User talk:Army1987/Archive 3

Words regarding my deed
Army1987: I’ve responded to your inquiry on the CG ruler here. Greg L (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to your question, they are small, detail shots. No problem for 56 Kbaud. By the way, thank you for all your recent edits to Kilogram. With one minor exception, I agree with all you did. Greg L (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've read the summary of your last edit there. You can use Special:EmailUser/Army1987, thank you. (BTW, I usually watch talk pages I post to, so you can just reply in the same place, next time.) -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 20:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, one can’t attach files to Wikipedia’s e-mail service. That’s why I suggested that you e-mail me your e-mail address; it’s the only way. Greg L (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

(Hey, I hadn't noticed that the title of this section was a reference to my signature until now. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 13:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC))

Difference between open-mid and closed-mid vowels
Hi, I've seen your change http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Italian_phonology&diff=256227865&oldid=253628348 reverting most of these changes from me: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Italian_phonology&diff=253056540&oldid=251680541 and I'm curious about it (since I'm an Italian speaker from Southern Italy). In particular, is the "openness" of the 'e' enough, for a speaker from Central Italy like you, to disambiguate sentences like "Ti piace la pesca?" pronounced in daily speech, where the context gives no help at all? I.e. are 'pèsca' and 'pésca' an actual minimal pair, like for instance 'hit' and 'heat' in English (where just the vowel length changes completely the meaning)? I've thought for a long time that the answer is "no", but I would like to know a better answer. In fact, without such minimal minimal pairs, 'è' and 'é' would be defined to be different allophones of the same vowel. --Blaisorblade (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can hear the difference between the two, if they're pronounced correctly. Not everybody does (many pronounce "peach" as "fishing" should be, especially people of southern ancestry), but many people do, and I'm not talking about actors or news anchors. And I think that in Tuscany even more people make the distinction. But probably, if "everyone but actors and news anchors" is replaced with "many speakers" that statement is true. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 13:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Font color and typeface for example text
Speaking to the issue you raised about sweeping up unit symbols in italicized text, I’ve posted the proposal here on WT:MOS. Greg L (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Impressive work on kg
Thank you very much for separating the references and notes here on Kilogram. A good idea, well implemented. It was a technique, I was not aware of. Greg L (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A (very minor) problem with it is that  tags cannot be nested, so, in some cases where it'd make sense to do so, I simply put the reference after the note in the main text, as with Note 9 and reference 15 in the revision of 18:13 yesterday. There is a way to nest them, but I consider it to be too complicated to be worth bothering – see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Army1987/Sandbox&oldid=242947265, and Roman Catholic Church which actually uses it (I didn't edit that article). -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 11:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

xt color
Army, what do you think of using a 39.2% green, which is precisely the same as Tony’s signature. It does so using the following span code: :

Editors should write 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, but do not write five cats and 32 dogs. Greg L (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is Tony’s signature: Tony Here is 39.2% green:      Tony

Greg L (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Aestetically, I don't like it very much, but, at least, it is harder to confuse with a broken link than the current colour is (at least for trichromats). -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it could go a bit darker myself. I’m waiting for Headbomb to weigh in so I can arm wrestle him as far as he is willing to go. Greg L (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This might be useful. I'd tolerate anything between 40 and A0, with about 58 or 60 being the one I like most. (On my laptop I have a crap-quality LCD whose gamma depends on the viewing angle, so I used a test file similar to [[File:Srgbnonlinearity.png]], which assumes sRBG – the standard which CSS colors are supposed to use, tilted the monitor until it had the "right" brightness, and only looked at the line at the same vertical height as the picture, scrolling the text up and down.) -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 18:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And then we might use another template with maroon to show "bad" examples, such as "Write five cats and thirty two dogs, or 5 cats and 32 dogs , not five cats and 32 dogs ", but maybe I'm taking it too far... -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 18:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I too am on a laptop with a tilt-sensitive LCD. I now blurred my vision and tilted the display to fix the perceived gamma. You are very generous with the range of brightnesses you can tolerate. Based on what I’m getting from all parties, plus you and me, my guess is that we are going to eventually settle really close to “darkgreen” (64) or maybe a couple of notches darker (maybe 60, which is 37.7%). Greg L (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have an LCD, use this:. (CRTs have problems with the checkerboard pattern. But if you have an LCD, not only it is easier to see, you can also check only the green channel in case they have different gammas – as my display where gray looks slightly bluish.) BTW, better get back to work – despite my signature, I'm spending far more time for the microlux-level tweaks on the brightness of the text of examples, than for articles. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 19:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I like this color-block better. I can angle the LCD until all of them have their center squares totally vanish. As regards nominating Kilogram for FA, I dreaded GA, but it didn’t turn out too bad. I worry that FA means it will necessarily have to be featured on the main page, and that will bring cranks. I also worry that we can get a FA critique who is full of himself and/or doesn’t know technology well enough. If you want to nominate it, be my guest. My personal preference is to go under the radar. Greg L (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There are many FAs which weren't featured on the Main Page, for that matter... (And it is more-or-less standard to semi-protect articles which have potential to attract cranks when they're featured there.) I've already nominated it, but let's hope the reviewers won't be dicks... -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 22:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The reaction of Gary King pretty much validates my prejudices of these venues. The CG illustration of the IPK was once nominated for FP status. One of the critics complained that it had been saved as a jpeg rather png or something-or-other (*sigh*). So I’m disinclined to even look at the FA page again. If I did, and didn’t respond to horseshit, my blood pressure might rise. If I did, I might be inclined to say something along the lines of “If you got into a traffic accident and I was walking by, I wouldn’t piss in your mouth if your teeth were on fire.” While the latter option might feel therapeutic, either option is really a loss for me. So… better that I not look. I really do hope you don’t push this any more and start a ball of horseshit rolling our way. Greg L (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

