User talk:A876

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello A876! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for signing up. Here are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Best of luck. Have fun! ---- ElectricEye 10:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical


Where are you ultimately wanting this page to be? With admin tools I can merge two pages with histories and leave the rest as empty redirects, if that's what you want. Leave a note on my talk page. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's done. Let me know if something isn't quite as you intended. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: redlinks[edit]

I replied on my talk page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Atomic bomb v. nuclear weapon[edit]

I agree that "atomic bomb" is a misnomer, but in some contexts it is common to refer to "nuclear weapons" as "atomic bombs" to indicate that they are fission-powered air-dropped devices. In referring to a country's early development of nuclear weapons it is quite commonplace. It also helps to break up the style in some places, where one is looking for more than one way to say "nuclear weapons". Anyway, I'm just putting that out there as considerations before you try to change all instances of "atomic bomb" to "nuclear weapon" -- I don't think it's always required, especially in referring to historical circumstances. In situations where it is ambiguous as to whether they are fission or fusion weapons, or the delivery method is ambiguous, I think "nuclear weapon" is always preferable, of course. --Fastfission 17:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I caught myself. Changing all instances is not the way to go for this one. Looking at places where replacement was tempting, it just did not feel right. Most uses of "atomic bomb" really have to be left as they are.

They always told us that "atomic bomb" and "atomic energy" were unfortunate misnomers. Everything is made of atoms. Every object, tool and weapon ever made uses the mechnical, electrical, chemical and nuclear properties... of atoms. The word "atomic" is too general. Atoms consist of nuclei and electrons. Does "atomic energy", refer to interacting electrons or interacting nuclei? To properly name the special new tools and weapons that release energy from interacting nuclei, we have to call them "nuclear bomb" and "nuclear energy", they say.

But then why does everyone understand "atomic bomb", "atomic energy", "atomic decay" and "atom smasher"? These terms are quite unambiguous. When I say "atomic energy", no one will EVER think that I am talking about rubber bands, batteries, light bulbs, or gasoline. "Atomic" has long been synonymous with "nuclear" in these terms. "Nuclear" may be preferred, but "atomic" is an accepted alternate, not slang as some might suggest. The Atomic Energy Commission disappeared into the Nuclear Regulatory Commmission, but there is still an International Atomic Energy Agency.

In chemistry, "atom" and "nucleus" are close to interchangeable. An ion is a charged atom or molecule. A fully ionized atom is a bare nucleus, but it is still called an atom. Conversely, hydrogen ions are interchangably called protons.

To talk about the remaining energies or properties of materials (atoms) that are not nuclear, the term "molecular" covers most or all of them. (Molecules stretch, bend, burn, dissolve, fluoresce, etc.) A piece of metal is actually a macromolecule. Non-molecular atoms are actually not a common thing in chemistry. The "noble gases" are "monatomic" because they are nonreactive.

Historically, "atomic bomb" was what everyone called the thing as it emerged. It is in the old books, old movies, and our memories. "Atomic bomb", "atom bomb", or "A-bomb". It sounds smoother. Even if we want to call it a "nuclear bomb" or "nuclear weapon", we will always call it the "atomic bomb".

By The Way: "Nuclear" might be more correct than "atomic", but how did "bomb" get laundered into "weapon"? It's a perverted euphemism. Every "nuclear weapon" IS A BOMB. "Nuclear bomb" is an honest name. (As would be "Incinerator of Cities".) "Nuclear bomb" doesn't sound as smooth as "nuclear weapon". Maybe those who coined "nuclear weapon" were also considering how it sounded.

It seems like "forced correctness" to title the article "Nuclear weapon". ("Atomic bomb" outnumbers "Nuclear weapon", 11 million to 8 million hits on Google. "Nuclear bomb" has 4 million.) "Forced correctness" is not going to succeed in renaming the thing. (And the name is wrong anyway. We should follow the lead and rename the article "Nuclear bomb".)

