User talk:Baccyak4H/Archive 2

Spoiling the spoiler
To repeat what I said on WP:ANI:

Well, I knew it was inevitable someone would leak the book onto the Internet, probably just as inevitable that someone created an article about it. Good for you in putting it up for speedy delete, & good for whatever admin acted on it so quickly. Good job! -- Yksin 19:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm glad the admin agreed with my call.  I didn't see that discussion, so didn't know if they would.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Enda Kenny
He is notable for having the same name as the Irish Opposition Leader, if nothing else. He has a website and has issued CDs, so he must have some standing as a musician. Intelligent Mr Toad 13:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. The article in the state I saw it did not assert notability. Having the same name won't cut it by itself.  But if he has been coverered by reliable sources, one can reference them in the article.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:CHESS
Welcome to WP:CHESS. I see you've jumped in and are already improving chess articles. Thanks for your help—there's certainly plenty to improve on the chess pages. Quale 17:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. A lot less stress levels than when editing about some other topics. :-) Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I just want to say that I think you are doing good work, and welcome to the chess project. Bubba73 (talk), 18:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I see you have a great deal of experience on the articles yourselves, so I am glad you think such.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * (Duplicated from User talk:Bubba73) Thanks.  I guess I am considered "Diligence". :-) Not that it matters...  Onward... Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Here you go then; please feel free to replace it with this Star; or you could keep them both. But thats kind of redundant. Congratulations this is the first Chain Diligence star ever awarded; and you have it Pseudoanonymous 15:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Moment of inertia example
You recently added a remark about radii being equal to an example on Moment of Inertia. That's unnecessary: if you perform the usual calculation (using conservation of energy) and solve for velocity, the radius variable disappears (it always appears paired with an omega), though the shape-dependent factor in I doesn't. So the rate of descent depends on shape, but not radius. I'm content to leave the change, though, since "rate of descent" might be taken by some to refer to angular velocity, which does depend on radius, and because some would insist on further complications like air resistance. The other edit was good; thanks. Anarchic Fox 03:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see your point; I actually didn't check that it was necessary. Rather my motivation was to be simple, comparing apples to apples (but for shape), so the reader can see it is indeed only the shape that matters.  Thanks for the feedback. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ed Trice
Hello. I just created the article about Ed Trice, the inventor of Gothic Chess. As a member of WikiProject Chess, how would you assess it? -- Boricua  e  ddie  16:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look, and comment on its Talk. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Bishop and knight checkmate
Came across your comment there - I completely agree. I replied with suggestions on how to fix up the article, and I'd like to hear your thoughts on them. There are quite a number of articles in Category:Chess endgames like that one, so maybe if we can get one fixed up, we can work on the other ones in the same way. Thanks! youngvalter 21:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Great. I'll have a look and chime in some more.  I will not be around that much for about three weeks or so to do a lot of work, but a little gnoming might be possible.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka 2
Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 06:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome. I do think there are some things you can learn from your RfA, even if I didn't personally think they precluded your mop.  Mostly, just don't let the splinters of bad faith shown to you discourage you.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 01:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, I'm remaining optimistic. Though I'm a bit concerned for Wikipedia's image.  Evidently some professional peers of mine were watching the RfA, and when my nom didn't pass, that reflected very very badly on Wikipedia. My peers already had a negative opinion about the culture here, and the nom just reinforced their views.  It also is having the unfortunate effect of making it even less likely that some people who actually know things are going to want to participate here.  :(  They say things like, "Why should I submit myself to that kind of abuse?" I'm doing what I can to stay positive and tell my peers about all the good that Wikipedia can and does do, but it's hard to argue with the behavior that was shown in the nom.  :/  Anyway, thanks for the encouraging words, and yes, I'll be back!. :) --Elonka 17:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Mahalo! Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Chess Review
Hi, I have noticed you have done great work on some chess articles in the past weeks on grammar and style. Could I invite you to participate in WikiProject_Chess/Review? This is a new page which aims at reviewing chess related articles for A-class. Keep up the good work! Voorlandt 10:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. While I am not overly familiar with FA criteria and the like, I will stop in from time to time there to provide feedback.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Do Not Open Until Christmas...
...or until the THF-DavidShankbone ArbCom dustup is concluded. Just a note to let you know that I appreciate your commentary in that forum. Aside from making my comments more understandable and concise, your logic in approaching some of the issues in that debate is admirable. Thanks for your valuable contributions! Ossified 14:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome! I am glad to be able to help, and only hope that the arbitrators agree, and that none of the (other) parties there get peeved at me, as they all can be very productive contributors.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sufficient statistic example
FYI, I just commented on your recent changes at sufficency at Talk:Sufficiency_%28statistics%29 Pdbailey 03:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I replied there; I agree the regular english language treatment of these things can be tricky to do well, but I think the overall jist of my edits (except perhaps about const variance) was correct. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll read the articles soon. They are the ones listed in the Stigler article Pdbailey 01:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The copyright would be out of date for the both, do you have access? It's going to take me a few days to get the 1920 article. Pdbailey 01:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I could check; it might take me a few days though. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This may go without saying, but no need. I'm thinking more before responding to your comment back at the talk page. Pdbailey 23:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. See you there. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Best of luck
...with that scientist who cannot spell or type over at Roman Catholic Church. If I can be of anymore help, let me know, but I am off to my main projects. Always glad to help. -- SECisek 18:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, fortunately that article has a lot of eyes on it (that is not always a good thing...). And to think I only got involved because I saw a bad pun opportunity when endorsing your no-brainer comment!  Happy editing.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I had never heard the archbishop's name before this morning and now I am the editor who created the stub for him! Strange, indeed. -- SECisek 20:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Plane on a Conveyor Take 47.
A plane on a conveyor belt

