User talk:ClockworkSoul/Archive3

Strong support
No worries, I feel you will be an excellent administrator. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:22, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Name Change
Seems like a simple thing, yet I just don't see it. Where my page currently says "User talk:Cjorgensen" and "User:Cjorgensen" I want it to list my full name. I changed it in the nickname field and the tildes sign correctly, but don't see a way to do it on the User page. I can "move" the talk page, but this seems wrong. Maybe I am overlooking the obvious. As a person about to change their though, hopefully you can help. Christopher L. Jorgensen 01:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Hello, Christopher. The only thing you can really change is how your nickname is written when you sign it, which you've done. What you're asking about is your username. That's actually more difficult (but possible) to change, because that's the name that the Wikipedia software uses to identify you.


 * You mentioned in your original email to me that you want to edit your user page - is this request related to that? If so, you can still edit your user page without changing your username at all. All you have to do is go to User:Cjorgensen and create a new page there.


 * If you still want to change your username, then take a look at the directions on Changing_username; that page will walk you through the procedure of requesting a full username change. I hope this helps you - if not you know where to find me! ClockworkTroll 03:06, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Doh!
Posted on User talk:Chmod007

Thank you for saving me from my own stupidity. I didn't even see that link... ClockworkTroll 05:06, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * No prob, I thought that might have been the case. I now made it a bit more visible. &mdash; David Remahl 05:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Botulin toxin
Posted on User_talk:Pakaran

Would you mind citing that souce where you found that the "lethal dose of about 300 pg/kg, meaning that somewhat over a hundred grams (the mass of a few shots of booze) could kill everyone on earth."? Thank in advance! ClockworkTroll 23:22, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Here you go: - the arithmetic to convert to pg, and to determine "everyone on earth" assuming 6.2E9 people of about 70 kg each, is my own, but can be checked with a pocket calculator.  Pakaran (ark a pan) 23:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks for the Barnstar :) WhisperToMe 05:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You've earned it. :) -- ClockworkTroll 05:22, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Two questions
Thanks for your welcome. I must admit I was a bit surprised by it, as I had created my account several days previously and wasn't aware of having done anything controversial. So my first thought was (especially with your nickname, which looks at first glance like an automatic non-human thing, at least to people like me who don't know better): the software has finally got around to acknowledging me after several days of existance. My second thought was: oh, it's a real person, so I must have done something wrong to get their attention. I'm glad that's not the case.

I would like to take advantage of your friendly helpfulness to ask two questions.

1. I use the computers at work to pursue my own interests (eg Wikipedia), with my employer's knowledge. When I get to the first page of Wikipedia, and click on "log in or create an account", it already shows my username, with the field for the password blank. I would prefer that it did not show my username. Can this be re-set more securely?

2. I found an article that appears to have been lifted from another webpage. ( I think the plagiarism is this way around, because the other organisation is highly reputable.) I can't list it now, as I seem to have lost my sources, but if I ever find it again, is there someplace I can report this to within Wikipedia? Simply editing out chunks of text (or the whole text) might only result in an edit war.

Many thanks. BrainyBabe 14:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)BrainyBabe
 * Taking the opportunity to step in...


 * What browser are you using?
 * Copyright_problems


 * &mdash; David Remahl 14:17, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Hello BrainyBabe. Looks like David Remahl beat me to the responses, but I'll elaborate a bit:
 * The contents of that input box, unless somehow stored as a cookie (which we have no way of changing), are specified by your browser's default behavior.
 * If the entire article has been lifted, then remove the text of the article, and replace it with the following:

~


 * As David said, there is alot more detail in Copyright_problems
 * Cheers! &mdash; ClockworkTroll 00:14, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Cheers! &mdash; ClockworkTroll 00:14, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contest
To TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsClockworkTroll: Thanks for giving us all a good chuckle with your contest! You're a prince. JamesMLane 06:30, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) You shouldn't have changed your name! It was a good one. You should've worn it like a badge of pride. You know, I don't mind a troll, but every time I hear about souls I get all jittery. Everyking 06:51, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It was a blast to have! Plus, I like my shiny new name! ClockworkSoul 06:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to have to go to the runner up, am I? :D  ClockworkSoul 06:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * "ClockworkFrog"? Forget it.  Anything that invokes any suggestion of sympathy for France is forbidden following November 2.  On the other hand, ClockworkFreedomFries would be acceptable.  (Dang, I wish I'd thought of that in time to submit it as an entry.  It would be a fine commentary on this business of renaming things to convey a desired message.)  JamesMLane 07:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it was a good decision and I'm really pleased you chose one of my suggestions. I guess this makes me an honorary godmother or something ;) -- sannse (talk) 17:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Salve, Clockwork! I didn't vote for it, but I laughed when I read the comments on your new name. Congrats on it and for the contest in general, which spurred the most interesting (and cordial) debate I've seen so far here.  Ave!  PedanticallySpeaking 18:10, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations, Troll Soul!
Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:07, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cecropia! Also, regarding what you wrote on the admin page, ClockworkTroll did have a great imagery to it, and that was part of the reason I loved it so much. However, times change, and even though the dissenting view was in the minority it was clear that I would be better off in the long-term with the new name. And besides, this one's pretty interesting too: ClockworkSoul has kind of a Descartes Ghost in the Machine feel to it, don't you think? Thanks again! ClockworkSoul 14:31, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on adminship. I also want to thank you for being thoughtful enough to consider the issue and make a change because of the concerns of several Wikipedians (including me) about your username.  &mdash;Lowellian (talk)   21:46, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