And then there's the specificity of the historical "Atomic bomb" / "Hydrogen bomb" distinction. "A-bomb" referred to the initial fission bomb, since the days when it was the only nuclear bomb. The later fission-fusion "super" bomb was named "H-bomb" when it came along. The term "A-bomb" never refers to an H-bomb. But every H-bomb contains an A-bomb, so the A-bomb article can legitimately include the H-bomb. "Nuclear bomb" automatically refers to both "A-bomb" and "H-bomb". The ambiguity can be annoying or useful. -A876 23:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverting 101[edit]

(this same thread is also assembled completely at User_talk:Deeptrivia#Reverting_101)

1) A revert of a major edit is NOT a minor edit. (Rupee: history)

2) A revert needs an EXPLANATION. Your revert was right, I got it wrong. The edit which I reverted was not explained correctly. He really did add the template, not just suggest it as his edit note implied. (The templates are kind of tiny, which should be another problem to address on Wikipedia.) Was it really that hard to type in that the previous changes DID add the template? Reverting anyone's edit or revert, within one minute of the edit, with NO explanation, makes you look like a "revert-bot" or a sock-puppet of the previous editor. Just as you left me to figure out why my inept edit deserved to be reverted, likewise you have left anyone after us to figure out the same. --A876 01:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, A876, sorry for the inconvenience. I do use an automated revert tool that marks a revert as a minor edit, and doesn't allow writing a custom made summary. I think your suggestion are quite useful, and I'll pass them on to the person who made the tool. Meanwhile, it's great that you figured out that the revert was indeed useful. The template is quite handy because it provides a uniform access to and from all Rupee related articles. Please feel free to improve the template in any way you can. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I made other subtler tweaks on "Rupee"; let's see if they help.

I also adjusted Category:Rupee some, all formatting changes. I think I changed this category box for the better.

I have caught a gross problem that seems to affect most or all category boxes, having smaller print than the main article and italic instead of bold, thereby REDUCING visibility of the linked related topics that they are supposed to highlight.

If my style changes to that category box are for the better, then I would hope that the differences will get copied to other category pages. Sadly, I think the opposite will happen. My changed box is outnumbered by other boxes, so it is very likely that someone will come through and, in the name of Consistency (god), will restore the category page to small-print unreadability, not thinking of the drawbacks. I would look for a way to Meta-fix the category boxes, but sadly they are not using only template features. Every (?) category box seems to have font size specified within it, a very wrong thing. --A876 02:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)



I don't understand why you changed the Template:Rupee. The reason I set that to 90% was because there are other currency navigation template like Template:AsianCurrencies, which includes more that that Template:Rupee includes. Therefore, 90% would be better. I'm trying really hard to make sure that things are consistent. So whatever change we decide here, it must be applied to these templates as well:

--Chochopk 09:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Thanks for not slamming it back. To re-state the case all in one place (as if anyone else is looking):

My edit description for that change was:

de-center and add "See also" heading for article "History of the rupee"; upsize (small print is not fair); bold the section headings (like any other article)

And here are my (edited) notes, originally an aside to a different issue:

I have caught a problem that seems to affect most or all category boxes. Surprisingly, many category boxes seem to have smaller print than the main article. Is that a benefit? Section headings within these boxes are merely Italic, instead of Bold, as they are in article. Overall, I think that some category box stylings are REDUCING the visibility of the content (links to categorically related articles) that they are supposed to highlight. Links that seemed visible outside the box become invisible inside the box. I think the reduced size and altered font style are a big part of the problem.
If the changes I made to that category box really are for the better, then I would hope that the differences will get copied to other category pages. Sadly, I think the opposite will happen. My changed box is outnumbered by other boxes, so it is very likely that someone will come through and, in the name of Consistency (god), will restore the category page to small-print unreadability, not thinking of the drawbacks. I would look for a way to Meta-fix the category boxes, but sadly the templates are not using only template features. Every (?) category box seems to have font size specified within it, which is not the way things are supposed to work.

Centering also makes things hard to read -- or to find! I did not systematically address centering; I only removed it where it seemed to be making a problem.

As we both mentioned, related boxes ARE affected by a change to this box. I didn't want to just go hunt down every category box and edit it. Creating this difference and then discussing it gives a chance for a resolution. Consistency is nice, but clearly you are thinking about more than just consistency. (There's nothing like a negative expectation to bring out the best in people.)

After these boxes are decided, if we decide to revise them as a set, then this little box-altering meme will want to spread to all the other category boxes, won't it?

So there's another reason to be cautious, as this box styling gets to be a Wikipedia Style issue. We should find the guidelines that affect category boxes, or else create them, or else correct what's there, if they forgot to address little old READABILITY.

90% font, with the browser and fonts that I use, works out to 86% height. (Height of "o" goes from 7 pixels to 6 pixels.)

These boxes seem to be a bit too technical, with all the cryptic HTML-like mark-up (WikiML?) for tables and the like. I don't know how or when that happened. It's taking the edit process away from the editors. If category boxes are important, I'd think that they would be easier to edit. Maybe they should be lower-tech, resulting in a format looking more like a regular page -- Category box would act more like a simple "include" of text with the usual formatting.

I also notice, when comparing the "Category:Hogwarts" page and the "Hogwarts" page (for example), that there is often awkwardness or ambiguity or lack of linkage or even diparate content. I'm not sure that these are working as they should.

