertainty pricipal states that nothing can be "fixed," even in an iron lattice. *Max* 20:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

RD/L

Awesome PBF cartoon; I laughed quite heartily. Congrats on the recent sysopping, btw. Joe 04:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK

I did not add the article in error. It's generally accepted that expanded stubs may be listed on DYK - otherwise hundreds of articles would lose out for no good reason. The article has been 'expanded' several times, but all were reverted wholesale, and at the time of 30th April it was a one-line stub. It was then expanded on 6th May and remained relatively stable. I haven't reverted you because of the ongoing neutrality dispute, but I would like you to consider re-adding it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy

Shield of the Trinity Scutum Fidei

Hello KP! Thanks for the help and the link, I posted a reply. But on to something I am in question about, you are obviously a very intelligent human being; I was wondering what your opinion of the Trinity is, I am a little confused as to it's standings right now. Setting aside the wiki information and simply looking a the picture, you have to wonder, everything outside is labeled "not". That would mean not part of the trinity correct? Well if mankind is not part of the Trinity then how do we get into Heaven? I know this a touchy subject, and I am starting this based on pure fact, not speculation or even personal beliefs. What I believe would have nothing to do with this picture here, yet a simpler faith. Just wondering on your opinion. Thanks for the help again, you're going into my Well Respected Wikipedian section ^.^
Big Boss Ocelot 08:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Levitron

Hello, Mr. Physics. We need to come to an understanding. I will be leaving my comments on the Levitron page.--BradPatrick 18:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You still didn't answer my question though. *Max* 22:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean me or BradPatrick? What question? —Keenan Pepper 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The question I asked under the heading "Physics" (I really don't care who answers it). And random movement due to the uncertainty principal are not eqivallent to spinning. *Max* 21:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you didn't ask a question, you just pointed out an alleged flaw in Lethe's answer. Second of all, you posted it in this totally unrelated section, and third of all you indented it as if it were a reply to BradPatrick. Please use my talk page correctly. —Keenan Pepper 21:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What does it mean though?

First off, I just want to say how envious I am of your knowledge. You're just a Renaissance kind of guy. Anyway, to the point: I recently asked on the reference desk what the chord was from The Rite of Spring. You replied that it was "Fb-major-13-sharp-9-sharp-11." What do these mean? I know Fb major is Fb, Ab, and Cb (I hope I'm right there), but what does the '-13-sharp-9-sharp-11' mean? Thanks. schyler 01:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

So, when you say sharp, that is augmented. Right?schyler 03:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Video issue

Keenan - I was looking through the Theora mailing list when I saw this thread you started [1]. I have a problem and maybe you can help me. In addition to shooting pictures, it also shoots movies - quicktime (.mov) format. I've been using bink-and-smacker to do .mov -> (uncompressed) .avi conversion, tweak it in virtual dub (usually just to do a 90 degree rotation), and then encode with ffmpeg2theora. Most of the time, I just take the audio out (because it's usually unimportant for what I'm video recording) and the rendered video is fine. However, for videos that do require audio (like videos of famous people speaking at the ACM CFP '06 conference I went to), the audio and video are severely out of sync. I need a toolchain (*very preferably for windows) for converting quicktime .mov files into theora files that still lets me use virtual dub for tweaking, which won't cause the audio to drift, and preferably which minimizes the number of transcodings. Raul654 17:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• - because that's what my home desktop uses; I have ubuntu on another machine, but I'd prefer not to have to transfer large 100mb files over the internet) Raul654 17:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Follow up on Linux Device drivers

Dear Keenan:

Thanks for pointing out the reason why a framework for Linux to use Windoze device drivers is not such a sound idea.

But I must ask:

So this is it? Linux users get the tough luck because they choose to use a superior operating system?

I'm not arguing that the Windoze framework is a good idea. But right now the situation is that many manufacturers (particularly those God-accursed USRobotics Winmodems, for which I'm one of the owner, and am grinding my teeth out at its apparent refusal to work under my Linux box) are not willing at all to develop Linux drivers, even close-sourced.

But we have already blown our hard earned $$$ on those crappy hardware. And I bleieve it's really UNFAIR that those hardware don't work under the OS of our choosing. That is why I propose the framework idea, as a work around to the currently dystopic landscape of Linux hardware compatilibity on the PC.

BTW, I don't have a talk page, please leave your rejoinders on your talk page and I'll check back. Thank you soooooooooo much for your response.