1= on xt?
Army, please see Template_talk:Xt. Greg L (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Georgia on my mind…
My complete thoughts are on template talk. I don’t have a problem with Georgia as long as we’re confident we are more likely to fix something than break something. If you’re happy with Georgia, then, I say, “be bold.” Greg L (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Were you not saying that you like Georgia? My concern is this: why mess with it if it ain’t broken? Is Georgia on Linux? Is it on old Windows 98 (and earlier?) If we did try Georgia, would it be best to specify font-family: 'Georgia', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif? What that would do is if someone didn’t have Georgia, then they would at least be guaranteed a too-small Times New Roman or Times as a default. I will leave this decision up to you, if you like, because, clearly, you very carefully examined the look and benefits of various characters. I have complete confidence in your analysis of the merits of the typeface. I have only two concerns: The first is our knowledge of its availability of Georgia on other platforms. To my mind, “Times New Roman, Times, serif” is an extraordinarily common way of specifying a serif typeface on the Web. Very common. My second concern is that if we have the size issue fixed, why screw with it? I submit that ensuring *stability* in the template might also be strategically important at this juncture . Editors on Wikipedia hate change and messing with something that they are only just now getting used to doesn’t seem wise. I also think what Crissov did was can reasonably be considered as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, or vandalism—or both. Greg L (talk) 02:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. So… I decided to answer my own question to you regarding Georgia on Linux. See Linux Web Fonts. It seems, Linux users would only have Georgia if they installed Microsoft fonts for the Web. If you think that will be virtually any Linux user who is active on the Web, then we would be good to go for Linux. I still have this nagging principle with “if it ain’t broke…” Greg L (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * P.P.S. I think the wisest move here is to keep this Georgia option in our hip pocket if the “108%” solution doesn’t make pretty much everyone happy. What do you think about that strategy? Greg L (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Concerns of stability are the reason why I didn't just "be bold" and do it. I think your concerns about Georgia on Linux also apply to Times. (I installed Times New Roman with the package you mentioned, and I don't have Times installed. There is a font almost identical to Times (whose name I don't remember right now), but I don't think browsers are smart enough to use it for the declaration . OTOH we might use  .)
 * As for, I simply don't see the point of it. Several fonts are specified if they are quite similar, with the family specified back as a fallback. Most people not having Georgia now are those using Linux (I think it is more widely used than Windows 98 now), and the default serif font (well, at least on Ubuntu 7.10) is quite the right size.
 * The font-size-adjust property sounds like the perfect solution. Too bad that my browser (and I guess Firefox, too, as they use the same rendering engine) completely ignores it (a value of 0.5 and a value of 2.0 are rendered identically). -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 11:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Test
 * Pangrams such as the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog are often used to demonstrate typefaces.

OMG, that's even smaller than Times ...
 * Pangrams such as the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog are often used to demonstrate typefaces.

... but this is way too large. Maybe the one above is better.

Liberation Serif is supposed to have the same exact metrics as Times New Roman, but is very recent and Linux distros more than one year old don't have it (and I don't have it, either).