Eventually I might try to adjust such things on Wikipedia. It takes a little more research on the topics, which takes a litte more to,e than tweaks incidental to browsing or browsing incidental to tweaking. So I need a time when I can focus.

I find it painful navigating the Wiki Help and Guides pages -- they seem not to be in the regular like normal pages AND they seem to have no search function of their own. Even "Meta" does not seem to be Meta enough. Everything in Help must be navigated to by the use of links and Ctrl+F (the browser's "Find on page" command).

Getting back to the issue at-hand, what are your thoughts? Is my hack more legible and reasonable to use? Is it better or righter?

If you want to propagate it to see what happens (someone else will surely question it), go ahead. I have edited some category pages, hence my wondering if they are styled correctly, but I am not watching any collections of category pages for consistency. If you are suggesting that I should edit the related pages you listed, I would be happy to edit them myself as well.

--A876 01:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I can understand your concerns about readability. So let's lay down the concerns one by one

  • font size
  • font for sub group (i.e. current v.s. defunct)
  • center or not

(if I miss some your points, please remind me again)

So let's see other navigational boxes on some other subjects

{{EU countries and candidates}}

It in turns calls {{NavigationBox}}, which specifies font-size: 90%; and appears to be centered as it renderes on my browser. {{NavigationBox}} is used by 802 other templates.



They are also 90%, center, but do not use {{NavigationBox}}. They are built from ground up.

{{United States topics}}

This one is a little out of the norm. The font is <small>, and it looks smaller than 90% on my browser.

{{Philosophy topics}}

91% font, wierd choice. Whether or not this box is centered is not meaningful, as it is always 100% of available space, even if I enlarge my browser to more thab 2800 pixel wide.

{{tl|Star Wars]]

<small> again, with bolded categories on the left.

There are more at Wikipedia:Navigational_templates.

So going back to the points above

  • font size
I guess 90% is the common ground, as it is used by {{NavigationBox}} and is copied to many other directly-built boxes
  • font for sub group (i.e. current v.s. defunct)
I now agree that we should use bold
  • center or not
Most are centered. I still don't know what kind of problem it causes on your computer. =P

We can either use {{NavigationBox}} (with table in table), or to write up the style directly. I have to try both to make a better decision. --Chochopk 02:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

- Font Style for subgroups within category box: Bold is the trend and we both like it. More important, the reason, it reads better. And it's more consistent with the section titles in regular articles. Let's go for it. In any templates where we happen to notice it, let's change Italic subgroups to Bold.

- Font Size: 90% seems the common size (but not constant). If it is the common size, then the common size is wrong. It shouldn't be so surprising. The font is undersized where it needs to be clear. Maybe some Wikipedia guideline should prescribe 100% as the minimum font size. I need a little more thought to take an exact stand on this. I have had 20/13 eyesight, but my focus is just starting to change. When I see "fine print" on a web page, I can't help but ask why. Someone was being too clever. Let's go look at a paper encyclopedia or two, just to see how they handle font size in inset boxes and photo captions. In these Category boxes, i find that the Title is too small, the entries are too small, and the subgroup titles are too small! In small fonts, Italic and Bold blur the letters more than they do at larger fonts. I notice that in some of the examples you posted, the subgroup title is deliberately made larger than the the contents of the subgroup, presumably also in keeping with the regular article format that automatically makes section titles larger.

So next some thought or research, and then maybe i'll try to carefully change that template. Maybe try "sandbox" like they suggest.

In spite of the warnings there, there are several "oops" corrections in its history. The warning says "This template employs some extremely complicated and esoteric features of template syntax. Please do not attempt to alter it unless you are certain that you understand the setup and are prepared to repair any consequent collateral damage if the results are unexpected. ..." The template is even more gruesome than the Category pages that use it! Why does such crazy coding and unnecessary fiddling with format have any place on Wikipedia?

- Centering: I guess I was a little vague. All of the boxes are centered. (100%-width boxes are by definition left-justified, right-justified AND centered, regardless of which alignment is requested.) Centering seems to be what one does with boxes. I hadn't thought much about the centering OF the box. Maybe it's okay. Centering of subgroup names within their little invisible cells can be problematic. The worst thing, which made me go in and de-center something, is when there is a single item in a list and that list is centered. The closest example is in the "The Star Wars Saga" box. The subgroup "Spin-off films:" -- then way, way, way, way, way over is that listed item, "The Star Wars Holiday Special". (Actually that box is an especially bad example of a box. Some subgroups are one row and some are two rows. The lists are vertically centered, so that a two-row list includes items that are above and below the subgroup title.) How do I know what goes with what?? It's not user-friendly or reader-friendly. It has an oppressive feel that makes me look away. Some of the other examples show attractive styling and some show good usability.

