User talk:Pjacobi/Archive1

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

Contents

China History Forum (serious POV problem)[edit]

I have noticed that for the last several days, the article China History Forum has been extensively altered to suit the point of view of its founder, General Zhaoyun. This could imply self-promotion and misrepresentation of facts. May 27, 2005


Hello Pjacobi/Archive1 and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!

Planned languages[edit]

Hello PJacobi, I got your message.

However, at first I didn't know from whom it was. Please sign your messages on my talk page with four tildes ~~~~, which automatically adds a signature and a timestamp. Thanks! -- pne 13:14, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

ISO 8859-17[edit]

I've been tempted to put ISO 8859-17 on VfD, as I don't get it, to have an article about a non-existing entity, which more or less only states, it doesn't exist. If you think that ISO 8859-17 should be kept, can you please clarify the intent of the article? See also the discussion at Featured_article_candidates#ISO_8859. Pjacobi 20:39, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead. I don't see the damage done by leaving the article in place (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not paper), but it can be safely removed. As can be ISO 8859-12 of course. — Jor (Talk) 09:05, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What Color[edit]

Woot! Thanks loads for posting the link to WhatColor on Village Pump. I'd looked for such a tool years ago. Now I won't be such an embarassment any more! *grins* - UtherSRG 16:31, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Now, if we only would get a Real Life version of this! Imagine not needing to ask what color the shirt is, you are about to buy. Pjacobi 17:48, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Amen, brother! - UtherSRG 03:04, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Categorization[edit]

'Fictional' already contains 'Fictional universes', which contains 'Harry Potter', which contains 'Harry Potter locations'. (Alternately, 'Fictional' contains 'Fictional locations' which contains 'Harry Potter locations'.) Thus, 'Hogwarts' was already in Fictional. If we included every cateegory in the tree under which an article eventually appears, we'd have huge and unwieldy category sections---not to mention unusably dense category pages. Please only include the most specific categories into which an article fits. grendel|khan 15:33, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)

I agree with you, theoretically. But I've checked the situation and it didn't work out in this way. The categories created by the authors of the Fictional articles tend to have non-fictional items included. Like real books, films, actors etc. I'd prefer to have all strictly fictional items and characters in a separate namespace, but it was already decided against this solution. So a category giving the same distinction is the next best solution. When category support improves by enabling boolean category queries, it will become possible to return only non-fictional results from queries by specifying "AND NOT Category:Fictional". Pjacobi 15:42, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, you can do that already with Category:Fiction. (One performs a traversal of the graph under the root category.) You're creating a huge, flat, useless category. If this were done for Category:World War II, we'd have over fifteen hundred articles in it, and the category would cease to be human-readable. This has been discussed over at Wikipedia:Categorization#General_naming_conventions. It pollutes the namespace. Please stop. grendel|khan 15:50, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)
Is this a personal advise or annnouncement of upcoming sanctions? Anyway, I'll stop for now, but I don't agree. Any advanced, complicated scheme cannot hold pace with rate of Fictional articles added. And yes, Category:Fictional is flat, potentially huge, but not useless. It's single use. Pjacobi 15:57, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
And Category:Fiction is already broken: it includes many things existing in Real Life, not Fictional. For example: Crime writer, Category:Christmas fiction, Thriller. -- Pjacobi 16:00, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Pjacobi, I don't believe Grendelkhan was threatening you (if he was, I hope he'll apologize). I do sense some frustration in his words, I grant you. I'm afraid he's right, though -- Category:Fictional violates our category conventions in two ways, that I can see. It is far too broad for the articles being placed in it, and it is an adjective -- as I recall, categories are supposed to be nouns (Fiction, Biology, etc.). Now, I find categories ridiculous and inconsistent, but I think a change as sweeping as the one you're proposing would need a great deal of discussion and consensus before it's applied sitewide. And that's only personal advice, I promise you! :-) I'm glad you're willing to "stop for now", and I hope you will discuss your proposal at Wikipedia talk:Categorization and announce that discussion on the Village pump -- that way everyone gets to consider your idea, which may well have merit. But if it has merit, we need to be agreed that it does, else someone will inevitably end up following you around reverting edits, which will frustrate everyone. Sorry for poking my nose in, but I thought you might like a 3rd opinion. If not, please excuse my intrusion. Jwrosenzweig 16:02, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree here. A single large category containing every article on a subject is simply unworkable. If you think there's a problem with an existing category, it should be brought up on that category's talk page so a consensus can be formed. Kate | Talk 16:08, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)

Random[edit]

I saw your random page, and I thought I'd ask...you don't still have the list, do you? I'd like to know how many stubs are in it, and how many are featured caliber. If not, I can generate my own, but if you have a copy, that'd be great. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:02, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)

Sorry this run was somewhat chaotic and I didn't gather all the information which I should have. In the beginning I didn't look for Stubs, as I thought they are under control by the category system. Later I realized quite a number of unclassified stubs and even marked about four as {{substub}}. To have judgement about the featured status would have needed more time to look at the individual articles. But to give an estime, about 30..40 articles, half of them biographies, would have needed further evaluation. All others were just to short or list-like. Pjacobi 22:13, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That's OK. I'm building a list myself, and I'll make sure to record what's on it for posterity. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:15, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)

Vacuum propeller[edit]

Hi - Certainly against anything sensationalist :) Simply thought that this was a nice catch phrase someone might try to look up, like solar sail or warp drive. A lot of those concepts first appear in sci-fi literature (because authors do not dare to publish them elsewhere?). As the article wasn't kept, I think your suggestion "So, at Casimir effect, a carefully NPOVed statement about the hypothetical Vacuum Propeller may be added" should come into play, but unfortunately I'm not the person to write this (with almost no knowledge of QED)... --Palapala 05:51, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)

Rune confusion[edit]

I did see your comment at Talk:Runic alphabet about creating a sepaarte Rune article, realted to Norse mythology, if I got this right. Does this in any way relates to the double existance of Runic alphabet and Runic script? I would like to merge these articles, but perhaps I should wait, if you want to extract something to the new Rune article. Pjacobi 15:00, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I had a think about this and will probably disambiguate the particular and specific sense of the word rune that I need to deal with by doing an article with a title like Rune (Norse mythology) which will allow me to maintain a relationship to the written futhark etc, whilst drawing some very clear distinctions. a propos the schism in these alphabet/script articles, I think you are right, they very properly should be merged somehow. You might also like to think about looking at futhark while you are about it... Sjc 09:53, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
PS, forget that last bit, someone merged it with a redirect. Sjc 09:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeshu article[edit]

Hi Pjacobi

Are you still interested in the article on Yeshu? Jayjg 14:52, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't know enough to compete in the battle. I'm still having the vague feeling, that Zestauferov has some valid point, but can't put valid arguments behind this. Pjacobi 15:50, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Formatting[edit]

Moved to: User talk:Pjacobi/Formatting]

I'm fine to discuss this topic.

And for a first quick answer: Try print your tables. No borders. Is this as intended? Pjacobi 18:26, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re:Tamil language[edit]

I reverted the anon because the IP was vandalizing a number of other pages and I saw that s/he had been reverted twice before at Tamil language. I have close to no knowledge on the subject so please don't take my revert in any way authoritative. If you think the anon was right, then please feel free to revert me. Cheers, Jiang 10:21, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for the caste correction[edit]

I can not believe that it took so long before this was corrected. Vielen Dank. Andries 18:16, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Occupation of Palestine[edit]

Occupation of Palestine Please see my question at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Occupation_of_Palestine#Tally: Rephrasing the question -- Jmabel 01:27, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Grantha[edit]

Finally I've found a Wikipedian who will solve this problem in no time, I hope. Can you have a look at Grantha and Talk:Grantha? Thanks in advance, Pjacobi 10:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Though I am not an expert with scripts as such, I can see POV in the said article. Will try to learn more and attempt to neutralise the POV. -- Sundar 10:45, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Obsolete Greek Characters[edit]

Thanks for the quick response. The test characters don't show on my browser. Either browser deficiency or lack of right font, probably the latter.

I'll take your tip, go on the page you suggested and see what happens. If I still can't see them on the browser, I'll look for a printed or web Greek dictionary which features the obsolete characters, so I'll know what they look like. Since the characters are no longer in use, and I'm not a student of the early forms of the Greek language, my interest in those characters is purely a matter of transient curiosity. The original reason was that I thought that I'd forgotten some characters from the expected Greek alphabet.

Thanks once again for the speedy response. Gives me the feeling of being among friends who care for newcomers!

