User talk:GangofOne

Concision is a virtue.

---

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Hi GangofOne, welcome to Wikipedia. It seems we share various interests. If you need any help or advice - I've been around a little while and have admin status. JFW | T@lk 08:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Welcome as well. Cyt p450 was on my watchlist as well. I put together one of the earliest stubs on this just because I needed to mention it in another article and I knew we needed one. Several other people thought so as well and have augmented, but no one has yet endeavored to write a large comprehensive article. Wikipedia has lots of both kinds: the best are obviously the ones where someone puts a lot of effort into a large article, but many useful ones are the work of lots of small additions. Thanks for the additions. Are you up to fleshing this out into a comprehensive article. We would all be admiring. Your first snort is free. This is exactly the way this works. alteripse 12:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist too, and I'd like to extend a welcome too. I had initially only discussed the CYPs most relevant to drug metabolism because that is my area of expertise. I agree with what you've done there, including the whole range of CYPs. The website that you've linked to, and referenced from, are good and well-referenced. In general, though, it'd probably be better to cite an article from a peer-reviewed journal. Anyway, keep up the good work. -Techelf 14:23, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Due to lack of knowledge of the subject and time, I am not planning a major revision of this article; although as I learn something, I may throw in some facts.GangofOne 07:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Question about Factorials

In Stirling's approximation, I'm curious how you got those values for huge factorials. JabberWok 05:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

one could use programs that include big numbers, like Mathematica, Maple, most version of lisp, perl with Big::Int (or whatever it's called) libraries, but the one I used is the free and amazing program known as pari or pari-gp. I see it has an entry: PARI-GP computer algebra system Get it at http://pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr/ I use it as my prefered quick calculator, but it also computes 1000s of functions I don't understand. Recommended.GangofOne 06:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It's optimized for speed. You may not need to use Stirling's approx. Eg

? \p 200
  realprecision = 202 significant digits (200 digits displayed)
? 123456! +0.0
time = 18,720 ms.
%33 = 2.6040699049291378729513930560926568818273270409503019584610185579952057379676834157935
607166171279087355200170616660008572612714566985893730865282934317244121152865814030
204645985573419251305342231136 E574964

Quantum indeterminacy in computation

In what sense do you think that quantum indeterminacy in computation is a separate issue?--Carl Hewitt 20:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Award

I think you deserve this. If it weren't for you no one sensible would be putting in the pro pov at all. I agree with what you said about the Nobel prise. If they turn out to be right, it will be a bombshell. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I hereby

award you this cool as a cucumber award for the calm manner in which you have behaved in aetherometry Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Robert Duncan Wilmot (poet)

GoO, your comments here had me rolling with laughter! Fawcett5 02:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. Every once in a while I think of something worthy.GangofOne 02:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

you are welcome to fix the "thought experiment" in the Magnetic Field article.

(i'm posting this on the Talk:Magnetic_field talk page.)

i'm still not clear as to what to fix without bringing in the quantative analysis. (is that what you want me to do?) even if there is outward acceleration between the two lines of charge, there is an instant of time where the relative velocity is zero (therefore not moving relative to each other). it is only this instant of time that i was referring to in the thought experiment.

two infinite lines of charge do exert an infinite force on each other, but the force per unit length is finite and if the mass per unit length is also finite, then the outward acceleration is determinable. no?

let's be specific about what needs to be fixed. i'm happy if it is fixed. r b-j 03:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Antony Flew

You added a link to an ABC article on this man to the Intelligent Design article. Please read the article. From the article:

In an another letter to Carrier of 29 December 2004 Flew went on to retract his statement "a deity or a 'super-intelligence'" is "the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature." "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction." wrote Flew.

Flew's original argument was that one should presuppose atheism until evidence of a God surfaces. He still stands behind this evidentialist approach, although he may have now changed his mind about what the evidence says.

Ec5618, ok, Flew is out. Thanks for the update. GangofOne 06:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The coriolis effect article

Hi GangofOne,

What is your opinion of the situation with the coriolis effect article? I know that in my burning eagerness to communicate the ideas I write too much, and the Talk page is flooded with my comments.

Are you able so sieve the important things out of the deluge?

Your remarks are quite to the point every time. Have you formed an opinion of how you see the physics of atmospheric motions? --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 21:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

List of publications in sociology

Hi,

I saw your contributions to the list. Thank you for that. Could you write a short description of the publications and explain their importance. I don’t have a proper background in sociology and therefore I don’t feel as if I’m the right person to do it. Thanks, APH 10:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Science pearls

Hello,

In a topic related to the one above:

Since you contributed in the past to the publications’ lists, I thought that you might be interested in this new project. I’ll be glad if you will continue contributing. Thanks,APH 11:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

LeSage Gravity

Hi, GangofOne, I did see your comment but didn't see anything I could respond to.