--A876 05:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I will spend some time on fixing the other boxes, maybe tomorrow. I am just so occupied with other stuff about currencies. It's not easy to manage 170 some currencies. As you can see, consistency is important to me. Once I start doing it, I might find myself modifying the polygon template!

It's good that we resolve this in a non-Wikipedia fashion (revert war) =). About the font size, have you thought about enlarging it with your browser setting? I do make use of that feature from time to time. --Chochopk 06:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And yes, I agree with you. The Star Wars box is stupid. --Chochopk 06:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

your edits at coroutine[edit]

((moved to Talk:Coroutine)) --A876 06:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Cat renames[edit]

I see you renaming cats by hand and saying it is a pain. Yes it is. If you go to the WP:CFD page and request the name change properly, you'll see that bots will happily do it. What you are doing would likely be a Speedy Rename request. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 14:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your significant contribution to triiodide. One aspect to strive for in future edits of this nature is a reference, preferably to a textbook or a review. As you will discover, WE-chem relies heavily on citations. --Smokefoot 11:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(Please put a link on "WE-chem" -- I have no idea what it is, and no idea where to look for it.)

The references will of course bear me out. :) We all hope for a better place. It is so hard to get basic things right. I generally re-assemble what's there, in hopes of making it meaningful to whoever reads it for the first time. I edited what bothered me the most, which was lack of structure and lack of meaning. Lack of references didn't bother me that much. Anyone should know these things. Putting in good references is not MY thing. Trying to edit it well enough that people won't be tempted to unravel it is my thing. And it is depleting. I'm stuck on quality, not quantity. I can't leave the edit until i've fixed whatever i could in that article and usually a few related articles. Hopefully i've made the article worthy of someone's effort who is able to add references.

Want solid references from the get-go, try the site started by the founder of Wikipedia when he gave up(?) on Wikipedia: Citizendium. Too strict, surely slow to fill in. Probably even more pompous. Someday i'll have to go see how it's doing...

My idea of a clever reference would be to cite, which usually merely caches Wikipedia! And for pure unattributed plagiarism, it's hard to beat Wikipedia. -A876 09:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of oxymora[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

An editor has nominated List of oxymora, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oxymora (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow you can proof read[edit]

I saw you fly through self replicating machines, you are like a proof reading machine. I was convinced you were a bot until I saw more of your edit history. You are amazing, keep it up! Bobprime (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I started with a search for pages that link to a redirect page for a specific misspelling or variant spelling. (The misspelling had its own redirect page.) (Bypassing redirects is not so important, but i thought the misspell was.)
Whenever I am editing, I usually check some or all links (so many links are a little off), and take some notice of spelling, spacing, punctuation, grammar, style, and other "lint" as I read. (Wikipedia is almost fun for those of us who typically read with a pen in hand.)
Spelling check is very easy if you use Mozilla Firefox or similar web browser -- it includes an automatic built-in spell-checker for all form fields. Just scan for red underlines. -A876 (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, What A Merry Spring-like Day![edit]

--Cinemaniac (talkcontribscritique) 03:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Peter Schickele[edit]

geez dude, the hostility in your change comment is palpable, and there's really no call for that. at any rate, 1) thanks for the spelling correction. 2) technically, yes, baroque is more correct than the general term classical when referring to an era. however, i'm sure you know that an argument can be made both ways when referring to the genre. particularly since not all--most, but not all-- of Schickele's work is in the manner of the baroque. but since quibbling over the differences in nuance is fruitless, have it your way. 3) i'm very well aware of the template {{birthdate and age}}. however, its use in the header is inappropriate and does not comply with wp:mos. it has been removed. cheers! --emerson7 03:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

