User talk:Keenan Pepper/Archive 3

Hi Keenan,I just looking for an article about Sorin Cerin
Because Sorin Cerin is the author of "The Cerin Theory of Universal Genesis" What I find about this philosopher and writer is insert on discussion ,date of born ,books etc.I wish to write an article but I don't know exactly where and how. Sorin Cerin is the author of "Destiny" and "The Origin of God" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.104.189.107 (talk • contribs).


 * I moved your question to Reference desk/Humanities, and hopefully someone there will answer it soon. If you want to write an article, see Your first article. —Keenan Pepper 19:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

SORIN CERIN BIOGRAPHY
SORIN CERIN ,american writer and philosopher,born in Baia Mare,Romania,in November 25,1963,graduated from the Institute for Italian Language and Culture,specializing in philosophy and psychology. He was an editor of daily newspaper as well as working as a TV Journalist,producer and international correspondent. Books: "DESTINY" ,February -2004,publisher:iUniverse,280 pages. "THE ORIGIN OF GOD" ,July -2006,publisher:Virtualbookworm.com Publishing,736 pages. Sorin Cerin is the author of "The Cerin Theory of Universal Genesis" related links: xthost.info/sorincerin xthost.info/originofgod

Alicia


 * Why are you telling me this? I personally am not interested in Sorin Cerin, although I might read your article if you write one. This is my user talk page, for having conversations with me personally. —Keenan Pepper 19:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You cannot write an article about Cerin?
I give you all information what I know about this subject.I need more.Is a very important philosopher.You cannot write an article about Cerin? Alicia


 * Oh, for a moment I forgot that anonymous users aren't allowed to create new articles. Here, I've started a stub for you: Sorin Cerin. Edit away to your heart's content. —Keenan Pepper 20:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the Wines...
... appears a bit too list-heavy to be included in DYK. Do you think you can produce a fix? - Mgm|(talk) 08:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Poisonous Metals template
Is the TfD for Template:Poisonmetal closed yet? I left a comment a minute ago and noticed that it was nominated on July 9. -- Evan  Robidoux  06:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Emordnilap
Wonder if you'd reconsider your delete commetn in light of later developments: Redirects for deletion. Thanks/wangi 17:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I like to eat...
Hi, I stumbled across your name on the Drei Chinesen mit dem Kontrabass talk page and then discovered a pretty interesting user page. Being the author of the "original" German article about the children's song, I'm rather curious to see how other folks approach similar pieces of music. As a matter of fact, the article was somehow deliberately experimental (in terms of the de-WP, at least) in that it picked a subject that sort of epitomizes banality, something so obvious that nobody ever cares to think about it, let alone collect whatever information is available. Surprisingly enough, the idea met with great success and it turned out that dozens of people were able to contribute valuable ideas. Anyway, in case you get started with the article about that English song, please keep me informed. Thx, --Rainer Lewalter 16:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Category deletion
Hi Keenan,

I saw you put a cfd on the category 'Identified chemical substances'.. I created this category for the next reason, there is currently no category that contains only chemical substances (which makes finding only chemical compounds impossible, with all other categories you get a lot of other pages). I can concur with the category being too broad, but at least it is clean. If you know any other method of finding only pages about defined chemical substances, or another solution, please let me know. For now I object against deletion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Gadolinium
What are your plans for gadolinium chelates? There are a number of excellent PhD theses published on the subject, albeit, most focus on their application as contrast agents... --HappyCamper 21:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Do they have any other use? I planned to use this as my main reference: —Keenan Pepper 21:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Not that I can think of at the moment. I might get back to you on this though. I would just write the article and let process sort itself later. It seems to take away the fun from the Wiki when we become overly concerned with process over content. User:Keenan Pepper/Gadolinium goodness would be a good place, I suppose :-) --HappyCamper 22:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

YOU DELETED MY IMAGE!!!!!!
Hey! I see that you've deleted my image (on DTPA). That's OK, I don't mind, but to be clear, MY IMAGE IS NOT WRONG. By the way, if you really are 19, you're three years older than I am. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chiu frederick (talk • contribs).

Kânik
Hey Keenan, Oharion here. I wrote the Kânik article. I was told by Sango that you put the fiction tab on my article, and that i should check with you to take it off. Anyway I cleared up the fact and fiction (and added a few more things) and you can remove it anytime you like. Oh, and tell other people about it.