Let's try. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 14:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Army, both the above examples appear to be the exact same size to me (OS X using both Safari and Firefox). Greg L (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was testing Linux fonts. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 19:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I might add that one, rather nebulous, advantage of your new code on {xt}, is that it appears to have been the product of a geek who has done his homework. :&middot;) Greg L (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

WT:MOSNUM
Hi Army - just a quick head's up: your edit here suggests going to Knot to find the symbol. Unfortunately all you can learn there is how to tie one! I'd fix the link myself to Knot (speed), but I've always thought it bad etiquette to change other editors' comments. Hope that's helpful; Best regards --RexxS (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Bah, it's late - don't mind me - I was looking at an old revision and hadn't spotted you'd already fixed that. The regards still stand, though. --RexxS (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Bring It on Home
You credited this song soley to Willie Dixon. That is incorrect. The song credit clearly states it is called "Bring It on Back" for that album version. All other Led Zeppelin versions clearly officially credit Page/Plant/Dixon. You also multiple linked the same artist credits. You only need to link once. MegX (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The backcover of How The West Was Won says:
 * 4. Bring It On Home** 9 : 30
 * (Willie Dixon)
 * Hoochie Coochie Music, BMI, Admin. by Bug Music
 * Medley contains Bring It On Back, (Jimmy Page/Robert Plant/John Paul Jones/John Bonham). Admin. by WB Music Corp. ASCAP As for the repeated links, I agree, sorry if I linked someone more than once by mistake. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 01:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the UK dating but I don't see the point, when it simply redirects back to the US dating system. Wikipedia guidelines is to avoid redirects where possible. MegX (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The current guideline is the one which I cited in the edit summary; there is a discussion to change it at Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Proposal on international date format, if you're interested in it. (But practically everyone so far agrees that UK topics should use UK dates.) As for "redirects back", I think you are referring to the linking of days of the year. This was commonly done for the purpose of autoformatting, but is now deprecated – see the footnote at MOS:NUM. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 01:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Eg. If you click on 23 January, there is a redirect page which takes it to January 23. I'll have a read of the discussion. MegX (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Nowadays, there is consensus that dates such as 23 January should not be linked, "unless they are demonstrably likely to deepen readers' understanding of the topic" (CONTEXT). -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 02:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Weather
Something has gone wrong with the template for the sun in January. Take a look at Cambridge Bay, Nunavut to see what I mean. I thought that at first it was something in one of the updates you made so I tried changing back two of the most likely looking edits but Template:Infobox Weather/line/onevalue and Template:Infobox Weather/cols didn't seem to solve it. I then noticed that articles like Luton, Kingston upon Hull and Victoria, British Columbia look alright in January the whole template is now much smaller. Any idea what's going on? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 07:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I took a look at the articles using the "Sunshine hours" of that template, after making that edit, and that problem wasn't present. I'll try to see whether I can manage to figure out what's up. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 12:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Algebraist had hidden the table itself from the template page itself, but apparently he/she accidentally removed a quotation mark. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 13:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Still the same. I tried on a different computer just in case it was a issue with the cache but the Cambridge Bay page is still showing the error. I tried reverting all the templates and then checking but that didn't cure it either. So I just rolled back my edits. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Very weird, it looks OK here. Did you try purging the server's cache (see WP:PURGE) as well? -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 10:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's why I tried another computer. It was caused in the Cambridge Bay article by having nothing in the value. Once that was changed to zero it works fine. Does the Victoria, British Columbialook OK? It still looks very small. Interesting thing is that although it's small it's readable. If that could reproduced then it would solve the size problem that some editors had. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 14:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, never mind that one does appear to be a caching issue. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 14:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Science Debate Forum
Hello,

I am electricRush and I would like to invite you to join the Science Debate Forum. It is open to anyone who has an interest in science, and is completely free. We have a welcoming community and discussion forums in all subjects ranging from cosmology to physics to politics. In general it is a great discussion board that fits all scientific interests.

Thanks, - electricRush (  T   C  )Sign! 05:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Abstract algebra in Junior High.
Hello, this is mostly a side remark about your side remark. In the past I have taught middle school students these sort of subjects. It is interesting how well many students can take to it. But, to be fair, the students to need to be "pyrotechnically endowed" as a friend of mine likes to say. Thenub314 (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

PhysicsParticle template
I see you have reverted the PhysicsParticle template again. Apparently, you encountered some issues somewhere. The issues are probably similar to what Headbomb encountered yesterday. However, we where unable to reproduce those issues today, so we decided to try reimplementing the change. Could you explain where you encountered the problems, so those specific circumstances can be included in the testcases? It would also help to know what browser on what platform with what skin you were using at the time. Also did you purge the page in question on which the template was misbehaving?(TimothyRias (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC))


 * I got line breaks between the e and the − in in the Electron article, using the Monobook skin and Firefox 2.0.0.14 on Fedora. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 14:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you check Template:PhysicsParticle/testcases and see if sandbox versions of the testcases are malfunctioning on your setup? (I tried to confirm it myself but apparently FF2 does not install along side FF3, and I'm on windows platform anyways.)