i've had a bad week, month etc. you do good edits generally (i forgot to mention), so your changes there were puzzling -- it looked like three random bullets were fired, and then described as "copyediting; cleanup". bad edits irk me; "random" deletions irk me; dis-explained edits irk me. 1) using Firefox, new spellings are underlined (a great feature), so i just scan for red sometimes. i used to be amazed how many typos i spotted; now i'm amazed how many typos i don't spot myself. 2) the article needed a mention of baroque somewhere (the word was totally absent). i admit i was a little nervous changing it to read "parodies of baroque and classical music", because of the "overlap" (unofficially and officially, "classical" includes baroque, classical, romantic, ... . "Classical Music" radio stations play renaissance.). i'm angry at having to edit defensively -- anticipating how others will misconstrue and mess things up. my afterthought, for when someone else deletes "baroque" again, is to cite a review, quoted on one of his older album covers, where some reviewer helpfully said that PDQ "should set the baroque back another hundred years", or something like that. (cannot find the quote.) 3) sorry i did not research that template. i'm embarrassed to beat you up for something you did right. glad you fixed it again, but now i hate the description "cleanup; per mos guidelines". i hate any description that cites WP:MOS (not "mos") -- as if i'm going to go read MOS and bow down to it. the template is actually mentioned at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), saying that {{birth date and age}} should be used "In[side] biographical infobox templates", but there is no mention of where they should NOT be used. Template:Birth_date_and_age is no help either. you're probably right that the template does NOT belong in article bodies (not "headers"), but someone should try to get that notion or fact documented, so that others are less likely to go putting that template where it doesn't belong. -A876 (talk)

Edits to High-Definition Multimedia Interface[edit]

As you have been around Wikipedia for 2 years, I shouldn't have to remind you of the WP:OR rule or WP:CRITICISM as your 1am edit to High-Definition Multimedia Interface seemed to ignore. Also though it is not a topic for discussion on wikipedia, I'll say that the issue you noticed with your particular equipment has nothing to do with HDMI interface but on the implementation by the HDTV maker or video card makers. There are many, many Media Center PCs are hooked up to a HDMI monitors without experiencing your pervasive "problem". Samsung for example is notorious for screwing this up.

Cheers though and I hope you fix this. The underscan at the videocard trick that you mentioned is the crappy way to fix it. -- KelleyCook (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


Grandee (New Model Army) is a perfectly good redirect. There was no reason to change it to Grandee. Next time please check the redirect to see if the section name has changed. In this case it had been changed in the article from "New Model Army" to "English 'Grandee' & New Model Army" so the redirect just redirected to the top of the Grandee article. I changed the section heading back to "New Model Army" so that the redirect works. If the new section name was better and should be left in the article, then one can either fix it by altering the section part of the redirect, or by adding the original section back in as a hidden section header using the section template: {{section|New Model Army}}. -- PBS (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

i'll look more carefully next time. i noticed that under Grandee, you commented the section heading "New Model Army" so that people are less likely to rename it (and break the links to it). the article i edited (Instrument of Government) has gotten more attention, from several editors, since then. just now, it occurred to me to change [[Grandee (New Model Army)|Grandee]]s, this time to [[Grandee#New Model Army|Grandee]]s. i think a direct link to a subsection makes its intent more obvious that the former (a direct to a redirect to a subsection). -A876 (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


Photon is an WP:FA and not a WP:Sandbox. Thus choose your words and references well. Microwave doesn't cover 440 GHz and above (mostly called sub-millimeter range or alike). "All electromagnetic radiation consists of photons" is a strong rhetoric claim which needs multiple reliable secondary sources. Low-frequency ranges are usually treated as waves, not photons, as far as I know. Materialscientist (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


I don't buy the "is"ness of things. "Do you know who I AMMMMM?" Oh my, that article "is" now a Sacred Cow. Don't dare add anything. Chilling Effect, anyone? The article is now a defended magic wall that bounces away everything that hits it? Nothing sticks unless it's perfect?? That's not the way. Maybe check into Citizendium, where "is"ness reigns supreme, and there is no content.

I wrote what I (correctly) knew to be true. I know your 20-plus-edit-per-hour watchdogging helps, but not always. You treated me as a vandal. If you knew it to be true, you could leave it alone, thin it out, or (shudder) improve upon it. Or move it down to a more suitable section of the article. What, no time? AHEM. Oh, and there is also an "unsourced" tag. But i suppose those are too ugly to put on a Sacred Cow page.

I thought it a significant addition. Maybe I can look forward to a Discussion where admitted non-experts express opinions anyway, on whether it is "noteworthy".

"(Undid revision 436795973 by A876 grammar, weasels - duibious and unsourced statement)". Oh my terrible grammar. I went back to change my typo of "is" to "are", and found already an instant edit conflict. I didn't zing on your mis-spelling (typo) of dubious. Did my grammar "profile" me as a vandal, like bad spelling on a package is supposed to indicate the likelihood of a package bomb? The true statement was un-sourced. One does not need expertise to revert everything that is "unsourced" - I could hire a drop-out to sit and do that. Especially when an expert knows that the statement is correct.