Cosmo 12:27, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

beta Systemic Bias section[edit]

Hi, if you wish to help contribute to a beta version of a Wikipedia page section designed to counter-act Wikipedia's systematic bias, please sign the bottom of this section on the Village pump - Wikipedia:Village_pump#Systemic_bias_in_Wikipedia. If not, no worries.--Xed 03:26, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

missing quotation mark[edit]

Hi Peter, I like your quote about the Axiom of Choice :-)

It's missing an opening quotation mark, though. (It begins with two single quotes for italics and ends with a double quote.) Fpahl 13:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this! -- Pjacobi 13:13, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You're welcome; thanks for the explanation at Talk:Horizon problem! Fpahl 16:58, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hail[edit]

Good to see you passing through and giving us in Talk:Evolution your words of wisdom.  :) I am writing to you here because my voice is already too prominent on that page, so I will not respond there. I thought you came up with a brilliant compromise sentence--even though nobody but me saw it that way. And I would also say with you that I think creationism is a belief. But, in my opinion, the creationists, and similars, have let themselves be beaten too easily from saying what they know in common English to be true--something like that their belief is a real "theory"--what to a non-scientist is an explanation that makes sense out of the facts--and of course they believe the explanation because it makes sense--but that is not what the perpetrators of "Creationism is the belief that ..." meant by "belief" when they denied the use of the word "theory"--and sometimes the creationists realize that scientists mean something very insulting by "belief" compared with "theory." Enough meddling. But hail to thee, in passing. ---Rednblu 10:47, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I hope, you're watching this page, as I hate back-and-forth discussions on two user talk pages. I must admit that I didn't read through the entiere agonizingly long archives of past discussion on Creationism, so I'm not really fit to judge the participants. But in the last round of debates, it seems you have reached the stage of elastic replies. The more you'll argue your position, and rather independent on your arguments, the more opposition it gets. Perhaps I'm too much defaetist here, but going away from a discussion and looking back into the issue after six weeks is often the best choice.
I for myself, won't argue much more on Creationism, it's essentially an U.S. problem and I cannot judge the subtle points thereof.
Pjacobi 19:20, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yep. Fare thee well, blythe spirit. ---Rednblu 19:39, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Response to your comment to Felonious Monk[edit]

My account is not a sockpuppet. Making unsupport allegations is not in the spirit of wikipedia. --FeloniousMonk 18:35, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I replied at your talk page. Let me repeat, that no offense was intended. -- Pjacobi 18:52, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On Abjad (external link)[edit]

Dear Pjacobi:

it is an introduction on how the history of abjad develops, the article tracks the Arabic / Farsi lineage of Abjad and it discusses how Arabic Abjad is devided into 9 powers. the tool of analysis is numogram which is another kabbalistic / Abjad form of tree of life. other topics of discissions in that article about Abjad is [1] why Arabic Abjad in an exception [2] connection of numerology and especially Abjad with Philosophy of Deleuze and Gauttari's numeracy or numbering numbers [3] in the wake of numerous occult and numerology stuff on War on Terror on the net, the article depicts why Kaballah and Abjad are used frequently. the article is not mine but i thought it is a good text to show how Abjad has developed systematically and enters occult and philosophy.

Tamil for "fox"[edit]

Would you be so kind to give me the Tamil translation of "fox"? I tried the U of Köln Online Dictionary, but it gave me 25 different results and I cannot judge, which one would be the most common or best matching word. --Pjacobi 17:06, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Tamil equivalent for fox is nari(நரி) The first syllable is pronounced as the nu in null and the second syllable is pronounced as in ribbon -- Sundar 05:25, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks fo your kind help! --Pjacobi 08:40, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Umlaut / Trema[edit]

Good catch. I knew it, but apparently typed it wrong. Anárion 13:25, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Tamil Wikipedia Main page[edit]

I've replied you in my talk page. -- Sundar 06:28, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Pali[edit]

hallo Peter -- ich kenn mich leider mit Pali nicht aus. Aber

  • der kopierte Paragraph ist sowieso copyvio, und kann erstmal entfernt werden
  • der payer.de - Artikel sieht ja sehr serioes aus, und es sollte reichen, die Bedenken, die dort gegen die Gleichsetzung angefuehrt werden, in den Artikel zu uebernehmen.

Gruss, dab 08:36, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unicode fonts for the Runic alphabet[edit]

Venpa[edit]

Please have a look at Venpa, largely edited by me. If and only if you feel appropriate, add a reference to our paper whose citation I've given below. (I don't want to do it myself, because on the one hand I feel it's appropriate and on the other I feel it may qualify to be pure self-promotion.)

L BalaSundaraRaman, Ishwar S, Sanjeeth Kumar Ravindranath. Context-free grammar for natural language constructs - An implementation for Venpa class of Tamil poetry. Tamil Internet Conference, Chennai, India, 2003. You can link it to the conference proceedings and/or the citeseer page -- Sundar 10:51, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Did you have a chance to look at Venpa? -- Sundar 10:13, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry for not reply, its's on my to-do list! --Pjacobi 11:16, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
oh, ok. Thanks. -- Sundar 11:57, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

LinkBot[edit]

Re: "Why don't make it a "Pull", rather than a "Push" service?"

Two reasons:

  1. Because the greatest value has been where people have discussed the suggestions on the talk page and/or indicated what they've already done. (For example see Talk:Archaeology and Talk:Australia). With something hosted on another site, you lose that.
  2. The whole purpose of a talk page is 'a special Wikipedia page containing discussion about the contents of its associated "subject" page'. Suggesting links is completely in keeping with the whole reason for having talk pages. This then becomes a discussion about whether the Wikipedia should even have talk pages, not whether link suggestions should be placed on those pages.

All the best, -- Nickj 03:14, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

220.236.152.72[edit]

You write "The edits in Shudra don't seem unreasonable... If he would start responding to discussion, and stop deleting other POVs..."

Yes, I eventually went through and looked at his/her edits and made (I think) appropriate comments on each on the discussion pages. But this is someone who edits anonymously, refuses discussion, ignores warnings, deletes heavily without explanation, creates entire new articles as POV'd versions of existing articles, and exceeds the 3-revert rule (at Ayer). With that sort of behavior, a block seems the only way even to get his/her attention. If decently behaved in the future, he/she might be a useful contibutor, but I won't cry any tears if we drove away someone who behaves this way. I'm sure that so far this editor has cost other people effort out of all proportion to any benefit. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:55, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I only formulated a hope which won't become true in the majority of cases. --Pjacobi 22:00, 9 Dec 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)


finnugorism critics page[edit]

You started a voting for deletion, however this page is completely different, than the old, deleted one. I contains similar information, that the criticized pages do, from an other point of view. There is no room on the original pages for this argumentation, and they are better keept on one page. That's why this page was created. Why do you want to delete informative, useful pages? Antifinnugor 19:57, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is standard Wikipedia policy to not allow separate articles for different POVs but to integrate them into one NPOV article. If you prefer another approach, you cant try Wikinfo. --Pjacobi 20:26, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Pov/npov is only a sign. If this page persists, there is no need to mark any of the pages POV. It is more clear for the reader to have this information apart. In my opinion this page is a better solution, the to try to keep incompatible informations on one page. That confuses the reader more. Wikipedia shoud be finally useful information. Antifinnugor 09:58, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
NPOV it not a sign but a policy. A fundamental policy. If you don't agree, you cannot be part of this project. --Pjacobi 13:46, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please explain me, why do you redirect that page to the finnugor page? About what consensus are you talking? Thanks, Antifinnugor 18:48, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The page survived the deletion procedure, the editors see it necessary, please do not ignore the other editor's will. Thanks. Also: please answer my above question. You redirected the page on 14. January. Thank you, antifinnugor 10:19, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

German silver[edit]

Kindly do not revert the above article. It is not a copyright violation. It is a complete rewrite using material from 3 different sources.--Centauri 21:19, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not following your logic here. You have deleted several paragraphs of factual information because you disagree with the last sentence?--Centauri 21:36, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with insertion of copyrighted material. Please be more careful in this area. --Pjacobi 21:38, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are not making any sense. The article is not copyrighted. It is original content written by me, based on 3 sources. The last sentence states a simple fact that cannot be communicated in any other way, except possibly by changing the words "stands for" to the word "means". What is the problem? --Centauri 21:43, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also verbatim copied from: http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/G/Germansi.asp --Pjacobi 21:45, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

errr... if you read your own link you will see that it is most certainly not "verbatim copied". I'm actually starting to get a bit annoyed at being accused by you of making copyright violations when I obviously haven't done anything of the sort. Your article is an improvement on mine, so I'll let it go, but I really think making false accusations is not acceptable behaviour. --Centauri 22:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you feel unjustly attack, you can bring it up at Wikipedia:RfC but I was at least equally annoyed, that minutes after starting the article seriously (there was an older bad joke version), it was replaced by copyvio material.