Thanks! Oharion 01:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Smoking (food) -> Smoked food
Are you sure about that move? Seems to me it would be like changing Baking to Baked food or Frying to Fried food. It's a food preparation technique, first and foremost. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You think it should be Smoking food? WP:NC does recommend gerunds, but smoking food could also be interpreted as a progressive participle, i.e. food so badly burned it's emitting smoke. Not a serious ambiguity, though, so I could go either way. —Keenan Pepper 19:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it wants to be Smoking, which is of course too ambiguous to use, so it should be Smoking (cooking technique) or, if that's too long, Smoking (food). &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

What about placing it under "Method". Classing its usage under the same heading as baking(baked is the final prosses that the product has been put through), steamed, grilled, etc... The use of the word technique is wrong. Sorry to butt in on your talk, Have been a fine dinning pastry chef for 18yrs now! Pastry 17.11.06

Hi Keenan,re-Sof Omar
I have lots of photographs of Sof Omar. I have nearly finished the description of the cave. I will add a summary of the speleogensis (as agreed by the 72 Expedition). Given time I will try and create a map of the cave. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dave Catlin (talk • contribs).

The problem with the ref format?
What was the problem with the usual ref /ref format in Sandwich compound? Simplified reference formatting encourages citations, one of the shortcomings in WE, it seems IMHO. Cumbersome, syntax-intensive formats discourage such referencing. This ref /ref format was sanctioned by Martin Walker in the Chem discussion - he has some sort of administrative role in the chemistry project. I am sure that this is the kind of topic that gets lots of discussion.--Smokefoot 04:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. There were two references in the new style and one in the old, so I just converted the odd one to match. What's the problem? —Keenan Pepper 04:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that I am not very perceptive. Thank you.--Smokefoot 22:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Page move
I did that because a user just created an account to do a page move and named it very long. I thought it was unnecessary so I moved it to a shorter title. I have no past edit history with that article nor do I watch that article. I was not trying to enforce a preference over what the title should be. I just didn't want that user to rename the page without further discussion. User moved the page without discussion in the first place. I was unable to move it back to the original name because that user had made a second edit on the redirect page. &mdash;RJN 05:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Theory of knowledge/epistemology moves and redirects
Hello Keenan Pepper: Re the comment you wrote in Theory of knowledge (disambiguation): (moved Theory of knowledge (disambiguation) to Theory of knowledge: What's the use of a disambiguation page that isn't linked to?).

I had just finished cleaning up all the confused links between "Theory of knowledge" and "Theory of knowledge (IB course)" and was about to plug in the disambiguation page when you jumped in and shifted things. I see what you're doing in all the philosophy pages (getting rid of "theory of knowledge" and just leaving an "epistemology" link) and it will clean things up right now. But future philosophically-literate editors are bound to continue to use "theory of knowledge" links when they write about philosophy, and it would have been more straightforward just to have left the "Theory of knowledge (disambiguation)" page in place and allowed all the "Theory of knowledge" links to redirect straight to "epistemology". -TheRepairMan 06:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose you could make a case that epistemology has been around a lot longer than IB, so Theory of knowledge should redirect to Epistemology, and Epistemology should have a dablink at the top. Then again, the IB course is the first Google hit, so it's more helpful to leave Theory of knowledge as a dab page. —Keenan Pepper 06:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello KP: Wikipedia should be designed first for Wikipedia users, not Google users. Besides, who clicks on those cheesy sponsored links at the top of Google searches? Anyway, the Wikipedia entry is almost always somewhere on the first page of a Google search result and people tend to look for Wikipedia. -TheRepairMan 06:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Temperament (music)
I wrote this article today, I thought you might have some input to it. (Also, nothing links to it yet; something I will have to rectify.) - Rainwarrior 00:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool! I'm going to go through Special:Whatlinkshere/Musical tuning and change all the links that should go to temperament instead. But first, can I move it to Musical temperament? Unnecessary parentheses irk me. —Keenan Pepper 00:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah the move is fine, if you like. I don't have an aesthetic preference either way. About the links though, I probably have just made about 10 edits that you won't like, as I just plopped a links into the the existing articles without modifying their text, which in several cases meant that I put it directly into the bold name of the temperament. Sorry. - Rainwarrior 00:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's even an official policy: WP:MOS. No biggie though. —Keenan Pepper 00:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've got to leave the house right now, but I can fix those changes when I get back. (P.S. It was kind of a shock though, when I was adding links, and I clicked a link and ended up at Musical temperament. I had to do a double take... "What? Was there already an article about this???" Haha.) - Rainwarrior 00:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The current DYK template
Hi Keenan. I assume you're a person with the power to do something about this, or at least that you might know someone who can. The final entry in today's DYK template (on Gamoja) has a link to miniature, which is just a disambiguation page. Might it be possible to pipe that same link so that it actually links to Collectible miniatures game, which is the sense of "miniature" that the article's about? BigHaz 01:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Next time try Main Page/Errors, it'll be faster. —Keenan Pepper 02:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Northern Mockingbird
copied from the talk page


