You mean, I wasn't suppose to?No you were not ... but let me show you the right way.
Hello, and welcome! Thanks for coming. I am not always near a computer, so I may not respond to questions immediately, but keep looking.
Note: If you leave a question or comment on my talk page, I will leave my response here. If I have left a question or comment on your talk page, please respond there. It just makes easier reading.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Sarah Palin, did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what Erik is talking about here. I only made one comment, which directly pertained to the discussion at hand, and it's still there.Zaereth (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I really appreciate it. I have to admit sometimes my paience wears thin, and seversal editors have criticized my acts and approach. But I am convinced that if people are simply committed to WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, there is just no reason why our respective political beliefs should get in the way of a fruitful collaboration. I am reallly trying hard to support this kind of editing environment. I do not have a problem with people who disaree with my edits as long as they do so in the spirit of the policies I just menioned ... it just seems to me that some people there start from an antagonistic stance that just cannot help. So I am really thnkful for your encouraging words and as I think I noted in the talk page at least one of your recent edits, perhaps working together we can maintain an environment where even editors who disagree profoundly can collaborate. I'm glad you are part of that, Slrubenstein | Talk00:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In agreement, Palin got roughly treated my the American media. In politics, one never gets a second chance to make a first impression. Quayle could attest to that. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't go too far, Zaereth! Definitely appreciated your honest insight on SP, and you probably don't even realize how your occasional sincere and informed perspective put a stop to a seemingly endless argument now and then. Thanks! Fcreid (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you don't know how much I appreciate it. I can't say I'll never go back there, but this article recently must have my blood pressure up to 180/150. I think I have to take a break and cool down. Thank you Fcreid for all you have done, (or at least attempted). Your willingness to stand in the face of blind opposition has not gone unnoticed. And GoodDay, your presence has not only been a calming voice of reason amongst the fray, but also a comforting reminder that not everybody here is out to push their own agenda. I may not be exactly correct about a descending order of reliable sources, but in English lists are often given in an order of importance. ie: My house, my Rolls, my Cadillac, my Hummer, My Chevette, and my Gremlin. (None of which I own, but you get my point.) I think once again that the point of my statement in SP talk was overlooked in the interest of correcting my view of policy, (a very frustrating, yet oh so common, experience here). Apparently some feel because newspapers are in fact not at the bottom of the list they should be used with no amount of caution or restraint.
The pleasure has been mine, my friend. While I can't honestly say I feel strongly about Sarah Palin as a politician (or really about any politics or politicians in general), she's certainly one of the more interesting political figures I can recall in my life (and she has the horrendous media attention and battle scars now to prove it!) My initial visit to WP in August was no different than a gazillion others who'd never heard of her at that time. Coincidentally that same week, a couple of my "customers" asked me to evaluate if/how they might integrate Mediawiki into an underlying "vertical" environment I support for them (and which pays the bills around here). Given that not much was known about her back then, and that I needed to understand the underlying mechanics of a wiki anyway, I stuck around to see how things flowed using talk and edit histories and the like.
Ironically, despite that I didn't feel particularly strongly about her initially, it enraged me to see the low blows being dealt against her by 24/7 bloggers, media hounds and even some media outlets that I had previously considered "reliable". What followed was my natural (and quite probably chauvinistic) reaction to defend her against those attacks. Now that I know her a lot better, I'm actually very supportive of her political goals. Some of the things others paint as her negatives are actually quite positive to me.
Unfortunately, the Republican campaign completely porked the pooch on showcasing her strengths. What RNC moron lavished her with a Sak's wardrobe and a coiffeuse instead of shopping at Sears and running the family through a Super Cuts? Instead of letting her be herself, they thought they needed to coach her before speaking to the press to become someone she's not. Palin didn't lose public favor because of who she is, but rather who she isn't, and the McCain campaign is entirely at fault for that! Fortunately, America remains in desperate need of a person like her, and not phony elitist academics, lawyers and career politicians. If she eschews similarly misguided advice in the future, I'm quite sure she's destined for far bigger things.
Fcreid (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I have great memories of my two years in Alaska when I lived there (on Adak in the Aleutians, but I retreated every few months to Anchorage for sanity reasons!) I've never counted, but I suspect I've seen most of the 50 U.S. states and a good part of the world, and Alaska is definitely among the most beautiful and wondrous places there is! Fcreid (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You asked on Talk:dye laser how to cite references. I'm not sure what you meant, but WP:CITE explains all the technical details as well as general editorial guidelines. The important information is right at the top, under "Quick summary". When I include references myself with <ref>...</ref> I'm usually lazy and won't spend a lot of time on formatting it exactly according to match the Chicago/Harvard/etc style of other citations, a long as author name, title (and/or journal name/volume/page) and year are there. It is relatively rare that another editor will re-format them.
I see that you've never been properly welcomed, so see below for the standard message. That should give you an idea of what is expected from a contributor.
Welcome!
Hello, Zaereth, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Han-Kwang (t) 09:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information, Han-Kwang. This will be a big help. One question I have which I do not seem to find a clear answer to is: Can I use a catalog as a reference source? The catalog in question, which I have provided a link to on the Xenon Flash Lamp talk page under "Operation section is a bit confusing", provides probably the most concise source of information on the subject I have ever seen, and is backed up by its own list of references. I think it would be nice to provide as an online source people can look up, rather than just the books I could cite, but I don't want to seem like I'm advertizing for them either. (Besides, its not a company that will sell to the general public.)Zaereth (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A catalog can certainly be used as a reference if nothing better is available. Just make sure that the information in the catalog is generally applicable (not just to products of that manufacturer) and reasonably neutral (not hyping the manufacturer's solutions). Han-Kwang (t) 09:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the catalog is extremely neutral, and completely covers all aspects of flashlamps. In fact, it reads like any technical article, with no hype at all. (I don't think they advertize at all. Unless you're Xerox, or the US Government, they won't even talk to you.) Information on flashlamps is hard to come by. This catalog provides it all in one on line source. Zaereth (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished doing some major editing to my first artcle, and I think it looks pretty good. I'll add some information to the dye laser article soon. Thanks for your assistance, Han Kwang! :-b Zaereth (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that it is indeed major editing on xenon flash lamp with a lot of new valuable information. I wonder though whether a lot of what's in that article doesn't apply to flash lamps in general. Your intro mentions "usually xenon", which is strange in an article about xenon lamps. You could consider whether it is appropriate to create a new 'flash lamp' article with the general information, and separate 'krypton' and 'xenon' articles for specific details, or move the whole article to 'flash lamp'.
Another point is that you spread out your effort over quite a lot of edits. It is easier for other edits to review your edits if you bundle them a bit more (use the preview button rather than the save button) and explain in the summary what you did. I usually use brief summaries myself, such as "expand section" for substantial new content; "typo", "grammar", "sp" (spelling), "fmt" (formatting/layout) for small edits. When I change incorrect or misleading facts I do explain in more detail in the summary what I changed and why. Maybe this is something you can think of next time you edit. Once you start watching articles that you contributed to you will probably understand how valuable edit summaries can be. Han-Kwang (t) 09:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was kind of thinking the same thing. While I have constructed flashlamps of my own, using argon, and I even tried neon once, I have never seen anything on the market other than xenon and krypton. Other than having different impedence characteristics, flashlamps all are constructed and operate pretty much the same way. Perhaps the article should be renamed "Flash Lamp", and a search for krypton flash lamp could be redirected there. (I'm not sure how to do that. I'm actually not very computer savvy, but trying to learn.)
Thanks for the info. I guess I wasn't thinking about other editors, but in the future I'll keep that in mind. I tried not to make too many changes to correct information that was already there. For some reason, if I don't save every 20 minutes or so, I lose everything and have to start all over. Perhaps it would be easier to paste the text onto a Word file, and work ot the changes there.Zaereth (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For info on renaming pages, see WP:MOVE and WP:RPM. In this case, you will need administrator assistance because Flash lamp already exists as a redirect with an edit history. I would suggest to request it as a controversial move on WP:RPM. If there are no objections or alternative proposals from other editors, the move will be carried out by an administrator. You can then proceed to change the text to become less xenon-specific. I created krypton flash lamp as a redirect; once the xfl page is renamed, you can change the redirect as well. Han-Kwang (t) 12:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you wait long before saving a page, you might get an error message about "lost sesion data". However, you can click preview first, and then save. If you use Internet Explorer, you won't be able to use the Back button to return from the error message to the edit screen, but with better browsers such as Firefox or Opera that is possible. You could also consider working on an article in your user space, for example User:Zaereth/Flash lamp, and copy it from there once you're satisfied.
Well, I'm not sure I understand the problem, as flash lamp redirects to xenon flash lamp, but I'll read further on the policies and take it up with WP:RPM. Perhaps "Rare Gas Flash Lamp" would be a better description, but its not very common usage.
I'm not sure if the use of xenon as the prime example is unwarranted, although technical information on krypton flashlamps could certainly be included. A web search on krypton flashlamps has not yet yeilded me any great information, other than some spectral output data. It would seem, from my own OR, that krypton is almost always used as a continuous wave arc lamp. Krypton has rather low impedence, which leads to its lower efficiency, but would make it more suitable for arc lamp operation. Krypton arc lamp construction is the same, but the geometries and pressures are very different. Except for very small camera flashtubes, xenon pressures are high, but almost always in the vacuum range, (usually around 400 to 760 Torr), where as, krypton lamps I find are used as positive pressure lamps, (from 760 to 3000 Torr, [or as high as 60 PSI, which does not work well in a flashlamp. (I know. A friendly manufacturer once gave me three of them to play with. Now I have 2.) That doesn't mean they don't exist, but I'll have to go search the liabrary to see if I can come up with some hard facts. Flashlamps are an OEM type product, not usually available at your local hardware store. It would seem at least 99.9% of flashlamps out there are xenon, but give me time to find out more.
There is an interesting looking study out there called: A Comparison of Rare-Gas Flashlamps – J. R. Oliver and F. S. Barnes I.E.E.E. Journal of Quantum Electronics, which I would love to read, but haven't been able to locate a copy yet. Still working on it. (By the way, I just noticed that Wikipedia's definition of Torr is opposite of the way lamp manufacturers use it. Torr as I've used it above is "absolute", or in other words, 0 Torr is total vacuum. I've seen both definition used, however, so I'll see if I can open a discussion there to help clear up the confusion.)Zaereth (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did locate an interesting study on xenon radiation and photographic response, here: https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/5654/1/V71N06_343.pdf . It gives some useful information from the study I mentioned above, to quote "The spectral distribution curves of xenon-lamp radiation at lower current densities usually show a considerable amount of energy in the near-infrared region (Oliver and Barnes, 1969). An increase in the current density may favor the visible and the ultraviolet regions at the expense of the near-infrared radiation (Goncz and Newell, 1966) and predominant spectral bands in the near-infrared may become less distinct." This may be useful information, but I'll wait to gather further data before inserting it into the artcle. I'm still trying to locate the flashlamp comparison study, as it is suppose to contain detailed information on krypton, argon, helium, and neon, as well as xenon flashlamps. Zaereth (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, you've peaked my interest. I might have to read up on ultra-fast pulses, now. I constructed my laser using wide band mirrors, so that it could be tunable between 500 to 600 nanometers without changing them. But I used Brewsters Angle windows on the dye cell, which has a prism effect on the light, allowing me to tune the laser by adjusting the mirrors' angle, so I doubt I would be able to get any type of ultra-fast pulse with it. Plus, I have no doubt from my previous experience with dye lasers, (everything I have learned, I learned the hard way), its probably far more complex than that. I'll look into it. Zaereth (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised to hear that you can tune the wavelength that way with parallel-face Brewster windows. A Ti:sapphire laser usually has 2 cm of Brewster-angle crystal in it and that doesn't restrict the wavelength range where it will lase. For 100 fs ultra-short pulses you probably only need 10 nm bandwidth anyway.
Ultrashort-pulse mode-locked dye lasers can be constructed, but it isn't trivial. You need an element in the cavity that causes more gain at high intensities than at low intensities, thus favoring short pulses, and some form of dispersion compensation in the cavity (prism compressor). I think for a dye laser you need colliding-pulse modelocking which is extremely tough to align, from what I've heard. Nowadays people go for Ti-sapphire lasers both for tunability and modelocking because there's no messy, degrading dye involved. If you already have a few watts of green pump light available your only extra investment is a Ti:sapphire crystal. Unfortunately, the wavelength range is NIR, 700-900 nm, so it's less spectacular to look at. Han-Kwang (t) 09:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, lets just say that performance has yet not met up to expectations. Turns out, Brewsters Angle at an air to glass interface is different from the liquid to glass interface, and I probably should have chosen the latter. Using plane/plane mirrors helps with the tuning, and the windows have a three degree wedge, but the amount of money I saved on extra internal optics is not worth the hassle. The dye laser was my first attempt, and there were many failures before I eventually achieved some measure of operation. I learned a lot, especially about short duration flashlamps, but my interest in high energy has since moved me on to YAG and Ruby lasers. On hindsight, I wouldn't recommend making a dye laser your first, but I thought I could help pass on some of what I learned to other readers. (Do you know how many books I had to read just to find out what was meant by "singlet" and "triplet" state"?) What a wonderful source Wikipedia is! Where else could a hobbiest collaborate with a physicist?Zaereth (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that setting the Brewster angle for the air-glass interface was correct. The potential reflection losses for a 1:1.5 (air/glass: 4% at normal incidence) refractive index ratio are much larger than for a 1.33:1.5 (water/glass: 0.36% at normal incidence) ratio, so it's best to optimize for the glass-air interface. Han-Kwang (t) 11:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I hadn't thought of it like that. My idea was to keep stray reflections out of the dye. I'd have to go back through my notes, but as I recall, when I set the 1:1.5 Brewster's angle, I had to mount the windows at something like 39 degrees, to compensate for refraction, so that light can pass straight through the dye cell tube, which is within 10 degrees of BA at 1.33:1.5, (methanol), and the wedge of the windows brings it a little closer, but I had never taken into account the normal interface losses being different. Thanks.Zaereth (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added some information to a couple more articles. The preview button is a fantastic tool. Thanks, Han-Kwang, for showing that to me! :-D Zaereth (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for explaining the factors involved in the explosion of xenon flash lamps. I was actually doing "destructive testing" of a flash lamp, as I had a few of the same kind and wanted to find out how much energy they could safely take. I was using a 330 volt ~1700µF capacitor bank (I made a mistake on the calculations earlier, it was around 92 joules, not 75), with which I tested two flash lamps. One cracked after a single flash, the second split cleanly along one end with a loud bang, and shot both ends in opposite directions across the room (it was connected with alligator clips, which fell off as the tube exploded). Needless to say, I think that I was able to find out what their operating limits were. Ilikefood (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Isn't destructive testing fun! I just hope you're wearing your safety glasses and ear protection, and keep well away from the blast zone.
I was mistaken. High current would equal high heat. Voltage tends to produce the sonic concussive force, so that would explain the cracking of the glass, and the relatively low force of the explosion.
It might be helpful to add a full paragraph in the article on the circuit you're describing there. The circuit is often called a "Variable Pulse Width Control" circuit, as is described in the Perkin Elmer catalog which I referenced. There are many ways to put one together, and can even be designed to produce square-wave pulses. Perhaps if we start out with the name, then a small paragraph to describe the circuit that would fit better with the style of the rest of the article. What do you think?Zaereth (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that sounds like a great idea. Would it be legally permissible under Fair Use to illustrate the concept with one of the schematics from the document that I used as a reference in the article, or a schematic based on one of those (possibly simplified, for clarity?)? Ilikefood (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather new to Wikipedia, so I don't know the answer to that question. Personally, I think a paragraph that gives a basic overall view is sufficient, as an encyclopedia should not be an instruction manual. Those who are interested, I think, should have no problem checking out the reference. Zaereth (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. I'll move the above discussion to Xenon Flash:talk so others can add their opinions. I've done quite a lot of destructive testing myself, trying to learn about them. Always with the same energy and almost no inductance, (the only real variable being pressure and gas type), I've had them explode, leaving me with a little pile of glass to sweep up; explode, leaving me picking glass out of the walls; and explode, leaving me with no glass to be found, (just some small amount of sand blasted about the room). I eventually figured out that learning the math was the only real way to properly power a tube. Check out Don's Xenon Flash and Strobe website, which I referenced in the article, for som of Perkin Elmer's equations ... simplified. Zaereth (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Happy New Year to you too! Its nice to see that things in Talk:Sarah Palin have slowed down a little. After having taken some time to edit, (or completely rewrite), some other articles, I now have a better understanding of how Wikipedia works. (But still learning, I'm afraid.) Anyway, feeling a bit more calm and centered, I've decided to come back and weigh in my opinion where I believe I can help. Thanks for the welcome! Zaereth (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I got that modern-day picture you wanted. I had to request that the author change its license, but the article is much better off with it! --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was meant to be funny. I have a lot of work going on right now, mostly due to ash fall from Mt. Redoubt plugging up equipment. Been at it pretty much the last 48 hours straight. Zaereth (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I move away from the two bridges that have haunted me all winter (why I may never know) I would like to say it was a pleasure to work with/against you. I always felt your input was considered and for the best of the article. I wish I could say the same for your mates but at least you showed what Wikipedia should be. Good luck!--Buster7 (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Buster. And I appreciate your thoughtfulness and good humor. There have been many times when your cheerful wit has brought a smile to my face. I envy that, for its a tactic that almost always backfires when I try it. You have definitely shown that a disagreement doesn't have to break down into petty accusations and name calling, and the pleasure of collaborating with you has definitely been mine. I really hate to see you go, because its nice to have some one with whom I can have a rational agreement/disagreement, but perhaps we'll have a chance to collaborate again if our paths cross out there in Wikiland. Until next time, good luck to you too. Zaereth (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that this is moved beyond KAB and people seem to want to throw out the Road to Nowhere and most all that Palin has ever been criticized for, I see no hope in this continuing. Do you? You yourself said you're less inclined to compromise. And yet you supported mentioning the KAB to begin with. I don't get it. I don't want a separate KAB section. That was Fcried's suggestion. I'm happy to have KAB in one brief disambiguation sentence. Perhaps you can explain to me outside the glare of the Talk Page what points you feel I was not addressing. I understand that you hate the verified source -- the Wasilla Mayor, the Associated Press, and the Anchorage Daily News that says the KAB helps Wasilla. But the source is the source. And wikirules are quite clear that own research can't trump verified sources. So I don't get it. Why not just put both sides of the POV in and be done with it? Do you see how formal arbitration is the only answer here?
Clearly I'm frustrated. I'm hoping arbitration causes people to focus less on personality and more on proper wiki-arguments. I find it extremely ironic that you don't feel I'm addressing your points. What point have I not addressed? I've written for pages just to try to get people to address my arguments, but people just respond with silly stuff that they know I already agree with (Yes, I know "thanks but not thanks" refers to GIB. All my versions clearly say so. Why are people repeating themselves saying things we all agree with?) Anyway, I know I'm talking to a brick wall when Fcried and Collect agree with me and then suddenly, without giving a reason, reject the compromise.
See why we need arbitration? Maybe with arbitration, our arguments will be addressed. I'm looking forward to, one day, seeing someone respond to mine. All I get is "We can mention KAB in the Palin bio ONLY if we show it has having no connection to Palin," which I find Orwellian. Palin supports an expensive bridge. Why is this verboten in her biography?GreekParadise (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GP, I do believe your intentions are good and have no desire to see you leave the article, as you do provide us with an alternate view point. My contention with the KAB has always been its portrayal as nothing but a road to Palin's house. I have on numerous occasions shown sources that show its true purpose, including a study from the University of Alaska Anchorage, (to my experience anyway, University studies are always more accurate than books, which are far more accurate than periodicals. I couldn't have written the dye laser or flashtube articles properly without them). To have the article claim that some critics somehow psychicly know that she wants bridge for only selfish purposes can not possibly be verified, unless she has said so herself, and is the purist form of speculation. What I see here is the adding of two and two to get three. (The facts: Palin supports a bridge. The road on the other side comes out near her home town. The conclusion, Palin wants a road only because it serves Wasilla.) That is synthesis. Obviously no one can say what anothers thoughts are.
To make the point, your paragraph says "some critics", which to my understanding are weasle words. (Example: "They say the biggest diamond in the world was nearly 5 feet across." Well who are they, and where did they get this information. I find it dubious.) The same applies to the statement, "Supporters say it will help Anchorage." (Who are these supporters, and why isn't Palin now one of them?) I think it may actually benefit you to write your material from actual sources, instead of trying to back it up with sources later.
Then comes the issue of weight. In the grand scope of Palin's career, I don't think her involvement with these bridges is sufficient to merit a longer section than all the others. Then fact is that her speech was a total flub, and merits mention of the GIB in some sufficient detail. I lean toward Paul's paragraph because he simply wrote down all the points about the GIB that we had agreed are actually salient to the subject in past discussions. I don't like the KAB being lumped in with the Bridge to Nowhere, as her speech indicate there was only one bridge on her mind, but had resigned myself in the past to allow short reference as a compromise, but the same weasly information keeps showing up with it, which has led to mine and many other's frustration.
I've really never had much to say about the GIB. Once again, I kind of like Paul's paragraph because simplicity and readability, it simply cuts right to the heart of the matter. In my own writing experience, people in general grow disinterested in a subject if there are too many cumbersome details. That's why I prefer a shorter version, so that people actually will read it, and those who are interested, I can guarantee you, will click on the relevant links to find out more. If the goal however is to bury the relevant facts in all the detail, so that a good majority of people will skim through it, lose interest and move on, then I have to question who are the real Palin supporters.
I hope there are no hard feelings, for I really do value your presense in the article, and really, too much agreement makes for boring conversation. With everything eles I've said aside, my biggest problem is the insinuation, (that's obviously what it is, an insinuation), that we are somehow privy to her thoughts is neither neutral nor encyclopedic, nor verifiable. The rest I could probably get around. (See, there's my whole arguement summed up in two sentences. Much easier reading that way.)