  • source [1]: It was discovered (early 19th cent.) by a German industrial chemist, E. A. Geitner.
  • source [2]: It is widely used for cheap jewellery and the base metal for silver plating.
  • your version: It was discovered in the early 19th Century by a German chemist, E A Geitner, and is widely used for cheap jewellery and as the base metal for silver plating.
  • source [3]: German silver varies in composition, the percentage of the three elements ranging approximately as follows: copper, from 50% to 61.6%; zinc, from 19% to 17.2%; nickel, from 30% to 21.1%. The proportions are always specified in commercial alloys.
  • your version: German silver varies in composition, the percentage of the three elements ranging approximately as follows: copper, from 50% to 61.6%; zinc, from 19% to 17.2%; nickel, from 30% to 21.1%. For commercial alloys the exact proportions are always specified.
  • source [4]: German silver is extensively used because of its hardness, toughness, and resistance to corrosion for articles such as tableware (commonly silver plated), marine fittings, and plumbing fixtures.
  • your version: German silver is in wide use because of its hardness, toughness, and resistance to corrosion for articles such as silver-plated tableware, marine fittings, and plumbing fixtures.
  • source [5]: Because of its high electrical resistance it is used also in heating coils.
  • your version: Because of its high electrical resistance it is also used in heating coils.
  • source [6]: The letters EPNS on silverware stand for electroplated nickel silver.
  • your version: The letters EPNS on silverware stand for electroplated nickel silver.

Pjacobi 22:27, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You have accused me of copying an article verbatim. Your own references above, aside from the last 2, show that I actually re-wrote material drawn from multiple sources, so it is most certainly NOT copied verbatim. Verbatim means word-for-word. The article I wrote is NOT a word-for-word copy of any previous article. It did not exist before I wrote it. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? As a professional writer with years of experience in matters of copyright I find your attitude in propagating this accusation increasingly objectionable.--Centauri 23:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You know, I am getting the feeling that this may be Gene_Poole after all. He argues like Gene Poole when he is upset.  :-( Samboy 00:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
In particular: The use of "most centainly" without backing up the argument. The use of "Why is this so difficult for you to understand?". The self-praise "As a professional writer..." This is Gene Poole's arguing style. Samboy 00:44, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree that Centauri plagerized content and put it on Wiki here. He's a newbie, and I don't think he intentionally did a copyvio. I'm educating him on why copyvios can't be done here. Samboy 22:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This argument is now going on in three different places: Here, this page, and on this page. Samboy 00:44, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some more discussion about this matter is on my talk page now. Plain simply, he is taking the stand that a piece of writing becomes an original work if he only copies one continuous sentence at a time, and if he changes one or two words in said sentence (I quote him from my talk page: "If a sentence has been re-worded it cannot, by definition, constitute plagiarism"). He's not willing to back down on this issue. Now, I don't know if this is a world-view that he really holds, or if the resulting flamage from him doing it here has put him in a position where his pride won't let him admit the truth. In either case, I don't think I can convince him otherwise; all one can do is monitor his contributions and make sure he doesn't do it again. Samboy 05:41, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Centauri: Clearly, if you restated significant phrases such as "Because of its high electrical resistance it is used also in heating coils", then I fail to see how you can defend them as "your own words". Clearly they are not your own words. Paraphrasing needs to go way beyond changing one word per sentence. Combine the information, organize each piece of information (not words, but meaning), and generate whole new sentences and paragraphs from it all. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 03:08, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

For me, the case is closed and I just hope I will not have another encounter with Centauri. But if Centauri is willing to bring this to RfC, I expect some unpleasant experiences for him there. --Pjacobi 08:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wu and Shanghainese[edit]

Hi Peter,

Recently you placed a de: link on the Wu (linguistics) page to a German Wikipedia page on de:Shanghaiische Sprache, and as far as I can see, the German page seems to equate Shanghainese and Wu. But these really aren't the same. Wu is spoken by almost 100 million across one and a half provinces while the Shanghai dialect is basically the speech of metropolitan Shanghai. It's like equating American English and New York English, beginning an article with, "American English or New York English is the speech of Americans speaking English..."

Also, the German version seems to say that Wu has 2 tones... but that's just Shanghainese. Some Wu dialects, like the Suzhou dialect, have 5-7 tones.

Unfortunately I don't know German well enough to write in it, so I can't fix this myself. If you have time, could you take a look at it and fix it? Thanks... -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 16:33, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the problem. As I'm not really competent on this field, only a WikiGnome adding InterWiki links, I forwarded your comment to the german talk place and the WikiProject looking after the China articles. If nobody picks up the task durinmg the next days, I'll try an elementary correction of the situation. --Pjacobi 21:13, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Article split already started by de:User:Dishayloo, fine! --Pjacobi 22:03, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Buchholz[edit]

Are you the guy who worked with D Buchholz?? Thanks, --Lumidek 19:34, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A long time ago. Consider me an amateur in modern physics by now.
I'm merely copy-editing some physics article, and I clearly don't want to challenge anything you wrote on contents. But what you want and how Wikipedia actually works seems to be somewhat incompatible in this point. If you want your essay to stay unchanged you must publish it elsewhere.
Pjacobi 19:38, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
I don't want to violate any rules of Wikipedia or require some articles to be uneditable. This is just a standard dilemma of Wikipedia which of two significantly different versions of a text should be kept, and as far as I see, no one advocates that the version with the "replies to replies" should be kept. --Lumidek 02:21, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I fear you will not find only one[edit]

ISO cyan --

Printers use a swop standard, we are not aware of an ISO, now how could there be only one. There are thousands of substrates that can only allow for a given gamut. I see you respect the ISO. Great, I wish they would set standards for every printing ink used on the planet, and which substrate to apply it to, to have a standard resultant spectral reflectance as they specify. Do do see the futility and why ISO stays away from printing? It's just not possible. Too many variables

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueListPage.CatalogueList?COMMID=3376&scopelist= here see what they get involved in. Only the last one mentions color and even at that it is a database of possibilities! ha, --Dkroll2 12:56, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

ISO don't stays away from printing, see ISO 2846 (you can buy it at [7]), see also [8]. --Pjacobi 13:17, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Ok, but wait[edit]

ISO 2846-1:1997 Graphic technology - Colour and transparency of ink sets for four-colour-printing - Part 1: Sheet-fed and heat-set web offset lithographic printing

ISO 2846-2:2000 Graphic technology -- Colour and transparency of printing ink sets for four-colour-printing -- Part 2: Coldset offset lithographic printing

ISO 2846-3:2002 Graphic technology -- Colour and transparency of printing ink sets for four-colour-printing -- Part 3: Publication gravure printing (available in English only)

ISO 2846-4:2000 Graphic technology -- Colour and transparency of printing ink sets for four-colour-printing -- Part 4: Screen printing

Already 4 options, now upon what substrate to take the reading. Brown corrogate, coated magazine paper.

There IS no one Spectral reflectance curve for each color, and not to mention, none of these listings are actual ink specifications anyway. I'd rather remove them than try to convince you. Sorry --Dkroll2 13:38, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

I don't want you to remove the, but adding a legend detailling what specimen is measured here. --Pjacobi 13:58, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Deleting[edit]

But you know what is really wrong on the color pages is this: (c, m, y, k) = (255, 0, 0, 0)

Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language groups[edit]

I'm not sure if you know about this, but the creation and subsequent redirection of this page resulted in a big ongoing dispute between its author and other editors. See the RFC and the RFAr.

I thought you might want to know about this.

Cheers, Nyenyec 00:27, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've put it to VfD originally, as I do it for all POV forks, I find, see e.g. Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Big_Bang_Critiques. If the fork still exists after the RF* have been settled, I'll put it on VfD again. --Pjacobi 12:56, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
Please do put it back on VfD Mk270 18:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tamil Language[edit]

Thanks for the heads up. Added details on the Talk Page for the language. --Circeus 00:30, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Zazaki[edit]

Hi. One of my references about Daylamite origin of Zaza-Guranis is: Blau, "Gurani et Zaza," in R. Schmitt, ed., Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, Wiesbaden, 1989, pp. 336-40

I added it to the article. See also: Encyclopaedia Iranica on Zazaki

--Mani1 12:26, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My RFC[edit]

(William M. Connolley 22:43, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)) You have in the past edited the global warming article, so you might be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley.