 * It is a songbird, but the agreed system for categorising birds is to list only the lowest relevant taxon, since, eg Mimidae would be a subcat of songbird (or preferably passerine) anyway. jimfbleak 08:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've now emptied the category (only 5 listed anyway) and deleted it. jimfbleak 08:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, songbird does have a technical meaning (see the article) - many American passerines are not songbirds (eg the antbirds and tyrant flycatchers. jimfbleak 08:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Taniwharau
I see you have placed a split proposal onto the article Taniwharau. Can you tell us something about who proposed, and what they proposed? (IMHO, btw, its a nonsensical article as I hint on the talk page.) Kahuroa 19:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Gallium(III) oxide
Hi Keenan, for my information ( related to your last [edit] to this). The substance is referred to in the webreference as a chemical intermediate which in wikipedia redirects to Reactive intermediate. Is this redirection perhaps not covering all cases ? ( I was the anon editor before you forgetting to log in ) - Peripitus (Talk) 02:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I don't think I'll be creating Chemical intermediate as my texts ( and chemistry knowledge ) stopped far short of this - I strayed into Physics and Computers - so I'll leave this to those more knowledgable. Thanks again for the information - Peripitus (Talk) 04:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

re categorizing organic reactions
Hi, keenan. Has there been a discussion over re categorizing the organic reactions that I missed? I think it is not a good idea. It makes it more difficult to track down a reaction or to track down recent changes in articles. I prefer just one directory. It would be a good idea to have this discussion even after the fact. V8rik 15:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that a discussion would have been useful beforehand. As I see it, the real problem is that the 'organic reactions' category was becoming huge.  Making subcategories may be the best solution, but how it's implemented is very important.


 * The problem with assigning categories to reactions is that typically more than one category is applicable. For example, the Barton-McCombie deoxygenation is currently incorrectly classified as a 'substitution reaction'.  It should be a 'redox reaction', but could also be classified as a 'free-radical reaction', a 'decomposition reaction', and a 'name reaction'.  (Heck, why not a 'deoxygenation reaction'.)


 * Additionally, how one chooses the categories makes a tremendous difference in how useful the new categories are. 'Substitution reaction' is not as helpful as 'Nucleophilic substitution reaction' and 'Electrophilic substitution reaction'.


 * I'm interested in both of your opinions. ~K 02:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I was thinking it's a substitution reaction because the net result is to replace one group with another, but those other categories are good too (except that the vast majority of them are named after people anyway, so an "eponymous reactions" category wouldn't be that helpful). —Keenan Pepper 02:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

category discussion
Please give your two bits over at Category talk:Organic reactions. Thanks, ~K 01:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

semimetal
I uploaded a PNG version as requested. (Now what?) nl:Gebruiker:Sokpopje

Octopi
Why is "octopi" wrong? - I have checked this in a number of dictionaries, and they seem to assert that both "octopi" and "octopuses" are correct. --HappyCamper 00:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Octopi is a hypercorrection based on the mistaken assumption that octopus is a masculine Latin noun of the first declension. It is really a Greek noun of the third declension, with stem octopod-, so the classical plural is octopodes. Nobody understatands octopodes though, so we use the English plural octopuses. —Keenan Pepper 01:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Is this hypercorrection documented somewhere? I've found a number of dictionaries in print which provide both plural forms as plausible. --HappyCamper 01:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's in our own article Hypercorrection. Octopus also has a good quote from Fowler. —Keenan Pepper 01:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Blimey! I don't know if I trust Wikipedia though...lol --HappyCamper 03:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Compact Oxford English Dictionary doesn't like octopi either. --Michael Geary 06:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * One thing I've always admired about the OED is that it seeks to give a historical picture of the English language, not deem something "incorrect" or "correct". The Compact OED dosn't appear to share the same philosophy.  The regular OED gives as plurals, "octopuses, octopi, (rare) octopodes...".   It also notes (in other words) that octopi is a hypercorrection as mentioned above, but does not pass judgment.  --C S (Talk) 06:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Musical Acoustics
Hi Keenan, Despite our differences regarding Carrillo, etc., I thought you might have some fun with the Musical Acoustics page! I found it severely lacking in references, particularly section 7. This section refers to the "50,000-year-old" Neandertal bone flute". (No references.) (Funny, I've read from most sources it's between 40,000 and 80,000 years old, and whether it actually is or ever was a flute is still a matter of debate amongst archeologists. Forgive the pun, but since you like to "pick bones", I thought you'd like to look at this one! -Prof.rick

Image request for 2-Aminoisobutyric acid
Hi Keenan. I noticed you added an image request for 2-Aminoisobutyric acid. Would the required image be like this? If so, I could make an SVG version and upload it. Icey 09:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and for A23187, would an SVG version of the image on this page be correct? Icey 09:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I decided to be bold, create the pictures and upload them. You're welcome to let me know if I got them completely wrong though! :) Icey 11:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Safety thing
Hi Keenan, please contribute to the micro-discussion about excess safety info crowding out content in chem articles. At User_talk:Beetstra.--Smokefoot 21:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Semitones!
Hello Keenan,

I regret the personal disputes which entered our discussions re Semitones. Fortunately, I have found other administrators who have been both helpful and supportive, and, specifically avoid "personal attacks". (If you don't like the quotation marks, oh well, that's life...you made the first personal attacks!)