On a small note of constructive critisism, one problem I see is that you try to tackle every point at once, which breaks the conversation into a thousand different tangents and makes it nearly impossible to resolve any single point. Perhaps if you presented your ideas one at a time it might be easier to stay focused. Just a suggestion, however. Zaereth (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Zaereth, in wikipedia, I've always believed that you show both sides of every issue, even when you think one side is not fair. I've never wanted to portray KAB solely as a road to Palin's house. I've always wanted to show the "alternate commuting route to Wasilla" as one of the uses of the bridge among many. It is in fact an alternate commuting route to Wasilla -- as the Mayor of Wasilla has undisputedly pointed out in various reliable sources -- but I recognize the bridge could also help the other side of Knik Arm become a suburb of Anchorage, even though there are currently no towns on the other side of the bridge of any size until you get to Wasilla and Houston and other points north. (This surprised me in my own research. Not a single named town on the local google maps. And yes I realize that my own research is improper for wikipedia.) Critics criticize people all the time for what are presumed motivations. President Obama is daily called a socialist(!), although the charge is absurd, far more absurd than the idea that Palin may have tried to help her hometown. While I of course think it's fair to criticize Obama's policies, I think it is ridiculous to call him socialist. But if I were editing his wikipedia entry, I would have no problem with saying "Pundits on FOX News have called Obama's policies socialist while economists have pointed out the differences between Obama's plans and true socialism......" Some criticism is fair, even when we presume to do a bit of mind reading. Did Don Young favor Don Young's Way to help his family's development interests in land on the other side of Knik Arm? Who knows? But I think it's a fair critique and would belong in any article on Don Young, along with his stated rationale for supporting the bridge. I've shown you my sources. And I don't mind naming names of critics to avoid "weasel words." I've never been wedded to any particular wording. But there's no point in trying to make an article better if no one is willing to compromise in the first place. If we can't agree on content, we will never agree on language.
Paul's paragraph is not so much wrong as unfortunately incomplete. So incomplete that in a sense, it is false. It gives a false portrayal of the subject as being just a campaign slip of the tongue rather than a coordinated and repeated lie, which of course is what it was. Palin's choice of phrase is at least as misleading as Bill Clinton's use of the word "is" and this single intentional misstatement has done almost as much harm to Palin as Clinton's deposition did to his. Of course, Palin's choice was even more calculated. So I think it is far more important than you think. And the idea that some think her high school track status is more important than her public policy choices is baffling to me, if we assume the editors are striving for biography rather than hagiography.
I can't say there are no hard feelings. There are. But few are directed at you. Most are directed at the impossibility of the entire enterprise. Writegeist wrote some beautiful words on my talk page: words that give me peace. Words that will allow me to quit this article and let it descend into the depths of a Sarah Palin press release without feeling shame or failure. As he notes, most educated people realize that Sarah Palin and her wiki bio are one big joke anyway. At any rate, it's clear that absent arbitration we will get nowhere. So absent arbitration, I won't waste time further here.
I did find your "small note of constructive criticism," though laughably ironic. I have tried large. And I have tried small. The problem is that once we reached the Election-Day Consensus, Collect (and others) deleted and changed a whole bunch of things without going to the talk page. So as to avoid an edit war, I have not simply undone his changes. But that means that I have the choice of trying to deal with all of them or deal with them one at a time. I have tried both ways. Both have failed. Funny, the one "single issue" I tried to deal with first was Knik Arm Bridge. And that led to six weeks of wasted effort and countless hours of verbiage that I doubt most of you even read. I only did the other issues when Fcried suggested we skip the KAB and move on since we couldn't agree on it. I guess the one note of grace in all this is that Collect's shenanigans are finally reaching a larger audience. All of us that have suffered at his hand have finally come together. I hope he's banned, but I find it unlikely. And this feeling that you can do what you want at wikipedia without any real consequence is why I probably will leave wikipedia -- or at least the Sarah Palin article -- quite soon. I have decided to end any further discussion without formal arbitration.GreekParadise (talk) 05:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to hear that, GP, honestly I am. I myself got a little flustered when after weeks of this we seemed to get bumped back to the beginning, so in a rather rash move on my part I took a turn in the opposite direction, endorsing only Paul's paragraph. In hindsight I don't think that really helped matters any. I'm not sure I understand how putting the information in its correct article does more harm than good. I'd call it Wik-organization, a little like putting your shirts in the shirt drawer and socks in the sock drawer. I do agree with Writegeist, (and quite frankly, miss his/her presense too), on the point that the article is fairly ridiculous mainly because the focus is on rather small issues such as these. As Kelly pointed out, we're still stuck in a campaign that's long over, and if that's all this article is ... is a campaign tool, then I too must shake my head in disgust.
You know something, GP, I know absolutely nothing about politics. I never vote when I feel I'm being forced to try and choose between the lesser of two evils. Heck, the last President I voted for was Ross Perot. I think he would have been great for this country, but ultimately paid the price for being bad on camera. This last election was different, as I felt for the first time that both candidates had the best interest of the country in mind.
Now I can't speak for everybody, but I have read everything that has ever been posted on the SP:Talk page. It started out as a simple fascination with the world's sudden interest in my state. Before, when I told people I live in Alaska they would ask questions like, "What's it like living in igloos and eating penguins?" (If you don't know, nobody lives in igloos, they're temporary shelters, like tents, and penguins are from the south.) After weeks of watching this ongoing bridge discussion I finally decided to speak up, as it was painfully obvious that nobody writing it had ever been here. This is the largest state, but there are really only two roads, the Parks and the Glenn. Now imagine that the only place you can really build a house is along these roads, and you might get a better picture. It's hard to tell where Wasilla ends and Houston begins, for the 15-20 miles in between is lined with houses. Towns such as Wasilla grew up this way, and it pretty much stays that way until you get to Montana Creek, crossing over into the Denali Borough. Not to mention the vast distances which I don't think people consider.
In an effort to try again, perhaps we can rewind to the paragraph that you had suggested, and Collect and Ferrylodge seemed to be begrudgingly in agreement with. That paragraph was perfectly fine with me, except there was no sort of orientation. It briefly described where the GIB was, but mentioned the KAB only by name. My idea at the time was simply to add a location, ie: between Anch and Mat-Su. I think that would make it easier for the reader without getting into all of these contentious issues. Would that be OK, or does that mean we need to get into all of the gorey details? Zaereth (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I just read Writegeist's comment and disagree with one thing rather adamantly. You should not leave, for the article will definitely suffer without you. There is clearly a trend for the "supporters" to try and run off the "detractors", and there can be no good to come from that, and I can't say I'm completely unbiased either, as her ability to keep her campaign promises has really made an impression on me. I do, however, try to keep away from any political discussion, and if we could resolve this one point then I would be happy to support your opening paragraph, and step aside as you work to expand the GIB section. (I'm gonna cut off one of my arms and sew it on you if I have to.)Zaereth (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Generosity. Great Sharing. Thank you both. BTW....SARA PALIN has been etched in stone onto my Watchlist. I may not be commenting but, as always, I will be reading!--Buster7 (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GP, I don't know if you're out there and can still hear me, but I wanted to let you in on a little secret before you go. I was utterly shocked by the attitude of of this article, and the media in general, during and after this election. The push by the extreme supporters to keep out facts that were actually interesting about the subject, (I was baffled, because some of these things seemed quite positive to me), was a huge mistake on their part. However, in the end, what helped to galvanize me, and I think so many other's, toward her was the great desperation with which the detractors tried to spin every bit of minute detail into something bad against her, (not to mention the mob mentality which the relative anonymity of this sort of environment provides, where it becomes perfectly OK to go after someone's family just to get at them), was a huge mistake as well. Why would you try to hide perfectly scathing information , (facts, such as Paul's paragraph is), in a bunch of statements that amount to, 'Some people don't like her', which anyone can see through?
On a different take of this concept, there is a simple rule that is standard in most writing environments, both fiction and non-fiction, (except for math, for some reason): Show, not tell. Readers don't like to be told what's going on, they want to see it, feel it, breathe it. Make it clear. Make it concise. And make it to the point. As a writing teacher once told me, "When you write, fill your work with every sort of detail you can imagine, the sky ... its color, the shape of the clouds, the furnishings in the room, and the railing on the stairs. Then put it away for a week ... a month ... a year. When your ready, come back and read through it all, the boring minutia, and cut, edit, and strip every thing that is not absolutely essential to the story. Then read through it again, and you will find that it is all still there. That's what makes a good writer." I think it was Fleming that said (something like), I am the world's worst writer, but the world's best editor. (Or something like that.) This was not meant as an arguement, criticism, or OR that should be presented in any article. Just trying to show you a little bit where I'm coming from. Zaereth (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with much of what you say, Zaereth and especially appreciate your generosity of spirit and your willingness to compromise again. I liked your personal reflections, and believe it or not, this 48-stater actually knows the facts on penguins and igloos (though calling a snowmobile a "snow machine" was admittedly new to me) But all this good will unfortunately doesn't change my view that, without arbitration, we'll never get anywhere. Even if you and I and Fcried could agree, Kelly and his friends would be quick to dismiss anything we came up with. And we'd get nowhere, after months of trying. So why should I waste your time? Or mine? I'm happy to walk away in the knowledge that you and I both have that this article is a skewed bio. As I said on my talk page, I hope God has granted me the courage to change what I can, the serenity to accept what I can't, and the wisdom to know the difference. Writegeist has helped me with that serenity. I accept the fact that no matter what I do, the Palin article will be badly written and biased unless and until she ever runs again and therefore "matters" to a more balanced public. At first that genuinely bothered me. But now I can accept it. Because anything in life should only bother me to the extent that I can change it. And since I can't change it, it really shouldn't bother me that much anymore.GreekParadise (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is very Tao. I will respect your decision, although I want you to know while there are those of us who may still disagree with you on certain points, you will be sorely missed. Zaereth (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was forwarded to me last night. I'm typically loathe to read or watch political stuff, but this editorial nails my perspective on the events of the past year on the Palin page. It's undeniable that the media created our new president and destroyed Palin in that process, and this article illustrates that point graphically. Those of Palin's adversaries with a conscience still lurk around her page today in an attempt to sully the circumstances of her resignation (e.g. avoiding criminal charges, a quitter and such), but they are only hoping to appease self-guilt that it wasn't something they did with their rumor-mongering and vicious attacks that caused it. Palin's positions on social issues are, almost categorically, the polar-opposites of mine, and I'll tell you with absolute sincerity that she didn't get my vote in last year's election. That said, I admire her more today than at any point in the past year watching her story. She was (and remains) the real deal in politics, unlike so many other celebrities-come-politicians hoping to be the next Britney Spears. So, despite her now plummeting popularity in Alaska -- the artifacts of her war -- you guys were lucky to have her. For all the baseless accusations that have been leveled against her, "indecisiveness" was not among them! I hope she takes her hard-earned $10M for the book deal and has a wonderful and happy life with her family. Fcreid (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you've said, it hit the nail right on the head. (Whoa, that rhymes.) I must admit myself, I am not always in agreement with her policies either, but am very fed up with corruption as usual in politics. Here in Alaska, it's bad, and the actions of the legislature here over the last year has proved it, (such as spending so much time filing ethics complaints that they were only able to get to, something like, 6 of the 300 some odd bills thay were faced with). If for no other reason, that is why she had my vote ... that and I new almost nothing about Obama due to the media's failure to cover him in any depth. Sadly, this still seems to be the case, as I have really no idea what he's doing in office, but can follow Palin's every move to this day.
I'm not a journalist, but I have taken several journalism classes, (actually, about every sort of writing class you can think of), and the reporting that I've been seeing is not what I was taught. It's interesting that Wikipedia policy is based on those same tenants that I was taught, to such an extent that I rarely have to read policy to know what it will say. I have very little patience for the wikilawyering that takes place, which is only an attempt to intimidate, obfuscate, and confuse others into agreement by undermining the spirit of the policy with the twisting of its words.
I really try to avoid any political discussion as well, but, amazingly, that was never a problem during this election. Thanks very much, my friend, for I think this article you sent me was a wonderful depiction of the media today, placed in the context of history. I'll be sending it to people I know. Zaereth (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Pears so. ('Scuse my accent. :-) ) Brand new crowd but the same old arguments. Have a good night, Fcreid. See ya here tomorrow. Zaereth (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with your point that exposing these "complaints" to the light-of-day does nothing more than bolster Palin's argument that she was hounded incessantly by political enemies bent on frivolous attacks. Those who argue her resignation demonstrated she was too "thin-skinned" for the politic stage simply ignore her much more compelling argument that these incessant attacks were damaging her state for more than her. Maybe someday people will see the philanthropy of her decision, but somehow I doubt it! Fcreid (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost to the point where if one gets in I'm going to insist that all go in, for as far as I can tell, all have recieved media coverage. Here in Alaska, I can tell you, many of us taxpayers are hopping mad at having to pay for these obviously frivolous complaints. One lady, who has issued four complaints so far, (three dismissed, one pending), says she intends to issue more complaints in the future! I find this to be unbelievable, and many here think that these complaints should be deemed "frivolous" by the convening authority, and that the complainer should have to pay for the cost of their complaint, (should it be deemed frivolous). I'm sad to see her go, because she had been an excellent governor before the presidential election, and still is in my opinion. But the government around her has bogged down to nothing since the election, an I can only hope that voters remember that when the next round of state legislature elections happen. Zaereth (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You raised a lot of interesting points on the talk page - I made comments, responding where I could. i hope you'll continue to participate in the project space. Slrubenstein | Talk11:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Slrubenstein, I'll follow up on those helpful suggestions. I'll try to provide useful suggestions where I think I can help, but, unfortunately, with summer coming to a close, both work and winter preparations, (and even play), are taking precedence. Thanks very much for your advice. Zaereth (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"5000 russian aircraft destroyed until oktober" thats too low. until the end of oktober there were 17.000 aircraft destroyed. -- HROThomas (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dormancy can be a survival trait. A well-informed landscape gardener will plant many varied grass seeds in the same plot of earth, each one for different conditions. Some seeds lay dormant, for quite awhile, waiting for their opportunity in the sun. Some thrive everywhere, no matter what conditions are. I think you have misinterpreted Editor:Slrs' comment. But, even if you got it right, don't let what ever is goin' on for you in Wikiworld kill your spirit. The loss of quality editors like you is a danger to what we have created.
Simplify---Re-invigorate your enthusiasm---Spend WP time doing relaxing things---Pitch a tent, at Random articles lets say, and just be a WP consumer for awhile. Everythings gonna be all right!--Buster7 (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Buster, I can always count on you for some good advice. My problems with Wikipedia have been stewing since the first day. I preferred to do some in depth research into WP, giving it a good year before making any assessment. I am extremely disturbed by the passing of opinion as fact, and visa versa. I feel that WP favors quantity at the expense of quality, and naturally this causes the loss of quality editors. I am not a quantity editor, and need an environment that supports quality.
My problems with Slrubenstein are not the cause of my problems, although it may have contributed to bringing it to a head. As you know, I have seen far worse on Talk:SP. I found it somewhat upsetting that discussions were invoked about improving Wikipedia, as long as no one suggested a change to fix the underlying problems. I have no patience for one man committees, and wish others could have been given a chance to respond to my comments, but that is all past now.
The philosophy of Tao says that to struggle against death is to hasten one's own demise, so I will leave the policy pages to the wikilawyers, for they are obviously doing a good enough job of hastening WP's demise. I think, however, that it is a good example of the main problem with America, that is, lawyers making laws.
The philosophy of Tao says instead one should struggle to live, for in that struggle is found life.
I'll probably continue to serve as sort of a conscious on articles such as Sarah Palin, but doubt I will ever try to give input at a policy page again. I may yet decide to contribute to articles in the future, as some people on Pattern welding are still waiting for me to complete my research, but be warned, these will be quality contribution which may exceed Wikipedia standards. :-)
Yep, quiet on the watchlist of late, Zaereth! :) Merry Christmas to you too. We're still digging out here in DC from nearly two feet of snow, so it's sure to be a white Christmas. Wishing the best for you and yours this holiday season. Fcreid (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK. I get that pretty much everywhere I go around here, except from Mr. Wales himself. Apparently, expalining something about ethics is taboo around here. No worries though, as I'm not really very interested in the specifics of that discussion; just the technical aspects. I'm not going to comment that particular discussion anymore, but will contribute to further discussions if I feel I can help. Zaereth (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are still two-foot mounds of snow from the big storm the week before Christmas! I can't remember the last time in Maryland when we've had such a long stretch of freezing temperatures. It crept near 40 today, but the wind chill still makes it barely above freezing. We're being promised we might hit 50 before the end of the week. Ugh! Time to move to Florida! :) Fcreid (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I NEED YOUR HELP to upload song and/or single covers. Go the page This Is My Time (Raven-Symone's third studio album) and go the section Backflip. In the part where the single cover is, there is a reference. Please go to the reference and turn it into the single's song cover. And Go to the page The Party's Just Begun (the lead single from the soundtrack to The Cheetah Girls 2 and do the same thing (using the reference in the the song cover section like Raven's Backflip). From Dbunkley6-talk
The first thing I would do is verify that the copyright allows us to use it. It is against the law to upload pictures unless the owner has given us permission. User:Moonriddengirl is an expert on copyright, and can probably help you with that.
If you have permission to use it, simply go to the reference and right-click on the picture. Choose the option, "Save picture as" and save the photo on your own computer as a JPEG file. Once you have it on your own computer, uplaod it to Wikipedia, following the instructions. Be sure to fill out the copyright information, or it will get deleted. Once that is taken care of, you can go to the article and type [[Image:Insert image name here|thumb|insert size here|Insert caption here]]. Fow more information on how to format this, see Help:Wiki markup. Zaereth (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A little on my mum's side, Welsh on my dad's. Maybe some Norse in there some where from the looks of me. I guess I'm a mutt. Born and raised Alaskan though, so maybe the Raven or Eagle clans will have me? :-D Zaereth (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info, but my question would be, do you have proof? Do so-called quarks and gluons even exist? Perhaps they're strings, vibrating like a guitar string at certain frequencies. Maybe they're something else that science has yet to theorize. Zaereth (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, color is just a made-up term in this situation. From the article - The term color was chosen because the abstract property to which it refers has three aspects, which are analogized to the three primary colors of red, green, and blue. They could have called it toppings with the three aspects pepperoni, mushrooms and jalapeno - but it's easier to understand with the term colors. Quarks and gluons could be like strings vibrating at certain frequencies - but again that would mean all particles are like that and so it wouldn't be something connected to color, which only applies to quarks and gluons. Oh and in case you didn't catch it, I was referring to this from your user page - "This could just be a construct of the human psyche, but science often tells us that color is something that is basic to the very nature of the universe, right down to the subatomic particles, and I'm inclined to believe the latter." And as for proof, I guess you could read related articles and look at the citations - they say QCD has been verified to a few parts per million. Just trying to help you clarify your philosophy :) -- 64.52.60.226 (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Perhaps I should revise my statement. I do understand that words such as "color" and "flavor" are rather arbitrary in the field of particle physics, (a field in which I'm intersested, but not experienced). I do believe that any wave resonant with 132 cm to be red. I got the idea when a music instructor, who had perfect-pitch hearing, was trying to explain to me how he could tell any note just buy the sound. He said, "Just listen to it naturally, and you'll notice that "C" is the same as red." Well, my hearing is not as good as my eyesight, but sure enough if the math doesn't agree with him.
Photons, as far as I know, are also considered subatomic, but to which color is definitely a visual attribute. I noticed with my ND:YAG laser that the beam has little effect on most plastics, passing right through. However, if the plastic is red, it will absorb more of the beam than any other color.
I mainly wrote that as an example of synthesis. While I could provide dozens of sources to back up my theory, none of them come to the same conclusion which I have. Synthesis is a serious problem in Wikipedia. Anyhow, you obviously have a better understanding of the subject than I do. Thanks for the clarification, for I am always open to exploring every alternative. Your advice is most welcome. Zaereth (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now we're talking! The color for photons has to do with frequency, not with color charge, so the concept of something fundamental in the universe that corresponds to certain frequencies comes to mind. Very interesting, I've had vague thoughts of lower frequencies being connected to more powerful energies, but nothing like the octave-based ideas you're talking about. I prefer to think of it as frequencies rather than colors - seems more fundamental to me - but as I said, that's merely a matter of preference.
Hmmm. Interesting. I suppose it would be just as correct to refer to it as tone. Different terms for the same concept, I believe. Anyhow, thanks for your input. I never know if anyone actually reads that stuff. Peace to you as well. Zaereth (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll be happy to assist. I'm rather busy in real life, but I'll try to stop in at the article's talk page before the end of the day to make some comments. See you there. Zaereth (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zaereth,
Thanks for the cool personal page. I had no idea Bruce Lee was a philosopher! Now about your belief that Wikipedia writing should never be used to "teach", I believe that all writing is teaching, and whenever I write, the first student is me. Scott P. (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Yes, Bruce Lee believed in using what was valuable from all froms of martial arts and philosophies alike, and discarding what was not useful.
Anyhow, back to the point. Not all forms of writing are teaching. Encyclopedias use journalistic writing, which has been carefully crafted over the last few hundred years in order to present information in an unbiased manner. There is nothing unbiased about teaching, and that includes both science and religion. Encyclopedias merely report, and there is a difference.
We trust that our general audience are not idiots, and will be able to draw whatever conclusion they like from the evidence we present. That evidence includes the opinions of the subjects, whether they are Mother Teresa or Aleister Crowley. There is no need to refute a subject's own opinions. The reader's can make up their own minds.
I am learning to understand rather than immediately judge or to be judged. I cannot blindly follow the crowd and accept their approach. I will not allow myself to indulge in the usual manipulating game of role creation. Fortunately for me, my self-knowledge has transcended that and I have come to understand that life is best to be lived and not to be conceptualized. I am happy because I am growing daily and I am honestly not knowing where the limit lies. To be certain, every day there can be a revelation or a new discovery. I treasure the memory of the past misfortunes. It has added more to my bank of fortitude.
All fixed set patterns are incapable of adaptability or pliability. The truth is outside of all fixed patterns.... If you always put limit on everything you do, physical or anything else. It will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them. --Bruce Lee
Hi Malke, and thanks for the comment. I've actually done quite a bit of mediation, on articles like liquid or physics of glass. Unfortunately, real life prevents me from getting into long conversation that are moving quickly. That can make mediation difficult, so I usually just drop off an opinion or some advice and go about my day. Thanks again for the compliment. Zaereth (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've used your photograph of the dielectric mirror (the one with a yellow reflection) for a presentation on photonic crystals (a dielectric mirror is essentially a one-dimensional photonic crystal), so I wanted to say thanks for releasing it into the public domain. I'd like to give a source for the picture and possibly some more detail, so if you'd like more reference than the link to the Wikimedia Commons image, please tell me. Also, I'd really be interested in more information on the mirror, do you know what materials were used (I'm guessing Si and SiO2) and how thick the layers are?
I'm glad you were able to make use of my photo. I'm no photographer, and many of my pictures are not the highest quality. Still, it's nice to have visual references, and maybe some color on the pages. I see no reason to copyright my images. I'm just happy knowing that they are of use to somebody. Anything to promote the interest of science. (If you've placed it on a website or something, please let me know, for I'd like to see.)
I'll give you what information I can about it. That particular mirror came from a Coherent Inc. model 740 dye laser, which I purchased off of e-bay to scavenge parts from. I can pretty much guarantee that the substrate is quartz, but could not tell you if the coating is Si, SiO2, MgF2, or a multi-layer combination of these ... or something else. I called Coherent several years ago to try and get some information about laser mirrors, but was told that such information is proprietary, and could not be released to the general public. Some other companies, like CVI, Exciton, or Advanced Radiation, were much more helpful.
