User talk:Karl Palmen

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

Hello there Karl, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page and experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Nice work on the calendar entries. Cheers! --maveric149

Thanks for your correction to the Persian calendar page. I have a question that I thought you may know the answer. From the etymology of September through December, it is clear that they denote 7 through 10. Do you know if this is because at one point the start of the year was March (and possibly the dary of veneral equinox) or not? If so, do you know if the Gregorian calendar is based on the Persian calendar or not? A friend of mine a long time ago told me this was the case, but I could not solidly varify it for myself. But on the other hand, I don't know how else to explain the ordinal discrepancy of Sept. Through Dec. either. Regards,   --Keyvan 11:09 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

All I know is that March was originally the first month of the Roman year and that February and January were subsequently added as explained in Roman calendar -- Karl Palmen


After your edit on power of two, to "tidy the format list", it appears misaligned. At least in my browser, and the same if I copy the text into a text editor. Is there a logical explanation for this? :-) Fredrik 11:07, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC).

I can see that the problem may arise from the '?' symbol inserted for missing links 128 and 256. A space will need inserting after each such number if either its page is written or its link is removed. I now realise the table will appear misaligned if the viewer is not logged on, because missing links are highlighted in red rather than followed by a question mark.

-) User:Karl Palmen 4 Mar 2004
Ah. Well, I removed the missing links so it look fine either way now. Fredrik 12:37, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Guess what??[edit]

256 now has a page of its own at Wikipedia. If you know anything not mentioned in that article, you are free to expand it.

Centered square number[edit]

I replied to your comment at Talk:Centered square number. PrimeFan 21:05, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Strictly non-palindromic #s[edit]

That's right, it is palindromic in base 738. But it's not palindromic in binary, hexadecimal, or any base up to base 737. No integer is completely non-palindromic (n is always palindromic in base n - 1 if nothing else), and the name "strictly non-palindromic" might not be the clearest, but "n is not palindromic in any base b with 2 <= b <= n-2" is a little cumbersome. (Both of these terms are taken from (sequence A016038 in OEIS). PrimeFan 17:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Strictly non-palindromic numbers. Karl Palmen - 5 May 2002.

List of calendars[edit]

I am thinking of dividing the calendars in List of calendars into categories or sub-categories of wheter they are astral, lunar, solar, etc. Any ideas? Also, check out Wikiproject Calendars. --Munchkinguy 28 June 2005 04:05 (UTC)

The obvious categories are

Solar, Lunisolar, Lunar and Other

also orthogonal to these there are

Arithmetic (Rule-based or theoretical) and 
Astronomical (Observation-based pragmatic)

Examples:

Solar Arithmetic: Gregorian calendar, Julian calendar, Coptic calendar

Solar Astronomical: Iranian calendar

Lunisolar Arithmetic: Hebrew calendar

Lunisolar Astronomical: Chinese calendar

Lunar Arithmetic: Tabular Islamic Calendar

Lunar Astronomical: Islamic Calendar

-- Karl Palmen 17 August 2005

Wikiproject Years Survey[edit]

Hi. To get everybody thinking, I've created a survey about Year pages here. I'm telling all the participants of WikiProject Years and everyone else who has shown an interest in year pages or participated in the discussion. If you could check it out it would be appreciated, and tell anyone you think may be interested.Trevor macinnis 20:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Splitting Wikiproject Calendars[edit]

I think that we will have to eventually have to split the WikiProject Calendars calendars into seperate article for each calendar system. We can put this to a poll, however we currently have another poll to get through. It is right here. --Munchkinguy 22:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

List of cities by longitude[edit]

Hi. I saw your note but I am not having any trouble editing List of cities by longitude. Are you still having trouble? - Tεxτurε 16:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I tried it again off peak (before 06:00 EDT) and it worked. I added Reykjavik 25 W and now realise it's 22 W. Karl 20 September 10:00 UT.

December 25[edit]

Karl, I edited the December 25 page to remove the sentence "It is the 300th day counting from March 1, every year." I flipped back and discovered that you had added that sentence (about 4 years ago!) To me, it's just not very interesting. I do find number things intersting, but that one doesn't seem compelling. I just wanted to let you know that I had deleted your addition in case you have a compelling case for keeping the fact in there. Musser 04:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I realise it does not seem very interesting, if one does not realise that March 1 is the only date you can count from that ensures that each date has the same number every year. See the March 1 page for more about it. Karl Palmen 08:22, 7 October (UTC)

Well, I do think it's an interesting fact. But that quirk of our calendar seems to have a much better connection to March 1 than it does to December 25. Actually, now that you point it out it might be worth more space (or sooner in the article) on the March 1 page. Musser 03:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Calendar date[edit]

Hello,

Tried sending you e-mail, but you don't have that enabled. You modified the article calendar date after I modified it. I can understand that you might want to put back the sentence about February 19 being 10 days after February 9 if it was your sentence originally (I found it rather too obvious to be in the article). But why delete my paragraph about how dates are said in spoken English? The reason I put that in was that I actually came to this article to find out how dates written the British way are pronounced, and didn't find it. In a link I found what seems to be the answer, so I put it here in order to see if someone modifies it. I think it's something people (besides me) might want to know. So why delete it?