Again, I am suggesting a fresh start. I recognize and acknowledge your expertise in the related fields of Music, Physics, and Maths. I ask only that you recognize mine. We are human, and make mistakes. (For example, I presented a mathematical error; you presented a reference which disproved your claims, re Hammond organs.)

Isn't it time we started working together, for the common good of the encyclopedia? (This is not a matter of "friendship", as you inferred, but of a common goal.)

You are no doubt aware of the "redirect" from "Semitones" to "Minor Seconds". First, I am happy to see that much of my content has been included. Second, I am sorry that you 196/185 ratio was not included in expressions of the semitone. (Although it is of no historic significance, it is indeed an elegant rationalization of the semitone.) Thankfully, it has been included further into the section, as one of two rational expressions of the semitone. I can settle for this, and hope you can, too.

Keenan, we both have outrageously active brains! Let us direct them in the sincere interests of the advancement of the encyclopedia, rather than in futile combats of ego.

MOST sincerely, Prof.rick 00:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Keenan, Rashad Aziz referred me to you for help on dispute resolution
I've been writing on an article called indeterminacy in philosophy lately and it is in need of attention, but Wikipedians seem generally to be ignoring it. Rashad suggested that I speak to you about this.

My article references numerous sources, and, although it is incomplete, I don't think it deserves the "original research" and "unverified claims" tags that currently defile it. The concept is highly related both to Nietzscheanistic criticism of the Kantian noumenon and to deconstructionism; I wrote the article because Nietzsche's work relates to quantum indeterminacy, memetics, and other very modern concepts that emerged after, say, Walter Kaufmann's day; the user who flagged it, user:aey, suggests that I cite authors like Kauffman but this is clearly an absurd suggestion. Since his flagging of the article, I have related the concepts explained therein to many others in philosophy, as you'll see. Please contribute to the discussion page if you can find the time. Rashad said you might be able to remove some of those tags-- if you agree with my reasons for requesting their removal, it would be greatly appreciated.

Tastyummy 19:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Taurine
Hi Keenan, thanks for the edit to taurine, I guess this should solve all the problems. The remark that started the 'dispute' was quite silly, indeed, and purely semantic. Article looks great now! Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Yeah, I'm just a robot when it comes to doing it but I'll fix my edit summaries accordingly. Thanks! Jarfingle 14:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

196/185 and Hammond
Keenan: Check the page on Hammond organs which you used as a reference. On that page, I find no reference to the 196/185 ratio, which is accurate within less than 1/100 cent. The figures presented testify that Hammond organs were tuned within a tolerance of about 0.9 cents...not "less than 1/100 cent", as you claimed (by use of the 196/185 ratio). Study the "cents error" for "C", and you will quickly see the tolerance is within 1 cent, not 1/100 cent.  If I have missed something, let me know, I will readily admit my error. If you have missed something, why not admit your error? Nobody expects you to be perfect. Prof.rick 15:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Truces/Semitones
Keenan: I proposed a truce. I was simply following the "dispute mechanism" provide to me by another Administrator. Wanting only resolution and peace, my wording, in good faith: "I therefore propose a "truce", in order to avoid more radical processes. Can I have have your agreement on this?" (Prof.rick, Aug. 2, 2006) Your response: "Depends what you mean. If it means being lax about core Wikipedia policies, such as verifiability and no original research, then I heartily disagree." (Keenan Pepper, 06:27, 8 Aug. 2006). My immediately response was that you were rejecting the call for a truce. It seems you assumed only the worst. There was not one positive word in your response. Could you not have said just one positive word to a newbie? Wishing you goodwill and success, Prof.rick 16:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hammond?
Keenan: I'm not really sure how Hammond organs came into the discussion! Anyway, it is a relavitely minor matter. (Let's be realistic...after a piano is freshly tuned, probably every string is at least 10% of one cent out of tune, within days...I don't have a verifiable reference for this (but this is just a talk page) it only a guesstimate, reflecting on the tuning of my own pianos (which are tuned by perhaps the best Canadian tuner). So why argue about imperceptible differences in tuning? We have disagreed over virtually pointless trivialities. But I understand, you must be exceptionally particular, as a Wikipedia Editor).