206.172.66.172 00:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for taking so long, I started answering but then my internet connection went out and I couldn't post it. Damn Comcast. Anyway, one way to support open hardware is simply to buy it. I got this IBM ThinkPad R52 about a year ago because even though it was a little more expensive, every piece of hardware in it had an open source driver, even the sweet HDAPS accelerometer. It's worked flawlessly ever since, and I take comfort in knowing that my money went to Linux-friendly hardware manufacturers (though, maddeningly, some of it went to Microsoft for a Windows license I'll never use). Another way to fight back is to complain loudly when hardware doesn't work with Linux. The problem is that hardware manufacturers don't think anyone uses Linux, so compatibility isn't economically important to them. And of course if you have the expertise you can help write open source drivers. —Keenan Pepper 03:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! So what your saying is that, although there are certain pieces (brand and make) of hardware that will not work under Linux, but Linux can be made to do everything Windows could do via the use of compatible hardware. That's certainly a comforting thing to know! ;-) 206.172.66.147 20:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Also your sugestion to help out with developing open source drivers has been on my mind for a long time. In fact, I have alrady downloaded a pirated copy of the "Linux Device Drivers" book (the book that's got a horse galloping across the coverpage), published by O'Reilly, from a Chinese book site and am ready to get my hands dirty. However, I think I'll need much more resource to educate myself on how to perform I/O traces and reverse-engineering. The only "hacker" thing I can do right now is to trace registry access made by Windows shareware to find out where the timestamp is so that the shareware will never expire ;-) 206.172.66.147 20:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Large Hadron Collider is Science Collaboration of the Week

You voted for Large Hadron Collider and this article is now the current Science Collaboration of the Week! Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article.

Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

L numbers

Hi. Thanks for looking at the article L-number. I thought there would be a correct way to link to other language wikis. For some reason no link seems to be appearing when I view the page? Any idea why this is happening. As L-numbers are a german invention the german language page seems to have more info. on them including names of the persons involved and links to the magazines that originally published them (in german unfortunately). That's why I wanted a clear link to the page. I've readded the paragraph then - not entirely sure about this - maybe I should take the links from the german wiki page and use them?HappyVR 09:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello - got your reply thanks - couldn't work out what to do about the german page - you've solved it pefectectly I think. Thanks again.HappyVR 19:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Response: Avoiding redirects

Thanks for the correction Keenan, I'll follow the correct procedure from now on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vampus (talk • contribs) .

Autostereogram

Hello! You removed this sentence, saying it was nonsense, but I don't think it is.

"This type of autostereogram is still known as a random-dot autostereogram, even though intelligible patterns are used."

The point is that random dots are not used in this example, little images are, but it is still termed a 'random-dot autostereogram' because it uses pixel shifts in a more basic way. But I'm going to ask Fred about it. It may be incorrect, but I'm fairly sure it isn't nonsense. Skittle 20:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Keenan. Would you mind reviewing autostereogram again? I know the nomination has been archived, but I continued to enhance it and to add inline citations. I believe it is now done. Would you mind updating your comment on the Review page? Fred Hsu 02:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

KATRIN

Can you list your sources for this article? If that external link is your source, please list it under a References header. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-03 21:04

Regarding hot dark matter, would the explanation by neutrinos hold if neutrinos did have mass or if they did not? I think this should be specified in the article, but don’t know enough about the, for want of a better word, matter. —xyzzy_n 16:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On June 4, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article KATRIN, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 12:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

USAMO 2005 Number 1

1. It is obvious that the case $n=pq$ does not work because its only factors greater than 1 are p, q, and pq, which forces p and q to be adjacent to each other in the circle. P and q are by definition, relatively prime so therefore they do not work.

2. If $n=p^{e}$ where $e\geq 2$, an arbitrary circular arrangement works because all of its factors greater than one are $p,p^{2},....p^{k}$

3. $n={p_{1}}^{e_{1}}*{p_{2}}^{e_{2}}*{p_{3}}^{e_{3}}*....*{p_{k}}^{e_{k}}$ Assume that $p_{1}<p_{2}<p_{3}<....<p_{k}$ and either k > 2 or else max(e1; e2) > 1. we have the factors of $n={p_{1}}^{e_{1}}*{p_{2}}^{e_{2}}*....*{p_{k}}^{e_{k}}$ and we'll arrange the factors in the order where n is at the top of the circle and we move around it. lets call d the set of factors of n. now between n and p1p2, let us place all other members of D that have p1 as their smallest prime factor, then between p1p2 and p2p3, place all members of D other than p2p3 that have p2 as their smallest prime factor, We do this till we get to $p_{k}-1p_{k}$ and n. It is easy to see that each element of D is placed exactly one time, and any two adjacent elements have a common prime factor

Now where do we go from here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saiem Gilani (talk • contribs) .