Phoenix2 / Aratti[edit]

sieht sehr unseriös aus. Wir haben es hier offenbar mit einem Autor, Jahanshah Derakhshani, zu tun, dessen Ideen durchaus als gedruckte Publikationen vorliegen, und deshalb sicher in einem Artikel über iranische Stämme erwähnt werden können, aber halt eben gekennzeichnet als Vorschlag eines einzelnen Autors. Behauptungen über das 4. Jahrtausend sind sowieso total fantastisch, und ein "Aratti" Artikel ist ein Artikel über Derakshanis Privattheorie -- und sollte, wenn überhaupt beibehalten, als solcher gekennzeichnet sein... Ich habe einen Blick auf seine Website geworfen, und es sieht sehr nach der üblichen wildgewordenen Etymologisiererei aus, mit der alles bewiesen werden kann (und bewiesen wird). Der heutige mainstream sieht die "arische" Urheimat im BMAC / Andronovo culture und geht wohl von einer Einwanderung in den Iran im mittleren 2. Jt. aus. dab () 12:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tamil language FAC[edit]

Can you have a please look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tamil language and register your vote? Thanks. -- Sundar 07:19, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Charts for Tamil[edit]

Can you email me the HTML source for the PNGs? Then I don't have to retype the IPA, which is somewhat ugly to do. Then, I'll do the transliteration this weekend. --Pjacobi 12:49, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

Thanks Pjacobi. I made them as Wikitables in Tamil alphabet and took a screenshot with the browser text size increased. I'll try to contribute towards addressing other concerns too. -- Sundar 12:55, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Bell inequalities[edit]

I've changed back the link in Bell state to Bell's theorem. Having a link to Bell's inequalities is absurd since that page doesn't even acknowledge entanglement. This action will likely be followed by more personal attacks on me from CT (I assume you followed the discussion throughout the various talk pages, including my own). This is a long term problem; CT seems to have found a haven in WP where they feel they can claim and freely assert their "authority" on the subject of local realism and experimental tests of Bell's inequalities. I fear the WP structure is much too weak to do anything about it. The typical wikipedian response seems to be "Go to mediation" etc., etc. But the problem only shifts to someplace else. CSTAR 14:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We can start the escalating procedure of RfC, Mediation, RfA. I'm not that much experienced with the procedure, but I've watched some cases. E.g. after going through this, User:Antifinnugor was prohibited to edit on any article related to Finno-Ugric and will be automatically reverted and blocked if he doesn't comply.
But we must be sure that the experts agree on this issue and are willing to testify.
Pjacobi 14:45, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
Based on recent remarks and edits on WP articles on Bell-related topics I would propose the following initial list as "experts":


  • DrChinese doesn't have an editing record on WP so his "testimony" may be less compelling, but is knowledgeable about current experimental research.
There are numerous physicists or others around WP who might be willing to offer testimony. CSTAR 16:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Update: Aside from the link problem mentioned above (and which I changed) the other edits don't seem to be controversial. I don't object to having a special Bell inequalities page and a Bell loopholes page. However, I don't think WP needs specific articles 5 variants of Bell's inequalities and related topics. These articles seem to be reproducing wildly and some form of population control will be needed. CSTAR 18:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, then I think we have to wait in suspense when and if real trouble will arise again. From some more reading of all possibly applying policies, it seems to me that rather explicit POV editing is needed to make formal conflict resolution worthwhile. Even her stated belief, that quantum theorists in general are either bribed or stupid, in itself doesn't violate policy, it seems. --Pjacobi 20:56, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
Article list, also usefull for easy checking of recent changes. --Pjacobi 12:42, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

Funny argument?[edit]

From the intro to your user page, I see at least somebody thought that l'affaire CT-Bell était drôle. I personally thought it was quite pathetic and disturbing. That so much time has to be expended on cranks. I'm glad Archimedes Plutonium hasn't decided to join in that particular fray. But other areas I suppose aren't so lucky (e.g. the production of massive amounts of religious doctrine disguised as science in Intelligent Design). Perhaps soon we should start crying instead of laughing.CSTAR 19:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't underestimate the stubborness of the Perpetual Motion faction, e.g. Testatika, Adams motor. The same brilliant expert found in that pages tried to re-vive the the Aether (reverted for now). Which somehow closes the circle, as this would give a lot opportunities to cite articles published in "Galilean Electrodynamics", the magazine which accpted CT's work.
In german Wikipedia we are hunting down the "scientifically based, always successfull roulette systems" which try to invade all neighbouring articles.
And you're right: the amount of space given to "creationist science" here, is just unbelievable for everybody outside the US.
Pjacobi 21:00, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
Is there any hope of doing something about Adams motor ... like deleting it? CSTAR 20:11, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Adams motor survived one VfD (Testatika survived two VfDs). User:Dpbsmith seems to try a new attack plan, based on verfiability, it may even succeed on a lucky day: Talk:Adams_motor#Verifiable?. --Pjacobi 20:56, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

Bell's inequalities[edit]

Well, effectively there are now two pages on Bell's theorem; I had originally moved the detailed description of the various inequalities into the Bell test experiments page, but as you know, earlier this month CT created the new page with that material. Should we just live with this state of affairs? At the very least, we can insure that no qm page points to it (However, CT changed the pointer on the Bell's theorem) article, so I wonder if I should change that link or remove it? CSTAR 05:47, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, in my not so humble opinion, we should definitively not allow "parallel" articles. Efforts to make them less visible are a very insufficent method to handle them. Also note that Bell's inequalities and Bell's inequality redirect to Bell's theorem, so that CT was forced to look for just another spelling varietion. The pre-history of affairs with CT should be totally diregarded in this question, just ask yourself what you'd do if an anon put up the page. Heck, I've put articles from Lumidek and Sanger on VfD, why should I spare CT?
For further actions I see three and a half choices, ordered from the least to the most work needed:
  1. Put {{Merge}} labels on Bell's theorem and Bell inequalities, followed by making Bell inequalities a REDIRECT.
  2. Put Bell inequalities on Votes for Deletion as POV fork.
  3. Put Bell inequalities and Bell test loopholes on VfD as POV forks, to better stirr up matters and force decisions
  4. Prepare a complete reorganisation of the topic, now spread over six to eight articles in user space, that do a straw poll whether to switch to the reorganised pages.
Pjacobi 10:14, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
I will support anybody that does this, but I've taken enough abuse already from CT.
"I've put articles from Lumidek... on VfD"
You mean like biowoman and other marginal right-wing screeds? CSTAR 14:59, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ummmh. Didn't know how wide his range of interests is. NO, not that one, nor some of the anti-global-warming rants, only one of those "objections to ... loop quantum theory" pages.
I can fully understand your reluctance to be at the very front again. I'll wait until server's full recovery, maybe ask others for advice, and most like continue with option 3).
Pjacobi 16:54, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
I would suggest a merge of Bell test loopholes and Bell test experiments, unless you are prepared to argue that Bell test experiments should also be deleted. It would be nice if there were some competent experimentalist that could write such a thing.CSTAR 18:19, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Category[edit]

Hi there! I noticed your post on CfD. I think you have a good point, the category system on Wikipedia is rapidly becoming too cluttered to be useful. To make things worse, several parts of them are duplicated by near-identical (though usually not entirely identical) lists. I believe that this is a Bad Thing since indexing is crucial to an encyclopedia.

The first solution that came to mind was simply to allow only admins to create new categories, but that might not be a good idea as it runs counter to the spirit of Wiki. Do you know of other current ideas or movements to keep the indexing useful? Or is it just the CfD list? Radiant! 10:33, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm rather pessimistic, what still can be done. Or whether categories will become so much background noise and clutter, that they will be ignored.
I don't think administrative measures will be accepted or effective.
In fact, categorization must be watched as other articles are watched. If you change the electron's mass in its artcicle, an article watcher will revert you very soon. If you put a silly category on it, the same should happen, but some watchers ignore categorization as they ignore interwiki links.
Even worse, if you add something "funny" to Category:Leptons, this won't trigger the watchlist for Category:Leptons and so may be unnoticed for some time. This is a software problem, which hopefully gets resolved soon.
To keep the category hierarchy within a specific field of research in proper state, it should be well documented (use the feature to add explanations in the category article) and some contributors in the field must actively watch them. In German Wikipedia this is to some extent formalized, by forming WikiProjects for specific fields of interest.
With project wide strange categories, like Category:Nonagenarians, you can try your luck on CfD, but it's a lottery.
Pjacobi 11:04, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)


Email to English Wikipedia about POV forks versus criticisms articles[edit]

I sent an email to the English Wikipedia mailing list and have sent you a copy per e-mail. Andries 09:26, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

32K limit considered harmful[edit]

Yeah... you comment that articles fragment naturally due to growth. This has been bothering me for a long time. I see all sorts of crap going into breakout articles with the justification that "we had to do it because of the 32K limit."