As much as I love 12-edo, I am very open-minded about other tuning systems, whether or not they relate to harmonics (such as the gamelan)! I tend to prefer "off the wall" tunings in my own composition. I have written some works based on the orbital and rotational periods of the planets and their moons, which rarely have coherent harmonic relationships, but nonetheless can produce very moving music. (If we can get past this nonsense of "who is right, who is wrong" on minor technical issues, I am sure we can establish a worthwhile communication.)

Incidentally, are you familiar with the modern composer, Elliot Sharp? His works are certainly "on the fringe". (Woops! Excuse the quotation marks!) His work is a hair-raising! But just as much, I enjoy early composition, such as organum. Still, I wish we could rationalize ET to the extent that it might be more widely-excepted by JI devotees.

I have no further plans for editing. (Sure, if I spot a typo, spelling or grammar error, I will quietly fix it.) But there is obviously no further needed for disputes. I hope we can get to know each other as music-lovers, and benefit from our mutual knowledge and experience.

All the best in your studies, your musical endeavors, and your future.

Regards, Prof.rick 00:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

MDHP spamindexing
re: Million Dollar Home Page External reference to Wikimedia articles are generally discouraged (since this requires an unnecessary IP resolve via external rootservers) - is this some kind of trap for the linkspamers? - Leonard G. 01:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My edit was mostly for the benefit of mirrors and other external users of Wikipedia content. Think about an answers.com article about the MDHP based on the corresponding Wikipedia article. The sentence about people editing "this article" won't make sense in that context, because answers.com articles aren't editable. That's also the reason for the external link: internal links in answers.com articles point to other answers.com articles. Some of this reasoning also applies to print versions and other unforseen uses of Wikipedia content. —Keenan Pepper 02:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, but do we realy want to point people to the article for editing? (no need to respond) - Leonard G. 02:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Since you're the expert on Florida history...
...is there anything you'd change about Cascades Park (Tallahassee)? —Keenan Pepper 05:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a good article. I added two images a postcard and a drawing for interest OK?... surely there needs to be an image for the upcoming rebirth. I also added one single line saying: "The Florida State Capital now stands where this waterfall and pond once were." As for being an expert? I'm really only interested in Leon Co. and surounding counties and towns. I just get curious about things and then look for photos at the Florida Photographic Collection then Google that subject or information within the description to see if I can get more. There's so much more to do. What else have you seen that I've created? I'd be interested. [[Image:FSU_Helmet.png|40px]] -Chuck, Noles1984 14:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Invite for a userbox
I thank you for your help with CatDiffuse, and hope you will find this to be of some use. Cwolfsheep 01:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Elliot Sharp
Hi Keenan,

It appears our little feuds are over, for the moment, at least! So why not take a moment for a few friendlier comments? Can we "shake" on this? (Woops! Sorry for the quotation marks!)

I hope you will look into the compositions of Elliot Sharp, particularly his String Quartets, 1986 - 1996. They are usually based upon mathematical formulae, akin to the works of Iannus Xenakis, but the approach is quite unique. His works frequently lack a fixed tempo or pitch-system (both tempo and pitch are subject to bend and slide; the result is a virtually unrestricted exploration of sound). Like Cage, he makes non-conventional use of conventional instruments.

As an experiment, I had my graduate students listen to some of Sharp's works, then decide, "is this music"? What surprised me was the lack of indecision! Virtually every student felt very strongly, that "this IS music", or "this is NOT music". Yet always, it is an awakening experience! (These compositions may make you feel like a fly caught in a spider's web. You may seek an escape route, but it does not exist.)

If you have the opportunity to listen to some Sharp, I would be very interested in hearing your views, which I highly respect.

Are we in a tough situation, necessarily respecting, appreciating, enjoying and upholding the practices of European musical tradition, yet simultaneously remaining open-minded towards the most recent avenues of musical exploration, which so often defy such traditional values?