I can tell you that the mirror is a broadband reflector for use in tunable lasers, similar to the mirrors found here. These generally use multi-layer coatings to provide the broadband reflectivity, which usually have a usable bandwidth range of 25 to 50 nanometers, (although my home-made dye laser uses some CVI TLM2 mirrors, with a very wide bandwidth of 100 nm).
That photo was taken under normal fluorescent lighting, with no flash, to demonstrate the reflection of mostly yellow light. What I couldn't show, at the same time, was the transmission characteristics. If held up to the light, the view through the mirror appears purple, from the high transmission of blue and red. I tried to demonstrate that selective nature in my other picture, by photographing the reflections from two different colors of construction paper.
I know that this does not really answer your question, but that's the best I can provide. I really hope that helps. Thanks for letting me know that you got some use from one of my pictures. Zaereth (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I do know that thickness of the coatings has a lot to do with the center wavelength of the light, the refractive index of both the coating and the substrate, and the desired angle of incidence. Constructive and destructive interference seems to play a big role, but beyond that, I don't know much else about how these coatings operate. Another good source on refection and anti-reflection coatings is actually the Edmund Industrial Optics catalog. (You can actually get some wonderful information from the right catalog.) Zaereth (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your quick reply,
I've linked the source to the picture and cited your user name. It's already pretty helpful to be able to give information where the mirror is from and that it is a multi-layer design, so yes, your information was already helpful :) The document that the picture is in, is sadly not a real publication, just a term paper I needed to do in the course of my studies. It will not be published on the university's website, it'll just be available to everyone attending the course, protected by login. I can send it to you when it's done, but it's written in German - just send a mail to jonesey[at]alpha-aurigae.net
The thickness of the coatings has indeed a lot to do with the center wavelength of the reflection, so does the dielectric constant of the materials used, and interference is the reason for the reflection, yes. The presentation I'm doing is about the mechanisms leading to the reflection and an alternate way to describe the behavior of such sructures, borrowed from solid state physics (dispersion relations, bloch waves etc.) - since doing it with ray or wave optics alone would be too tedious, especially for structures that have a two- or three-dimensional periodicity, in contrast to the one-dimensional periodicity of the dielectric mirror. Actually, it is possible to design dielectric mirrors that have a reflectivity that isn't angle- or polarization-dependent anymore, those were discovered using this new theoretical approach (google for omnidirectional dielectric reflector). If you want to read a good book about photonic crystals my main reference is available for free as a PDF here
You're welcome, and thanks for the information. I'll check those out when I can muster up the time. I love the theoretical stuff, even though I may not always understand it. My main interests are usually, how can I do or build something, what are my or its limitations, and how can I perform or make it perform better? This is typical mechanical thinking, which often leaves me baffled at non-mechanical explanations. I like to try though.
Sorry, I don't know a word of German, aside from what I can make out from the etymons. (Actually, the Germanic languages, ancient English in particular, has some very peculier etymology.)
Many thanks for your comment on Jimbo's talk page, it caught exactly how I feel about what we're doing here. Less happily, condolences to all concerned about the C-17 crash, very sad news which I'd not noticed on the news here. Had to check up which plane it was, as I was rather fortunate in seeing a C-47 flying over Glasgow recently on a commemoration day. It's awful when things go wrong in connection with an air show. Thanks again, dave souza, talk20:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I rarely speak-up on his page, but am usually watching the drama as it gives me an interesting look into parts of Wikipedia I usually never visit. Thanks for your comments too, and I appreciate your concern for the aircrew, as I'm sure their friends and families probably do as well. Zaereth (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello.
I would like to use this picture on my article about aerial combat in Hebrew wiki. Could you upload it onto Wikimedia commons please?
many thanks.Lirdon (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lirdon,
I'll try to figure out exactly how to do that. I don't know much about computers, and don't have much spare time, but I'll try to get that picture moved over there within the next few days. Zaereth (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, my first barnstar. I've seen these before but never really knew much about them. Thanks very much Malke, I'm touched. Also, thanks for your efforts in helping to improve the writing here on Wikipedia. I hope you have a happy Thanksgiving day and a safe and wonderful weekend. Zaereth (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, yet another flare-up on SP, the Lightning Rod! I tried to steer it towards something worth discussing, but in the end it didn't seem worth it. I suspect the underlying motive was all along only the "she's as dumb as a box of rocks" POV. Whether you like her politics or not, it baffles me that people don't consider her career accomplishments before they jump to absurd conclusions on her intelligence or breadth of knowledge. People also don't seem to recognize that Olbermann, Maddow, Beck, Limbaugh and their ilk are not (or, at least, are no longer) journalists... they are just entertainers who serve up selective bits of reality taken out of context and seasoned with their exaggerated self-opinions and overblown egos. I don't know why anyone listens to them, but you can predict stormy weather at SP by what their throngs are fed. :(
Things are good here. We got our first snow yesterday... just a dusting of an inch or two, but more may be coming this weekend. I usually like the snow. Dru shovels while I stay toasty inside, and it's cathartic to watch the surrounding woods turn white! It will be a quiet Christmas this year. My son made his final move to Vancouver with his Canadian bride a few months ago (after his residency was approved), so they're spending this year with her family there. My oldest is spending her holidays mainly with her boyfriend's family in North Carolina. So, we still have the tree and decorations out, but not the noise and excitement of years past.
Congrats on the Knik Arm Bridge! That should ease congestion and allow a bit of welcome commuter expansion. I actually caught an episode of Palin's new show, which caught my eye in a rare moment in front of the TV. It was an episode on halibut fishing, and it brought back memories of reeling in those 100-150lb beasts, although it took me an hour or so with rod-and-reel and not commercial winches! I'm actually surprised SP hasn't seen attempts to introduce "halibut brutality" to her bio! I guess too many of her detractors eat fish and would see the irony in that. :)
Anyway, hope all is well for you and yours in the great white north! Have a great Christmas!
Thanks for the warm welcome and holiday cheer. Let me take this opportunity to thank you and (the gentleman above) for not just seeing things in the "black and white" of partisan politics. You both always leave room for compromise and the productive discussion of potential solutions. The article would suffer the loss of your guidance. Please be careful when pulling those hundred horses in the sleigh. You could pull a muscle!Buster Seven Talk05:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zaereth,
Thanks for your New Year message, I wish you a very happy and successful 2011 too!
The Logger9 situation is unfortunate. I always try and keep out of such situations but in this case Marie Poise is telling the truth and many others do share the same thoughts on Logger9's contributions so I felt it best to speak up. I haven't got anything against Logger9 personally and think it is a shame that things have come to this. Anyway, best regards Polyamorph (talk)14:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Buster, I'm flattered. Like Bruce Lee, I often have a very short temper. I think that Mr Lee, and even Siddhartha Gautama himself, would tell you that turning away from anger is not the answer. The key is to embrace it, reflect it inward, study it, and make it your own. Anger itself is a very vital emotion. The important part is how and where we channel it.
I have seen some pretty interesting studies lately regarding meditation. At that point when the conscious mind becomes silent, and the mind is seemingly quiet, the brain goes into overdrive. The trick here, which I think is at the core of Mr. Lee's teachings, is to learn to do this during everyday activity. This is especially useful when in combat, like during sparring, fencing, or kenjitsu. (Or even debating on Wikipedia.) When I reach that meditative state, which Bruce would call "focusing your chi," suddenly my vision becomes less important. My focus is no longer on a narrow point, but, instead, everything within my view becomes clear. My opponents often tell me that it's rather disconcerting to fight someone who appears to be staring off into the distance rather than looking at them directly. However, when I enter that state I become very hard to beat, even when faced with two or three opponents, because I am no longer acting, but reacting. Zaereth (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You remind me to reflect on a mentor from years ago. He often said that Fear and Anger reside close to each other. The slide from one to the other is discernable and worthy of observation...as an insight into what may be happening...and to resolve (and embrace) the Fear rather than the Anger. I will share your observations with my daughter, the BlackBelt in the family. I find it pleasing that she has 4 older brothers and yet SHE is the knight. Buster Seven Talk19:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, fear. The great enemy. The consciousness of self in action. It's interesting how these common themes arise time and again in mythology, from the Illiad to Star Wars. I usually don't think of fear as being an emotion, but rather a fight or flight instinct, directly tied to emotions like anger, envy or despair. On a basic survival level, a good thing, but on a much higher level, it causes people to lose both focus and rationality. My favorite line from Mr. Lee is, "The consciousness of self is the greatest hinderance to the proper execution of all physical action."
It's always nice to hear from you Buster. I hope your year is going well so far. With four older brothers, (if they are anything like my brothers), your daughter probably had to be tough. For her, most of what I said above can be summed up like this:
Into a soul absolutely free of thoughts and emotions, even the tiger finds no room to insert its fierce claws.... No thinking, no reflecting. Perfect emptiness; yet therein something moves, following its own course.... Victory is for the one, even before the combat, who has no fear or thought of himself, abiding in the no-mindness of Great Origin. --A Taoist Priest, circa ? - Quote taken from from the Tao of Jeet Kune Do, by Bruce Lee
Buster7 has given you a Nice Koekjes which promote fellowship, goodwill and WikiLove...things you know well. You can spread the good flavor of Nice Koekjes around Wiki World by giving someone else one. Nice Biscuits are very tasty and have been known to calm even the most savage beast. Enjoy! Buster Seven Talk
Sometimes two cents is worth alot more than it seems. Consider this pre-payment for visiting Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Welcome new users and sharing your view. Also, please check out the message behind the current banner at the top of all the WikiPages. Your insight and consciousness are valuable as WE (Wikipedia Editors) consider and create our credo(s) for the future. At Wikipedia all we really have are conversations and some are more important than others. Buster Seven Talk22:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then what about pages like User:Tony1/How to improve your writing, which inspired me. I thought giving some simple advice on user space was allowed. Am I mistaken? I will gladly delete that, and any other thing I have written on Wikipedia, but I would ask for a better explanation. Zaereth (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My confusion comes from the fact that you have directed me to a policy that covers mainspace and not userspace. According to WP:Userspace, since my goal is to help Wikipedians succeed in improving the encyclopedia, and it is not written like an article, this should be perfectly acceptable. Zaereth (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Sorry for the delay in my reply. It's been a long weekend.
There are numerous sources that mention Widmanstatten structures in telluric iron. For instance, in Meteoritic Iron, Telluric Iron and Wrought Iron in Greenland, on page 20, paragraph 1 (the first full paragraph), it states, "The new material from the Disko area was, however, slightly different from the few slivers of meteoritic iron reported in the Melville Bugt tools. This was not noticed in the beginning. It appeared that the two types of material had in common a significant amount of nickel content and a coarse grained Widmanstatten structure, enough similarities to pronounce all finds meteoritic." Also in paragraph 2, "He [Steenstrup] identified outcrops at Asuk at the north coast of Disko as an iron bearing basalt, and he showed that the Widmanststten pattern might occur in iron grain included in basalt from Mellemfjord."
In the "Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Bulliten, volume 80, page 65, "...the Widmanstatten structure is a normal consequence of the composition and thermal history of the material.
In History of technology: the role of metals, Volume 6 a photo is shown of a cross-section of telluric iron. The caption reads: "Microstructure of telluric iron from Ovifak, Greenland. The grains consist primarily of pearlite (dark grey) surrounded by a partial rim of iron-carbide (white) with some Widmanstatten precipitates of iron-carbide (needles) in the pearlite."
Other references include such scientific studies as Electron microprobe analysis of terrestrial and meteoritic cohenite, There is also Steenstrup's own writings, On the existence of nickel-iron with Widmanstatten"s figures in the basalt of North Greenland.
Many photographers add a ruler or some length marker (coin, pen) when taking such images. An alternative (which also works after taking an image and avoids unnecessary image clutter) is to add something like "capacitor width 20 cm" or "image width 20 cm" to the image caption. Knowing the size may be important. Regards and best wishes. Materialscientist (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought about doing that, but didn't have a ruler handy. I took these when I ran home for lunch, and was a bit rushed. I can tell you that the pulse forming network is roughly 6 inches long and 3 inches wide. The mylar capacitor is almost as large as the sheet of copier paper that it's laying on, roughly 8 inches wide, and the defibrillator capacitor is about 4 inches wide. I'll measure them when I get home tonight, and add the sizes to the image captions tomorrow. Thanks for the advice, and have a good night! Zaereth (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As we all sit down at the dinner table and say our thanks today, I would like to give thanks to you for your wonderful contributions and wish you a very happy Thanksgiving. May your turkey, ham or beast of choice satiate you until next year!TRA! Buster Seven Talk17:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
With all the excess flare gas being and going to be produced in Alaska I would like to hear someone intelligent like yourself explain why no effort us being made to convert it into ammonia, which is a valuable product that has an international market. It wouldn't even be too hard to move it by pipeline to a place of export, or even to the US. Have you heard anything about such as that?. And thanks for your answer to my inquiry in Mirror.WFPM (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of it has to do with politics and economics. There is a nitrate processing plant south of me, in the town of Nikiski, but it's much more econmical to process it there than it is on the North Slope. Much of the excess gas on the slope is pumped back into the ground, because there is, of yet, no feasible way to get it to market. That's one reason that there is such a push up here to build a gas-pipeline. Politics is the main reason it wasn't built 50 years ago. However, it is still necessary to burn off certain amounts of it, to prevent pressure-spikes and other problems from causing gulf-like disasters. Zaereth (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense to reinject all the possible recovered production gas in order to maintain bottom hole pressure. But in a cold climate, like northern Alaska, the idea of converting some of it to liquid ammonia and moving it through a small pipeline system sounds feasible to me. In Venezuela, we had a 50psi production gas recovery system, which was repressured to 500psi and reinjected. But a lot of low pressure production tank gas was flared, because nobody needed the gasses' heating energy capacity. But I keep thinking about the methane to ammonia conversion possibility and the low temperature ease of handling the liquid ammonia and wonder if there isn't a possibility in there somehow.WFPM (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it probably is feasible. Because there is no pipeline, though, that only leaves export by ship, and the Arctic Ocean is not a friendly place for shipping.
It's been obvious here that the oil companies are in no hurry to process this resource. Some say it's because they're trying to push for a better tax-break while other claim that they simply don't want to saturate the market. Keeping the supply low helps drive prices higher. I suspect that it's a combination of factors like that, and that our politicians somehow think that we are beholden to the oil companies. Anyhow, I'm not too knowledgeable about the oil business itself. When I was on the slope, my field of expertize was mechanics and hydraulics. Zaereth (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you say Nitrate plant, I assume you mean Ammonium nitrate plant and wonder where they get their hydrogen. Probably buy methane gas on the open market and don't worry about scavenging waste flare gas. I've got a chemistry book, Chemical Principles by William Masterson and Emil Slowinski, that brags about the ability of fuel cell technology to be able to extract the maximum chemical energy from Methane fuel Gas, (ISBN0-7216-6172-6 W. B. Saunders Company. So it looks like there ought to be a way to recover and utilize some of that waste gas energy. I was a Pipeline Engineer, and was involved in the gas gathering pipeline system.WFPM (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How did my Identity initials get mixed up in the next Subject matter item (See below)? You must be trying to extract info from Wiki (as I do). Would be interested in your opinion as to whether my concept about the inability of a thin film to cause frequency doubling of IR radiation due to the wavelength difference has any merit. Maybe thicker would help.WFPMWFPM (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Walter Heinrich Geffcken requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy)20:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. That's strange. I have no idea how that could be a copyright violation. I read the book Thin-films on glass a couple of weeks ago, and then let the info stew in my subconscious and, when I had the time, rewrote it in my own words. This I do from memory, and is also combined with info on him from books like Thin-film optical filters and Applied optics and optical engineering. Unfortunately, real life called me away before I could properly add in-line citations and go back and recheck the sources. I was just about to do that now. Oh well. Not gonna worry about it. Zaereth (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas to you and yours up north, Zaereth. Sounds like you're having a blast in the snow. Be careful! A very quiet holiday here. Have a safe New Year. Fcreid (talk) 09:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When you recently edited Tempering, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Annealing and Ferrite (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. When you recently edited Tempering, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Strength (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
That particular link was intended to be a DAB, because the context is about how vague a term "strength" is. The more specific forms of strength are found after the link. Sometime DAB links are more useful, such as when stating that moose eat pondweed, it's easier to lead to the DAB page than list all of the various kinds of pondweed. Zaereth (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When you recently edited Alloy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Precipitation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I'm sorry if I clobbered your response, but I went through and re-rendered GarbageMan's comments as quotes/responses. Please take a look and see if I missed anything and re-offer your response. Thank youHasteur (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have responded at all. I like to try to help new users, but it seems quite apparent that this particular user is only interested in conflict. Since I really have little interest in this aspect of the subject, I'll just leave well enough alone. Zaereth (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"A sufficiently paranoid conspiracy theory can never be disproven" did originate with me; I started using that as an e-mail signature a little over 15 years ago. I ran across your page when I did a Google search on the phrase today. I was contemplating the ironic (or deliberate?) timing of the US government release of papers confirming a long-term government coverup of knowledge of the Katyn massacre yesterday. It could be taken as someone deliberately taunting those who believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories, just before an election... Not that I believe that's really the case, but it's still fun to speculate. scot (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scot. Thanks for the info. I'll remove the question mark and replace it with your name, since I am now certain it is your quote. I don't really follow the political stuff too much, so I'm not too familiar with the 9/11 theories. However, I have been fascinated by stories of government experimentation on the populace, such as project MKULTRA. Locally, we've always had the "experimental farms," as people called them, when I was growing up here, which I've always speculated that they were testing the effects of artificial bovine growth hormones in milk on unsuspecting Alaskans. (This is something to which I have become extremely allergic to and rarely eat milk or beef anymore. I only recently discovered milk allergy, and realized that I have no problem with milk or beef that doesn't contain RBGH.)
The reason I really like your saying is because of one of my ex-girlfrinds, who was convinced that the Moon landings never happened. No amount of evidence to the contrary could disuade her; ranging from explanations of how dust behaves in a vacuum to other countries that were also tracking the mission. Even when the Japanese did a recent fly-by, and photographed the landing site, she is always able to revise her theory to discount any evidence, like any good conspiracy theorist. (This must be the largest. most massive cover-up in history, involving millions of people and several countries, many of whom were not friendly to each other.) On a side note, Conspiracy Theory is still one of my favorite Mel Gibson movies.
Anyhow, thanks for the note. It is fun to speculate, and a good imagination is often better than book learning, at least, that is according to Einstein. Zaereth (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I keep kicking around the idea of trying to come up with some means of evaluating the likelyhood of conspiracy theories, treating them like Fermi problems -- the fake moon landing being a perfect example. The amount of effort, competence, money, cooperation, etc. required to perpetuate a coverup of a hoax this long far exceeds the abilities of our government; if the government were actually sufficiently competent to perpetuate that sort of coverup, we'd have been on the moon a couple of decades earlier. The equation applied to this situation would be something of the form:
probability(coverup) = (effort required to land on moon) / (effort required to perpetuate coverup)
Of course, since the effort to perpetuate a coverup keeps increasing over time (to a point; it drops off as interest wanes and those involved die off), while the effort to land on the moon is constant, that means that coverups become less and less likely over time. With a lot of conspiracy theories I think competence is a core consideration; if They are competent enough to perform whatever acts are necessary for said conspiracy, wouldn't that also imply that They would also have been competent enough to rig things so that said conspiracy wasn't necessary in the first place? scot (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, conspiracy entropy? I never thought of it that way, but I suppose it makes sense, because the laws of thermodynamics apply to more than just engines. It seems to me that the effort required to perpetuate a cover-up should also increase when more people are involved, which should also increase over time. I think you're onto something with your equation, although it may need a few more factors worked into it. (I don't know because I'm no mathematician.)
All this talk of They reminds me of a story I wrote back in high school. It was about two characters called Agent U and Agent I from WE, a tactical subsect of the organization for truth and justice, called US. WE were fighting the global organization bent on world domination, known only as THEM. As the story progresses, WE find out that the organization of THEM is headed by a small group of elite people, referred to as THEY. THEY control THEM, who run their own tactical subsect of agents, called THEY'RE. Then WE find out that THEY'RE coming to attack US, but U and I show THEM that WE are not going down without a fight... (I think U can see where this is going. If nothing else, it was an incredible exercise in phrasing, because the whole story was very much written like that last sentence.) Zaereth (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
for the feedback. Hope all is well in your world which. by the way, sounds very interesting. I had to look up what a "maul" was. I thought it was something my pit bull did too my neighbors cat. (Not really). WP:COI+ pretty much takes the place of my essay and is a whole $20 better. Mine was more in response to a disagreement and a way to "boil over" somewhere other than an article talk page. Always nice to here from you. Your friend, ```Buster Seven Talk07:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for the compliment! Sorry for the delay in my reply, but I've been on vacation.
It's nowhere near done yet. Actually, it hasn't been too difficult, because most of the work on that I did years ago, now it's simply a matter of writing it down. In fact, most of what I do on Wikipedia is that way; just writing about stuff I already know, and then going around to find references after the fact. (I'd thought about throwing a bunch of refs on that tips page, but didn't want it to look like an article. Perhaps I'll add a "recommended reading" section later.) Typically, I only spend about 10 minutes or less a day working on Wikipedia. My advice, if you're a newcomer, is don't let it get under your skin. Bad things will happen, and that's to be expected, so take it all seriously "but with a grain of salt," stay calm, just have fun with it, and you'll do just fine. Zaereth (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As we all sit down at the dinner table and say our thanks, I would like to give thanks to you for your wonderful contributions and wish you a very happy Thanksgiving. May your turkey, ham or beast of choice satiate you until next year! TRA! ```Buster Seven Talk14:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Honey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Precipitation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alloy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elements (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi Zaereth, Happy New Year! Sorry I'm not around much these days, have many things in real life keeping me away from wikipedia. When I have some free time I look forward to editing more glass related articles. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm glad to see you're still stopping by once in a while. I understand how it is, because I'm usually very busy myself. I can't get from the car to the curb without somebody needing something. Thanks for the note, and i hope to see you around. Zaereth (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Entropy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Resistance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Japanese swordsmithing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Optical flat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elasticity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
layers of steel are made visible during the polishing due to one or both of two reasons: 1.) Either the layers have a variation in carbon content, or 2.) they have variation in the content of slag inclusions. When the variation is due to slag
Thanks! And thanks for pointing out my error. I never meant in any way to imply that they were somehow superior to all other swords. In fact, for actual combat, I'll take a well-balanced broadsword any day. I do have to admire them, however, from a metallurgical standpoint, mainly due to the level of intricacy involved, and their ability to hold an edge. (I have a ninjato which, for the last ten years, I've used for nothing but delimbing trees before cutting them into firewood. It's better than an axe, faster than a chainsaw, and I've never once had to sharpen it.) Zaereth (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The metallurgy of Japanese swords are not really significantly different to old Chinese swords ...or European swords from fairly early Iron age, up to early Viking Age. In both cases, they were folded and laminated and all of that, and the techniques of hardening and quenching were used. (well Europeans generally didn't use differential hardening on weapons, though they did use it on some tools). Japanese swords are indeed wonderful swords, but they are not really unique or special in any way (indeed, they are nearly identical to some Chinese swords). Their ability to hold and edge, is not really particularly unusual either.