EricK 16:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The introduction is very general and how the date is spoken in a particular language is specific. So I deleted it because I thought it was dealt with later on or should be. Please add it later on where the order of written dates is dealt with if necessary.

The sentence about February 19 being 10 days after February 9, illustrates a general use of calendar dates.

Karl 09:00 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch[edit]

Hi Karl - I just wanted to invite you to add a line or two to my article List of things referred to in the works of Monty Python. You will find links in it to your superb Holy Hand Grenade article. Johnalexwood 23:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Highly Composite Numbers[edit]

I recalled that you showed at least passing interest in my Highly Composite Number discussion over a year ago on Wikipedia...I have taken that a lot farther, generalizing it to all primorials...I discuss all on my wiki page, link is on my talk page, if you have interest. There is also drawn-out commentary/dialog on several talk pages, chiefly the one for Primorial--Billymac00 13:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Lunar phase vandalism[edit]

I believe the anonymous editor's deletion of "not" and his attempted self correction was a test by a newbie and should not be characterized as vandalism. In cases like this I summarize my reversion as "rv test". Also see Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. — Joe Kress 20:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I later saw that it was the same person that corrected the apparent vandalism, though not in a good manner ("not" even though other column was "Not"). Karl 10:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Latin Monetary Union[edit]

The problem was in the article about the eagle. It had only the original 1790's weight for the coin. In the 1830's the U.S. changed from a gold to silver ratio of 15:1 to 16:1 to prevent the gold coins from being melted down overseas for a profit. The eagle was reduced in both weight and purity at that time. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Reading other articles including the half eagle I see that this was done (no article found for this coin act). I calculated that this reduced the amount of gold per dollar from 1.6g to 1.5g, which is still not within 1 per cent of the 1.4516g (45/31 g) of five francs (but is within 4%). Karl 08:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Premonth Calendar[edit]

I hope you will contribute to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Premonth Calendar! -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have done so Karl (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Remonetisation[edit]

By all means combine the articles, but keep a #REDIRECT from Remonetisation to Denomination (currency), since I couldn't think of the correct term. Tabletop (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary Remonetisation must not be so redirected, because it means something else. Instead all links the would benefit from the redirection need to be corrected as I have already done with the Italian Lira#redenomination. Karl (talk) 09:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. TTN (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Yerm Lunar Calendar[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Yerm Lunar Calendar, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yerm Lunar Calendar. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Gregorian calendar[edit]

Hello Karl, I corrected some mistakes in the site "Gregorian calendar" (table difference between Gregorian and Julian calendar) and you changed the site back to the previos version. I hope, that you are an expert like me. Please change it back or contact me. Greetings from germany --D(e)r Lero (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I changed back only half of your changes and modified the your other changes slightly. Please see Gregorian calendar talk page for more details. Karl (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Mr.Palmen, wat make I not reddy ? Sorry, I spike only german... Greetings from sachsonia.

Gregorian calendar Julian cal.(Leapyear) Diff.
10 February 1700
28 February 1700
1 March 1700
10 March 1700
31 January 1700
18 February 1700
19 February 1700
28 February 1700
10 days
11 March 1700
12 March 1700
29 February 1700
1 March 1700
11 days

quasi-Copy 1900 calendar[edit]

Gregorian calendar Julian cal.(Leapyear) Diff.
12 February 1900
28 February 1900
1 March 1900
12 March 1900
31 January 1900
16 February 1900
17 February 1900
28 February 1900
12 days
13 March 1900
14 March 1900
29 February 1900
1 March 1900
13 days

LenderCarl (talk) 07:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

These tables are not correct! While the 1 March 1900 Gregorian Calendar is undoubtedly 17 February 1900 Julian Calendar, these two dates do not have an unambiguous difference. They differ by 12 days only if you count in the Gregorian calendar. They differ by 13 days if you count in the Julian calendar. Karl (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Visible light listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Visible light. Since you had some involvement with the Visible light redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)