I don't think so! Prof.rick 03:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Elliott Sharp, 2
To save your Talk space, see my Talk page for response. Prof.rick 03:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Elliott Sharp
No. It is not hard to type the brackets! (I hadn't realized he was listed in Wikipedia.) But isn't it harder for you to avoid sarcasm? It has almost become your signature! Prof.rick 05:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've responded on my Talk page to your comment
Keenan, Thanks for your comments about jpg artifacts and please read my response on my Talk page. - mbeychok 01:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi Keenan, thanks for your help with creating the categories for the Patagonian Province... sometimes it's quite annoying to try to create something, and it doesn't work. Guess I am not quite into it (yet). --RapaNui 02:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Slendro.ogg
Thanks for uploading Image:Slendro.ogg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ~MDD4696 02:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a source of a recording in slendro (my own group playing Gamelan Joged Bumbung). I will post it soon. -- Samuel Wantman 22:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope you haven't changed your mind
Keenan, I hpe you haven't changed your mind about removing the artifacts from the two jpg images in Vapor-compression refrigeration. If the gray fan blades in one of those images is a great problem, feel free to make the blades black. Regards, - mbeychok 21:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reminding me. Last time I did it with this stupid hack that edited the image in XPM format as a text file, but now I decided to do it the right way, so I learned about the python-imaging module. Here's the program that did it:

i = Image.open(sys.argv[1]) i.load # workaround for some bug in my version of python-imaging o = i.point(lambda x: (x > 200 and 255) or (x > 100 and 128) or 0) o.save(sys.argv[1] + '.bw.png')


 * I just tweaked the 200 and 100 until it looked good. —Keenan Pepper 02:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Keenan, you are a genius!
Keenan, thanks a million for cleaning up the two images. Is there any reason why I could not make the T-S diagram smaller (so the two images are the same size) by specifying the number of pixels in the image syntax? Or will I screw it up again? Thanks, - mbeychok 03:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Wikipedia's image scaling algorithm is good, but it can't get around the fundamentals. Raster graphics are made of pixels, which must be interpolated to change the size. Image:RefrigerationTS.png is 387 pixels wide, so if you make a 386 pixel thumbnail, the pixels in the middle are 180 degrees out of phase, so a 1-pixel-wide black line becomes a 2-pixel-wide gray line. In a 385 pixel thumbnail, you can see two distinct bands of blurriness and a clear stripe down the center where the pixels are in phase. It's interesting stuff, but it doesn't help people see the diagram clearly. So, if it's really too big, we can use a thumbnail, but it's much better to have exactly the right size than a little bit smaller.


 * This is why there's such a big push to move to vector graphics formats like SVG. —Keenan Pepper 15:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keenan:I'll take your word for it and leave the images alone. Thanks again. -mbeychok 16:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Signing edit summaries
Psst! Thanks for the tip! Prof.rick 01:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Indents?
Shame on you, Keenan! You used the SAME indents as the previous writer (Mark) on the Semitone talk page! This could easily lead to confusion, as to "who added what?" I would suggest either a full left, or a double indent. This would clarify follow-ups. (Please, don't take me too seriously!) Prof.rick 03:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I was replying to you, not Mark, and I indented accordingly. I don't understand how it could lead to confusion, because my post had a signature and Mark's had a pseudo-signature because he was editing anonymously. —Keenan Pepper 14:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey!!
One of my friends, Yannik Pitcan, showed me one of his stats for Mu Alpha Theta. He came in 10th place for USA Mathematical Olympiad. Guess what name I saw right above that? He said he knew you, and you two were in competitions together, sometimes on the same team. Well, that's great! See you around! ;) — [ Mac Davis ] (talk) ( Desk | Help me improve )

Yenisei River
I see that you'd previously added an image request to the Yenisei River talk page. Before I remove it, I wanted to check that the added picture satisfied your request! InvictaHOG 00:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Inductance
umm... thanks, but that went a bit over my head. Thanks anyway though.

Help w/Qanun
The Persian guy just nuked the article by moving it. All that existed before, including "talk", is gone. How do we go about restoring the original article? I don't have a lot of clues about this stuff. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I found the original article as you had said, at Kanun (instrument), but I tried moving it back but couldn't because of redirects. Aaaargh! Do you think you could take a crack at it? The original article (about the Turkish form of the instrument) should be restored. Thanks. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the comment that was left on my discussion page that you asked about ("Neden bu sayfanin adani degistirdi? Kapacinini bu dafa."); don't know for sure, but I would guess Farsi, based on the author's ethnicity. Have no idea what it means. +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR
The WP:AN/3RR page is for any user to report apparent violations of the three revert rule in current or recent editing disputes. No need to use a GPS, just click the link to fill out a report. Dual Freq 02:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, about the RFC, since you created it, you should sign it under "Users certifying the basis for this dispute." It will be deleted (not by me) if 2 users don't certify it and one other person has. Dual Freq 23:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

IT
There is a gender-neutral third-person singular pronoun. Unfortunately, you may have to bid on it at eBay, to judge from their television commercials. I'm referring, of course, to "it". Of course, they used to refer to Marlo Thomas as the "it" girl, so maybe it's somewhat feminine. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 03:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Mortician Addams would be insulted by your insinuation that "Cousin It" is not a person. And here you categorize yourself as an "integrationist"! I suppose that means you work on "Cisco integration" or something like that? :grin: ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 20:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Cascades Park
I was starting to add a section to your Cascades Park article about the six mile long greenway but didn't want to destroy the integrity of the article... the greenway includes Cascades Park but also more so it will be Capital Cascade Greenway. You'll notice I had an image there but removed it for this new article. Might be that a paragraph may weave the two together. -Chuck Noles1984 20:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hellu
hellu —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.213.39.5 (talk • contribs).