As to "broadswords"... That term is wrong. Broadsword is only accurate for one specific type of sword: The basket-hilted, straight, double edged swords of the Renaissance (see broadsword).
The ninjato is a modern invention. The historic existence of such a thing, is a myth (see ninjato) ...as is most things believed about ninjas. There is no way it's better than a wood axe, for chopping wood (and if it's so good at that, it is clearly not very good against humans) and it is physically impossible for it to be faster than a chainsaw. As to the need to re-sharpen it... You don't exactly need a razor edge for chopping wood. Indeed it would be inadvisable. Thus it is fairly unremarkable, indeed expected, that you have had no need to resharpen it.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that about the different swords. I was using the term "broadsword" mainly as it refers to something you'd see on Conan. (As far as I'm concerned, a broadsword is useless in combat unless it has a handle that's three hand-widths in length, has a round guard, and quillions at a 45 degree angle.) As for ninjato, of course it was a historical myth, however they are available today. These are not better for chopping wood; I use a splitting maul for that. Neither is it better for cutting down a tree or sawing it into logs; I use a chainsaw for that. But for delimbing, I have never found a better tool. Under an inch, I can easily remove ten limbs in one stroke (under a second, and not even a chainsaw come close to that sort of speed). Over an inch, fewer. Usually I can delimb a 20 foot spruce in under a minute. (One of the things to remember about the Samurai culture is that their primary job was executioner, and their swords were tested and evolved along those lines.) Zaereth (talk) 09:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On Ninjato: Ah. Well that makes sense then. I'd think that something like a machete would be the optimal delimbing tool though. Also... ninjato are generally made of stainless steel (like most SLOs), which doesn't really make for high durability, if actually used (though perfect for something that is purely decorative).
On the subject of broadswords... What? First of all, what you see in Conan is mainly unrealistic nonsense (fairly decent in its role, in the type of fiction that it is in, but hopeless in real life). Why you would prefer that if you got into actual combat, I cannot understand ...and there has never existed, historically, any sword with quillions at a 45 degree angle (not as far as I know, at least). As to round guard... If you mean a disc guard, that never existed in Europe.
On the claim that samurai were primarily executioners... No. Samurai were never executioners. Being an executioner was seen as a very impure an tainted job. No samurai would even think of defiling themselves in such a manner. Nor, indeed, would a member of any other caste. It was seen as far below the dignity of a peasant or merchant.
The ones who did such jobs were the eta. Those outside of (and far below) the caste system. They were discriminated, shunned and didn't quite count as being humans beings.
Well, you're making a lot of assumptions. Have you ever compared a ninjato to a machete? Firewood is my primary source of heat, so I need to cut at least four to five cords every year. (It gives me a good chance to practice my iaido as well.) The ninjato I have is made from 5160 carbon steel, and differentially hardened. No sword made of stainless can hold an edge as long, nor take an edge as fine. As for actual combat, the sword I designed is the one I'll use. Historically accurate or not, when I get together with my fencing buddies to throw down with some real blades, that one will always be my first choice. Zaereth (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Well, you're making a lot of assumptions. Have you ever compared a ninjato to a machete? "
...
I said "I'd think", so I made it clear that it was an assumption/speculation. I don't see how there are any problems in what I said.
"As for actual combat, the sword I designed is the one I'll use. Historically accurate or not, when I get together with my fencing buddies to throw down with some real blades, that one will always be my first choice."
... Well that's fine, but... Historically accurate designs are effective. You could make a non-historical design that is effective, but you'd need to be very good, to be able to make one that is decent (that, or only deviate in small, purely aesthetic, ways) ...and I have my doubts about the wisdom of 45 degree quillions. It seems like asking for swords to pass under them and cut your hand. It'd also seem fairly uncomfortable and it'd make certain swordsmanship techniques more or less impossible to execute. Also, I didn't think of this before, but... 45 degree quillions and a round guard!? WTF!? Two different types of guard, at the same time!?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend the books Encyclopedia of the Sword,Fighting Techniques of the Ancient World,Medieval Combat: A Fifteenth-Century Illustrated Manual of Swordfighting and Close-Quarter Combat,Samurai Fighting Arts: The Spirit and the Practice,Japanese Sword Fighting: Secrets of the Samurai,U.S. Marine Combat Conditioning, and Master of the Blade: Secrets of the Deadly Art of Knife Fighting (to name a few).
I don't understand why you're getting so defensive over how I choose to do things. (I'm beginning to think trying to be friendly was a huge mistake.) In actual combat, (just as Bruce Lee taught), I prefer to combine the best of all forms, discarding what is not useful. I prefer the style of the sword-and-buckler men rather than the brutish form of the knights. For my build, I prefer a blade which is heavier, providing very forceful impacts, yet well balanced for quick turn-around, allowing me to deliver a machine-gun volley of blows. The sword needs good wrist action, proving a full range of motion in both pronation and supination (which a straight cross-guard or a basket-hilt does not). For all practicality, the sword guard needs to be no larger than the hand, while the quillions can easily be used as a weapon in close quarters, sinking then into the chin or ribs. All in all, I prefer what works for me, and you can use what works for you (I won't complain). Zaereth (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am baffled, that you think I am getting defensive about anything, in this discussion. I'm just asking question and offering my opinions and pointers. Why you see any offensive attitudes in this friendly chat, I do not understand.
"I prefer the style of the sword-and-buckler men rather than the brutish form of the knights."
... the "brutish" form of the knights, eh? I assume that you don't know anything about Historical European Martial Arts. First of all, Knights made frequent use of sword and buckler ...and there is no medieval swordsmanship, that can be called brutish, compared to any other ...and none of them are brutish at all. Please do not make such statements about things that you know nothing about. It is arrogant and offensive. (Speaking of what I said above: What I've written here, is me being offended and saying something in a less then friendly attitude ...but this is the one and only instance, other than my edit summary, about the Japanese surpassing the Chinese, which turned out to merely be a slight mistake)
"For all practicality, the sword guard needs to be no larger than the hand"
If you have a disc guard, it needs to be somewhat larger than the hand. If you have a basket hilt, bell guard or some similar form of complex guard, it has to be a bit larger, or the hand won't fit in it. For a cross guard, it needs to be a bit bigger than the hand, for the same reasons as a disc-guard, but it also benefits from being a bit larger, for use in techniques where you trap the enemies weapon, or where you use the guard as a weapon.
"while the quillions can easily be used as a weapon in close quarters"
With a normal cross-guard: Yes
With a guard like the one you suggest: No
Frankly, it makes a lot of very useful techniques (many of which use the guard as a weapon), impossible. A 45 degree angles provides no benefits, but many drawbacks. Among others, it makes your hands an easy target (it even eliminates much of the protection of the disc guard).
"All in all, I prefer what works for me"
It doesn't work. I'm not saying that it doesn't work for me. I'm saying it doesn't work. Period. You are a human, and you live in a world where the laws of physics are the same as for me. Some things work for you, but not so much for me (and vice versa), but some things simple don't work, regardless.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a photo of one of my earlier models. This one developed a small crack in the quench. I've been meaning to temper this one for some time now so I could photograph the process, but thought I might as well take an hour to do so today, so that you could better visualize what I'm talking about. Zaereth (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well that explains what you meant concerning the guards. No offence, but it's not sensible for anything other than a barbarian movie, a la Conan.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, because I meant no offense. Your tone is often rather angry and/or preachy. I was just offering a bit of myself in this discussion (ie: being friendly). I am not interested in debating the usefulness of anything like this anywhere except in a sparring match. Zaereth (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Your tone is often rather angry and/or preachy."
If you find my tone to be angry, that's because you make unfounded assumptions. How do you presume to know my tone, from mere text, without clearer signs of it? Assume that you simply don't know, until you have evidence to the contrary. Anything else is unwise.
As to preachy... Well that's a matter of opinion I guess. It's perhaps not too surprising, as we are talking about a subject that I am familiar with, but you are ignorant of (yet still presume to talk about, as if you know what you are talking about).
"I am not interested in debating the usefulness of anything like this anywhere except in a sparring match."
...
You have been actively debating exactly that.
You have been making strong claims about exactly that.
Sure, sparring is the ultimate arbiter (or as close as you can get), but... You reject debating, regardless of the martial knowledge and experience of the person? That makes no sense.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have been trying to avoid a debate. You seemed in some respect interested in why I choose that style, so I explained. If you reject my explanation and tell me that I am ignorant of my own abilities, then that's fine. But I have no wish to continue a discussion based on should've, could've, would've. You don't like it; that's fine. But I have better things I could be doing right now. Zaereth (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To argue for the benefits and efficacy of a style of sword, is not to avoid debate about the efficacy of a certain style of sword. You have engaged in debate. That is as far from avoiding it, as you can possibly get. You try to avoid it now, but you didn't before. Don't lie.
I find your notions of what sword is effective to be baseless speculation, which goes against all that is known by reputable swordsmen, swordsmiths and books or any other sources on the topic. I find your sudden aversion to discussion rather puts in question any notion that you care about the truth of the matter, and your claim that you were trying to avoid debate before to be dishonest. I have rather lost the respect I had for you ...and thus, I don't really have much reason to talk to you here, anymore.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I do not wish to argue. This discussion has nothing to do with any article, merely my own personal preferences. I understand your position, I have no desire to offend you, and I'm not trying to change your opinion about anything, I was merely trying to explain my own opinion, and very much wish we could just agree to disagree on the subject. There is nothing I can do to convince you of the sword's merits in my own hands, so debating it seems pointless. However, I very much would like to remain amicable. I thank you for your assistance, and for you kind remark at the beginning of this discussion. Zaereth (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying "typo" in your edit summaries...
A typo is a spelling mistake, especially if it is due to ones fingers slipping on the keyboard. Missed words or grammatical errors, or badly phrased or placed words/sentences are not typos.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is just something for me to do when I'm on hold or at break. I have roughly 10 to 15 minutes a day which I can spend on the computer, so I often get in a hurry. Unless I make a major change, I am usually only going to give a very brief, generic edit-summary.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Widmanstätten pattern, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ferrite (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I found it on Fox Island, same as with the one I used to forge the hatchet. Like most of my photos, I took it at my house. Zaereth (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I should have put something for scale, but the meteorite is about the size of a large egg. I must say, I was unaware of any database, and so never reported them. I kept them as curiosities, but never bothered to see if they have any sort of value. I did want to see if I could really forge one into a weapon, though. I've seen quite a bit of meteor activity up here. Two of them were spectacular ... and scary as hell. These northern latitudes, like Alaska, Russia, Canada and Greenland, seem ripe for it, but much of the land is either inaccessible, spruce bog and lakes, or covered in deep snow and ice. Zaereth (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
hey zaraeth,i read your article about the tempering of steel,i saw the picture you uploaded about the different colors obtained when you heat a steel bar at different levels!
i wanted to ask you a few questions.
i have this commercial project where i have to design a showroom,
do you think its appropriate to use these differentially heated steel bars on the external facade of the showroom,approximately 2500mm tall and 150 mm wide.
i am a student,so forgive me if this question sounds silly,but its a very important project for me so it would mean the world to ,me if you respond!
and also if i can actually use this on the external facade should they be treated with something for protection?
and do you have any idea about how can they actually be fixed or installed?
thank you for your time.
waiting :) Ashwi jain (talk) 06:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the barnstar! Nice to meet you.
I'm sorry, but at this point all I may have is more questions for you than answers. For example, will the steel be exposed to weathering, and water in particular? The oxide layer provides a protective boundary, but it is an extremely thin layer. The effect is actually very similar to anodizing, but the iron oxide is not as tough as aluminum oxide, nor as thick. However, if protected with a coating of oil, it can last a long time. For example, the sword in the article is hanging on my wall. Like all of my swords, I keep it oiled to protect it from corrosion. A clear-coat of paint should provide a more lasting protection.
I've seen this used quite often in artwork. You can often visit gift-shops here and find steel "Alaskas" cut from pieces of the pipeline, and then tempered so they turn all purple or blue, or maybe blue in the center with gold edges. I even saw one where the artist had tempered it blue, then buffed out the stars of the little-dipper, and tempered it again so they turned yellow, resembling the Alaska flag. Steel salmon, and all kinds of art, now that I think about it. So, yes I think it is possible, but may need some added protection. Without knowing more about the specifics it is hard to give you a complete answer.
Keep in mind that almost any form of iron will produce colors, so it doesn't necessarily need to be steel. Wrought iron can produce the same effect, but is more resistant to corrosion. (The greater the carbon-content, the faster it will rust.) Stainless steel will also produce colors, only at different temperatures than carbon steel. It also doesn't need to be hardened beforehand, because the colors will form everytime it is heated, all you need to do is remove any previous oxidation first. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 08:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know, one thing I forgot to mention is that coating the steel with oil (or whatever) does alter the color a bit, because whatever you coat it with will have a different refractive index than air. There is no real color. It's all a trick of refractive indices and coating thicknesses that are a fraction of the wavelength of the light. (Really remarkable when you think about it. Destroying one color enhances the other colors, causing in itself no loss in reflected energy.) Zaereth (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your edit on Barrel Roll. I had read the IP edit backwards and thought they were adding the unnecessary piping when in fact they were removing it. Thank you for undoing my mistake. SPACKlick (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Thanks for the explanation. I was quite confused by your edit summary, but now it makes perfect sense. :-) Zaereth (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Falling leaf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flat spin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mangalloy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ferrite. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
No problem. You know, chocolate was exactly what I had in mind when I left my edit summary, but since sugar is a glass former, I though I should include all confectioneries. That is interesting, though. I never though of building structural integrity with chocolate. I might have left it had it been thoughtfully placed and worded, but it was difficult to tell from good faith and vandalism. Zaereth (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I was advocating genocide on Wikipedia, your comparison would be apt. I'm only suggesting that the word "deniers" be replaced by "doubters" in Category:Climate change deniers though. Obviously you care very much about this topic (which is great) and we honestly disagree about the category (which is fine) so I'm choosing to just looking at this as an example of Godwin's law. Going forward though, such comparisons probably won't encourage collaboration with other Wikipedia editors.
I was not comparing you to the Nazis anymore than I was comparing you to the Romans or the Americans, although I see it did make the point. (Not very fun being labeled, is it, even if it was imagined.) I was making point of how categorizing people --even with the best of intentions-- has been used for centuries to rally people behind a cause, and always at a cost to those who are chosen as scapegoats, be they Christian, Jewish, American Indian, Kurdish, Protestant, black, or so called "communist sympathizers." (No, I'm also not comparing you to any of these peoples either.) I know my views on the subject are very complex, yet I would hate to be called a "Climate-change denier" simply because its easier to brand me with a label than it is to consider that I may have a different and even a valid point of view than yours. Zaereth (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Christmas! Christmas, everywhere, on every talk page, I do dispair Seasons being greeted and Wikibreaks told, but still time for a little more editing, for being WP:BOLD! So go on, go forth and enjoy beyond concern Your Wiki will be waiting for when you return.
The last thing I suspected to find at your talk page this embracing season is a discussion about Nazis. Hope all is well in your winter wonderland. I'm not doing much article work but will start again soon. But before I re-start, I plan on studying your writing tips page. Always nice to think of you, Buster Seven Talk15:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This was my favorite reply to my Christmas Card . User BoringHistoryGuy sent it. The Planet seems to be saying something. I hope we are listening. I saw something about the ice flows the other day. Seemed ominous. Maybe if I keep looking in the clouds I won't notice that my feet are getting wet. Be safe. Buster Seven Talk01:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
|}[reply]
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.
Gee, thanks. I'm flattered. I took that photo simply because nearly all the photos you see of Anchorage (at the time) were from the water, so I thought Wikipedia should at least have one from the other direction. Of course, the day I decided to go up the mountain turned out to be the coldest of the year. (I had -27 F on the thermometer at my house. Probably way colder up the mountain but warmer down by the ocean.) I'm glad you like it. I had a photo of a Christmas Jack-o-lantern somewhere, but seem to have misplaced it. These last few winters have been too warm for them to survive past Halloween, although it's rare for them to make it to Christmas anyhow because they're such a treat for the moose. Zaereth (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Forge welding, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Smelt. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thanks! It flashed across BLPN for a moment, so I decided to poke my nose in. I don't think I have the patience of the other editor, though. Have a great weekend! Zaereth (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.
The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Forge welding, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plasticity. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, Zaereth. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi Zaereth. If you haven't already done so, you might be interested to read epigenetics. Plants are also remarkable for the redundancy of their chemical pathways, but I don't think that is well discussed here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with the concept, but the word is new to me. Thanks! I'll read through it when I have some time at the end of the day. Botany isn't a huge specialty of mine, that is beyond knowing what I can and cannot eat. (There is so much food out there it's hard to believe people go hungry.) Animal behavior, psychology, and evolution is more my interest. The behavior of the spider was especially fascinating. It had to be a local spider which found a new method for trapping food. Not only was it able to perfectly camouflage itself, it had to observe and strategize a very ingenious method (for a spider that is). I've always equated the behavior of these plants as something like a polar bear. Most bears are selective and don't actively stalk, hunt and eat humans, but a polar bear will. When food is scarce, you adapt and take whatever you can get. Zaereth (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Zaereth. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.
The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?
In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Zaereth, I'm not sure I understand your statement: "I believe that Wikipedia policy is fundamentally flawed, and should state that Wikipedia is about reporting all truths that are significant, verifiable, and reliably sourced." How is this different from our current policy? --ChetvornoTALK22:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was from a long time ago. I think the policy has had some major improvements over the years. I've been involved in all sorts of writing classes and the like since I was a child. The internet reminds me of how the printing press was employed in its infancy, when newspapers were little more than blogs, full of more opinion than fact. It really wasn't until the last century that the ideals of journalistic integrity were formed. Journalistic writing is really built on the same principles as scientific theory. For more, see User:Zaereth/Writing tips for the amateur writer#Opinion versus fact. Much of my page came from my thoughts about encounters I had on or off Wikipedia at one time or another. That particular line came from frustration in working on a political article. I hate politics, but I really learned a lot about Wikipedia, and how on those articles the wikilawyers, pundits, and spin doctors will try to shape every policy to benefit their own candidate. Since I moved away from that arena, it hasn't been much of a problem. Zaereth (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zaereth, I don't know if you happened to see my ping at Talk:Rothenberg Ventures last week, but the SPA returned, and added a new paragraph to the introduction: mention of a lawsuit apparently filed in March that has not been reported by a reliable source, and for which an external link has not even been included. I've tried seeking help with another editor who had recently made a constructive edit on the page, however he seems reluctant to get involved. Would you be willing to look at this again, and remove it if you agree it fails WP:VERIFY? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WWB Too. Sorry, I did not see your ping. I have a bad habit of getting impatient with computers, and usually start scrolling down or clicking on my watchlist before the page even finishes loading. (I apparently have 27 pings accumulated in there.)
I'll look into this when I get a chance. I'm almost always very busy in real life. Keep in mind that we are all volunteers here, so people may not always respond in a timely fashion. (For me, this is just something to do when I'm on hold, otherwise I'm rarely wasting my time on the computer.)
Also keep in mind that, while I keep BLP/N on my watchlist, I rarely add actual BLPs to it. The main reason is that I rarely get around to cleaning it up, so any clutter I add will likely be there for years. I got a pretty good introduction to the policy during my first year here, but mostly work on technical and scientific articles nowadays. (Not that I won't help when I can, but don't expect a knight in shining armor on call at a moments notice.) You may also want to check the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, because there are often people there who have a particular interest in helping those with a COI (especially when you're up-front about it and following all the rules.) Zaereth (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I finally had a chance to look, and what you had there was a blatant BLP vio. (Forget verify.) I explained on the talk page. I hope that helps. I would suggest familiarizing yourself with the BLP policy as well as the other core policies. When you go to BLP/N, you'll get a much better response is you can show that an actual violation has occurred. Otherwise people are likely to ignore you, or simply recommend another noticeboard like RS/N or NPOV/N, etc... Have a good day. Zaereth (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Zaereth. I think I know the policies and guidelines pretty well, but it's been awhile since I've been to BLP/N. I do see your point that a BLP-specific rule is going to be more persuasive to folks on that board. Very much appreciate your help, and fingers crossed Avno1991 doesn't come back soon. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments re: the Deborah Dwork page. I was the editor who first raised concerns regarding the page's merit as a biography of a living person, given its self-promotional tone and poorly sourced content, and I agree that it may be reasonable to recommend for WP:AFD (vs. significant edits by an impartial third party).
I'm something of a novice editor, but I noticed that the Deborah Dwork entry on the BLP noticeboard has been [archived] by a bot (lowercase sigmabot III). Seems to me that the topic won't get much follow-up on the archive page...
I don't mean to make this a personal crusade of mine (I realize that comes with its own risk of bias). So I figured I'd ask you -- what's the protocol, here? How can we clean this up?
BLPN is a busy place, so discussions are archived fairly quickly. I'm awful busy in real life, so I don't have time to do it myself, but perhaps I can give you some assistance if you want to give it a shot. The first thing I would do is delete any puffery, which are adjectives such as "greatest", "best", "well received" (in this particular article, look for words like "critically important", innovative", "broke new ground"). Then look at words which imply that the subject herself wrote it, such as "imagined." (How can anyone but her know what she has imagined?) Also, if you know what to look for, the use of spatial words and prepositions can be a dead giveaway. (See User:Zaereth/Writing tips for the amateur writer#Spatial perspective.) Finally, you can look at cutting anything that is not directly found in reliable sources. Cite WP:BLP and WP:RS for your reasons. Since the latter covers nearly everything, that pretty much leaves the article completely gutted; whittled down to just her name and profession. It's a good idea to leave a message on the talk page explaining what you did and why. You can reference this discussion or the one a BLPN, or both. (All of this will help with the deletion process.)