The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica's article on the Bible is over a megabyte in size. Extreme, but many, many, many Britannica articles exceed 32K. This seems to be an area where "WIkipedia is not paper" is a weakness, not a strength.

The 32K limit on text boxes in older browsers is a good reason for keeping sections down to 32K maximum, but I'm darned if I see why articles can't be larger than than. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:40, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bell inequalities VfD[edit]

What happens now? CSTAR 14:16, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We are waiting for an Admin to judge the result and take action. --Pjacobi 14:28, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
We'll I'm an admin but I suppose it has to be some disinterested party.CSTAR 14:59, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Will look better. And I assume the vote is clear. --Pjacobi 15:52, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
Do we need to grab an admin to do this? CSTAR 22:40, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
DonÄt think so. Work is in progress on resolving the 2005-02-27 VfDs. If this is done, they will proceed to the the 28th. But if you're an admin, you can work on resolving other closed VfDs, which will speed up the process. --Pjacobi 23:00, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
The resolution of VfD's for February 25 (which includes the Bell inequalities page) seems to have passed by with no action. I have worked on resolving some of the other closed VfDs, as you suggested. CSTAR 22:08, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bell's original inequality[edit]

I still can't stop laughing!CSTAR 23:19, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure you've heard of the crackpot index. CSTAR 21:22, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yep, but re-reading it just now did show some omissions, like not adding 20 point for pointing out, Tesla had worked on it in his last years, or 50 points for theories which have 1m as fundamental constant (Heim-Theory). --Pjacobi 21:28, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Stats[edit]

Hi Pjacobi, number of admins would be a nice addition indeed, but I would need to parse a table that currently is not part of the job, so it would mean some changes. I will definitely keep it in mind, but I'm sorry to say my to do list is very long (fixing stats first, adding stats features that were on the list long ago, back to Tomeraider scripts, EasyTimeline is not finished, I forgot the wikibreak, so expect to see it, but not before summer or even autumn. By the way, I worked on wikistats last weekend and the weekend before that, currently testing on the server. Cheers, Erik Zachte 00:46, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I updated Perl.zip at my web site. The whole site needs some overdue maintenance anyway :) Cheers, Erik Zachte 14:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support[edit]

Hi Pjacobi. Thanks for supporting my adminship. Initially, I was under the impression that adminship is held by a fixed number of people. So I was afraid my adminship will deprive some other deserving wikipedian of Tamil wikipedia and that was why I did not want the adminship then. Now, I'm perfectly OK with adminship there as I can bypass the technical difficulties that I previously had to some extent. I've found Santhoshguru to be a valuable new contributor there who can be considered for adminship as well. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 05:17, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Rose-ringed Parakeet[edit]

The generic name for these birds in Tamil is kiLi (கிளி), though they might belong to many biological families. Some people differentiate the multi-colour parrots with the word panjcha varNak kiLi (பஞ்ச வர்ணக் கிளி) which is Tamilised Sanskrit. The word literally means 5-coloured parrot. In rural side, I've heard people using anjchukam (அஞ்சுகம்), particularly in folklore. There is a word called thaththai (தத்தை) used in literature. The word aarmavizuntakiLi that you had mentioned is not familiar to me. It's perhaps spoken in dialects other than mine (Madurai). The word aaram indicates an arc and by extension might mean a ring. vizuntha literally means fallen, but the other connotations include marked or painted. So the phrase aaram vizuntha kiLi (ஆரம் விழுந்த கிளி) might be a valid translation for rose-ringed parakeet.

By the way, Tamil wikipedia has come a long way with active participation from User:Santhoshguru, ta:User:Ravidreams, User:Harikishore and occasional contributions from me. It's time to give admin rights to these people. Santhosh has ideas to customise the monobook skin for Tamil to include transliteration support. The front page also is better now. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 04:14, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the detailled answer. I assume I can integrate now something sensible in the german article.
  • Adminships requests for smaller Wikipedias are handled at meta:Requests for permissions.
Pjacobi 21:16, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

Thanks for your info on adminship. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 09:19, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Towels[edit]

Hi Pjacobi,

Thanks for your reply on my question! A reaction so soon was quite unexpected. I think I can make something out of it now, especially the german article is quite what I was looking for. On the Dutch wikipedia the towel article is just one day old, but I like to have it a good article as soon as possible. A less serious spin-off is already made... :-)

Bye, SietskeEN 06:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

P.H[edit]

Hi there, I'm not going to discuss "Prussian Holocaust" anymore with anyone! Very dizzy from going round in circles. If you feel that the term is offensive then perhaps you should point out on the article that it is to some. I personally don't find it offensive and many others don't as well, so please don't say that all do except neo-nazis or some such. Hopefully that will keep all sides happy. Cheers. --Chammy Koala 17:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to discuss this specific issue anymore. I'm not on a crusade and despite the fact that I'm uncomfortable und unsatisfied with the outcome of this VfD, I don't see mucgh sense to discuss this further. I hope someone will find the stamina to write an article discussing the usage of the term, like the de:Bombenholocaust article.
I'm somewhat more worried about the "anything goes" attitude in the english language Wikipedia about redirects, categories, etc. But it seems beyond hope of repairing this. I only can hope that the forking over the next years will lead to some corrective processes.
Pjacobi 21:51, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

Sockpuppet votes[edit]

No, just note the fact; the admins in charge usually heavily discount these kinds of votes, and often ignore them altogether. Jayjg (talk) 06:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anti-gravity[edit]

I've re-added the anti-gravity information you removed as part of a larger overhaul of that page. Please don't take this as an attack; I've done my best to respect what I feel was the intent of your edits, which is to distinguish between crackpot work and real physics, and between true anti-gravity effects and effects that aren't anti-gravity.

As for the links themselves, think of it as giving the anti-gravity people enough rope to hang themselves with :). They're clearly flagged as fringe science in the new version.

--Christopher Thomas 22:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

This stuff jsut hurts so much! But I agree, a more elaborate way of handling this, instead of simply deleting, may be necessary. --Pjacobi 08:28, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

CT[edit]

Will this ever end? How often do we need to explain the same thing to this individual? --CSTAR 03:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

As you probably have noticed, I have made a change to the Bell's theorem page which makes explicit reference to Caroline Thompson and her marginal views. I did this against my better judgement. Unfortunately, until the english WP has a more realistic policy about dealing with crackpots, this may be the only way of resolving disputes with marginalia, short of perpetual battles in RfC discussions. This is indeed a slippery slope with a very clear dynamic for degeneration. I am also afraid that even some of the more enlightened members in the english WP take a very "anything goes" approach to what goes in articles.--CSTAR 18:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The relevance war has clearly been lost on en.wikipedia, next step will be losing the factual accuracy war. But at least it's a democracy. Let's play Don Quixote. Today I've had a slash at Autodynamics and put Disjunction drive et al. on VfD. I'll bet it won't be deleted. --Pjacobi 18:17, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

Should Caroline H. Thompson have her own article? Archimedes Plutonium has his, although admittedly he's a lot more sympathetic.--CSTAR 00:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Not notable enough, even for a crank. --Pjacobi 21:04, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

Autodynamics[edit]

The Autodynamics page appears to be under attack from 65.4.131.131 and 207.175.63.190, who are re-posting the old version of the article extremely frequently, despite reverts by several people. 65.4.131.131 is the most prolific here, and has also been modifying extraterrestrial hypothesis in a similar manner.