"(rvt: not microwave, but sub-millimeter; no source for "all electromagnetic radiation consists of photons." - low-frequency ranges are usually treated as waves)". Well, the cite says "microwave", and "sub-millimeter" is a red-link. What of that? And, "... usually treated as waves" – of course, and x-rays are "usually" treated as particles. But polarization and reflection of x-rays have been demonstrated, as well as microwave photons. Wave–particle duality goes all the way. (But you know that.) Maybe i need to go vandalize over there. Wave–particle duality has not [yet] been tagged a Sacred Cow. – A876 (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I keep you not as a vandal, but as a specialist, and thus require focus, factual accuracy and proper referencing. This was lacking which is why I didn't correct your typos and didn't move that sentence down where it belongs. To me, duality is mere philosophy and convenience of theoretical treatment. I personally see no use in the concept of photon in the radio range and below where discrete transitions vanish in almost any matter. Detection of single low-energy photons is a separate and interesting topic, but it is extremely difficult in any foreseeable future even for the microwave range, AFAIK. Thus I disagree with you, but am keen to learn and change my mind, not because "you know it's true" but because reliable sources said so. Neither your reference nor the irks above help me with that. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit war[edit]

A876 and Materialscientist - you probably know that you have both been edit warring at Photon, and engaging in aggressive and personal philosophical debates in the edit comments and user talk pages. Please, both of you, take 24 hours to calm down, then come back to Talk:Photon to discuss whether the proposed sentence is useful and appropriate for readers.

(When a war is brewing, make proposals but let others edit.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

next thoughts[edit]

Yup, that's what happened. (As i sheepishly conceal the smoking guns.) I appreciate the sentiment.

Welcome to Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Every so often I am forced to question whether that ever meant what it says.

If every edit triggers a REVERT-BOT, then no one can actually edit! The pretense of openness becomes absurd. Why not just lock the knighted page forever? Or change the publishing model such that edits do not become viewable until the resident reviewer(s) decide whether the flavor is right? Naturally that would restructure Wikipedia as a bureaucratic pyramid whose primary function is deciding WHO gets to decree what is truth. (Citizendium? Congress? IUPAC? One has to wonder how hierarchies get things done. And then consensus is an even scarier notion.)

If every article has an OWNER, likewise, just take away those "edit" tags for everyone else as soon as possible, because they are a big lie. I have seen an edit tweaking my edit, just to put the self-appointed-mayor's stink on it, with an edit comment like "... , but I'll allow it". Really? As if every edit is a humble plea for his comment and consent, or tentative assent? Every alternate edit of that article was by the same pompous ass.

An editor could assume good faith on the part of another editor who adds content (other than replacing paragraphs with "pisssssssssssssssssssssssssss").

Wrong grammar? Fix it.
Lacks citation? Add a citation, or tag it.
"Weasel words"? Correct it or tag it. Else what are those tags for?
Added to the wrong article? Move it. Who exempted you from responsibility?
Assume that Undo and Erase are usually the wrong buttons to press -- they destroy. Use with caution! Edits deserve explanation (which is why we hate unexplained edits). Undo is the harshest edit of all. If used, it needs a sound rationale, concisely spelled out.

But there are some who blithely break out the Eraser, the Annihilator, the Stark Fist of Removal, whatever you want to call it. We enjoy their work about as much as a bear enjoys a beartrap, or a Cambodian farmer enjoys a landmine. It can ruin your whole day.

I can imagine that some day this Project might start to be "complete" -- having reached the point where no edit can be of benefit; where no edit can do anything but subtract from the perfection that is Wikipedia. Then they can turn off all this problematic "input" stuff, set the data servers to read-only, throw away the keys, and stop collecting money. But that day is far off, by any estimate.

I do a lot of reading and a little bit of writing. At times i wish for a better interactive editing tool. I encounter many small defects, but often don't edit them until they exceed a threshold of annoyance. I'm a gentler editor. I rephrase locally, with varying scope. I've re-shuffled, re-ordered, sometimes at the top level. Deletion is usually a consequence of de-duplication. Even when de-duplicating, consolidation usually makes a better result than pure deletion. Glaring omissions are one kind of problem that can exceed my threshold. Sometimes I've been "lazy". I spot the missing aspect, and i put in just a hint of it, lacking time and/or hoping that someone will flesh it out. Sometimes i do the work, sometimes someone else. Either way the result has been enjoyable. And I'm sure I've fleshed out some skeletons placed by others.