I dunno, you tell me. —Keenan Pepper 22:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

YAG (Yet Another Geezer) chimes in!

Always strange to find coincident interests.

I worked with Harry Partch in the 1950s and built much of his "Marimba Eroica" and showed him how to make the elements of the "Maramboo" (which became the "Boo" in at least a couple of incarnations).

And I work for Smith-Kettlewell Institute along with Chris Tyler who is something of an innovator in the autostereogram world. I developed the RIAS (Remote Infrared Audible Signage) and its commercial incarnation as Talking Signs.

My main musical site includes pix and sounds of the "Partchophone" that occupies much of my attention at the moment.

I also have a book called "Blindless".

And probably several other coincidences of mutual interest even though I'm 4X your age!

I am writing to try to get past your assignment of "tonus" as it is used in the world of strabismus and ophthalmology in general to "muscle tone" because that entry is not sufficiently explicitly concerned with ocular musculature and by far the widest use of the term "tonus" is by strabismus surgeons, not skeletal muscle specialists, and especially not musicologists since it representing the interval 9/8 is likely totally obsolete.

Love26 19:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)love26

Get outta here! You built instruments for Harry Partch? That's so cool! I recently made these PVC tubes that you can whack on stuff, tuned to some random just intervals I liked. They sound pretty good, but they need some kind of frame so a single person can play more than two at a time. Maybe your site will give me some ideas, or maybe I'll even buy some from you (although I have to admit I'm a broke college student =P).

Sorry if I was dismissive about tonus. I was a little upset because it seemed like you just cut-and-pasted from a dictionary, but you're quite welcome to add other meanings to it, that's what disambiguation pages are for.

BTW, maybe you can answer this question that stumped the reference desk. Exactly what kind of muscles are ciliary muscles? The article says they're smooth muscles, but I seem to be able to control them voluntarily, and I though all smooth muscles were involuntary. —Keenan Pepper 20:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course the answer is that all these things (ontologies, "seem to be able to control...", "they're smooth...") need to be separated from their event/object level counterparts, i.e. map/territory non-identity for things like "voluntary' have to be clearer. Read a little Korzybski every day!

Love26 15:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Whaaa? —Keenan Pepper 16:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This requires more interchange than is practical in this medium. If you're willing, we can continue it "offlist" - my email is love26@gorge.net

Love26 00:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by that. Wikipedia talk pages and email don't seem that different to me. They're both text-based, but Wikipedia has stuff like $T_{E}X$ in case we want to talk about math. Just click the "email this user" button to email me, though. —Keenan Pepper 00:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Response to what you wrote on my talk page

I think you should create a Wikipedia article Si/Ti that talks about the 2 names being different. Georgia guy 22:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• It is already covered in the introduction of the article Solfege. Road Wizard 22:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Even worse is the first syllable, which in my opinion should still be ut, not do. See Ut queant laxis. —Keenan Pepper 23:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, what I learn by studying info about the variants is that it was originally called "ut" but was renamed "do" because it was more singable. But, in turn, what was the reason "do" is more singable than "ut"?? Georgia guy 01:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Prussian blue

OK, I've reorganized the various Prussian blue/Blue pages, and now need an admin to move 'Prussian blue (color)' back to 'Prussian blue' (since that page already exists). Thanks. --Macrakis 21:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Keenan Pepper 21:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Situs

It's not that we have to - I just think it's a good idea! Thanks for supporting the separation of situs solitus from situs inversus - and I'm entirely with ya on situs ambiguus vs. ambiguous, too.