At this point there are three options, 1.) leave it alone and let someone else handle it, or 2.) go find reliable sources and rewrite the article to match Wikipedia standards, or 3.) take it to WP:Articles for deletion and nominate it there. The last is a fairly easy process, simply follow the instructions on the page and give good reasons why it should be deleted. The case will be reviewed by people there, who can then decide if it is salvageable or not. I hope that help, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, Zaereth. Since you had previously edited the Rothenberg Ventures entry, I wanted to give notice that I've proposed a more concise version of the article's Controversies section, which you can see at Talk:Rothenberg Ventures. I hope you'll give it a look; let me know if you have any questions. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Zaereth. You have new messages at Talk:Carol Burnett. Message added 00:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi there! I noticed a post you made recently at the BLP noticeboard regarding sources of English. I was fascinated because you listed Pictish as a major source of English words--any chance you could point me to something about this? I've had some academic interaction with the Pictish language (on monuments, anyway!) and I've never heard this. If it's a bother feel free to ignore me. Thanks! Dumuzid (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you can find a copy on the internet, but check the book A History of the English Language by Elly van Gelderen. The list I gave is in order of prevalence, with both Pictish and Gaelic being far last. Latin is only last because those words are mostly for the scientific ones. To put it simply, almost none of English comes from the natives of England (the Welsh), but most of our words come from various conquerors or settlers. Scandinavian makes up most of the words we commonly use everyday, indicating that England was settled by (most likely) Vikings many times throughout its history. Hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Electric spark, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Arc and Stun gun (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, Zaereth. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi, it's true that I'm no longer active on the site ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Deglr6328#Fluorescent_spectral_diagram ) but I stop by very rarely (mostly to see what's been deleted that I've done here - *eyeroll*) and I think your color image of a fluorescent lamp spectrum overlaid onto my plot is great. It pleases me to see that spectrum being used in so many places around the internet and I think your spectrum lines up so closely because most modern bulbs are using the same rare-earth phosphor blend, probably even from the same supplier. You don't need my permission to modify though as long as the original is attributed, which it look like it is. Thanks, -deglr6328 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:1014:8116:DD80:FC9:4AFB:7EE (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dye laser w/ grating as both the high reflector and tuning element
Well, when it comes to copyright I have little understanding of the law and try to take no chances. Fortunately, Srleffler was able to answer my question. I'm glad you like it. I was really just curious to see it lined up, but was astonished it did so well. Slight misalignment in the red, which I'm attributing to spherical aberration of the camera lens. (The grating had to be really, really close to the camera. It's just a little, 1" blazing angle grating from the laser pictured to the right. At normal distances I could get wonderful, monochromatic pictures of the lamp, but getting all wavelengths in a single frame required the angular size of the lamp the be very small.) But it was interesting looking at the actual spectrum of different light sources. Anyhow, thanks for the reply. Your graphs are really very useful, and I'm sure will be around for a long time, so thanks for sharing them. Zaereth (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you for your timely response to my concerns and informing me about my deficiencies regarding policies. I understand the need to redact primary sources containing personal information. I also understand the need to protect primary information like date of birth. FreedomtoAssociate (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FreedomtoAssociate. No problem. Policy can be quite overwhelming. I would recommend closely reading the BLP policies, and consider that they work in accordance with, yet ultimately trump all other policies.
It looks like you're trying to do everything right, which is encouraging. My advice is to find the sources that support your statements, making sure they are acceptable, reliable sources, and that they actually say what you attribute them as saying. Getting the legwork done is 90% of the battle. If you can't find the sources, sometimes we just have to leave the info out until one comes along. (That's out of our hands, only the sources, and to some degree, the subject, can decide what gets printed in RSs.) Once you have them, then go back to the talk page and make your request again. (The BLP noticeboard is more for reporting egregious problems.) Keep in mind that balance of the article means we try to keep a neutral tone and report information in proportion to what is in the sources. (It doesn't necessarily mean an equal portion of positive and negative, but both positives and negatives in proportion to what is found in the sources. It may not always seem fair to the subject, but you wouldn't expect and article on, say ... the Pope, to be as negative as one on a serial killer or something, not that I'm comparing the subject to either of these extremes, but I hope you get the point.) I hope that helps, and thank you for trying to get this done the right way. I know it's a big bureaucratic pain for you, but these safeguards exist for good reason, plus it's very refreshing to us. Good luck, and I wish you well. Zaereth (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few more references to reinforce the goals of La Famia Foundation when Floyd's Creative Arts Trust Assets were purchased. Hopefully, the reference to the building collapse would be acceptable since it was posted on a Community bulletin board in the wake of the earthquakes devastation. FreedomtoAssociate (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'm not sure that in and of itself will be sufficient, but I'm sure those who watch the article will be able to help. (I don't have much time myself, as I'm about to go on vacation.) One thing to consider is that "negativity" is often a matter of personal perception, usually due to deep, inner feelings about oneself hidden in the fathoms of the psyche. There is no shame in failure. The only shame is in not trying your best. Many of the richest people in the world (including a certain president who go will go unnamed for fear of attracting the vultures) failed many times before finally succeeding. (In fact, I think the "right to fail" is a fundamental part of any capitalistic society which we seem to be losing, for example the automotive or medical industries which can and should be subjected to the same checks and balances as any other business.) Reading some of the news articles I don't see this being used as some sort of shaming ploy; they simply don't go into the kind of detail you are looking for. I imagine they simply assumed (being a NZ paper) that the earthquakes being a factor was just a given, but whatever the reason they didn't seem to feel the need to go into the causes in any depth, and I'm not sure that is a bad thing. Zaereth (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Zaereth...back in June you participated at BLP/N and in one of your comments, you presented the perfect description for an ongoing issue that has plagued some of our controversial BLPs. I think it should be included in our BLP policy, so let me know if you start a discussion on that TP. In the interim, what did you mean by "these types of articles"? I'm of the mind that it would apply to any BLP who is pushing a controversial belief or ideology.
"[BLPs with controversial beliefs or ideologies should not] become focused on bolstering and subsequently refuting the subject's views or theories rather than actually defining the subject. [removed reference to article above] In many cases this may in fact be due to the subject trying to push their own ideas, while others work diligently to refute them, but [many] of these cases are between editors that have no affiliation with the subject other than a personal belief/disbelief in their work. A person's biography is not a good place to debate a scientific theory [or ideological belief]; those debates should be in the articles about the theories [or respective beliefs]. For a biography, it is enough to simply state what their views are and link to the articles which expand on those views….” Zaereth (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
"If so, then great, and I agree completely.” — Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Do I have your permission to quote the edited version of your comment on my TP if I state that it is an edited version? Atsme📞📧06:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I'm flattered. Sure, you can use my quote with your modifications. As I recall, I was just trying to clear up what I saw as a misunderstanding between two people whose opinions I've come to respect.
By "these types of articles" I guess what I meant at the time are ones of a controversial nature (in particular, biographies of a controversial nature, or where the subject's work is perhaps more controversial than they are). I started out here spending nearly the first entire year just watching and seeing how Wikipedia works. I picked what was probably one of the most controversial articles of the time, mainly because if involved my own state of Alaska. It was a huge learning experience, and especially about policy and BLP. Since then, however, I have worked mostly on technical articles, where there is almost never any controversy. (A lot of myths and misunderstandings, but rarely controversies.) Those types of articles are pretty straight-forward, while with "these types" the boundary between what's relevant and irrelevant to the actual subject may not seem so clear. Zaereth (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm writing to complain about the units of temperature you used recently... :P just kidding. I wanted to thank you for your response and let you know the units didn't matter and the guy that had a problem with it seemed to have an axe to grind. It's a shame that it puts people off responding to questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.230.100.66 (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no good deed goes unpunished. I really think s/he meant well, although I was a little put off by the round-about, down-talking way of getting the point across. (I'm not an idiot, but not a mind reader either.) Maybe it's just me, because I'm a very direct person and like directness in others. It's an interesting page because you see a lot of good questions, if I only had more time in my life for the nit-picking...
Argon flashtube with Teflon seals
Thanks for your reply. I can dig up some sources if you like, such as [this one, but most will be library books and that's the really time-consuming part, but I rarely forget anything, ever. I've learned a lot about many various materials through my jobs and hobbies, including polymers and elastomers. I found out a lot about high-temp polymers when building flashtubes, because in some of my earlier attempts I was trying it with O-rings for electrode seals. (In fact, here is one of my successful lamps in this photo.) Very few could reach the temps needed for the bombardment process, and only two didn't experience outgassing of VOCs (the cause of the rubber or plastic smell at a tire shop or Toys-R-Us, which was even more important because they will quickly up the gas pressure inside). Those were Teflon and Viton; both fluoropolymers. Anyhow, I'm glad you found the info helpful. Zaereth (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Zaereth. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.
PS: I don't speak Chinese, so blame google if that didn't come out right. I'm always happy to assist with English grammar, though, and I can see how difficult it can be to follow all the rules attached to those silly articles and prepositions. It's mostly idiomatic, meaning most people know it sounds funny, but they just don't know why..
Thanks for your interest and input. I'm now away myself for a few days, but hopefully I'll be able to get back to it and clean it up further. In the meantime, I'll revert the lede to a more neutral state. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Littman until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Safrolic (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.
So the question is why you are actively deleting primary sources that are discussed by a secondary source? Maybe you have a reason to do so, but have not articulated it, why in this particular case they should not be in the article. -- GreenC17:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BLPPRIMARY states unequivocally "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." (Emphasis in original.) This is nonnegotiable. You may use primary sources to augment a seconday source, such as the subject's personal website for example, but not court documents, birth certificates, marriage licenses, phone books, or other such public records. Further discussion should take place at BLP/N, so I'm transeferring this there. Zaereth (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mirror, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aberration (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Hello, Zaereth. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Thanks for taking the time to document your well-thought-out and well written commentary about the merits of the recent Contrad Mainwaring article edits. Your commentary should become part of the FAQ! Thanks for your contributions to WP. Mwikieditor (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, the reason I'm less sympathetic to the IP's (The article's subject's?) rants is that this page was originally created and maintained by two socks, who were clearly either Ms Wang, her husband, or someone working for their company. They, and whoever is promoting the opposite claim, edit warred, socked, and posted long rants without listening to anyone trying to help. (the reason I even know her husband's name is because he came here and veered into NLT issues. see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive307#Possible_NLT_at_BLPN) page protection quieted the issue. I'm of course happy to help anyone remove inaccurate and/or libelous information from their page. Hydromania (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Thanks for your efforts. I can tell what personality types I'm dealing with there. People come here and think this is facebook or something, then, surprise surprise... I don't have enough facts yet to be either sympathetic nor unsympathetic. If I'm going to work on it I want to do it right, and that may not be what the subject wants but it's what the reader deserves. Zaereth (talk) 03:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edit on Sarah Palin, im frankly not looking forward to whatever "discussion" occurs around that, but its nice to know someone else is looking. FYI, the same user is trying to re-insert silly content into the Sarah Palin template as well:
You're welcome. And thanks to you for keeping an eye on things. That was the first article I ever worked on, back when it was really controversial, so it's etched in stone on my watchlist. One of my biggest peeves was people going after her children as a means to get to her, which is just crossing the line as far as I'm concerned. (Interestingly, you only tend to see that sort of thing from gangsters, thugs, and the so-called "progressive" left.) I've never really edited templates, though, but will keep that in mind. Thanks again for your help keeping things in check. Zaereth (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.
Happy Holidays. I know. It's the same card as last year. But, I still like the message and still think it's attainable. Best to you and yours...Hope all is well! ―Buster7☎14:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've just spent the last half hour or so enjoying the memories that flow from your talk page. What prompted it was noticing that you are still involved in discussions about editing the Sarah Palin article. I removed her from my watchlist years ago, but the fond memories of training my "wikipedia voice" linger. I have never been able to duplicate the intense discussions we had back then nor the feeling that I was surrounded by geniuses. Glad you are still here providing insight and wisdom. ―Buster7☎15:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the christmas wishes, hope yours was good and have a good new year. Alas I have been exceptionally busy offline as have had two job (and in fact, career) changes in the last 8 months so have had very little time that isnt spent either working, or playing Warframe to relax from working. Fortunately new job (started at end of Nov) is a)home working with some travel, b)less hours, c)more pay, d)all round better. So in the new year I will have some more free time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, it would be great if the article could remain standing. He has only been interviewed by activists and alternative journalists but as there are many other people that lived in Shirley Oaks and claim that they were abused there I think that his story is legitimate. There are also many police officers who stated in interviews that the meat rack in London existed. I removed all names from the article and hope that his life's story can remain as an example for other victims of abuse. Please let me know whether that would be OK. It has been viewed at least 40 times per day. I think that people are interested in his story and that it could set an example.--Sparrow (麻雀)🐧14:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zaereth,
Someone nominated Glass for GA review. The reviewer wrote some comments here: Talk:Glass/GA2. Basically they didn't want to review the article until some of the concerns remaining from an earlier review had been completed. In the last few days I have been through glass and edited it extensively, hopefully it is now in a much better state than it was before? I haven't gone into the references to find page numbers etc that the reviewer asked for yet, as that will require some dedicated time. I'm wondering if you could take a look? See if there is anything you think that could be improved. After the remaining minor things are done I'll ping the reviewer to restart the GA review. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Polyamorph,
Sure, I'll be happy to take a look, that is, if you can wait until next week. I'm going to be a bit preoccupied with Valentine's Day stuff this week, so I won't have much time for Wikipedia, but will get on this when I get back home next week. I hope that works for you. Zaereth (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, just a quick look over, I think I've mostly done enough but you may spot things I've missed! Let me know when you've taken a look and I'll renominate and ping the reviewer. Enjoy Valentines! :) Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'll be back home tonight, so I can start tomorrow. I do this stuff while I'm on hold usually, so give me a few days to complete. Thanks, and cheers to you. Zaereth (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Polyamorph. I have started looking into the article, and have gotten part way through. I do see a number of things that I think can be improved. For example, in the "History" section there is at least one sentence that is exactly the same as found in the lede. The lede should be a summary of the article, but not really a repeat of what is in it, so that comes off as a bit awkward. I'd also like to see a better transition from ancient glass, which had to be hand-formed with tools, and thus mostly consisted of crude objects and jewelry, to the more modern glassblowing techniques developed around the first century.
In the "Properties" section, it may be worth including a link to gradient index materials, because lensing is not always a surface geometry effect. I notice a few sentences that are hard to follow, and I had to go back and re-read them to get the intended meaning, such as the last two in this section. A few commas here or there can help fix this type of problem. It would be nice in tht section if we could have a few more numbers, like hardness, density, elasticity, etc...
In the "Types" section, just from reading the text it can be difficult to tell if, say, borosilicate and lead glass are types of soda-lime glass, or different types altogether. They're all silicate glasses, of course, but it reads like, "Start with these ingredients and you get soda-lime, add some of this and it turns into borosilicate, then a pinch of lead and voila, it all turns into lead glass." It may be worth separating those into subsections in order to clarify that they're different types.
And I would start off each subsection with, "[Type of glass} is..." (ie: Soda-lime glass is... or Lead glass is...) For example, from reading the "Network glass" subsection, I am more confused than when I started. What is the definition of a network glass? What is not a network glass? What does jargon like "network", "formers", and "intermediates" mean? This should all be explained, or at least the meaning should be evident from context, otherwise I'm left wondering, "Why is this even here?" Same with glass ceramics and fiberglass (aka: glass cotton-candy). What are they specifically, and what sets them apart?
Hi again Polyamorph. I'm sorry for the delay. The problem with taking a vacation is that no one does your job while you're gone, so I've been playing catch up. I wanted to be thorough. I think the changes you made are a definite improvement, and seems to have fixed any coherency issues that the newcomer might stumble over. I looked at the rest of the article and see no issues. It's all very well written and easily understandable. I'll go through it again and see if there are any grammatical issues or other copyediting, and if so I'll fix them myself. I think it should be ready to go. Zaereth (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do, as time permits. I don't know much about glass art or things of that nature. Most of my experience with glass comes from building lasers and flashtubes.
I do know some about staining it, such as manganese (Mn2)can help make it white, which had been known since the time of ancient Egypt, but Mn3 can also make it purple. Gold is used for deep red colors, while selenium for bright red. Chromium turns it bright green. (Oddly, chromium turns red in sapphire, its lasing wavelength, which is why you can't use chromium glass for lasers.) Neodymium makes it purple, and can be used for high powered lasers (better than YAG) that can even be pumped with sunlight. Uranium can be used for pink, yellow, or green colors. Iron can make it dark green or even brown, while iron sulfide can turn it orange. And of course, cobalt turns it deep blue, while copper a bright blue. Cadmium makes yellow, and erbium pink. I also know that many other stains exist, but many are photosensitive and may change over time with light exposure; some may darken and others may fade. Bulb glass is a good example, which will darken during use. Other stains like gold and cobalt are more stable, which had been know since pre-Migration Period times, and it's the more stable ones that are used more often for coloring.
On a side note, I have always been fascinated by ancient metallurgy and always thought that glass technology was likely a byproduct of that. I found the theory about ancient slags as being a possible start very intriguing. I had never thought of that, but had always assumed a likely explanation to be the use of crucibles as a possible beginning, and especially in trying to find a material that wouldn't vitrify at the necessary temperatures. In the study of ancient crucibles, the composition of the clay, the level of vegetal temper, and the level and depth of the vitrification are often used to determine the temperature reached by the ancient furnaces. But glass (silica sand) was also the oldest flux for steel, and glass had been used for fluxes in many crucible steels, so it makes sense. (Likewise, the use of manganese to make it clear seems a likely explanation as to why it's one of the first substances to be alloyed with steel, to remove impurities, but unfortunately I don't have any sources to confirm or rebuke that.) Zaereth (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do the same. Maybe we'll both learn something. I'll be digging through sources and thinking of how to phrase things. Google books is great, but there is just so much info that you can't find on the net (and often what you can is redundant, repetitious, or useless), so I may just hit the library this weekend. Zaereth (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! Congratulations Polyamorph! Sorry I wasn't as much help as I intended to be. Sometimes life (and a car that decides to breakdown at the worst possible moment) just get in the way of what we want to do. I'm glad to see that article up to status. Great work! Zaereth (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zaereth,
We recently had a discussion on the BLP noticeboard that I felt was constructive and civil even though it did not continue today. I am just reaching out looking for some general support or maybe to find an advisor or mentor. I've been having a lot of trouble since Feb 19 starting with numerous edits from the IP editor if you may have seen in the edits history.
I feel I am being steamrolled by two editors with longer edit history primarily not willing to deal with one issue at a time instead it creates a lot of confusion. They posted to the notice boards, not me. Not acknowledging my points, or I thought something was resolved like the MOS:SAMESURNAME, since there was no objection after I replied on the talk page with sources, but then today it was back and forth until finally I think there was acceptance. I have said I am open to discussion but they were unwilling, just making mostly hostile blanket comments instead of addressing details. I feel there were a lot of false statements made against me. I really just want to cooperate and deal with things logically and precisely, with the general hostility it creates a lot of confusion and distraction, lack of acknowledgement of things I say. I was disturbed by the insulting comments and now the user who denied that they were personal attacks wants to ban me even though I remained civil. Hoping to find some mentors, advisors or just general support to talk to.
I can see the user who just said he wants to ban me tried to get others involved [[2]]
Hoping to get a truce where we can deal with issues one at a time logically and precisely without insults and getting personal.
-Khawue (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Khawue. I really wasn't as much discussing as giving advice --to both sides. To start with, I know absolutely nothing about this subject, except that I like him better than the other guy on Criminal Intent. (You know, the one that always leans over sideways when talking to people.) To me, most celebrities are just people with a job just like everyone else; most of them I may recognize their faces but couldn't tell you their real names to save my life.
I look at BLPs like I do most other articles, whether it's a physics article like potential energy, a chemistry article such as alloy, a historical article like dogfight or a technical article like basic fighter maneuvers. When it comes to writing them the principles are still the same. There is a ton of information out there on all these subjects, so it's necessary to whittle it sown to a brief summary that is not so long it will lose an average reader's interest. The idea is to provide a summary of all information, not all information, and that invariably will mean wee need to find a way to weed out all the trivial stuff and get down to the nitty gritty, and to leave all the fine details and trivial information aside. To do this it's important to put aside our personal desires about what information is important to us, for whatever reason, and try to see it from the reader's perspective.
You see, I asked you some questions at BLP, but they were more rhetorical. The questions I asked are questions the reader will be asking, and questions that the writing needs to answer. I haven't even gotten to sources. For more info you may find User:Zaereth/Writing tips for the amateur writer helpful, but nothing I could say beats the advice given by Robert Shaw:
"The task of the fighter pilot is to obtain as much tactical information as possible from every available source and then filter and analyze this information based on knowledge of its source and his best estimates of its timeliness, accuracy, and reliability. Some of the information received may be conflicting, and pilot judgment is required to separate the wheat from the chaff....
"Overreliance on any one source of tactical information is a common problem and often leads to disaster. This condition can be the result of actual lack of available informational sources, loss of some sources (through jamming, for example), or simply ignoring available inputs. The disregard of some available information can be fostered by a tactical doctrine that relies heavily on one source to the exclusion of others, or it may be caused by sensory overload from too much information being fed to the pilot at critical moments."
What I would really recommend is what I did when I first began here, and that is to pick a subject of which you are somewhat knowledgeable but don't really care about, and work on those articles for a while until you can really get a handle on what all the policies are, why they exist, and how they all fit together. Don't be discouraged if the consensus goes against you, but know that it's not the end of the world. There's a time to fight and a time to retreat and a time to seek compromise, and it's important to know which is which so you'll live to fight another day (metaphorically speaking). I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for a civil response from you (and others). It's refreshing. I wanted to make a detailed argument, but just don't see me myself doing that now. For one, there's not much reasoning with the people who oppose infoboxes on certain biographical articles. When looking through the archived talk pages on Kubrick and Grant, people have given way better arguments than I could ever give expressing the worth of infoboxes on certain pages, but even then the people who oppose don't budge from their position and nothing gets done. Another reason is that I've worn myself out for the past 24 hours writing to these folks and a few hours ago with the lengthy report on the noticeboard.
I'm actually just gonna walk away from Wikipedia altogether after today. The reasons being is that I've quite clearly pissed off some people who oppose the infoboxes on celebs, and I just feel like all that contesting I did was for nothing. Not that I thought or shouldn't have thought I would change a thing. Another thing is that there are people who could give better and well thought arguments on the support of infoboxes. And this whole ordeal has just taken the Wikipedia system out of me, like an autopsy. I can't believe after a year of editing, making articles, and uploading pictures to Commons would just end like this.
I think I'll just help contribute to the Lost Media Wiki. I really like what they're doing over there.
I understand that snap-judgment desire to just walk away and never look back. Been there myself a time or two. Ultimately, you have to do what is best for you, and if Wikipedia is stressing you out, that can affect your health and well being. I don't think people are really pissed at you specifically, but are really just worn out by the previous discussions and are thinking "Oh brother, here we go again". Just give them a break for a little while. The moratorium ends in 2021, and that seems like a good amount of time for everyone to relax and come back fresh. My advice is, don't lose any sleep over it.
When it comes to writing a good argument, time is your best friend. Fight that urge to respond immediately. Go do something else for a while, or sleep on the problem. Then write out your best, most compelling argument. Then delete it and walk away. Sleep on it some more, let your subconscious work on it, and try again the next day. Then delete it again, take a few weeks off, or a few months, and let it move into the unconscious. Then try again. You'll find it gets better and better with time.