I've reverted, and kept and cleaned up the added links, under the "enough rope to shoot themselves in the foot" philosophy.--Christopher Thomas 20:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts! --Pjacobi 20:50, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
It's already been mangled again, though more subtly this time. It was nice while it lasted. They've monkeyed with Faster-than-light as well, which has been reverted now. Glad to help. --Christopher Thomas 21:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Autodynamics has a new chamption - User:Dehilster/71.107.101.174. He seems to _really_ hate the "pathological science" comment. I've rolled back his changes once, and he's re-modified. I don't know how to deal with this without starting a revert war. I leave this in your capable hands. --Christopher Thomas 02:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I suspect this must be the David de Hilster that is referenced here. Hmm published his theory in a newspaper in Argentina..which one?--CSTAR 23:12, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to roll back his latest edit once my brain stops hurting from the debate over Harmonics Theory (trying to get the proponent to accept the clean rewrite, as opposed to POV-mangling it). --Christopher Thomas 21:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Ugh! And User:Caroline Thompson voting keeps. Fitting. --Pjacobi
I have no problem with it being _kept_, if it's demonstrated to be Notable. My main complaint is with the article itself (hence the rewrite). The problem is that Mr. Tomes seems less tolerant of NPOV than Mr. de Hilster (thankfully not utterly irrational). --Christopher Thomas 22:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Tomes has asked for a "third party" to look over what each of us has written and make sure that what I've written is consistent with Harmonics Theory. Would you be willing to do the honours? The Harmonics Theory/Sandbox version should be minimally painful. The Talk:Harmonics Theory section, where he's also asked for arbitration will be more painful to wade through (the "concise statement of views" section is probably the most relevant). --Christopher Thomas 18:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Not a good moment to ask, as I don't know whether I'll the time to do the job. --Pjacobi 20:43, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

Vril, Thule Society and Nazi Mysticism[edit]

I find the information in these articles very suspect and bordering on conspiracy theories. I had protested against the contents of the Nazi Mysticism article some time ago but I gave up. Andries 16:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Physical Cosmology[edit]

Hi, I've just moved Cosmology to Physical Cosmology and completely rewritten it. Since you have contributed to the talk page, and have suggested starting a WikiProject:Cosmology, I thought you might be interested. I would appreciate any comments. --Joke137 00:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Looks superficially like a retreat, shortening the lien of defense against the creationists ;-) I'll have a deeper look Real Soon Now. --Pjacobi 12:44, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

I don't see it that way. People have been studying a branch of metaphysics called cosmology for millenia. I think that it has a claim to the word that is as valid as the modern branch of science. Another important use is the pre-20th century tradition of cosmology as celestial mechanics. And of course there are the cosmologies of religions which haven't accepted the big bang, which are important as well. All these have little to do with physical cosmology other than the name, and that's perfectly legitimate. What irks me is when people try to use Wikipedia as a forum to justify their unscientific beliefs with pseudoscience, or to lodge half-witted objections to theories they don't understand. --Joke137 15:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

General article about POV forks that I created[edit]

Vielleicht sind Sie interessiert in einem Artikel über Wikipedia:POV fork den ich geschrieben habe. Mit freundlichem Gruss. Andries 09:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

RfC re Zivinbudas[edit]

I have started an RfC against Zivinbudas for his behavior on Indo-European languages. Please feel free to comment! --Angr/comhrá 22:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Afshar experiment[edit]

Ugh. What do you think of deletion of Afshar experiment? Clearly original "research".--CSTAR 15:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I've had look on that article some time ago, but only thought strange. Now on re-examination, I'm lessa mused. Blog entries and Geocities homepages as references. He didn't even get a paper on arXiv.org published, less than CT achieved. OTOH, it has gained some notability (on USENET perhaps), and there are even two papers on arXiv concerned with the Afshar experiment.
So instead of deletion, a rather massive re-write would be the best, albeit difficult to achieve, option.
Pjacobi 18:10, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
I don't have enough expertise in this field to do it; sorry. --Christopher Thomas 19:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: quant-ph/0504115. Have you understood the paper? Do you understand logic? If so, I welcome a reasoned discussion/criticism of my work. If not, please refrain from comments such as "kookish", etc., which don't add any value to the discussion, and give a wrong impression to others. I recommend that you read my latest arXiv paper math.LO/0506475, which is a brief, self-contained exposition of my proposed logic NAFL. You may then be in a better position to understand quant-ph/0504115. R. Srinivasan (author, quant-ph/0504115 -- and proud of it)

On a scale describing dubious contributions, rather kookish is a relatively mild term. I was only evaluating the preprints named above, in the light of the question whether they can add significance to Afshar experiment. My conclusion was, that your paper can not, based on a rather superficial inspection and checking Citebase.
Thank you for providing the link to math.LO/0506475, I'll add it to my reading list.
I'm perhaps not the most polite contributor, and I want to apologize if you feel unjustly bad-mouthed.
Pjacobi July 7, 2005 18:41 (UTC)

An update. The paper quant-ph/0504115 has now been accepted for publication in a mainstream physics journal (Int. J. Quant. Information) and will appear in the April 3, 2010 issue. See Sec. 2 for a summary of the main argument and conclusions. I hope this vindicates the stand I have taken above. Regds, R. Srinivasan. Rks123 (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

RFA[edit]

I've put up a nomination for you on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Merry Christmas ;). Accept only if you want to put up with more flack than you already do. --Christopher Thomas 05:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

It's the unforeseen present, you enjoy most! Thanks for your trust. I've accepted but I'm tempted to ask all old opponents to vote against me ;-) --Pjacobi 08:25, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

Space mixing theory![edit]

The page on space mixing theory seems to be a crank article. Would you be interested in a vote for deletion that I called? I hope this doesn't violate any kind of protocol here. Bambaiah 14:17, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Egg tempera[edit]

  • You may be able to do painting with the described ingredients, but its's not even close to the classical tempera recipe which uses an emulsion of oil and water, emulgated by whole egg, not yolk alone, with the possible additions of mastic or dammar. --Pjacobi 23:08, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC) Talk:Egg tempera

This is probably still true. How about going back and fixing it or removing the {disputed} tag? We don't need a "how to", but whatever is there should be accurate. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:35, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

In the mean time I've seen comments, which opposed my view, what an egg tempera is. I'm quite sure about the german use of the term "tempera", but I cannot be sure, whether it is accepted for a wide area of recipes in english usage. So I'll better remoce the dispute tag and do some formal cleanup later, still waiting for someone clarifying the correct usage in ebglish. --Pjacobi 20:00, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

Puerto Rico[edit]

That's right, we've met at FWTWR (e.g., 244, if that's not too painful...). Small world, isn't it? Alai 17:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ugh, that one. A production-is-everything-strategy game that didn't work out. --Pjacobi 18:42, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Congratulations![edit]

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I won't rush into action but read the manuals first, thanks! --Pjacobi 07:07, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

81.218.238.113[edit]

Just asked User:81.218.238.113: "I do not understand "geometric physical theory". Can you explain it? WCFrancis 17:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)" WCFrancis 17:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:81.218.238.113 doesn't like general relativity. After he was reverted for attributing the theory with "metaphysical", "speculative", etc, he obviously tried something he considered a compromise. Now "geometric" isn't that wrong to describe GR, but a better formulation is needed. --Pjacobi 20:56, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

Links on ORMEs page[edit]

I noticed that you have twice deleted the links to Mr. Hudson's lectures. As this article is currently under review for deletion (due to several people believeing it is incorrect), I believe it is vital that those links remain for the sake of the discussion. You noted the reason for removal was that you thought it was spam. Why is that? I do not understand how that could possibly be considered spam. If restoration of the links is unaccepable, would it be okay to post them in the discussion page? Those lectures are the best source that I have found so far. Patent applications do not contain nearly enough detail to use as a source for someone unfamiliar with the subject. Thank you for your consideration of this matter (pun intended).the1physicist 23:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject: Writing systems[edit]

Hello there. I note that a while back you were active in outlining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing systems, however there has not been much going on since. Are you still interested in this project (which I've only recently come across), or are you now focused on other diversions? --cjllw | TALK 09:05, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

Yes, I'm still interested, but won't be able to contribute much besides cleanup and systematization. --Pjacobi 09:39, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

Vows[edit]

I got your message regarding the simple vows page and have made an appropriate edit. Let me know if you have further remarks. Pmadrid 09:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification and expansion! --Pjacobi 09:23, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

Aetherometry[edit]

PJacobi, I copyvio-ed the Aetherometric Biology page after using Google to find that it had been lifted verbatim from http://www.massfree.com/. Many of the other pages in the mess that is Aetherometry appear too thorough to have been so recently created as well, but I was unable to find any matching documents in Google. Dragons flight 20:31, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

My first thought was re-creation after VfD and deletion, but no VfD pages link to the Aetherometry pages. --Pjacobi 21:06, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
If I were to make a guess, I'd say that the Correa's or someone associated to them is using material they've written as source. (Though given how prolific they are, they might just be generating it on the spot). The responsible IP resolves to an ISP in Canada, which is where the Correa's publishing operation is located, but I can't be more specific than that. Dragons flight 21:20, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)


“Eternity is a very long time, especially toward the end”[edit]

– Anon.