The Law of Everything is 3.
Hi. I've posted in the TOE Discusson and have only been getting it deleted. I'm convinced that I'm on the right track, but I'm looking for any and ALL feedback to this matter. So far I haven't gotten any. I realize this is a high level claim, and expected of top scholars and distingushed scientists who entail a practical and highly objective point of view. I would like to add my own point of view in my own way. :)

I have written a document and have it available at the following URL.

http://aten.hostingave.net/~gary/toe.txt

I realize this must appear substandard and unacceptible for wide community publishing. But I want to get it out there and start on a whole new train.

Warm Regards,

AtoI 18:40, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)AtoI

ClockworkSoul Replies
Hello, Atoi. I'm very glad that you felt that you could come to me with this dilemma of yours. I'm not a physicist, but I'll be glad to try to help.

I read the web page you referred me to, as well as your many posts to Talk:Theory_of_everything. Its good to see that people still get passionate about ideas, but there are some flaws in your posting.

First, the writing style is very awkward and is difficult to read. Take for example, the following cryptic statement:

Explain: 111(333/111)333(111/333)111(333/111)333 8 c )  3 1 4 1 3 << look familiar?

If you want to make a logical point, I would recommend that you carefully explain your premises and conculsions, and walk your reader though your logic.

Also, I notice that when you do describe your premises, you tend to leave it to the reader to figure out how they are connected to your conclusions. For example:

what do we need to drink every day? A molecule of 3. what keeps us safe from the sun? A molecule of 3. how many laws of motion? 3 how many meals a day? 3. how many times does a day job worker get a break? 3. hehe. that's just facetious but true. how many corners/lines in a triangle? 3. Infinity = 3.

In this statement, you seem to be implying that because you can find many examples of groupings of three, then three must be the nature of the universe. However, by similar logic, one could also say that the nature of the universe is blue, human, concrete, or a an insect. Similarly, it can be said that most things are not pink, and therefore neither is anything else.

Lastly, from the WikiPolicy perspective, even if your ideas have a root in theories promosed many years ago, Wikipedia does not carry original research of this nature. Perhaps you may may have better luck submitting this idea to Physical Review?

In conclusion, though we genuinely value your input, and your ideas show alot of creativity, Wikipedia is not a good place to present them.

Regards, ClockworkSoul 20:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

--- Thanks. I greatly appreciate it. :) AtoI 03:51, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deus ex machina ;-)
ClockworkSoul has kind of a Descartes Ghost in the Machine feel to it, don't you think?


 * Yes, I do. :) -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:48, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmmm ... sounds more like a character in a Discworld novel to me ;-) Elf-friend 08:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Name
It's a bit late to bring this up, but I must say that I'm coming around to a different point of view on this name issue. Having an admin named Troll seems almost defiant to the real trolls, as though they bother us so little we're happy to use the name. Well, just a very belated thought. Very Verily 12:30, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Heya, VV. Sorry for the slow response: "real life" has been holding me prisoner lately, but I managed to get it drunk and escape. A few other people mentioned made this point, and I think that it was one of the best arguments in favor of keeping the old name. Oh, well, though: what's done is done, and at least I got to have a fun contest, right? :) ClockworkSoul 15:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

adminship
you're quite welcome! And I must say that Very has an interesting point above. :-) (Maybe someday we'll have a user named TroubledByTrolls... or UntroubledByTrolls...) Antandrus 16:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Stop it - now you want to make me change my name again! ClockworkSoul 16:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are most welcome ClockworkSoul. By the way, I hope you noticed my bragging about naming you on my user page ;) -- sannse (talk) 16:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I was looking for a good image to give you - looks like you've beaten me to it! Being creative as usual, I guess! ClockworkSoul 16:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome, and congrats on the name change, it's a good one, and on your promotion to adminship. Impi 16:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You were a rarely obvious candidate. Nice username. cheers, dab 16:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * That's a very kind thing of you to say, Dab. Thanks again! ClockworkSoul 16:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Congrats, CS. Great username choice. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 16:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Congrats, User:LikeClockwork... as I intend to call you. ;-) func (talk) 19:19, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