Ta, Nmg20 23:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Opencola.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Opencola.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Notability of chemical compounds

I de-prodded a bunch of Chemical compounds that you prodded. As far as I know there are no notability criteria for chemical compounds - given that wikipedia is not paper, and the chemicals definately exist - I see no reason not to keep them. Please do a group AfD (One AfD - multiple articles) if you disagree, and we can discuss further. Megapixie 06:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On June 23, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Yrast, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--BRIAN0918 00:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

RE:Context, context, context

Sorry!--Esprit15d 17:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Quick to deletion

Considering how liberal you claim to be you sure were quick to delete the textual links I posted regarding Uncyclopedia's article on Zeno's Paradox. According to previous discussions, textual links to Uncyclopedia articles are okay, graphical banners are not. Okay, so perhaps I was pushing it by putting "Non-Graphical Banner!", but I don't think it warrants removing the links altogether. Monkey 05 06 03:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where these previous discussions you mention took place, but unenyclopedia is utterly and completely unacceptable to link to. Raul654 03:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't really know if Stbalbach has any authority to make these types of decisions, but on the discussion page of the banned Uncyclopedia template, he clearly states:

"No ones stopping you from linking to a Uncyclopedia article as an external link, just not using a graphic banner" (Stbalbach 16:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)).

This is just one example of several statements in the discussions stating that textual links to Uncyclopedia are okay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monkey 05 06 (talk • contribs) .

On Wikipedia, everyone has equal authority (of course, some are more equal than others =P). In general, if a page doesn't have a big box at the top that says it's official policy, it's not official policy. Just because an external link might be okay for some articles, doesn't mean it's okay for all articles. —Keenan Pepper 03:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so basically what your saying is that the reason the link is unacceptable is because I wrote the article being linked to. However if you had written it then it would be perfectly okay. I see. I understand how things work around here now. I guess I'm just not accustomed to discrimination being a caucasian male in a small country town composed mostly of caucasian peoples. Excuse me for intruding upon your private club. Monkey 05 06 03:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said. Get a grip. —Keenan Pepper 03:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I over-reacted, but there's a lot of crap coming my way for wanting the link to remain on the page. Monkey 05 06 04:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Article Improvement Drive (WP:AID)

Sweet! —Keenan Pepper 19:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

MH problem

It amazes me that for several folks now, the very first time that they publish their keystrokes publicly on WP is to take issue with this article. Hmm, conspiracy theory or is this article popping up on Special:Random more than its fair share of the time?  ;-) --hydnjo talk 02:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

lol —Keenan Pepper 02:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Any clue about HC's recent wikibreak? Laura wrote an excellent Outside view at Wolok's RFC but I'm concerned about him. --hydnjo talk 02:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No idea. —Keenan Pepper 02:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

K, thanks. --hydnjo talk 02:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

ChemicalSources and other edits

Thanks for going through some of the articles I have been adding the Wikipedia:Chemical sources tag to, and giving my edits a critical eye. Making this sweep (I see I will not finish now this sweep now, there are way more compounds in the Wikipedia already than what I expected, and I am going on holiday soon) shows me there is still a lot 'wrong' in many pages, there is a lot of cleanup needed (I don't mind really about stubby pages, they will grow, but more about the mess some pages are).

About protonated dihydrogen, I agree, it is not a chemical that you are likely to find on the shelf, let alone, can buy from a supplier. But, the ChemicalSources page is not meant only for the commercial suppliers (though it is the main reason we started the page, remove commercial bias), I hope in the end that it will turn into a list of repositories of external chemical data, and I am sure that there will also be working links to protonated dihydrogen in the end.

See you around, keep up the good work! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just iterating through Category:Chemical compounds in depth-first fashion and randomly cleaning up stuff. I've added {{importance}} to a lot of articles because I think even a tiny stub should say what the stuff is good for or why anyone would be interested in it. I'm being very lenient: even a single word like pesticide or semiconductor is enough for now.

Random question: Is carbon monofluoride an organic or inorganic compound? —Keenan Pepper 14:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not mind the addition of the 'importance' tag, but I put in the 'cleanup' tag for a reason, and they don't bite each other (pages that state a CAS-number and boiling points in the text .. I think they belong in the chembox, except if they have a reason). By the way, you know the AWB? Is quite convenient for these edits.

Re your question, actually .. I don't know. There are some compounds which fit in both, CO2 is an organic compound (since it is made by living species), but in general regarded as an inorganic compound, the definitions are difficult for some compounds. Seen the data on the page of carbon monofluoride .. inorganic (just like graphite).

Would you mind adding the template for ChemicalSources onto pages you edit (I put it at the end of 'External links' section, meanwhile removing links that do not deeplink to the compound datapage on an external site in that section and in the 'Suppliers' section), then I will keep an eye on the importance tag as well (though, I am going on holiday tomorrow, might do some this evening, but there are still 1100 left in my list)? And I could use some help anyway.