Here's the thing: there is no point in trying to convince those people who have already made up their minds. The people you should be trying to convince are people like me, who have no opinion on infoboxes whatsoever. I've never thought about them. I rarely look at them. They are good for some articles, like if I want to know the mass or diameter of the Earth, or the properties and allotropes of metallic elements, without scanning through the entire article. But nobody has really given me any reason why they should or should not be used in certain biographies. Now someone like you could easily tip the scales for me by explaining exactly what purpose they would serve in these articles, and how not having them detracts from the viewer's experience. Then me and others like me may feel compelled to join into the discussion and help tip the scales. But right now I just don't have a clue, so it seems like much ado about nothing. Zaereth (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the understanding and your advice! I will keep this in my mind!
Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Steve7c8 (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HiSteve7c8. I'll give it a good read and see if I spot anything that can be fixed to help ensure it passes, and maybe help with some of the concerns brought up in the assessment. My time right now is very limited, and I've never actually edited that article except to add a photo once (which isn't there anymore), but I do have some knowledge about it and about writing in general, so I'll see what I can do.
Right off the bat, I notice that in the lede we list situational awareness as being one of its capabilities, but situational awareness is a mental (human) thing that can't be replicated by a machine. In short, it's the ability to quickly analyze a changing situation-dynamic at any given time, plot the outcome of future events if that situation continues to unfold, and what action(s) you can take to alter those future events for a better outcome. That requires both comprehension and imagination, which is beyond the capabilities of any machine, so it looks odd there. Perhaps we mean that it has features to help increase pilot awareness, but it seems misleading to say the aircraft has awareness. Zaereth (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, I'll change it to "advanced avionics" and mention that they enhance the pilot's situational awareness further down. Steve7c8 (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mick, I am aware of the discussion, but thanks for letting me know. I'll keep an eye on it, and if I feel I need to add anything there, I will, although I may not watchlist it. (I rarely ever clean out my watchlist, so I tidy up by limiting the number.) For now I'm just giving you the tools you need. And let's face it, you'll get a lot more eyes on it from BLPN than at the talk page, so I'll leave one more example there. Zaereth (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Zaereth. I hope you are doing well. I recently changed the indentation on your comment on the BLPN thread [4], and I thought you may be interested in this essay, Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks, which I recently found very interesting. I had no idea about the whole list issue, but the TLDR version is that you should copy and paste the previous comment's indentation or else it can create a bunch of extra lists that are read aloud for screen readers. Take care. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, great. Now can you translate that to English? There are some things I know about and some things I just can't comprehend, and computers are the latter. Up until a few years ago, my only computer was at work. I never got one for myself until I discovered flight sim, and even then it took me two frustrating years to get it set up the way I wanted it. And even then I finally had to call a friend at a major aircraft factory and have him put their flight sim guy on the line and walk me through all the intricacies. (Definitely not plug and play.) I like to think I'm good at translating science and physics to English, but that computer jargon baffles me every time. I learned to use Wikipedia by trial and error, and by going to edit pages to see how others did that ... whatever, and honestly every time I have convert some measurement I have to go find it already done somewhere, and copy/paste the mark-up in the article I'm working on.
So I don't know what is meant by list, or HTML or any of that stuff. But I take it if everyone else is using asterisks, then so should I? Zaereth (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll give it a try. Basically, if the indentation of a new comment does not match the previous comment, then it can create additional words that get read aloud for people who use screen readers (programs that read the text of articles out loud to people who need it). So you can use whatever indentation you want on your new comment, but just copy and paste the previous indentation before adding your new colon or asterisk.
If the previous comment is ":::**", you can use ":::***" for a bulleted new comment or ":::**:" to not have it bulleted. All that matters is the ":::**" stays the same.
For the comment after your new comment, if you did non-bulleted (":::**:"), the person could use ":::**:*" if they want their comment bulleted.
Does that make any sense? They key is to just copy and paste whatever the previous comment had, and then add your own : or * based on what you need. That will help people with accessibility/disability issues who are on the site because the screen reader will only read out "start list" and "end list" once, rather than saying it multiple times for one list. If I have gotten anything wrong, maybe the author of the essay, RexxS, can correct me. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the explanation. That does help. Perhaps you could add it to the essay to help others. By the way, I was only kidding when I asked for an explanation, but I should've used a little smiley-face. (See, I still call them little smiley faces :-) Thanks again Zaereth (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Zaereth, for all the work you do on Wikipedia. The indentation issues have been a pain for folks using screen readers for years, but we're making steady progress in trying to make things a bit better for them. As long as you're cool with someone occasionally fixing a faulty indent you might make, it's not a big deal. Happy editing, and take a look at this → --RexxS (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you both RexxS and wallyfromdilbert. I had no idea. I do think Wally's interpretation could help the essay dumb it down a little for those of us who don't speak computer-ese. I have to admit, I was a bit lost. If you ever need help with ... uh, flying, swordfighting, or blacksmithing issues, let me know. And check out this. It gives me a chance to give lessons, or just to do things they won't let me do in a real plane, but takes three separate computers to run it. (Looks a little jumpy at times because the frame rate doesn't always match the camera's, but if you listen closely in the Grand Canyon you can hear my passenger getting sick in the background, which happens a lot for some reason .) Have a great day. Zaereth (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some things goes over my head :(. Is there a sad face template?. That is a very impressive simulator setup you have!! Must be getting a lot of time in on it during all this staying indoors. You have a great day as well! – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wish. It's more of a winter activity, when I really am stuck indoors. This pandemic has only increased my work load. :( Guess I shouldn't complain. You have a great day as well, and stay safe. Zaereth (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! You know, I've never encountered anything like this. I guess it's true that no good deed goes unpunished. It's nice that even though you and I don't always agree, we can still be friendly. (Some of the best friends I have on Wikipedia are people who were my greatest adversaries.) Thanks again for the compliment, and have a great day. Zaereth (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
one should never call Julius Caesar "former" emperor of Rome - because he never was - he held the office of Dictator (something wholly different to the Augustine principate, or the later autocracy) than 'emperor' :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.17.116 (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I'm no political historian, but the point still stands. The idea is write articles form a point of view that is not based in the present, past or future, but as if outside of time looking in, what's know as "perfect" or "timeless" perspective. Ask me about the history of iron and steel and I can be more precise. Zaereth (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It doesn't look like any admins want to jump into the middle of that. If you'd like my opinion I would say that Hemiauchenia hasn't quite crossed the BLP line yet, but was skirting it there for a moment, so I gave them a little notice to be aware. If any clarification is needed at ANI I'll be happy to give it, but otherwise I try to avoid ANI like the plague. Thanks for the notice, and have a great day. Zaereth (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how I was skirting the line at all, look at what JzG (Guy), an administrator had to say about him at the BLP Noticeboard:
to be fair, he has been pushing conspiracy theories
the range of sources calling him a conspiracy theorist is pretty remarkable: it includes HuffPo, the Daily Mail, The Times, the Jewish Chronicle and more - a remarkably broad spectrum. Dissent from this can be found at the Daily Stormer and Sputnik. He wrote the cover blurb for David Ray Griffin's 9/11 Truther book, and defends it: "My position, as has been the case for some time, is that [conclusions detailed in 9/11 Unmasked] demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that significant parts of the official narrative are very likely to be incorrect."
the most likely explanation is that he's looking for a job or backers, and blames Wikipedia for the fact that the internet is... unflattering to his cherished beliefs. He's a regular on Sputnik and an outspoken pro-Russia / Assad pundit, so maybe he's in the same position as George Galloway, who is not seen as an honest broker when discussing these subjects. A good number of sources describe him as pro-Assad and pro-Russia. These are not fashionable positions right now.
These comments go way further than mine did. Robinson is a known 9/11 truther, and is pro-Assad, a man who has killed thousands of his own people, not some innocent defamed academic.Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry didn't see this until now. I won't comment on Guy's statements. He's a very opinionated person who also knows how to skirt the lines. I don't always agree with his reasoning or methodology, but he knows very well what he's doing. I was just hoping to diffuse a volatile situation, not get dragged into it. Zaereth (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, I did say I wouldn't make the comment again. Taking this to the administrator's noticeboard (where there was no action from the admins at all) was a nuclear option which was totally unnecessary. Thanks for your consideration. Kind regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I can't see having a separate article, as divergence and convergence are really the same thing. I thing beam divergence would be the best article to link to, but I will have to expand it to include the term or else it will be confusing to the reader. I'll see what I can do, as soon as I can work up the time. Maybe tomorrow or this weekend. Today is a bit busy for me. Have a great day, and thanks for your help. Zaereth (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You left an extended comment on the BLP noticeboard about Dov Seidman. The discussion was archived without any action having been taken. It's here: [5] As you may remember, I was transparent in letting everyone know that I have a personal relationship with Seidman. Therefore I can't implement changes. I wonder if you would either implement the changes you recommended or take the discussion out of archive so more people can participate? Thank you. Wikiqueen32 (talk) 01:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on the road don't have much time to get involved too deeply into this at the moment. As for the length of my reply, I apologize, but I didn't have time to write a short one. Here's what I'll do. I think at the very least this is entirely WP:UNDUE. There is only one source, and when I compare that to the coverage of say ... the yogurt suit, or even the other suit, I can honestly say that it doesn't deserve a larger amount of coverage in Wikipedia. The coverage we give here should be proportional to what is found out there. So I'm going to whittle it down to the bare bones.
Now I think there is a very good argument based on that same policy for removing it entirely because I don't think there is enough coverage --in camparison the rest of the coverage in proportion to the size of the article-- to warrant even a single letter, let alone an entire sentence. And I likely would have, but I have a problem: I can't actually read the source. That's where another policy, WP:RS comes in. The National Law Review is obviously a reliable, well-respected source within its community, but does that make it a reliable source for Wikipedia? Perhaps for certain types of information, but that all has to be decided on a case by case basis. No source is automatically reliable for everything they print. If the Review is just providing a synopsis of the court records, then it is still a WP:Primary source. To be a secondary source, it would have to be providing an interpretation and analysis of the primary sources. But I can't tell that from what little I can read on my screen. Perhaps it is this old computer of mine, I don't know, but all I see are advertisements covering the entire right-side of the screen, right on top of the text.
I have done the best I can under the circumstances. I don't have the time right now to monitor this, so there's always a chance that it may return, in which case it would be helpful to carefully examine the policies I mentioned. In fact, study all the policies, because, unlike rigid laws, the policies all work together and modify each other --like one big equation-- where every factor in that equation must be satisfied. Then you can take this to WP:RSN to get confirmation on whether this sources is a reliable, WP:Secondary source or if it is indeed a primary source. If primary, as I suspect, then policy says it needs to be removed. If secondary, then the next hurdle to get over is WP:BALANCE and UNDUE, which are parts of the Neutral point of view policy. If it fails those tests (which I think it might), then it should be removed entirely. Start a discussion on the article's talk page. If this yields no result, ask for broader input at WP:NPOVN. If that yields no result, you can go to WP:RFC and ask for outsiders to weigh in toward achieving a consensus. But you need to get someone to look at it who can also read the source, because I can't.
My other piece of advice is to make your requests as direct, straight forward, and concise as possible. (ie: This is what I see as the problem. This is what I see is the solution. Don't you agree?) Don't get caught up in your emotions or start claiming there are smear campaigns, or so-and-so is out to get the subject. Stuff like that will usually turn people off. Stick to the policy-based arguments and you'll be much better off. And take your time to write a much more concise argument than I've done here. (This and the one at BLPN were more advice to help you both understand the policies and where to go from here.) There is a noticeboard for about every policy, but, short of the use of actual court documents, this doesn't really fall under the realm of BLP policy in specific, since this is not a criminal case. Good luck, and I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relating to discussion in the BLP noticeboard about the capitalization of The Weeknd, you claimed that Wikipedia follows those grammar rules because of the history of the languages that went into English, implying that the choice is inherently better because of its history. I just wanted to add that appealing to other languages is a bad choice here, given that capitalization was an invention that started only around 1500 years ago - it didn't exist in classical Latin - and other languages don't use the same capitalization rules that English does. For instance, German capitalizes all nouns. Indeed, appealing only to the history of the English language isn't useful, since English itself capitalized nouns until around two hundred or three hundred years ago! These conventions are largely the invention of grammarians in the 19th century. Wikipedia follows them (such as "we never capitalize the small words"), but the reason for that is a general going-with-the-flow, not some inherent superiority of those capitalization rules.
Gbear605 (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I knew after I hit send that it was a poorly thought-out example, although having read a lot of Old English such as the works of King Aelfred, or more recently for the Viking article the works of Adam von Bremen in Latin, I do know that these traditions go a long way back. If you can read English, then it's really very easy to read Italian, French, Spanish, German, Swedish, Norse, and Latin, because English is a combination of all those languages. It's part of why unnecessarily capitalizing articles makes it even more difficult for non-native speakers of English to follow along, which was the point I was attempting to make. Zaereth (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Wow. I'm honored. Thanks Gerda. I've seen you hand these out, but never really had the time to go though the process of promoting an article to GA status (other than helping others through the process on a few articles). Ironically, my interest in metallurgy stems from an interest in human nature. How did they develop this, and why did they decide to do it that way? It's interesting that you can track the development of technology hand in hand with the development of ideologies and core beliefs, as if each are products of the other. Steel is a wonderful example of this. Anyhow, thanks for the award. Zaereth (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and quality doesn't begin with some article status attached ;) - I pinged you to the page of Hammersoft who feels that Alaska topics need more people with knowledge, - I hope you can work together. Interesting, technology and ideology, food for thought. Images help me much. Good to know you, strangely per the saddest of reasons. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...whatever you'd like. Scot or Radish or whatever. I got called a dog about thirty times in that other thread on the BLP noticeboard without being bothered, so something not intentionally offensive definitely won't bother me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You know, that reminds me ol' Raymond J Johnson Jr.. "Now you can call me Ray, or you can call me J, or you can call me Johnny, or you can call me Sonny ... but cha doesn't have to call me Johnson!" Glad to know, because you never know what will set some people off these days. Perhaps great minds do think alike, because you can call me Zaereth, or you can call me Z, you can call me he, or you can call me she..." Zaereth (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will confess that I was not familiar with that bit until the episode of King of the Hill featuring it. Beautiful dogs up top, I used to have german shepherds myself when I was younger, now I just have two mutts. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. They're my babies. I used to raise bloodhounds when I was a young, but shepherds are so much smarter. Of course, smart also means easily bored, so I train them search and rescue work. It's hard to believe that little puppy at the top is now almost 13. But don't get me wrong, because mutts are great dogs too. All dogs are, IMHO. Zaereth (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's not many bad dogs. One of my girls is blood hound and either great dane or black lab. I have her trained for pheasant and quail, and basic tracking. She helps around the farm too if a bird or rabbit gets loose she'll chase it down and soft mouth it back to me. My other girl is just about six months old now and the vet calls her "a true mutt." They go after each other like mad dogs when they're playing which can be hilarious as the older dog is well over 90lbs and the puppy is barely tipping 25. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Max von Stephanitz. No bad dogs. Only bad owners. Makes me feel sad for pitbulls, because it's not the dog's fault they attract the worst types, but they get all the heat. You know, I've studied dog neuropsychology for many years, and it's fascinating to see how they are so similar to us in many way, yet in others so drastically different. I've always agreed with Stephanitz' take on things like training and breeding, and the art of good handling. His book has never been translated, but if you go to Stephanitz.com (or whatever site it is) you can read a lot of great quotes. See my user page is you want some of my thoughts. Dog's are just good people, and I can only wish I understood them as well as they understand us. It's hard to live up their vision of us. Zaereth (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is some unpleasantness on the glass talk page regarding my ENGVAR edits and the art section. Not that I want to drag you into anything, just you were involved in the original ENGVAR conversation, if you'd care to comment. I leave it up to you! I hope you are well. Polyamorph (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that going on late last night, but decided to sleep on it before commenting. I'm doing good. Late spring, but the snow is melting fast now as the sun stays out longer and longer. Hope you're doing good. Zaereth (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm doing fine, we had a baby in June so been very busy through this pandemic but is a good time to be working from home, well unless I want to actually work! Weather starting to get warmer here too, which is nice :) Polyamorph (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, Polyamorph. Congratulations! I bet that gives you something to keep you occupied. Summer in Alaska is like this mad rush to get everything done before winter, both work and play; all the things that can't be done in winter. So I'm ramping up for it all.
You know, a while back I was reading up on amorphous metals, in particular, those produced by vacuum deposition for mirror coatings. It sort of brought to light something I always had in the back of my mind: if glass behaved like a liquid, the why doesn't it crystallize over long time scales. That's what I would intuitively expect to happen over actual flow. As it turns out, in mirror coatings it actually will, that is, if the coating is too pure. These recrystallized mirrors have better reflectivity at IR wavelengths, but are poor for visible light. Of course, metals have a much greater freedom to be able to rearrange their atoms over things like silicates and ceramics. The amorphous coatings actually rely on impurities, in the form of gas atoms that become trapped during the deposition process, to sort of lock everything in place and prevent crystallization. Of course, you probably know all about that, but I found it very interesting. Zaereth (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fun but hard work, I guess it's the opposite for Ice Road Truckers who have to wait for winter to get anything done!
I don't know a great deal about amorphous metals, but it has to depend on the temperature, if the coating is kept sufficiently cool it should never recrystallise. But I think for these mirror coatings it probably has less to do with flow and more to do with the manufacturing process, if there were some nanocrystalline grains forming during the deposition process they would seed recrystallisation. So perhaps the impurities are added to reduce the formation of nanocrystals and promote glass formation. I don't know, that's just a guess. But you've inspired me to look more into amorphous metals! Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my dad used to make ice roads on the North Slope. At 50 below, you can drive 90 mph across he tundra, spraying out a road right in front of you, and at that temp the ice is so tacky you almost have the same traction as pavement. But no work gets done up there in the summer. Down here in Anchorage, they say we have three seasons, winter, break-up, and road construction.
As I understand it, it's just a happy side-effect from trace gases that remain after vacuuming out the deposition chamber, and the recrystallization is a process that, at least for pure metals like gold and silver, occur at room temperature, although I can see what you mean about temperature playing a role. It certainly plays a large role in things like precipitation in age-hardening alloys. Anyhow, I just thought it was interesting. Have a great day, and I hope you enjoy fatherhood. Zaereth (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but youtube is not a reliable source. I think the source you had was reliable enough. The only problem I see is more one of WP:RECENTISM and WP:CRYSTAL. We're not a newspaper, and we usually don't report on stuff that will happen, at least, we should write articles from a timeless perspective. I simply think it's too soon, and we should wait for the story to ripen up before plucking. Many people watch that page, and others may disagree, but the best place to discuss it is on the talk page so others can join in. Zaereth (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I can only hope. Thank you for helping me know her better. She truly was among the top editors on this site, and what she did more than anything for this encyclopedia is help set the standards we have today, in the articles that need standards more than any. She has touched far more lives than any of us will ever know, and her work will live on long after Wikipedia is gone.
When it comes to Wikipedia, just keep in mind these two things, 1.) nothing that goes on here is worth your health and happiness, and 2.) you can never win an argument with an ignorant person.
It was nice getting to know you, my friend. I wish it had been under better circumstances. Feel free to send me a message if you ever feel the need, and I wish you well too. I raise my glass to you, as a toast to your sister on this Memorial Day. Zaereth (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I just noticed this. Sorry for the delay, but I've been incredibly busy in real life with work, play, and travels. Sarah was a real inspiration to me. I'll never forget what she said to me, way back when I was new. I was a bit taken aback by the whole "V not truth" concept at the time, until she helped explain it to me in better terms. I agree fully with the underlying principle, because it is the very basis of both expository writing and scientific method ... although I still disagree with the wording, as it leads to confusion. It was then I realized that some battles are not worth fighting, and policy is best changed through discourse and example than by arguing it out on the policy pages. She was a real inspiration to me back then, and is one of the reasons I decided to stick around. Zaereth (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't want to go too off-topic over there, but yeah, I get lost every time I go there, I can't make any sense of the place, and it seems like it has expanded again every time I'm there. On the other hand we once lost half a day of travel time just trying to figure out how to get out of Vancouver. It's like Anchorage in that the highways just suddenly turn into city streets in the middle of town, but it was way less obvious how to get out going north. (and GPS wasn't in every device back then)
I think Kenai gets a pass because Nikiski is right there next to it and that's an easier target. Welcome to Nikiski, home of ....giant abandoned fertilizer plant and a bunch of empty storefronts. They don't care because the town is actually quite well off regardless. One of my favorite parks is just past there.
What really throws me off about Fairbanks is you have all these intersections where, like, eight roads meet, and four of them are running parallel; side by side! Or you have all these expressways that go way around the outside of town rather than through it. Even more confusing is you come in from the south on the north end of town, But for me, the biggest turn off is that it's too flat. I means, it's hilly country, but the sky is too big and I feel weird in a place with no mountains. On the plus side, Fairbanks is known for its wild women! Just add one air-force base and a little cabin fever, and watch out!
We in Anchorage like to give Fairbanks a hard time, but they do the same to us. It's all in good fun, and they're typically good people. I spent a lot of time up there in my last job, plumbing a lot of hydraulics. We'd work nights, so I'd bring my 10-speed along and zip all over town during the day, which took all of about 20 minutes. Too hot in the summer and too cold in the winter.
I used to do a lot of work on their equipment out there at Nikiski. They'd send me these jackhammers covered in nitroglycerine. I'd go down there and have to walk by this big nest of steam pipes holding 40,000 PSI of pressure, swinging a broom handle in front of you. Those pipes would get pinholes in them every now and then, and the steam jet would be totally invisible, but if you came near one it would slice that broom handle right in two, like a hot knife through butter. That's when you slowly back away, but not without slicing a few more pieces of broom handle off first, just so you can say, "That is so cool." It's been a long time, and I hadn't realized it was closed down.
It's nice here too for a change. The fair is coming to town (Palmer that is) which always means rain. "Fair weather" as we call it. I just hope it'll still be nice when I get off work. Zaereth (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, by the way, we have the same saying in Anchorage. Like, no matter where you are, it's always shittier in Whittier. I really like Homer, on the other hand, especially for that two weeks every summer when it is just a non-stop party. I just have to extra careful if I bring any puppies. Eagles looove little pups. Zaereth (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You seem like a reasonable editor based on the comments I read from you on JWT. Note the AfD was closed keep all after the article looked the was it does now, and there were multiple editors looking at the JT article. I am not going to respond to the SPA any more, but if you want to refactor the article I will not object. Lightburst (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. With the holidays and real life going on, I don't have much time for any real editing. You seem reasonable as well, but, if I may, you do come off as a little hostile towards the SPA. I'm guessing that's not intentional, but thought I would point it out, because it doesn't help your case. Being an SPA is not in and of itself a bad thing. A red-flag perhaps, but there are many reasons a person may be one, other than bad faith. For example, I started out as an SPA. I chose not to dive in head first, but instead I picked an article on a subject that I really don't care about (albeit it was probably the most controversial article on Wikipedia at the time), and I spent several months at the talk page, just learning about Wikipedia, how things work, and BLP policy, before ever going out and editing my first article. My first real edits were to the flashtube article, and it was a mess of misinformation and really plausible-sounding bunk when I found it.