/me prides himself with nominating this fine new admin :-). &mdash; David Remahl 19:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Aw, shucks. You're going to make me blush, too! ClockworkSoul 19:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Congrats, It was an honor to vote for you. You have the education, dedication and ability to be a great administrator. Do a good job like you've been doing so far. I hope that you count me among your Wikipedian friends, for me it would be an honor. Tony the Marine
 * Thanks again, this time for your very kind words; I do indeed count you among my Wikipedian friends. I promise that I will strive to live up to your generous praise. ClockworkSoul 20:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations, although I liked your old name better! I'm sure you'll be a brilliant admin. Andre ( talk )A| 22:29, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

The Working Man's Barnstar
Posted on User_talk:Blankfaze

Hi, Blankfaze. I'm doing some work cleaning up and clarifying the various barnstars on Barnstars on Wikipedia, but I'm kind of stuck on the The Working Man's Barnstar. As the creator, would you take a look at the summary I placed there, and let me know if that was your original intent? Many thanks, ClockworkSoul 18:25, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thanks for trying to clean the page up.  Your summary of The Working Man's Barnstar was good, but I changed it, hope you don't mind, to something I thought was closer to my original intent.  Thanks again. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 22:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Why would I mind. After all, that's why I contacted you. :) ClockworkSoul 22:42, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I see you sport a funky new name
Good choice :-) I'm also glad to see you make admin! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:17, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the kind words about the article. I'm glad it has proven useful. For over a year it just consisted of the tables which bugged me so I finally got around to fleshing it out. Unfortunately my "skilled eye" is rather short-sighted and the article represents pretty much all my knowledge on the subject of chemical warfare -- my field of expertise is limited to the First World War. That said, I shall follow the chemical warfare articles and do what I can to help, especially when it comes to WWI stuff. Geoff/Gsl 07:55, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Photographer's Barnstar
Posted on User_talk:Grunt

It's a thing of beauty. Nice work! User:ClockworkSoul 03:14, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * May it be used well. :) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:23, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your welcome.

I discovered Wikipedia during my searches for historical information, which I was collecting as part of a project I had in mind for a site of my own. I'm now thinking of how I can combine the two and have posted a proposal on my talk page. Could you take a look and see what you think, - before I make a wider plea for comments.

Maxx 13:33, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the extensive comments, plenty of food for thought there. Maxx 22:31, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for welcoming me
Thanks for welcoming me. I have fallen in love with Wiki, and hope I don't do anything stupid. But I trust that you and many other people are waiting to attack any mistakes I make. Pookleblinky 08:05, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Not at all! With the exception of a few rough personalities, the large majority of Wikipedians are more than patient, especially with newcomers. :) Once again, welcome, and don't be afraid to be bold! -- User:ClockworkSoul 08:11, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks and hello
Thank-you for taking the time to welcome me. I'd been editing Wikipedia anonymously for a while before I registered back in Feb, but I haven't been very active until recently. I think I'm probably a WikiGnome, in that I mostly make minor edits and corrections; it's nice to be finally spotted! :-)

Stuz 11:48, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Chemical weapon status for France
Posted on User_talk:David.Monniaux

Heya David. I finally got around to working on chemical weapon proliferation and I remembered your question. Here's what I found for France:

France's chemical weapon programs ran during the years of 1921-1926, then were dormant from 1927-1934, and restarted from 1940-1945 (under German occupation). The only weapons it ever produced were chlorine and phosgene: it never manufactured or possessed nerve agents of any kind, especially VX.

Also, as per http://cns.miis.edu/research/cbw/possess.htm:


 * In a 1988 speech to the United Nations, French President, Mitterrand, claimed that France had no chemical weapons, and would produce none. Victor A. Utgoff, The Challenge of Chemical Weapons: An American Perspective, (New York, NY: St. Martin's Press, 1991), pp. 123-124.