RD modification
If you haven't been reading the RD talk page, I would appreciate some input on a proposed re-arrangement of the reference desks. I have set up a demo here, and I am coming close to finishing the base code for the entire RD suite. It should be noted that there is no plan to use these pages without the aid of an archiving bot, and by that I mean to imply that they are being to be used with a bit that will be made for them. Once a few more things have been set in stone, I will re-issue the bot request. Thanks. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ  12:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

YBCO Image
Not knowing how to edit and correct an image is not a valid reason to delete it. It took me a total of 10 minutes to swap the dots using photoshop. Rich 22:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration from Uknewthat
You have been mentioned in a Request for Arbitration initiated by Uknewthat. The request is here: Requests for arbitration. It doesn't look likely to go anywhere, and Uknewthat should have already informed you that you're named in his RfA, but I thought I would let you know, since following protocol and procedure isn't exactly within the pattern of behavior demonstrated by that particular editor. - Justin 16:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Commons template question
Hi Keenan- Saw your post from July on the Commons Commons template talk page regarding the German template. I am just learning how to link from articles to Commons images, and much prefer what the German template generates on a page--it's smaller, cleaner, and displays where you want it (see how it looks where I used it); here it is on the German page. Are we encouraged to make alternate templates, do you know? Or is there a way for me to control where the en box sits on the page? Thanks in advance for any clue you can give me. -Eric (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wanted to figure a way to make the Commons box take up more vertical space in that section--sometimes I wish I could add arguments to floating elements' code to tweak where they hang. I was thinking of doing what you did on that page, or maybe going back to the version before I added the template box. Thanks for getting back to me. -Eric (talk) 06:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

what is your date of birth?
Yes I am "rolling"now. I mean don't answer this question! But I want you to answer this question. Can you identify me? [Hint: You already have my email address.] I hope you are not angry with me. =P (that's a big hint.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.161.131.76 (talk • contribs).


 * "Rolling"? You mean you're on ecstasy?? I guess that would explain the confused message... I can only assume this is Kushal Hada, based on your edit history and Asian IP address (although for some reason it says Sumatra instead of Nepal). I'm not angry (why would I be??), just very confused... —Keenan Pepper 15:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That was trolling, silly. i mistyped it (unintentionally). and you are (as always) correct, my dear watson, i mean Holmes! i am glad you are not angry. That was a World Link IP address. This is a Nepal Telecom IP address. See this one now. Tell me which country am i from from the IP address?

if anyone is reading this please visit http://new.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%A8

yes that was an advert. also we need some volunteers in Nepal Bhasa wikipedia. contact keenan, or kushal_one, or Eukesh —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kushal one (talk • contribs).


 * Well now you're logged in, so I can't see your IP address (logging in actually gives you more anonymity). For the record, I don't speak a word of Nepal Bhasa. Maybe I should put that on my user page...