 * PS. Why are you running an outdate FF2 version? The latest FF2 update is 2.0.0.20. You should update for security reasons. (TimothyRias (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC))


 * Because I'm on the university time-sharing machine; I use Epiphany at home. I'll take a look at the testcase. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 15:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

b A d cc. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 15:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here, all the ones in "Current" columns look OK, and all the ones in the "Sandbox" columns look wrong. For example the first one looks like a

g-force
I note your post on talk:g-force. I am baffled why you would write such a thing. Please see my response there. Greg L (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Formatting Force equals mass times acceleration
What do you know about the proper formatting of F = ma (v.s. F = ma}? I see that our Newton's laws of motion uses bold F. Why aren’t these variables italicized? Do we have a house style here? According to the BIPM here, Unit symbols are printed in roman (upright) type regardless of the type used in the surrounding text. Note also this On the use of italic and roman fonts for symbols in scientific text from IUPAC. And here at BIPM: Quantities and variables — italic, things seem, again, clear on this matter. I find it hard to believe that putting F in bold properly distinguishes it from a farad. Would you mind looking through these citations to see if F = ma is truly proper and let me know what you think? Please explain why F and a are “vectors” that ought to be roman and bold, v.s. any other variable (which they are). I would think that Physics Wold would have it right and I would certainly think that Encyclopedia Britannica would too. No? Greg L (talk) 06:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the standards suggest always italics, also for bolded vectors. In the real world the usage is more mixed (e.g. The Feynman Lectures on Physics aren't even consistent with themselves using both), with roman being somewhat more common nowadays (it is, for example, the house style of the American Physical Society ). As for our house style, I seem to recall that the MOS recommended roman for bolded vectors somewhere, though I can't find that right now here ; anyway, articles such as Laplace–Runge–Lenz vector and vector space use it. (Note that the standards you cite also require the base of natural logarithms and the imaginary unit to be written as upright e and i, although in the real world e and i are probably more than ten times more common; ditto with c0 vs c for the speed of light in vacuum, 90 % vs 90% – but in this case the "ten times" would be "ten thousand times", etc.)
 * Anyway, if we don't want to decide between F = ma and F = ma, we can always just write the scalar equation F = ma which is also true (if you multiply a vector by a scalar, its magnitude will increase by the same scalar factor). -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 10:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to research that and explain it so clearly and completely. I would suggest the Encyclopedia Britannica style for this particular article since it looks less abrupt and awkward for the non-mathematician audience that will frequent it. For more mathematical articles, the  will make more sense for that audience. Greg L (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As for fixing the character spacing (CSS span tags) after an italic character (which is something I manually tweak not only before a close-parenthesis but also preceding footnotes), is there a way to have a bot delete my manual adjustments after the problem is globally fixed? I have pretty much practiced this only for those articles I give a particular crap about, but that’s still more than I’d care to shake a stick at. It would be nice to automate the fix. Greg L (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Dunno, try asking WP:BOTREQ. But there seems to be forming consensus against my proposal; people are saying that it looks worse with FF3. Now, I seem to recall that "f)" did look right on my browser before I upgraded to Ubuntu 7.10, but I don't have the faintest idea about why. (As for F = ma, point taken: the scalar equation might suffice in many articles.) -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 22:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, "f)" is a total collision in OS X Safari and the latest cool-beans version of Firefox on OS X. I don’t mind adding the CSS span biz; it is, after all, the trick underlying val and I’ve got the expression on my user page so it’s easy to fetch whenever I see unacceptable crowding. It’s nice to see that anti-gravity jihad has settled down. I purposely stayed out for a bit to allow tempers cool down and allow them to focus less on personalities and more on the physics. Greg L (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Radic Template
When you have time, could you take a look at Template_talk:Radic? I asked why the font size of the actual radical symbol is 130% instead of just left alone at 100%. Mostly I'm just curious, I'm sure there's a good reason for it that I just am not seeing. Ben Boldt (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question
You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names, a procedure has been developed at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:I Ratti Della Sabina - Chi arriva prima aspetta.ogg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:I Ratti Della Sabina - Chi arriva prima aspetta.ogg. 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) 22:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)