RF photons are significant, otherwise they would not make exciting news stories. They are a triumph of science, if not a Triumph of Science. Someone predicted them. Someone went looking for them. And someone devised equipment that detected them. This is on a par with the latest Schmiggs Bozon in the particle zoo. Hardly anyone has any use for such knowledge. But it adds to the knowledge of [the current model of] reality. Every polarizable, reflectable, refractable, long radio wave passing by can be detected as fluxions of voltage and/or electrical field strength, but they can also be [potentially] detected as a huge number of extremely weak particles. There might be a place for mention of this, if it isn't there already. Your mention of waves tipped me closer to the grouping this idea with wave-particle duality. Although looking now at the introductory sentence, i see "a photon is ... the basic unit of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation." That's the notion i was trying to emphasize using the extreme example. One big problem with that opening sentence is that the "wave" also wants to be the basic unit of all forms of electromagnetic radiation. Or, as you pointed out: x-rays (polarizable though they may be) are typically observed only as particles, while radio waves (particle-countable though they may be) are almost exclusively observed as waves. Is that in the article? Also, must mention: looking at Featured Article statistics, i notice that some are occasionally demoted. Is that due to article degradation by poor editing, or just a shift of relevance?

The latter does not apply. The former is usually the reason - articles get cluttered with unsourced statements. When freshly spotted, they can be removed. What happens later is our copyeditors integrate the added statements without checking their relevance. After some time it becomes hard to understand what was added when. Materialscientist (talk) 04:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't see the significance or notability of anything to do with professional and amateur sports. Maybe there should be an independent Wiki for trivia. And maybe a separate Wiki for literature and all works of fiction, poetry, songs, abstract art. And so on. But historical people are encyclopedic. They're often famous because of their fiction, "Great" or otherwise. Sports links at least to sports medicine and architecture. It all fits together. So i leave it as it is. I don't start deleting articles.

I need a new Wikipedia name. The current one started as a bad ironic joke, that happened to be available. I failed to anticipate my sustained interest in Wikipedia. I think it might prejudice people. I almost wish for a random anonymous alias generator, that would issue an unused alias similar to a license plate, alphabetic prefix plus a sequential or keyed number, like THX1138 or Anon66139269. Names i think of are mostly illegal (e.g., RevertBot), too ironic (PageScrambler, PackOfLies, RevertBot), or too likely to be taken (SomeRandomGuy). I'm not in SCA, so i don't have a Renaissance alias ... --A876 (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:UNC. Materialscientist (talk) 04:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In Palliative care, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Counselor (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Refactoring others' talk page comments[edit]

You are welcome to comment again at Talk:Conventional PCI, but please don't change the text of other peoples' comments, even for spelling and grammar errors. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

But you reverted MY comment in the process! THAT did NOT have to happen! What is wrong with you? You call my action rude, but yours is unacceptable! Or maybe you don't know how to edit. A876 (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
WP:AGF, please. It's a rule, don't change others' comments. Simple as that. I reverted your comment in the process simply because you decided that it was OK to change someone else's comment.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
AGF? You confessed right here that you reverted my comment because I edited someone else's comments! You zinged me to pay me back in kind! (Seriously changed my comment, so I can see how it feels.) Please don't do things like that!
Aside from deleting my comment, I don't like what you did. You saw something you did not like, and you reverted it. If my effort was useless, your effort (restoring obvious typos) was far more worthless, and antagonistic. Who assigned the mission to undo such a harmless thing when it happens?
Yes it is "a rule", and it's not as simple as that. I did not break the intent of the rule. Never change meaning. Don't make adjustments that you wouldn't appreciate yourself.



Behavior that is unacceptable

Please note that some of the following are of sufficient importance to be official Wikipedia policy. Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being blocked or banned from editing Wikipedia. [...]

  • Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means: [...]
    • Generally, do not alter others' comments, including signatures. Exceptions are described in the next section. [...]

Editing comments

Others' comments

It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing or spelling errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. [...]

Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: [...]

  • Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels, removing bullets from discussions that are not consensus polls or requests for comment (RfC), using <nowiki> and other technical markup to fix code samples, and providing wikilinks if it helps in better navigation. [...]
  • Disambiguating or fixing links, if the linked-to page has moved, [...]