But, the point is, I was an SPA for the learning experience, and made some of my best Wiki-friends on that political-article's talk page, some of whom were also SPAs, like User:Fcreid, and others whom I was on polar opposites sides of, like User:Writegeist and User:Buster7. (Can you believe it? In this day and age, people of completely opposite political views being friends!?!) Sometimes people just have niche interests, or there may be a variety of reasons a person may be an SPA and not doing anything wrong. In most cases there's no need to point it out unless there is other evidence that the SPA is acting out of bad faith, because then it just detracts from your other points. I hope that helps, and have a good day. Zaereth (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a good SPA, not an SPA that follows an editor to harass and target them and pings them five times all over the project. You probably know what has happened this past month. If editing is a volunteer hobby, this is a helluva way to be treated. I will leave everyone else to fight it out. I am trying to keep my head down and add photos to TA articles. My first edit was regarding gold confiscation. The article for Executive Order 6102 said the government never confiscated any gold. So I fixed that untruth. That I did not edit again for many years, until I started an article for Greg Koch. Superb technician on the guitar, I was shocked that he did not have an article. I have improved since then. Nice meeting you! I think regarding Trevena, he is described as prominent and he takes all the high profile cases. I bet the Kyle Rittenhouse defense lawyer will have an article soon. Lightburst (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the ANI case that seems to have some people all worked up. That's another place I try to avoid like the plague. I didn't look into the history of the SPA, although it makes more sense if they've been harassing you. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt until they give me a reason not to, and in this case it looks like I was wrong, although that didn't make their concerns any less valid. Those are some awful things to have immortalized in an encyclopedia when your just the wife of a lawyer and struggling with issues. And they're just allegations from an ex, which makes it even more suspect.
But, I've given my to cents at BLPN, and I'll let consensus land where it may. Anyhow nice to meet you too, and I hope things get better for you. Zaereth (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! This is a blast from the past. Good to hear from you Fcreid. I know! It has been a long time. I'm glad to hear you're doing fine. People come and go around here, and sometimes you just never know. I stuck around for all these years, just trying to correct some of the bogus info around here ... on the few topics I know about. It's just something to do when I'm on hold, and in these days of texts and emails, I find myself on hold less often. Anyhow, glad you're still around, and I hope you got to go to some fun places. Zaereth (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi Zaereth, I have to say that your "Tempering colors of steel" photograph is probably one of the most beautiful images I’ve seen in a long time. First of all, thanks for this wonderful contribution. Second, and I’m not sure if this is something you’d have any interest in, but I would absolutely love to own a collection of tempered steel like this for display in my office/home. Is this something you would have any interest in? I would be completely open to discussing details, and would obviously compensate you for your time and materials. (If not, do you know anyone who might be interested in such a project?) Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isthmuses (talk • contribs) 22:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you very much for the compliment. Your timing is impeccable, as you just happened to catch me in a spot where I have internet access. I'm not sure which photo you're referring to, as it could be one of two. Either way, I was just trying to show the colors, and it took many tries to get the lighting and everything right so they would all appear on camera. It's a trick of thin-film interference, so lighting and angles play a big role in how they appear. Of course, a camera can never match what the eye sees.
As for your project, this is reminiscent of a similar request somewhere further up on this page. I doubt it would be worth it to send all the way to Alaska for it. You could probably do it yourself without much difficulty. The first three or four colors can easily be made in a typical kitchen-oven, or a toaster-oven even. For the other colors, it's easy enough to get a pair of pliers or tongs or whatever, and hold it over a flame, like a cook stove or propane torch. The trick is to heat it slowly and evenly, albeit it does take some practice to do it by hand. In the medieval era it was a common way of coloring a knight's armor.
For the first pic I used a planing chisel and a simple, handheld propane-torch. I just really overheated the shaft that you typically hold and hit with a hammer, and let the colors work their way down the long, flat planer-blade. (It was really just for the pic, because I had to quench it and re-temper it properly afterward.) The second photo was done in an electric heat-treating oven with thermocoupled temperature-controllers and digital readouts and stuff, but that was only to ensure I was matching the listed temps exactly. It's really not that hard to do yourself with common heat sources. If not your cup of tea, I'm sure you can find a local blacksmith, or an automotive spring builder, or someone who makes fences and spiral staircases, a welding sculptor, or a number of other people who would have the equipment and knowhow, right in your local area (wherever that may be). It's not necessary to quench first or anything, because colors will form each time the metal is heated. You just have to sand off all oxidation first and clean away any oils or fingerprints. It can even be done with pure iron of stainless steel, if you want something to last or withstand the weather (you can get a much larger variety of colors with stainless, because the film remains transparent for much greater thicknesses, but the drawback is they don't stand out as well against the underlying shininess of stainless). But it's not anything very specialized and I'm sure you can find someone or even do it as a fun project for yourself. I hope that helps. Gotta go, so have a happy holiday season. Zaereth (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HouseOfChange. Thanks. I've been watching the page for quite some time now with a bit of curious fascination. It doesn't really read like an ad or news, but more like a vanity article, which is what it is. Duarte, or his students, or people close to him have been working this article for years. It's mostly just little stuff; minor tweaks here or there every once in a while out of a blue moon. But it adds up. I would suggest to many of our subjects, if they want a great Wikipedia article, then go out and give interviews to reliable sources.
I think the man is definitely notable in my own personal opinion, but does that make him notable by Wikipedia standards? If I go by my own high standards, I'd probably say no. But, by Wikipedia standards, he's a published author and that is generally good enough. (Me, I'd like to see enough biographical data out there to make a decent biography.) His papers may not be cited as much, but you can find his books cited in many other books all over in the realm of light and lasers, so I wouldn't necessarily put too much stock in search-engine counts.
I don't have much time to dig too deep into this right now, being as that I'm on vacation. I just happen to be near a computer at the moment. What I would shoot for is something more along the lines of https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orazio_Svelto this. This is very well-written article on another famous name in the world of lasers, and if you don't read Italian, google does a somewhat fair-to-midland job of translating. One of the big differences here is that Svelto was savvy enough to do some interviews with the OSA and get a little biographical data out there as a secondary source. (Why we don't have an English article on him, I don't know.) But this is a good example of what an article on such a person should look like. Otherwise, I'll be back in a few weeks and I can dig deeper then. Zaereth (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you too Gerda. I'm glad you're around as well. You are a wonderful photographer! I never knew how tricky getting just the right shot can be, what with lighting and everything. Some of the pics on my user page took hundreds of tries, and at best are probably just placeholders until something better comes along (just something to help explain article text) so I envy your talent. I hope 2022 is a better year for all of us, and may yours be blessed. Zaereth (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I simply take many pics, and then pic the best of a month for that month next year, - simple. I know nothing about photography, just love nature ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Laser-beam gaussian profile. You know what? I asked a professional photographer the same thing many years ago, and he gave me the same answer. He said, "I just take a whole lot of pics. The real talent is being able to pick out the one or two good ones." Personally, I prefer to use a pencil. The pic to the right was probably my most difficult one. To show it properly, I had to eliminate as much laser speckle as I could. After hundreds of tries I was finally able to get this shot by shining it onto the surface of an opaque liquid (milk). Anyhow, nice to meet a fellow nature lover. Hope you have a great day. Zaereth (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I'm sorry to read about your friend. I just lost my best friend a few days ago, and it's always so hard. I must admit, I've never heard of him before, as my tastes often lean more toward rock and heavy metal, but I do also like classical. Metal is basically just rock played along the classical rather than the blues scale. I'll have to check him out sometime when I'm on a computer I can access youtube from. Zaereth (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jerome Kohl was a musicologist who died in 2020, and also an editor here, - more on my talk. We never met in person, but just look at his talk and archives for my name. He and Stockhausen (whom I never met) appreciated a friend of mine. - Sorry to hear about your loss. I admire your patience with the pictures. On vacation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many apologies for not replying sooner, I was away for the entire festive period and have spent the last week catching up, so on-line time has not been as extensive as it should be. Hope the coming year is a good one for you, and you had a good holiday season. Hopefully we can all claw our way back to some form of normalcy, at some point. So far I am refusing to be more optimistic than that, as with the current UK situation, I dont want to be disappointed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After your last post on the BLP Noticeboard for discussion of the entry for Ariel Fernandez the forum was immediately closed with the message that “ Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion”. Your subsequent reversion of both of my succeeding comments, as seemingly allowed by the BLP but disallowed by you seem reflect your intent to have the last word on this issue. Defending WP - even if the BLP Noticeboard closure seems odd and definitely asynchronous - is one thing, defending the subject of the original entry - as evidenced by ascribing their motivation for violating posting rules to their judgement of being attacked - is quite another. Though it is most likely this entry will also be “reverted” - either by you or a fellow editor - I nevertheless feel the need to voice my displeasure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcademicPerspective (talk • contribs) 00:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you're not making any sense. I never reverted any comments nor did I close down the discussion. If you check the history, you'll notice Daniel closed down the discussion. I don't know why, except for the reason he placed at the top, but you'd have to ask him. According to the history, no comments of yours were deleted from the page (check it yourself). I don't much care about "the last word". It's the "word" that makes logical sense that counts, and it doesn't matter where it's placed.
Likewise, your line about "defending the subject" is poorly written and makes no sense. The words are all assembled in a somewhat grammatically correct syntax, yet together they do not convey any meaning, or what is also known as patent nonsense. I don't know what you mean by that. I've never heard of the subject until it was brought to BLP. My field of expertise is in writing, and the writing is bad that's all there is to it. Bad writing is easily corrected, yet most academics seem to have a hard time with it; at least those from the math and physics department do. The people in the English department may be able to help explain it. Zaereth (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies in advance for any unintended slight but your comment regarding my syntax construction requires a response. Interestingly , given your prior comments, you seem to be implying that the phrase “ as evidenced by ascribing their motivation for violating posting rules to their judgement of being attacked “ reflects poor sentence construction , and/or poor usage of the English language, despite being admittedly “ grammatically correct syntax”. In an effort to enlighten you let me deconstruct the sentence as follows:
1. “As evidenced by” uses the past tense and participle of the word evidence to support my thesis
2. “Ascribing the motivation” could have been prefixed by the word “your” since that was implied
3. “Their motivation for violating posting rules” refers to your comment about the WP subject (AF),:or WP subjects in general, not “ feeling the need to sock if…”
I hope this helps.
As to the removal of comments from the Ariel Fernandez talk page these were done with what can only be described as undue haste by one “AndyTheGrump”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcademicPerspective (talk • contribs) 01:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I've never looked at the article talk page, and I understand syntax and grammar. What it apparently lacked was context, and you should have probably hyphenated "posting rules" to avoid adjective-verb confusion. Too many adjectives in a row get to be confusing without some commas or hyphens to tell what is describing what, and this is especially true where you have a gerund being used as an adjective immediately following a verb ending in -ing. If what you're trying to say is that I should ignore the BLP problems because the OP is a sock, then I would say it would be like ignoring a murder because the person who reported it a is a gangster. BLP is the highest policy, and while it works with and is modified by all the other policies, it also trumps all other policies. It's too important to ignore, and I explained that in the same thread earlier on.
The thing that people who want this in don't seem to get is that I'm trying to help them. Right now, the disputed text neither has context nor provides context for anything. The Latin phrase for this is non sequitur, meaning "it does not follow". Sort of like I wasn't following you a moment ago. To make it fit, someone needs to answer the two questions I asked. I don't see what the problem is, but the silence is deafening, which leads me to conclude that 1.) there aren't any answers, or 2.) the people who want it know beforehand that their answers won't fly.
Point taken in regard to my prose, it tends to be somewhat impenetrable. While that may well represent failure in a context such as this , in academia it tends to be lauded as it promotes brevity. You are not alone in the critique however, the great American author Cormac McCarthy has also expounded on this issue.
As regards the main issue at hand I’m not sure I would characterize inclusion of the EOCs as “non sequiturs”. In earlier versions of the entry this commentary did indeed follow from the description of the subjects (AF) publication history - the latter continually updated with self-edits. In many ways it was this update history, what I have previously referred to as an attempt to present a hagiography, that precipitated the current controversy. Please accept my bona fides that my personal concern is with academic integrity, which for me should be reflected in both the academic’s behavior as well as their output. Thanks for the opportunity to expound.
When it comes to academia and brevity, I'm often very amused. I even touch on it in my essay that I linked above. To loosely paraphrase one of my favorite Mark Twain quotes, "Never use a big word where a small one will do." The point I'm trying to make is that it needs to tell us something about the subject. The purpose of a biography is to give the reader some in-depth insight into this human being. It's not enough to simply say, "Hey look! This is important." There should be some indication of why it is important.
To give an example, the History of Anchorage, Alaska is an article I've been helping to expand recently. A very important part of Anchorage's history begins with the old ghost town of Knik, which is where Anchorage got it's name from. But unless the article makes that connection it would otherwise look like irrelevant information about a totally different town. I have to make it all tie together by what I wrote next, and really, the sources need to make that connection first, or else it would just be synthesis. The reader should be able to glean something from it and walk way feeling that they know this person. It all needs to be cohesive (tie together) so it will flow, and to flow it has to follow. (There is also a section about that in my essay.) It's not supposed to be easy, which leads me to another favorite quote, Zinsser's Law: "Easy writing makes for hard reading. Hard wrinting makes for easy reading." Zaereth (talk) 03:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the more I think about this, the more I'm starting to get the impression that Retraction Watch is a primary source in this instance. I haven't looked into them yet, because I was waiting for this to get resolved first, but just from what I've read in the article and on the BLP page, they seem to be doing the primary-source research without providing the secondary source interpretation and analyses that we need as a tertiary source. Zaereth (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On an at once separate but related issue how do I overcome immediate reversions - and I mean in a matter of seconds - of talk page posts by “AndyTheGrump”, justified by the history comment “troll/ sockpuppet pretending to be an academic”. With such control this entry, indeed any entry, can be rendered inviolate. This goes beyond our current discussion and , at least to me, strikes at the very heart of trying to achieve what we all want want : a neutral but informative entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcademicPerspective (talk • contribs) 03:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was unaware, as I've never heard of Brian K Horton. I don't know from sockpuppets. I leave that stuff to all you admins out there. Zaereth (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin - just someone all too familiar with 'Brian K Horton' and his many other aliases, both here on Wikipedia and elsewhere. His style is almost unmistakable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah, I know Andy. I've seen you around for many years now. From "back in the before time, in the long, long ago." (Sorry, but I just love that episode of South Park, where the kids go all Lord of the Flies, and have been waiting for an opportunity to work it into a conversation.) That was my prayer to any of the god-like admins who might be watching us from above. I think I also mentioned in the BLP discussion, it's easy to change accounts but very difficult to change their writing style, and damn near impossible to change their communication style. I knew the OP was socking after their first post, and even threw some subtle hints that I knew, hoping they would get the idea they weren't fooling anyone with that disguise. I just don't see much of that type of thing on the kind of articles I usually edit. Nice, quiet, technical and scientific articles where the sun shines and the birds sing...
By the way, I meant to stop by and give my holiday wishes, but time is always short and I just couldn't get to everybody, so I hope you're having a great New Year, and may it be better than the last. Zaereth (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
If someone wants to send a white raven to warn of a false spring and a winter that is here here to stay, can he do it on Earth Day? Also, have you ever danced with a dragon? Would you like to? I would. TheIronPillar (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You mentioned at BLPN that you try to limit the pages that you watch because you can never remember to remove them. It's actually been possible to watchlist pages temporarily for awhile and it's one of the best newish features there is (apart from the reply tool and subscribing to threads). Anyways, when you click the star at the top of a page, you can change the watchlist time period. Unfortunately this doesn't work with what shows up at the bottom of edit summaries/preferences regarding your watchlist, you have to select the watchlist time period manually each time through the star. Clovermoss🍀(talk)12:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Clovermoss. Thanks for the tip. That's one of those things I probably never would have noticed if you hadn't pointed it out to me. Truth be told, I don't spend much time online, which gives me very little time to get engaged in long discussions. Most of the time I'm on Wikipedia it's when I'm on the phone listening to that little voice saying, "Your call is very important to us. Please remain on the line and the next representative will be with you shortly." (They lie, you know. It's never shortly, and I don't think my call is important to them at all.)
Because of my busy life, it's difficult to get into lengthy or fast-paced discussions and then stay with them. In many cases, I actually find that to be counterproductive anyway. There's a time to advance, a time to retreat, but more often than not there's a time to just stand back and say nothing, and let the other person talk themselves right out of a consensus. Consensus isn't made by a counting of votes but by a weighing of arguments, so there is often not much point in trying to argue with someone if their argument is not persuasive to begin with. One good argument can beat a thousand lousy ones. In most cases I'll never change their mind in a million years, so the only people I need to convince of anything is everyone else. That's my philosophy, anyhow. Zaereth (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Buster. You too. All in all it's been a good year. It started off rough, but has been busy enough to keep my mind occupied. Glad you're doing well. Zaereth (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, nice to meet you. I like your page. I agree with you that there are deep, serious flaws in Wikipedia policy, NPOV and others. It's a major issue of concern for me, not just within Wikipedia, but for human society at large, given Wikipedia's reach and perceived neutrality/reliability. I've decided to do everything I can to address this, which has made me a not-so-popular editor at times. Maybe, one day, we will find an opportunity to collaborate. Cheers. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I saw this person in a totally different part of Wikipedia, looked at their page, and I liked what they had to say here. I have every right to say "hello" to whomever I please - it's none of your business. I didn't encourage him to comment on any pending RFC or discussion. Your behavior is getting really weird and feels like stalking, dude. Lay off. Philomathes2357 (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least my talk page is still here. Everything else just vanished this morning. My watchlist, preferences, and everything is just gone. In response to your message, nice to meet you too. Actually, I think Wikipedia policy has improved immeasurably over the years, especially in the realm of NPOV and BLP. It still has it's problems. There is a lot of stuff to help people build an encyclopedia, but not very much useful on how to actually write for one. Anyhow, I'm not going to worry about it anymore, because without a watchlist or search box this site has just become totally useless. Zaereth (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Zaereth. As others have said, you can switch back to the old site appearance and behavior. You have to be logged in to your Wikipedia account to do ths:
Click on the user menu. That's the little person icon in the upper right.
Click on Preferences.
Click on Appearance.
The top section is Skin. Select "Vector legacy (2010)".
Scroll down to the bottom of the page and click Save.
Thanks Beeblebrox and Mudwater for the tips. If I ever figure out how to log back in then maybe I'll try that and see if it works. Unfortunately, I don't even see a way to log in anymore. The only option I found was to create a new account, which I did for the sole purposes of answering these messages. To Mudwater, no, it isn't. There is no search box whatsoever on my screen, so to search for anything on Wikipedia I've been having to google it. Just to get to this talk page I had to google it. I figure the least they could have done was give us some kind of warning. An instruction manual would be nice, but people who program computers seem to be worse than math teachers at explaining things in plain English.
However, I'm not too interested in learning how to use Wikipedia all over again. It took a long time to figure it out the first time, but at least everything was in plain English right there in front of me. If I wanted to search for hidden links I would break out the old Atari and play The Legend of Zelda, but I haven't played video games since the 1970s. I only spend about 10 to 15 minutes a day on the internet, and 99.999% of that time is was spent on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is not doing me any favors by allowing me to edit it. Quite the contrary. I could be getting paid good money to do the type of work I do here on Wikipedia for free. So it's no big loss for me. I just don't need the headache. I'm not a big-time quantity editor with millions of edits under my belt, so I don't think anybody is going to miss me when I'm gone.
To Gerda Arendt, thanks. I didn't know anyone cared. I appreciate it. Maybe someday I'll sit down and try to figure this all out, but right now it's just giving me a pounding headache that I don't need. There's a reason I tend to avoid the rest of the internet like the plague, and Wikipedia has now joined it. After this I'll be expecting ads to start popping up here anytime soon. Zaereth2 (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zaereth!
(1) Here's how to log in: In the upper right part of the screen, it says "Create account", and just to the right of that is three dots. Click on the three dots. After that, click on "Log in".
(2) If you follow the five steps I posted above, it'll change things back for you to the way they were before. Wikipedia will look and act the same as it used to, so you won't have to learn how to use the new version of the site. I recommend trying that.
Since no one else has said it, I'll miss you. Of course you're not obligated to edit here and if you no longer wish to, that's your choice. But I do want you to know that you'll at least be missed by me. Clovermoss🍀(talk)18:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the sentiment, Clovermoss, but I think I've got it figured out now, thanks to the kind help from above. Who would've guessed that an ellipsis would be used for a link? But, whatever. I just really hate computers sometimes. It's not their fault, because in many ways they can make things so much faster and easier, so it baffles me why they so often end up making things so much slower and more difficult for no other reason than the ass-backwards way the programmers set them up. I just have far too little patience, I guess, because I'm always laser-focused on what I'm trying to accomplish, and anything that distracts from that is an annoyance. That's probably the main reason I still use the library for most of my research, because it's actually much faster sometimes than scrolling for hours through page after page of irrelevant google hits. (That, and most of the really good info is still not found anywhere on the internet; you still need books for most stuff.)
I still think they could have given us a bit of a warning beforehand, instead of just dropping it on us out of the blue and expecting people to just figure it out, because I thought something had gone seriously wrong. But thanks for the concern, and thanks to everyone for your help. Zaereth (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. If you are still editing, I'd like to ask more information on the edit you made to the mirror article [6]. There was no additional reference added, and while I don't have Melchoir-Bonnet's history of the mirror, a Google search doesn't find mention of a ribbon machine. I doubt it was the unsuccessful Bessemer continuous production machine, and the Corning machine post-dates both the Industrial Revolution, and the increasing availability of silver-glass mirrors in Victorian times mentioned in the book. Also, I don't see the relevance of a shaping process like Corning's to glass panes or mirrors. An article on Corning's ribbon machine would be welcome, all the same. Without further information, it would seem the improvements in glass production that followed silvering in the Industrial Revolution were the cylinder process or maybe some form of plate glass.[7]
BTW I changed to monobook skin in Preferences, but nevertheless can see why unexpected decisions might dissuade one from editing. --Cedderstk17:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember where I read that, but it had to come from one of the sources already in the article, because I'd never heard of the ribbon machine before that. I don't recall exactly because I did that research mostly at the library. I remember that the history was originally focused almost exclusively on coating technology, and it seemed to me that it should also focus on the difficulties in making a smooth, clear piece of glass with a uniform thickness. Both those technologies had to come together before a good quality mirror could be made.