You can answer here, I am watching your page for now. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't own a copy of Windows. Is there anything similar to AWB that works with Firefox on Linux? I'll add ChemicalSources to any articles where I notice it's missing. —Keenan Pepper 15:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Err .. no clue .. guess not. The code is available, maybe it is portable? And thanks for the help! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

FLT talk page

On Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem you asked for a summary of what is happening on that talk page - I am posting my response here because I don't want to clutter up that talk page with meta-discussion (i.e. discussion about the talk page rather than about the article itself). Most of the confusion on the talk page has been caused by the person who signs himself "E. E. Escultura". He is using the talk page as a soapbox for his peculiar idea that "the present formulation of FLT on the integers is nonsense" - AFAIK, he is in a minority of one, and no-one agrees with him or takes his ideas seriously. Mr. Escultura posts large chunks of text to the talk page, often goes back and edits or adds to his posts, interjects comments in the middle of other users posts, and has only recently learnt how to indent his comments. A new user, User:Timothy Clemans, then decided to respond robustly to Mr. Escultura's posts. He does not always indent his posts either, which makes the interchange between the two of them in the Underlying fields section, for example, very difficult to untangle - but it is really not worth the effort of untangling, either. Bottom line is the mathematics community has complete confidence in Wiles' proof, Mr. Escultura has some strange ideas, and, yes, the talk page would benefit from being tidied up. Gandalf61 10:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Pure intonation

This is on the Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics, and I thought maybe you'd know what it is for sure. Is this the same as Pythagorean tuning? Rigadoun 21:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be the same as Just intonation if anything, which is where it already redirects. - Rainwarrior 03:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I did that after Rigadoun asked. —Keenan Pepper 03:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed you did... never mind me. - Rainwarrior 06:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Your article creation on DYK

On June 29, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article eigengrau, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Kimchi.sg 04:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Vouching for things

I notice you've been putting the same goodbye message on many talk pages, saying you don't "vouch for" future versions of the articles. I just want to point out that in an ideal Wikipedia, it wouldn't matter whether Wikipedia users vouched for anything, because everything would cite verifiable sources. Of course, you know this isn't an ideal Wikipedia, because you're leaving, but still, a reference is a heck of a lot better than a vouch. —Keenan Pepper 19:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I am done. ---CH 20:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

ABCN

I added some content to the ABCN article, but my knowledge of the topic is not great so it's still a stub. I'm not sure if you consider that sufficient to warrant retention. — RJH (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You said what it is and what it's used for, and that's all I was really looking for. Now it's a respectable stub, at least.

Thank you. — RJH (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

scientific vs. common names

As an administrator, I know you understand the value and importance of consensus in Wikipedia. Arbitrarily moving an article from its scientific name to its common name is not a minor edit. Those of us who edit plant articles have discussed the issue here and here, and as you can see, there is no clear agreement, although Cephalanthus occidentalis is the sort of article that seems to fit best under the scientific name. At the very least, it is worth mentioning a proposed move on the article talk page in advance of actually doing it.--Curtis Clark 03:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

E. E. Escultura

Well, I think Dr. Escultura is finding it harder to debate in a talk page that is not for debate.

What talk pages may be used for Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article.

Talk pages are also not strictly a forum to argue different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how different points of view should be included in the article so that the end result is neutral. Partisan debates do not align with the mission of Wikipedia, and get in the way of the job of writing an encyclopedia. (For an alternative forum, see the m:Wikibate proposal.) Arguing as a means of improving an article is considerably less effective than an equal amount of time engaged in research.

For issues which have a verifiably correct and relatively undisputed answer, please do feel free to use the talk pages to facilitate fact checking (which sometimes includes resolving disputes over factual accuracy).

The talk pages of controversial topics can often be very heavily used. See for example Talk:Abortion, Talk:Capitalism, Talk:Socialism, Talk:Jesus Christ.

Timothy Clemans 18:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Natural Wonders of Morocco

Hi KP. Thanks for the note. It's a good idea. I'll do my best. Cheers -- Szvest 21:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Changing links to point at old versions

You can't get around lack of consensus for your changes to an article by replacing internal links with external links to your old version. —Keenan Pepper 01:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Saxifrage, there are two versions of the word "grok:" the one that Heinlein coined, and the English jargon that "geeks" derived from the original. Saxifrage says that the Wikipedia article on "grok" should be about the derived counterculture slang version. Whether or not Saxifrage's assertions are true, references from the book and from Heinlein definitely refer to the version that Heinlein coined. --Xosa 15:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)