I found the term for pointless reversion (plus optional abuse) on a technicality: Wikilawyering! -A876 (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21, 2012[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Rampuri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thug (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It was intentional. The article used "thug" in the modern generic sense. The disambiguation page Thug seemed appropriate, because it defines "thug" as a specific kind of criminal, while also mentioning "Thug", as in the long-gone Indian Thuggee cult of killers. Maybe I could bypass disambiguation and link "thug" to to criminal, but then the linkage to the older Indian term "Thug" is lost. So I'm not going to change it. Also I am about to make the same link on another page.-A876 (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Goonda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thug (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pigging, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roundness (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I intended to link to an article on geometrical roundness or unroundness or out-of-roundness, but no such article exists. I though there was some numerical measure of how round or unround something is. In general, a number that expresses how different the curve is from a best-fit circle. (The details being, how do you define the best-fit circle, and how do you quantify deviation?) A simpler version of roundness might be to find the best-fit ellipse, and divide the minor axis by the major axis. A circle gets a value of 1; all other ellipses have lower numbers. -A876 (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Robot, you were right. On the disambiguation page, Roundness (object) is close to what I wanted, while the other choices are way off. Initially I didn't like "Roundness (object)" because of its intro ("Roundness is the measure of the sharpness of a particle's edges and corners."). It seems to overlook that an out-of-round pipe (for example) could be a perfect ellipse, which has no corners (unless the two apices count as two corners). Also, the article ellipse mentions the article I initially wanted, one that addresses unroundness of ellipses: Eccentricity (mathematics). So I made "Roundness (object)" and "Eccentricity (mathematics)" mention each other under "See also". -A876 (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of RiffTrax, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steve Bassett (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Inclusion (mineral), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aquamarine (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

June 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Thomas Forret 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.

  • ] and [[Gospels]]. At that time in Scotland, only [[black friar]]s (Dominican Order|Dominican]]s)and [[grey friar]]s ([[Franciscan]]s) were in the habit of preaching. The friars, offended at the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed it. Thanks, BracketBot. -actual 22:37, 09 June 2013 (UTC) -A876 (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Tripropylene is wrong?[edit]

A long time ago, you wrote an article on propene trimer, aka tripropylene. I suspect that the article is mostly incorrect, that this material is in fact the trimer of propylene, not what is represented. But maybe you as originator can provide some insights. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"The three trimers of propene", all nonanes. (Are there three?) (Should these be nonenes?)
Thanks for reporting the change. I did NOT make this up (at least not unabetted). I was inspired by someone's image of three trimers, plus other confirmation (which I don't remember). Looking now at the old image (shown here) and the undamaged article, I am surprised that they show and discuss three [iso-]nonanes. (I should contact the creator of that image.) One might expect strict trimers of propene to be nonenes, like the one you made up. Both nonene and nonane claim to encompass trimers of propene. ("Industrially, the most important nonenes are trimers of propene." - Wikipedia!)
Mention of the tripropene or tripropylene isomers is a little hard to find. Look harder. (Most mentions of tripropylene are tripropylene glycol, a very different molecule, so exclude glycol in a web search.) Also, you seem to suppose that there is only one trimer. It is conceivable that propene will trimerize more than one way; the third propene has a choice of carbons to attach to. Other common propene compounds consist of isomers: "Dipropylene glycol is a mixture of three isomeric chemical compounds ..." -A876 (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
You suspect and you deleted. You suspect and you fabricated a structural formula (independent research). Nice edit summary, too: "that kind of stuff gives Wikipedia a bad name". Indeed. Here's one page you didn't find: "Tripropylene (CAS RN: 13987-01-4) IUPAC Name: 2,3-dimethylheptane; 2,4-dimethylheptane; 2,3,5-trimethylhexane" (the very text you deleted) "| CAS Registry Number: 13987-01-4 Synonyms: 1-Propene, trimer, AC1L1B03, CID26374, UN2057, Tripropylene [UN2057] [Flammable liquid]. [1] -A876 (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that the article as it stood a few weeks ago was badly flawed. No embarrassment because like you said the literature is flakey Yes there are isomers since this material is generated by the trimerization of propylene and there are several ways to put these units together. The key aspect, which I am fairly confident about, is that tripropylene is unsaturated, otherwise it could not be used to alkylate aromatics. Yes, you are correct it is flammable, like any organic compound. If you find a paper that indicates that it is saturated, please indicate so. Happy editing. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Information icon Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Fleet Command (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

So busy slapping me around, you forgot to edumacate the lamer who started this by undoing an improvement, with insult, and for undoing it rather than fix it better (as you eventually did). Thanks. (By the way, he/she has two usernames, I notice. Maybe time to look into why, whether it's legit.) Just before that, flustered to slap back the bad guy, you hastily Undid (assume bad faith, right?) my edit (So many love that Undo button. It's a disease!) without even previewing and testing that edit! It took you two edits to figure out how to do right what I did 3/4 right the first time and 1/2 right (out of fear of reversion) the second time. "Codename Lisa" didn't pay attention to the work done before deciding I was an idiot. You didn't pay attention to the work done, before deciding I'm a bastard. People, pay attention to the work done! First make an accurate determination whether I'm an idiot or a bastard. Then abuse at will. -A876 (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coin flipping, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parallel universe (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)