Musical Acoustics
Hi Keenan. If you have time, would you take a look at the discussion at Talk:Musical acoustics? I think the discussion could really use a third opinion. - Rainwarrior 20:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to summarize, it appears to me that the other user involved in the discussion has been inserting his own theories into wikipedia. He claims the edit was made by several people, including himself and his publisher, and the IP record suggests that they were all done on the same computer or at least the same vicinity. (In addition to this, I don't think much of the material is relevant to the article, as well as being unprovable or lacking appropriate citation.) - Rainwarrior 22:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of "Quantum mechanics explained"
You deleted the article "Quantum mechanics explained" I wrote. Now I cannot find the text anywhere. Could you please put the original text on my talk page? I need it for my notes. Thank you. --DenisDiderot 08:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Move Levitron article?
(Old discussion from May 2006.) Good idea. Moving the article to Magnetic Levitating Top will probably stop some of the odd reverts (and the message from Wikipedia's lawyer BradPatrick threatening to delete anything about the court case.)  Hmmmm, "TheGreatScott" is anonymous (no personal info on user page) and has contributions only on the Levitron page but nowhere else, so I wonder if he's from Hones' Levitron company. Me, I have a little personal interest, having followed the Sherlock's "hidden history" page as they added more and more info. I still maintain a piece of their old page on my site. But I've never heard the story from the other opponents (from Hones/Fascinations.) --Wjbeaty 04:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Move Levitron article?
(Old discussion from May 2006.) Good idea. Moving the article to Magnetic Levitating Top will probably stop some of the odd reverts (and the message from Wikipedia's lawyer BradPatrick threatening to delete anything about the court case.)  Hmmmm, "TheGreatScott" is anonymous (no personal info on user page) and has contributions only on the Levitron page but nowhere else, so I wonder if he's from Hones' Levitron company. Me, I have a little personal interest, having followed the Sherlock's "hidden history" page as they added more and more info. I still maintain a piece of their old page on my site. But I've never heard the story from the other opponents (from Hones/Fascinations.) --Wjbeaty 04:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply: Nope - no 'personal' info on my page (and never will be as long as the ex-wife and her lawyers are alive). I have other contributions under Evangelical Christianity, but they are anon as well for obvious reasons (tolerance seems to be one-way these days and 'Christian Scientist' is not an oxymoron!). I haven't been part of the 'corporate world' other than my own company for a long time and ended up visiting the Levitron entry looking for help in getting mine to work (hints/tips appreciated). I've read the article and to be honest, it sounds like a conspiracy theory (then the Art Bell references didn't help); then I read that (in the court case) the article was posted just after the authors' company was sent to a collections lawyer for refusing to pay a $ 10K debt. A very similar thing happened to me by a former client when I sent him to collections. This history article is well-written, but I have doubts as the motivation. As far as a reply from the Levitron Company goes, I would take a pr release from a corporation with a grain of salt - as I imagine most would these days. I also know from experience that your words can be twisted around and used against you. They may be thinking the same thing. Bill Bennett never suggested aborting every black baby in America - but that's exactly how some media outlets portrayed his comments - and these were the 'respected networks'.

Just a thought. If anyone wants to email me, it's The.Great.Scott at Hotmail dot com. If you have ideas on how to get the top to actually work, please let me know. I have the levitron floating globe, and it's electromagnetic so the setup is easy. TgS

Please stop removing importance tags without doing anything useful
I'm talking about edits like this. The compound may be notable, but the article doesn't say a single interesting thing about it. If you really did do some research to decide whether it's worthy of an article, you should be able to add at least one sentence describing why it deserves an article. If not, don't just remove the importance tag, because it's useful for people looking for articles to work on. I'll try to find something interesting to add to these articles, but for any I can't get to right now I'm afraid I'll have to revert you. —Keenan Pepper 06:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about these chemicals, I don't have any information that I could add to these articles. However, I do know about AfD, and scientific topics with thousands of Google hits would not get deleted, and so these articles do not belong in a category created for "topics of unclear importance." If you want to look for articles to work on, use Category:Articles to be expanded, not a category for questioning the notability of articles. Saying I'm not doing anything useful when I'm working to clear a massive backlog at CAT:NN is quite insulting. --Rory096 07:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles to be expanded only says that it's for things beyond a stub because stub tags themselves are supposed to be tags to signify that an article needs to be expanded, but we both know that that's not true, so the articles to be expanded cat is used anyway. The importance was clear, which was why I removed it, it just wasnt clear from the article (because I wasn't about to add the amount of Google hits to the article), which is different, and isn't something that requires it be in a category along with things tagged with and its relatives. Yes, it barely makes a difference if there's an importance tag or not, but that's exactly the point. People will probably be just as likely to expand it without the tag than with it than without (of course, that chance is very low anyway), the tag tells readers of the article very little, and so there's no point to having these articles cluttering up CAT:NN when I'm trying to find the articles that really aren't important and should be deleted. --Rory096 07:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Musical acoustics
Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following: Thanks! --FR Soliloquy 06:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Remain polite per WP:Civility.
 * Solicit feedback and ask questions.
 * Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
 * Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

Spanish Translation of the Week: Trillo
The current Spanish Translation of the Week is located at Threshing-board/Translation. This week's project is to translate es:Trillo into English. You previously expressed interest in working on this translation. If you are still interested, please consider joining the translation taking place at Threshing-board/Translation.Fagles 22:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The recently added "Analysis section" in the Combustion article
Hello:

I feel that the entire new "Analyis section" is just a jumble of data graphs with no explanations and no references. I think it should be deleted until the editor-author:


 * Reduces all the white space in each of the images and frames them so that at least some of them could be placed two abreast.
 * Uses a more easily legible text in the images.. Some of the text is so small, that it is difficult to read.
 * Converts the images from .gif format to .png format.
 * Adds some discussion of and explanation of the various images, as well as references to the source of the data.

Much of that data (for example, the enthalpy versus temperature graph and the two heating value plots) is readily available it the NIST online website as well as in many textbooks and handbooks.

What do you think? Please commenton the Talk:Combustion page. - mbeychok 06:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)