I know the cylinder method began in Germany in the late Middle Ages. It was more or less perfected by the Venetians with their use of soda-lime glass, and later lead glass. Then when the secret leaked out it was used by many other companies up until the mid 19th century, but it was all hand-crafted and still an extremely expensive process. Most windows up until that time were still made of oiled paper, and glass mirrors or windows were a very expensive luxury. It was the float-glass method and the addition of the ribbon machine that allowed the mass production of glass window-panes that really made both them and mirrors affordable to the masses. Zaereth (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really felt Grubby warranted an article at this point. If you happen to find yourself at the zoo, we could use a freee image. She may not be on display yet though. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Beeblebrox! My apologies for the delay. Been on vacation. First vacation I've had in over three years, and I really needed it! It's been a cool, rainy summer, but at least it's been free of wildfire smoke.
I haven't been to the zoo in a long time, but for this it might be worth making a trip. It's amazing what shows up in shipping containers. I had a friend who worked in the produce department at Fred Meyers, and he'd find everything from snakes to scorpions, to tarantulas in the bananas. (I got bit by a black widow once at the local dog park, and I can only imagine it came from someone's luggage at a nearby motel.) Anyhow, I'll see what I can do when I get back into town. Zaereth (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also know someone here who I think may have been the first person to see one of the joeys and she got a decent shot of one of them. I'll see if I can't get her to upload it to Commons. Hope outside was good, we've been getting soaked down here, and he we had a false alarm tsunami warning in the middle of the night this week, so that was fun. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Beeblebrox. We had some sunshine this weekend, so I took a trip to the zoo, but it was a rather disappointing one. Remember that scene in Jurassic Park where they first start the tour, but all the animals were hiding somewhere in their cages? It was kinda like that. I did see some birds, ungulates and a couple of the cutest black-bear cubs, oh, and one sleeping tiger, but no wolves, wolverines, or polar bears. The possum cage was unmarked, but is over by the deer cage they tell me. They said she's very nocturnal, however, so you'd be lucky to see her late in the day near closing time. Sorry I wasn't able to get any pics. Maybe I'll try again when it starts getting dark earlier. Zaereth (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's been sort of a reverse summer. It's generally nice until about mid-July, and then the rainy season hits, but just the opposite this year. Not a problem. It was actually kinda fun. Not unlike my usual walks through the woods, except I got to see some yaks and alpacas and other things I don't usually see, not to mention I rarely get to enjoy them behind the safety of bars and electric fencing. If you've never been, I'd say it's worth seeing at least once. They close at 8:00, so I'll try to go back when it starts getting dark around then. They said I'll have a better chance of seeing her then, and now that I know where to find her it'll make my search much easier. Zaereth (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Laura and I work for Joanna Shields, Baroness Shields, a baron, businessperson, and former British politician. The page about her was recently tagged for COI and advert issues due to some poor edits made years ago. I posted here regarding my desire to address the substance of the tags with a re-write or heavy trims, to remove the promotional content. I was hoping you might be willing to chime in on the proposed trims and/or the suggestion for a rewrite. Let me know. Best regards.~~~~ LauTad89 (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your edits at Anchorage, Alaska. I spent about 30 minutes reviewing your text, and the sources added to support that text, and much of your edits was either not supported by the sources cited, or was original research. Please note that Wikipedia's policy on original research is firm. I would strongly suggest that if you revise these edits and re-insert them, that you include inline citations for each sentence. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Interesting assessment, since I know absolutely nothing about geology, but just learned that stuff myself from reading the sources. I thought it was interesting and worth adding to the article, but probably better to stick to stuff that I actually have some expertise in. Zaereth (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all sure I agree with this wholesale reversal of a series of edits. The material about the Eklutna dam and power plant reflect the properly sourced content we already have on those subjects, at the very least. And although Zareth for some reason is able to tolerate living in Anchorage, I don't know that the charge of original research is particualry well-founded either. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Born and raised here, but that in and of itself doesn't make me an expert. Most people I know who've lived here all their lives have never even heard of the Eklutna Dam, and to be honest I only had vague knowledge of it before I looked it up. Never knew there were two, or that it was still in use. Tourists often know more about these things than the locals. Locals know more about how to avoid the tourists. I was having a conversation with a friend and these topics came up, and neither of us knew much about these things, so I did what I do best, and researched it on the internet. Doesn't really interest me much beyond satisfying a curiosity, though, and I'm not going to worry about it being reverted. Wikipedia is just a hobby for me. Nothing to lose sleep over.
PS: I'd love to get out of Los Anchorage and back into the real Alaska, but I've found happiness is cutting down travel time, and the commute to work would kill me. Zaereth (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. The gathering of editors that Clovermoss started got me into a time-travel loop to revisit the distant past where I happily stumbled upon our days of long ago. What a Joy. What fun it was. Glad to see you are still in the WP circle. I know this is the same card I send every year. My apologies. I bought them at a dollar store many years ago. The alderman had a program to upgrade the local business district and convinced the owner to become a $1.50 store...ergo the discount. As for WP, I basically just do the Editor of the Week awards and wander around looking for a nice park bench to relax in. Life is GOOD in the lower 48. Hope the same is true for you. ―Buster7☎
Hi Buster7. Glad to see you're still around too. Yeah, it was certainly fun to take a trip down Memory Lane. Thanks to Clovermoss for that! It was also cool to read what others had to say. It's funny, but you get to know all these people over the years without really knowing anything about them. An interesting way to make friends indeed.
Speaking of the old days, guess who stopped by to say hi last year. Do you remember Fcreid? I think that's somewhere up above, in a section titled "SPA".
No worries about the card. It's the thought that counts. Never been much of a card person myself, so I didn't really notice. But I truly appreciate that someone's thinking of me. I still just send the hand-written note, like I did when I was a kid. ("Dear Grandma. How are you? I am fine. How is the weather? Ours is fine. How was your Christmas. Mine was fine...") Life is great in the Upper 49th! Lots of snow and cold weather, but I've got a good all-wheel drive and a nice, cozy fire to keep us warm. Just how I like it. Anyhow, it's always nice to hear from you Buster, and I hope you have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Zaereth (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Zaereth, I always appreciate how thoughtful your replies are on BLPN. You have an amazing ability to break things down in clear, understandable ways. I know you are frequently busy in real life, but I wanted to show you the most recent addition to the Kathleen Kennedy article, which I thought you would similarly find amusing [8]. I haven't been on Wikipedia much the past few years because of being busy with other things, but I hope you have been doing well. – notwally (talk) 03:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment, notwally. I've had a lot of training and experience in encyclopedic writing from way back before the internet even existed, and as a result have had very little problem working on Wikipedia. I try to share that with others wherever it may seem helpful, but it's a little like trying to cram a blue whale into a two-pound bag. I know what I have to say is often going to come off as harsh and be taken in the worst possible interpretation, so I make an effort to minimize that whenever possible.
It's not that I find any of this amusing. It more a perfect example of taking things to either extreme, neither of which really tells the reader what they need to know. I wish there was an easy way to explain it all, but it simply can't be learned in a day. The thing that really fascinates me is why something so seemingly trivial would be so important to someone. I find when I ask that question, most don't have a clue, and end up being gobstopped. But what they really need to figure out is why it should be important to the reader.
Have we met before? You wouldn't happen to be WallyfromDilbert, would you? If so, long time no see. I've been well. Less time for Wikipedia now that there's a shortage of people in the workforce, but all things considered it's been a really nice summer. Zaereth (talk) 06:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I see now that I checked your user page. Why the name change, if you don't mind me asking? I've always valued your input as well. You seem to have a very intuitive understanding of all this, and I don't remember ever disagreeing with you. Welcome back. Zaereth (talk) 06:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's me WallyfromDilbert! I agree that I don't think we have ever disagreed. I think that's the beauty of BLPN, because the long-time contributors there just want things to be encyclopedic and respectful of real-world implications to living people.
I honestly would be very surprised if anyone ever thought you were harsh. I know that I do not always express myself the best, which is why I have long tried to learn from your way of explaining issues on BLPN. I've always thought you had such a way of explaining things that most people must just think, "Oh, that's right". I think one of the inevitable issues with Wikipedia is that it will naturally attract people with strong opinions on topics, and while political articles are bad, it seems like TV and film are on an even more extreme level in some ways. For example, I really see extensive sockpuppetry on political articles, but many TV/film articles are plagued by them.
For the username, I changed it a little while ago because I'm a pretty middle-of-the-road person and have never liked extremes, and I thought some of the remarks of Scott Adams were over-the-line in recent years, particular some statements he made about black people. Anyone can like Trump or Biden or hold whatever political views they want, but seemed like he was either being openly racist or pushing way too far into shock value in a way that did not appeal to me. Shame, considering Dilbert was my favorite comic since I was a kid (weird comic for a 10 year old, but maybe that's why I like writing encyclopedic content).
Anyway, I appreciate you describing my understanding as intuitive. Please know that I have learned a lot about BLP issues from reading your responses on BLPN over the years, and so any intuition is partially helped by you. – notwally (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I didn't know that about Scott Adams. I always loved the Dilbert comic as well. Especially Wally, because he always got the deadpan lines. There was so much about it that I could relate to in my own jobs. Sad to hear that it's creator fell off the deep end. (But Calvin and Hobbes will always be my all-time favorite. Now there's a kid after my own heart.)
I agree. I don't like extremists myself, but fans are often the worst. The very word comes from fanatics, after all. It's hard to reason with people who come pre-entrenched in their own views, and this dispute is a great example. My favorite movie was always the Highlander, and while I think they ruined the story with the sequels, I see no good in wasting my time trying to make that point on Wikipedia. I just don't watch the sequels. It baffles me how emotional people can get over such things.
Anyhow, thanks for the compliments, they are appreciated. I can often be a very blunt person. I just try to temper that with tone, because I know how hard a critique of your work can be. If I've helped just one person it makes it all worth while. And you're welcome. I meant every word. Zaereth (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I ever made the connection between "fan" and "fanatic", as obvious as it may be! I always thought it was strange the people who would take off from work the day after their sports team lost a big game as some form of mourning or something. I guess whatever works for people, but now the internet has just made it easier for people to get those views out beyond the range of their mouth. :/
Keep up the good work at BLPN. I'm sure I'll be seeing you there, even if my editing slows significantly again once I'm back to work. – notwally (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's the root word. "Zealous to the point of being irrational or unreasonable." It applies to politics, religion, science, movie franchises, and even chariot races. Wikipedia is full of 'em.
3 days ago was my 78 birthday. My second son was also born on my birthday. We shared that for all his too short life. He passed away 6 years ago. Somehow it hit me hard this B-day. Your friendly comments were a godsend and very much needed to confirm my self-awareness. This mornings block was a real kick in the ass at a time when my emotions were in a flurry. Ive bumped into a lot of editors over my 15 years. Although we have not worked on any mutually rewarding project since Sarah, I've always held you in the highest esteem. I can think of maybe 5 or 6 editors I would love to meet in person. The other 5 have disappeared from WP...eventually disillusioned or pissed on by administrators or just plain fed up. I had plans of retiring myself today. Your note re-energized me and relit the flame. I aint goin' nowhere till I hand out 1000 EDDY's and every now and then I will stop by your talk, (just like I have secretly done for years), have a seat on that bench over there, see how yur doin'. Thank you for the kind words. They are so timely, I like to think I have created some credibility here. You and others make me smile. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 06:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW... We once talked about my daughter in connection to a Bruce Lee quote you shared at the time. She just returned from Indonesia where was training some Montessori teachers in Sorong. Proud Pappa! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 06:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Buster, I had not seen this when I gave you flowers, - it made me cry. No more words, just sharing flowers and music with great people, Zaereth and you. I'd like to meet you two. I met Floquenbeam and Graham87. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Gerda. Yours flowers and music are the wonderful gifts that you leave all around WP...brightening the landscape with friendship. A long time ago I visited your page and offered to send you some old opera books that I have. My wife and I once operated a resale store in Chicago, for 6/7 years. I have to find them. Maybe you can figure out how to get them to you. When I find them I will take some pics and email you. TA! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 12:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I'm so sorry to hear that Buster. That's a lot to have to deal with, and this on top of it... I can't even imagine what you're going through. But I saw a friend who was hurting and wanted to give what little comfort I could. I remember all those years ago when I got fed up with Wikipedia and was ready to leave for good. Back then it was your kind words that pulled me back from the brink. I always felt like I owed you one. Life has a funny way of coming around full circle, doesn't it? I'm glad you decided to stay.
Yeah, I had to move away from the political stuff and focus my energy on articles where I had some experience in. The Palin article was just a learning experience for me, but what an eye-opening experience it was. What I'll always remember, amidst all the hate and bickering and animosity, there were a few editors who really stood out among the crowd, yet even among them there was one who was like a ray of sunshine cutting through the gloom. That person was you, Buster. If not for you, I wouldn't be here right now, so thanks for that.
I remember that conversation about your daughter, and sharing that quote. I'm glad it had some meaning for you, because it means a lot to me. That sounds like a great accomplishment for her, and such a wonderful adventure. All the same, I bet you're happy to have her back.
I'm the same. There're only a handful of editors I'd like to meet in person, and you're at the top of that list. Same goes for you Gerda. You're another ray of sunshine in this bleak realm. If y'all ever find yourself in Alaska, hit me up. I'd be happy to show you around the place. Feel free to stop by my talk page anytime you like, and I'll drop by yours every now and then. You're always welcome. Zaereth (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, both, blushing a bit. Buster, please bring one book when you come in person. Reading books and playing piano are two things I do too little because of articles and flower-sending on this project ;) - Today it's this conductor who seems almost forgotten. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt:. So this morning, I come here to have some banananut bread and a "cuppa" and then start the difficult process of deleting most of my many sandboxes since they may probably, according to others, contain plagiarism (Who do I look like? Melania?) or some other cancerous rot that will bring down WP. So, of course, I begin to slowly sift through "the sands of time" and, only 15 minutes in, discovery this quote.........."the only real nation is humanity" by--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC). I love you Gerda. That is a brick I have built the foundation of my life on. And then, to add to the "weird" (Not JD Vance weird. Just normal weird) I browse threads above this and see that the Admin that blocked me is a regular visitor to the same park bench. Serendipity? Syncronicity? The Improbability Principle? Happenstance? I almost jumped sideways!!! Any way, as the Brits say, "TA!" Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 11:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you again, blushing more, but you don't have to work hard in your sandboxes to arrive at that quote, - you might just look at my user page, where it fills the nationality parameter of my user's infobox, marked as a quote. I thought that I found it at [[User talk:Halibutt]#RIP|Halibutt], but then remembered that no it's from the edit notice of one of the outcasts behind Precious that makes that awards too personal to be merged with EoW, - to see it just edit. It's a quote from Lord of the Flies. (I could have said it without the detour to sadly missed people.) - Beeblobrox had more problems than a block, and "survived" with a new identity. Many animals in this zoo ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"There are many jobs at the Zoo (WikiPedia). And Many Many happy workers. Pick a job that needs doing. And be happy. Leaving the Zoo is always an option. But, I love this Zoo. Maybe that's the difference. ```[[User: Buster7|09:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Soon after Dennis Brown and others created Editor Retention and I had a home at the Zoo! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 11:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Polygnotus. Thanks for the link. It looks like a perfectly good source, however, I'm still not sure what you or the OP of that discussion want us to do about it. The BLPN post was very unclear as to what they were trying to achieve. Zaereth (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My Definition of a stalker: a sour fellow that does not brook dissent; someone that does not play well with others; someone who needs a hug! LOL
Why are you doin' what your doin'? What your doin is un-doin everything I'm doin'. Which isn't a nice thing to do. 'Cause then I have to un-do what you do, when what you do has undone what I do. I do what I do...and your right there...behind me...to un-do it. That's not right! Do I undo what you do?....NO! Who are you to do what your doin'? We both know it has very little to do with doin' what's right. Please...stop doin what your doin...or someone else may have to do what they do to get you to stop doin' what you do. You've done it before, doooode (dude). This isn't the first time and I'm not your first stalking victim. Do something else!!! Do a "doobie"!!! In the words of Frank Sinatra, "doobie, doobie, do"--Buster7 (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Retrieved
Not sure I remember Alistair Haines, but Writegeist is someone I'll never forget. My definition of a stalker is someone with no life of their own so they live vicariously through others.
Yeah, JSS (the admin formerly known as Beeblebrox) is a fellow Alaskan, so we've edited a lot of the same articles. It's nice to have someone local to talk with from time to time. Alaska is quite a different place from anywhere in the Lower 48, but only those who live here really understand how so, so I've always considered JSS to be a friend as well. I've never dealt with him as an admin nor have I talked to him about this, but just from reading his remarks I am convinced his block was not intended for you, but for the person he assumed had stolen your identity. Your reputation is well known around here, and I think he was simply trying to protect it from being sullied in the event that someone had hacked your account. I know it left a scar on your once clean record, but personally I would wear it like a badge of honor. It was intended to save your reputation not to harm it. Zaereth (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Badge of Honor. Precisely what @Bishonen: said. Is it any thing like being an ex-felon?. In which case I'm in interesting company with Citizen Trump. The stalker was someone that haunted me for years. I sometimes could not even Collect my thoughts to respond..but I survived his obsession and I will survive this. Do I have to visit a parole officer or anything? BTW..JSS is alright with me. No grudges here. Scars Heal! Look on the bright side ...I'm re-discovering things I haven't seen in a decade and a half. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 02:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, you were blocked only because people care about you, not because of anything you did wrong. When an account gets hacked it can be impossible to get it back in your control. Hackers will change your password and then start doing all kinds of nasty things with your account, and you'd have a hell of a time trying to prove you are the rightful "owner" of that account. When I first saw it was a block for a compromised account, I was truly fearful that's exactly what would happen to you, and you'd end up having to start all over as a new account. But I truly believe the block itself was meant to protect you, not to harm. So yes, in that sense, badge of honor. People care about you.
As someone on your talk page suggested, Microsoft Notepad is an easy way to keep this stuff without putting it online, that is, if you have a computer using Windows. Look in the menu under "Windows accessories" and you'll find it. Then you can simply copy/paste anything from your sandboxes and save it on your own computer. I'm no computer genius myself (don't even own a smartphone), but I had to learn some things for my job, and that one is pretty simple to use and comes free with Windows. Just in case you don't want to completely get rid of all those gems you may find. Zaereth (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Toby lives outside. He is not homeless as he has many homes he visits throughout the neighborhood. But my building is his base. He once was an inside cat but his owners, tenants of mine, let him out one day, he tasted freedom, and now scorns entering any doorway. He just arrived (at 6AM) to check his dish which another tenant fills daily. Empty! I told him to go catch a city rat and eat it this time instead of dropping it off, decapitated, in my yard. He looked at me and walked away, insulted that I asked him to actually eat his prey. I didn't want to tell Toby that his former mate, Amy, was passing away upstair. See, the former jerk tenant, that I had to evict for non-payment of rent, had four cats. Toby, his mate Amy, and two of their kittens that were adults. The jerk tenant completely abandoned the three inside cats leaving it to me to call the Anti-Cruelty Society to pick them up for adoption since they were good cats. They came but we only found two. Two weeks later, Amy jumped out of a hide-a-bed we were dismantling for discard and went to hide. For weeks she hid (not to well since we knew where she was) on the enclosed back porch, We LET HER BE, as instructed by the Beetles but she didn't eat food or drink we put out for her. On day she was gone! I left windows open and figured she jumped out one and went to join Toby in the Great Outdoors. Sadly that was not the case. A few days ago, my first floor tenant tells me he has been hearing mice in his bathroom ceiling. Knowing there is an access panel to the 6' foot tub and that I had opened it weeks ago to start a repair that was now on hold, I knew it was Amy. As I write this, Amy is in the throws of death. I can't get to her, poor thing. I dropped some wet food down to her and water but she is comatose...still breathing but barely. If I could I would end her pain but I can't reach her to help. Toby doesn't Know. I haven't told him. Maybe Tommorrow. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 04:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. That is a sad story, Buster. It's tough to have a pet because you know you'll outlive them... that is, if all goes well. All we can do is give them the best we can while they're here. One day my dog Jessica died suddenly. She was only 7. Just a freak blood-clot traveled to the wrong spot in her brain, and poof, she was gone. It was hard to get over that one. I really loved that dog. I still well up every time I hear this song which was her namesake: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSdeqwO6FHA
Sucks to hear the owners were so heartless. I don't understand how people can do that to a pet, but they're out there. Jessie had a litter of pups once. There were 12 of 'em! One of the hardest things I ever had to do was give them up. I did hundreds of interviews and picked what I thought would be the perfect homes. One pup was brought back 2 years later (which was a condition of the puppy contract I had them sign). They seemed like a nice couple, but said the dog was impossible to train so they dropped her off at my house. It didn't take me long to realize she had been horribly abused. The poor dog was half starved and completely wild. I think her main diet up to that point had been wild animals she caught herself. She was scared to death of people. Any people. It took a lot of coaxing to get her into my arms, and when I hugged her that first time she melted right into me as if she'd never been hugged before. It absolutely broke my heart. I don't know how any person could be so cruel to a dog.
Good news is she has a really great life now. Training her wasn't difficult, but helping her transcend her emotional trauma took a lot of time and effort. Today she's a seeing-eye dog for a really great owner with all the love she can handle. Zaereth (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say she died peacefully. She basically starved to death because she had picked such a "hard to get to spot' to hide and by the time I discovered her, she was unable to move. All I could really see of her was her hindquarters and the slow rhythm of each struggling breath. We gave her food and water but it was never touched. She died over night. I wrapped her in Linen, put her in an Air Jordan shoe box, put a little food in the box, tied it with cord and buried her in the back garden. I had dug a hole earlier in the day but waited till nightfall to place her in her resting place. I heard Toby somewhere in the vicinity, but I never saw him. Maybe he knew. My wife and I will have a little ceremony for her Wednesday and I will make a plaque to mark the spot. She was very timid. Whenever I went into her owners apartment to repair this or that, she always ran and hid. Most cats are curious and will eventually come and sniff me and my tools. Not Amy. She was a beautiful Tabby and deserved a better life and, certainly, are more gentle death. Thanks for listening to Amy's story Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 06:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Thanks for the info. I'd never seen that before. Actually, that could be helpful for an answer I just left at Talk:BLPN, so I think I'll post it there. I was thinking more along the lines of the new skin. I can't just say to an IP editor, "Look for the upload file link on the left-hand side of your screen" anymore because it's not there. But that is helpful so thanks for the tip. Zaereth (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Sarah Palin, did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid!!!!!! ```Buster Seven Talk 18:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Japanese swordsmithing may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
.png)
Tank
Ewe
Berry
Muff
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
,
--RexxS (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
--RexxS (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