Woody Allen, although I can't find definitive reference at the moment.GangofOne 23:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Weyes's RfA[edit]

Hey, you voted on the wrong RfA (RfA/Weyes2) - it was nullified and a new one was started - Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Weyes2a. Regards, Joolz 13:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Confusing. --Pjacobi 13:05, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Assyrian Church of the East/Message on Talk page[edit]

Hello. As for what I know of the church, it's less than I'd like. The majority of the research I've done is first-hand, as I visited St. George's for Christmas last year, and listened to the ceremony (of course, I couldn't comprehend it, being in Aramaic - "the language our Lord spoke"). There are very few English-language sources available. If you are looking for more info, try these links:

Other than the books listed above on Amazon, you can find English translations of the Marganitha (Assyrian: Pearl), a thirteenth-century work about Assyrian doctrine. Forgive me for not giving a link, as I seem to have deleted that bookmark (!). I would highly recommend directly contacting the churches themselves, and if you are in the area, attending a service. I found that the community at St. George's was generally welcoming, although there were some people who were suspicious when I took photos. There is a giftshop there that sells books, and the Marganitha goes for $5, but they'll probably be so happy that a non-Assyrian (I'm assuming) is interested that they'll give you one. Considering the close ethnic community that makes up the church, I would still advise calling before you attend. St. George's is the "main" church, on Ashland. Thanks for your interest - I'd be happy to learn more myself! Justin (koavf) 08:04, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Stats[edit]

Pjacobi, you guessed right. There will an XML dump some time in the future. Maybe I could use that. But no idea if and when. Actually the 23 June dumps for Wikipedia (= before 1.5) can not be processed either as much of the old table has been moved elsewhere and no dump is available for that (yet). Erik Zachte June 28, 2005 22:06 (UTC)

Antiochian Orthodox Church[edit]

I certainly agree. I didn't insert the list of other claimants to the throne, honestly. You can see my own (probably POV, but Orthodox POV, I hope, given that it's hosted on OrthodoxWiki) version of the article here: OrthodoxWiki:Church of Antioch. ——Preost talk contribs July 5, 2005 01:41 (UTC)

Pseudoscience, non-mainstream, or mainstream theory wikiproject[edit]

Your suggestion about a Cosmology wikiproject has had me thinking for the past few months about a wikiproject for fringe theories in physics. This would provide guidelines for spelling out in an organized manner what the theory's key claims are, how the claims differ from accepted science, what the evidence cited by each side is, where this evidence comes from, history of the fringe theory, and so forth. Depending on scope, a template like this might even be suitable for mainstream physics theories.

The main advantage to a project like this would be that it would make clear what a properly NPOV article about a fringe theory should look like, and provide pressure for articles to conform to this type of format. The disadvantage is that it would be a lot of work, especially if mainstream theories like general relativity are to be re-cast into this format, and would doubtless face opposition from proponents of fringe theories whose articles were being modified.

What are your thoughts on this proposal? I'd expect to be able to contribute usefully to the wikiproject and to use the resulting templates frequently. --Christopher Thomas 6 July 2005 20:54 (UTC)

Sounds wonderfully like "Masochists'R'Us". Count me in. --Pjacobi July 6, 2005 21:04 (UTC)
Pjacobi pointed me to this. I'll be happy to help. Salsb 7 July 2005 19:10 (UTC)

The GAP Project[edit]

I've made a proposal at Talk:Southeastern Anatolia Project#Clarification and would appreciate any comments you might have there. --Duk 7 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)

Revert war[edit]

I noticed that you placed Image:Serb lands03.jpg at WP:RFC. However, you are probably not aware that User.Harvardian constantly deleting my posts from the image talk page. You can see image talk page history here:

Also, you can see that User:Harvardian is a noted vandal:

I proposed now this image for deletion, since it is impossible to discuss with the User:Harvardian about this issue. He just refuses the normal discussion. User:PANONIAN


Content disputes are not a valid deletion reason AFAIK. Not only because of policy, but it won't work in this case.
Manipulating and deleting other user's entries are of course a blockable offense, I'll have a look.
Pjacobi 22:16, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Autodynamics[edit]

Revert war. This is getting ridiculous.--CSTAR 23:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Yep. When I'm in the right mood, I'll try a more extensive re-write. I'd think it would serve as a good example of pathological science. A theory that a long time ago seemed to be worth some further thoughts and experiments, but got disproofed and it drifted to the fringe more and more. --Pjacobi 00:11, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for not doing my part, but reading all of the drama from this anon has made me want to stay as far away from the article as possible for the next little while. I'm still twitching from the long and drawn-out death of harmonics theory. I do, however, intend to get to some of the editing relating to the WikiProject Some Time Soon Now. --Christopher Thomas 03:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


What is the English translation for the normal use of the German word "Sekte"?[edit]

Hallo, because I have the strong impression that you know both English and German well, I would like to ask you what the German word "Sekte" generally means in English. "Cult" or "sect"? Please leave your comments on Talk:List_of_purported_cults#Criteria_for_inclusion_including_.22sekte.22_in_German_and_Dutch .Please also read Talk:List_of_purported_cults#Vissarion. Thanks in advance. Andries 16:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Stueckelberg-Feynman[edit]

Hi, I didn't want to start an edit war here but I think that the Stückelberg-Feynman interpretation article should really be a redirect to antiparticle. I appreciate the reason you gave there, but the redirect would take a reader to the top of the page, in full view of the index which lists the topic. Bambaiah 12:25, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

In this second, we have 781 Physics stubs. It's fine with me to reduce this number, but it seems to me, that a number of editors prefer to have a large number stubs, so that each key term has its onw article.
I've only reverted as you seemed to be inaware of this technical problem with REDIRECTs. If you consider a REDIRECT better, even when it is not possible to to redirect to a specific chapter, just proceed.
Pjacobi 12:35, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I've redirected. Bambaiah 14:45, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Bell's theorem[edit]

This is Kafka all over again. --CSTAR 17:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm somewhat too exhausted, to engage this problem here. I also lack literature within arm's reach to do a good job. I cannot use my special administrator buttons, as I have a history of being involved in this article. So what shall I do? Perhaps we should try a wide movement and loose encirclement before finishing her off. What about you writing Kochen-Specker theorem and I trying to invite some of the Zeilinger fan boys (he must really have hinted his students to make as much references to him and his work in German Wikipedia) to write about some newer experiments involving entanglement? --Pjacobi 18:10, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't asking for asny specific kind pf support. This is a general complaint about how WP works.
  • Dog stops barking, goes to sleep.
  • Article settles down in a more-or-less stable form
  • Anonymous rushes in shouting "WTF is this"
  • After some 3rd party intervention anonymous realizes he was being foolish, apologizes.
  • The sleeping dog wakes up by shouting of anonymous.
  • Dog starts barking making threating gestures.
--CSTAR 18:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Nice description. IMHO the article quality evolution of many articles resembles brownian motion. But we achieve to have just a small external field in the right direction... --Pjacobi 19:15, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

And don't miss to read Space opera in Scientology doctrine for some light entertainment. --Pjacobi 19:18, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
But the creation wiki is more fun. --CSTAR

Famekeeper RfC[edit]

Thank you for your comments.

The reason why I created the stub was that I had proposed that to Famekeeper as a way to summarize the case for complicity, and to have the other articles link to it. Your point that the article on Pope Pius XI should link to the Reichskonkordat is well-taken, and is the only constructive comment I have seen in a long time. I agree that Famekeeper is right that POV that is critical of the Catholic leadership has not been presented. The problem is that as long as Famekeeper continues to use article talk pages as a place to rant, no one will make any constructive suggestions as to how to improve the articles.

I had not been originally entirely serious about creating the stub. However, I did suggest it as a brainstorm. The user in question then said that he had tried to create it (with a different name) and was unable to do so, and implied that the admins had locked it out, in service of the Vatican. It more generally seems that he is claiming that the Vatican is trying to censor the Internet.

It appears that Famekeeper has "won". He has found a way to make a point, that the articles are non-neutral, and also to make it impossible to make the articles better.

The other users who were involved with the topic appear now to be too tired to be willing to review the RfC. However, it will be difficult to fix the articles if the talk pages continue to be filled with a harangue. Maybe the best outcome will be to leave the articles alone for a few months.

By the way, my original POV had been that Famekeeper was mostly right, and that arguments critical of Pius XII needed to be given attention. However, I couldn't get Famekeeper to focus on factual changes.

Maybe I did make a mistake in creating the stub, but I was frustrated in trying to find a way get Famekeeper to anything but rant.