Based on the last discussion page, I believe we can now establish Notariety for this topic. Mythbusters has produced and scheduled an episode on this subject to Air in late January 08. I would appreciate any help you could provide, since we have been through this before. The original article was deleted and purged from the archives, so its contents are gone, and I have to start over from scratch. However writing a proper article which will stand the test of time is my main goal at this point. It would probably be best to continue this discussion on my talk page, or the discussion page for the new article. Sao123 (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I see that the new article did not survive long.  With that in mind, and per your request, I replied on your Talkpage with a suggestion.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Biography of Pope John Paul II
An article that you have been involved in editing, Biography of Pope John Paul II, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Biography of Pope John Paul II. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka 3
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools.  My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 17:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, (belated) congrats and best of luck with the tools. Knowing that you know your actions will be scrutinized very closely, I have faith you will be prudent in doing them.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Opus Dei controversy section
If the main problem is a structure prone to being interpreted as a "set em up and knock em down", may I propose that we invert the order of the critical and supporting views. Please check this private fork = Opus Dei controversy section where I propose a new ordering. I hope this satisfies all parties. :) Thanks for your help. Marax (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll have a look. To be honest, my pointing out that interpretation of the structure wasn't so much a complaint about POV issues, but rather that that part of the article was just poorly written.  I think the POV issue is indeed real, but minor compared to the editorial one.  I would much rather, in the section on (say) membership, also add in the (balanced) outside impressions on recruiting; etc.  But I'll comment on your proposal soon.  Thanks in advance for the effort. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If I may butt in, I think that you're right; there are some places where the criticism could reasonably be integrated within the article itself. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Baccyak4H, :) Thanks so much for your comment and support. Much appreciated indeed. I just saw it for I didn't check till now the discussion page of the fork I made. I was just alerted by Geometry guy of the said page. I've posted the new controversy section and added new criticism. Will continue to work on this, and yes, add more criticism.  Thanks again. Marax (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church
Hi! Thanks for your feedback on this article. I would like to know what you think should be eliminated to make the article shorter. I think it is long but I don't know what to remove without eliminating important things. NancyHeise (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I replied on your Talkpage. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)