Hope this helps! -- User:ClockworkSoul 23:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More chemical weapons
Hi, I was looking over your excellent work-in-progress at User:ClockworkSoul/Chemical Weapon Proliferation, and it occurred to me that there's a status (or column, perhaps) that isn't quite captured with your current format. I'm thinking particularly of the UK's reported (or self-confessed, I think) status - the UK MoD says that the UK has tiny stockpiles of lots of chemical weapons types, but retains them only to test the effectiveness of their chemical weapons countermeasures (antidotes, dispersal agents, NBC suits, detectors, etc.), and that they aren't in a weaponised form or loaded into any kind of delivery system. So I suppose that would fall into a category between "doesn't have any" and "has a weapons capability". I'd guess that any number of countries will adopt (or claim to) a similar approach. -- John Fader
 * Hi, John. I'm glad you like my work-in-progress. I'm workingon inserting it into chemical warfare, but I may have to fork it off into its own article if it gets too long. Regarding the UK, you're right: The UK is one of several nations that declared small amounts of CW's for the purposes of defensive research, but still do not currently retain the capability to produce those agents on a scale suitable for warfare or possess the means to deploy those agents in the battlefield (fortunately, there are few of them, but details are scant at the moment). I've decided to list only nations that maintain an offensive military stockpile for now, simply because research-only nations don't seem to be listed anywhere. -- User:ClockworkSoul 00:42, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Problem
Firstly, thank you for your kind welcome, and I have a problem. English is not my first language, and so my grammar and lexicon may be a bit wrong. I recently made an article about "De Vulgari Eloquentia" in the English wikipedia, but I don't know if it is correct in the language aspect. I would appreciate an opinion, if it is no bother. Tanks again. Shert 13:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Hello, Shert. :) I've read over your work, which is very impressive of a recent newcomer such as yourself, especially one whose first language is not English! I made some minor corrections in grammar and style, such as capitalizations and replacing the Italian names of the saints with the English names. If you have time, please take a look at what I did and make sure that I didn't inadvertantly change the intent of any of your writings. Great work! -- User:ClockworkSoul 13:46, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

blkshrt
Thanks for the welcome. Hopefully most of my minor edits and comments to date have been useful/informative. I'm currently looking to assist in a project but it still seems a bit daunting. I'm still studying how to properly format entries (my talk page is a good example of how lame I am on this still.) Many regards--Blkshrt 13:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Hello Blkshrt! Don't be too intimidated, I have no doubt that you'll do very well here. Don't be afraid to jump right in and help out! Good luck! -- User:ClockworkSoul 13:50, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

thank you
I really appreciated your help! I'll pay more attention to my style and grammar in the future, as to avoid mistakes, and I'll check for the names in the English Wikipedia. I read the article one more time, as you asked, and I found your corrections appropriate. Thanks. Shert 14:17, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! Please feel free to ask me if you have any other questions - I'm more than happy to help. -- User:ClockworkSoul 21:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Great job on chemicals
Just wanted to say you've done a fantastic job with your chemical template! Keep up the fantastic work! Zenosparadox 22:39, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Hey, somebody noticed! Thanks! -- User:ClockworkSoul 22:40, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you!
Holy cow! I'm so honored to receive a barnstar! Thank you for making my day! :) --Wolf530 14:22, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * You deserve it! Now, post it with pride! -- User:ClockworkSoul 15:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for taking the time to check out my user page and welcome me. I have been formally welcomed to wikipedia before, but I erased that message after a couple days. Sorry to slip you up and I really appreciate your acknowledgement. --Howrealisreal 18:02, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Many Thanks-Lieutenant Blue
Thank you for your help. I'm greatful for it. -- Lieutenant Blue 17:25, 4 Dec 2004 (GMT)
 * My pleasure! One question, though: how did you end up on my archive page? :) -- ClockworkSoul 17:36, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * My apologies... I'm not sure how I ended up there... -- Lieutenant Blue 17:43, 4 Dec 2004 (GMT)
 * No apologies necessary, I was just curious. :) -- ClockworkSoul 18:04, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much
Thank you very much! You're extremely nice and I admire your advocacy of involving everyone, extending your (and Wikipedia's) hand to newcomers, and your recognition of others' hard work. We need more people like you and the civility and class you bring along. From one Jon Stewart fan to another, thanks! CinnamonCinder 00:57, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It looks like somebody's been reading up on my history! :) It's my pleasure to welcome somebody who's not afraid to do a little research. -- ClockworkSoul 03:52, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Abusive behaviour
Could you take a look at this diff

Rienzo has forged a comment he alleges I made about him. I did not make it and it is demonstrably not present in my contributions list. Could you consider some sort of punishment for this please?CheeseDreams 15:26, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)