Thank you. Robert McClenon 12:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

As I've said on the RfC page, I only accidentically stumbled across the problem. And I'm still don't (and probably never will have) even a modest overview of this field, but arguing only on formal aspects on the case, my two euro cents:
  • Splitting of is better done after the some content is in place and unilaterally splitting of works particulary bad.
  • Problematic editors, acting generally within policy, but having the tendency of writing endless essays on talk pages, are best handled by ignoring these essays.
If anything concrete turns up (ad hominenm attackes at talk or the like), you can ask me, any other admin, or in WP:AN/I for a direct action.
Pjacobi 17:41, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Wikiproject:Cults[edit]

Move to rename Wikiproject:Cults to Wikiproject:Anti-religious sentiment. See "Declaration of bias:" at the userpage of this Wikimedia Trustee: [[9]] and copied here --goethean 17:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:POV fork and Prem Rawat revisited[edit]

Since your somewhat unsuccessful Vote for deletion of Criticism of Prem Rawat, my opinion about the article shifted somewhat more into your direction. I think that the problem with these two articles is not so much the existence of Criticism of Prem Rawat, but the fact that the Criticism of Prem Rawat article contain biographical elements that are not integrated into Prem Rawat. (E.g. I created an article about my former guru Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba which I think is not a POV fork because the information is integrated into the main article Sathya Sai Baba.) Today a new user created a totally new version of the article [10] that successfully integrated most biographical aspects into one article. However this version did not comply to the style quidelines (which can be solved with some work) and was quickly reverted. The author, who is clearly very knowledgeable about the subject, made all other Prem Rawat-related articles a redirect to the article Prem Rawat (which is unacceptable). The reversion is of course a problem that cannot be easily solved because of the controversial nature of the subject. Any thoughts or help on the matter would be appreciated. Thanks Andries 14:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Interesting try. I'm back but somewhat busy, so I'll have to postpone further involvement a bit. --Pjacobi 09:36, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
<start rant> This is my rant and you do not have to reply, but I am want to state that I feel very angry and hurt and insulted by the tendency in this article to exclude every testimony (even if it excludes their interpretations) by apostates who had direct contact with Rawat because they say 1. apostates are generally known to be unreliable, according to academics like David G. Bromley (which is only partially true, see the email he sent me on Talk:Prem Rawat) and 2. apostates are a minority.
For me this is like excluding first hand testimonies about e.g Alber Speer by people who eventually started to dislike Speer. It is a flawed methodology, I believe. I am of course not saying that apostates are always reliable.
I feel very angry about this because I am an apostate myself (of Sathya Sai Baba) and the implication of this way of reasoning is that I am automatically unreliable, in spite of my efforts to be factual and accurate. How would you feel if sources from Germans cannot be used in the article Germany, because their sources are claimed to be unreliable some other people? Wouldn't you be angry?
Thanks for reading this rant. <end of rant> Andries 14:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I myself can deliver a rant anytime about my dis-satisfaction of the undeclared Wikipedia:WikiProject Cults at work. Unfortunately I may hurt your feelings, as I'm cum grano salis angry about the believers and the apostates which IMHO in a strange co-operation evolve all affected articles into unencyclopedic monsters.
If I'd know a way to counter this, I'd be on a mission. But I'm clueless what to do.
Regarding your specific rant above: by standard encyclopedic criteria (or at least by my own), testimonies of apostates can be cited in the articles (in low doses), but preferably studies and books should be cited which integrates, compares and summarize these testimonies.
Pjacobi 15:20, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your entertaining comments. I think there are several reasons why these articles develop into unencyclopedic monsters (you will be aware of most reasons)
  1. (Former) members have far more detailed knowledge than even the best academic experts on the subject. And they sometimes have references for their statements, though not from academic subjects. So if they use these references there is no good reason to revert their edits, referring to the NPOV guidelines
  2. There is hardly any concensus among academics among cult. Read e.g. the book Misunderstanding cults edited by Benjamin Zablocki with widely divergent viewpoints in one book. [11] [12]
  3. The degree to which apostate testimony is reliable and should be included in the descriptions of cults and new religious movements is a vexed issue among academics with again widely divergent viewpoints. Opposite extremes are among others David G. Bromley and Stephen A. Kent. It will be clear that I prefer with the one who sides with apostates i.e. Kent. In other words scientists disagree considerably about the methodology to study cults
  4. Some people may be full time propagandists or full time opponents of their (former) movements.
I think that the articles and the edit behavior of contributors at Wikipedia cannot be expected to be anything else than a reflection of this state of academic ignorance and disagreement, both about individual movements and the methodology to develop a description these movements. Like you, I do not know how to counter the unencyclopic nature of some of the articles.
Andries 20:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Image of breasts[edit]

Please could you take a look at the discussion at Wikipedia:Help desk#Unrealistic breast image. A user complained about the image that was on the Breast article, and further investigation has shown it to have originated on the German Wikipedia. It has since been deleted from there, and it appears that you commented on it when it was listed for deletion. All the information and links are on the help desk thread, where I would appreciate your comments as my German isn't up to the task. Thanks Thryduulf 08:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Atromeroptic Law and Atromeroptics vfd[edit]

Thank you for voting to delete these two entries! Hfwd 05:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Watched[edit]

I felt really weird changing someone's comment on a Talk page, but I was sure that's what you'd intended, so I thought it'd be ok. --Laura Scudder | Talk 19:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

ODP article[edit]

Greetings, Pjacobi. Just to be clear, I have not edited the ODP article since May of 2005, and I have no intention of editing the article at any time in the future. Moreover, I was *NOT* the one to insert the NPOV tag in the article, nor have I ever objected to its removal. // NetEsq 21:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for this clarification. --Pjacobi 06:18, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Writing system[edit]

Hi,

The new image for Writing system is just about ready. Since you've commented on the article, do you want to take a look and see if you have any further suggestions?

kwami 07:58, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

My RFA[edit]

Hi, thanks for voting for me in my RFA. I was really touched at how many people voted for me! --Angr/tɔk tə mi 22:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

category massacres[edit]

Hi there, can you please point me to the discussion which led to the deletion of this category, or briefly explain why it was decided to delete? What are the suggested alternative categories? Obey 02:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The archived CfD is here.
The suggested alternative was to use the List of massacres (which at some point in time should be re-factored itself).
For categorization options please apply editorial insight and the caveats mentioned in article massacre. So categories like Category:Spree shootings, Category:Terrorist incidents, Category:Genocides, or Category:War crimes may apply.
Pjacobi 07:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Much obliged. Unfortunately I must lack the editorial insight of which you speak if I needed to ask about this. Obey 08:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

kdbuffalo[edit]

Can you take alook at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kdbuffalo? Dunc| 13:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

My IP address has been blocked 167.206.112.86. And i can't figued out what i did wrong. (Kyla 15:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC))

I'm sorry![edit]

I'm sorry for whatever I did. But this computer is public which means people use it. And I can't help it that people vandalize the page. I am really sorry. Can you please unblock this IP address? 167.206.112.86. thanks. (Kyla 16:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC))

I know I didn't do that. I don't think someone else from my school could of vandalize the pages. I just found out about Wikipedia like this summer. Well someone from the school must know about Wikipedia. Why else was it vandalized? And why else did the computer that I used get messages saying the IP address was blocked? It's a little weird. I'm sure the person who did it was someone new on Wikipedia. Hopefully it won't happen again. (Kyla 22:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC))

Seems like one for deletion but I'm not that bold[edit]

Hi Pjacobi - I've seen you make intelligent comments on AfD discussions, and am seeking advice/assistance. I think I found something that meets the vanity and non-encyclopedic criteria for deletion - Zack Spencer. A google of Zack Spencer returns 630 hits, many of them self-advertisement from their subject. What's your opinion? Should it be nominated for deletion? Thanks, Throbblefoot 00:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I humbly decline to give a clear yes and no here. I don't know the precedents. The article wouldn't surive on de: (even for a German radio/TV maoderator of equal notability). Perhaps you should compare with articles in Category:Canadian radio personalities. --Pjacobi 00:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks, Throbblefoot 01:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Taxil, Freemasonry, Lightbringer[edit]

Would you mind making a statement regarding Lightbringer on the [|Freemasonry section of the arbitration request page]? His spurious and unsupported edits on Taxil directly relate to his conduct and some of his comments on the Freemasonry page. TIA! MSJapan 03:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Planck Mass[edit]

The Planck mass has a relationship to the electron mass. My user page defines this relationsuip.--DonJStevens 14:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)