FYI, the best way for a nonproject member to contact me is by leaving a clear and concise message in my talk page. I expect that the Bulletin will be cleaned up regularly and probably won't be archived (except in "history"). The reason is that since the project members wish to spend as little time as possible on such matters, we don't want any entry to be more than a few lines. So please don't be surprised or offended if your comment there disappears.

I wish you would condescend to explain (in a message on my talk page) what you found offensive (?) or ironical (?) about my comment about the future of Wikipedia. I would be truly surprised if you thought I was trolling, if that is what you mean to imply, but if you really did think that I would like to know why. Perhaps I am too new a user to know if due to some past history, some might find my expression of doubt offensive. It is surely obvious that since I am editing here, while I do think the current Wikipedia model is doomed to failure, as I say on my user page, I also believe that Wikipedia is currently a valuable resource for suitably sceptical students, and despite my medium term fears about the future of Wikipedia, I do expect something of longer lasting value to come our work. Fair enough? ---CH (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Where and how do we classify an article about slashdotting?

This page [[1]] Was slashdotted [[2]] Any blips? Artoftransformation 03:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess you copy the template from , say, Talk:Hydrino theory to Talk:Machinima, and since it's a lame uninformative Template, it seems a good idea to append the explicit link http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/09/1442201 for those who wish to read /. GangofOne 07:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Bear in mind, In new here, I have a bit of an idea about what your talking about, but have almost absolutly no idea how to do it. But Im going to give it a shot...If Im not back in 3 minutes, send out ... Artoftransformation 08:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I figured it out. Not too hard...--Artoftransformation 09:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Hydrino theory and Green Frogs

Sir: just wondered why you added this link: "*http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/8/4/1 "Hydrogen result causes controversy", August 5, 2005, recent articles, pro and con." Its a recent article, citing Rathke's article, and a math paper with terrible english. I would peak at that math paper. I quoted it. It was on target about the controversy, vs this no new information article. Artoftransformation

above signature forged by 16:57, 15 November 2005 AlDantes  ; straightened out on Artoft talk

David Kennedy page

Please stop deliberately introducing incorrect information into articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.
You placed a link to an opinion page about Rosemary Kennedy's mental status on the David Kennedy page. It has nothing to do with David Kennedy. In addition, you placed this link in a deceptive manner, by putting false information about what the link was about. Please stop. Wikipedianinthehouse 04:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The text in question:

==External link==
	+	A quote by David Kennedy expressing his anger at his family. 
    [http://fatboy.cc/Rosemary.htm ]  Near the end.

the quote referred to in that text:

     But Rosemary’s story, so horrifying in its casual, callous brutality, was never forgotten by
millions  of Americans, and certainly not by any members of the Kennedy family.  In the late
1970s, Bobby’s doomed son, David, was reading a copy of the pro-drug magazine High Times when 
he came across a story on lobotomies.  Naturally enough, one of the illustrations was a photo 
of his beautiful aunt Rosemary, pre-lobotomy.
    “She had a new pair of white shoes on,” David recalled later for the authors Peter Collier and 
David Horowitz.  “The thought crossed my mind that if my grandfather was alive the same thing 
could have happened to me that happened to her.  She was an embarrassment; I am an embarrassment.  
She was a hindrance; I am a hindrance.  As I looked at this picture, I began to hate my grandfather 
and all of them for having done the thing they had done to her and for doing the thing they w
ere doing to me.”
     David died of a drug overdose in 1984....

Wikipedianinthehouse, you claim this is incorrect information. What is incorrect about it? Why do you consider it vandalism? Why do you feel a quote BY David Kennedy is not relevant TO David Kennedy? He is discussing his family, surely this is relevant to a biographical entry. What is deceptive about the manner in which I placed the link? Is not "A quote by David Kennedy expressing his anger at his family." a fair description of the quote in question? What is the false information about what the link was about? GangofOne 19:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I question your motives for putting that link on the David Kennedy page. The link is not about David Kennedy; it is about Rosemary Kennedy. If you want to include that quote, I would recommend putting the acutal quote in the DK article instead of linking to it. Wikipedianinthehouse

So you withdraw your previous comments and now see that the quote IS relevant to David Kennedy? Since the quote involves Rosemary, would not information about her now be relevant, so the reader could understand the quote? If I put the quote in the article , I would have to include its source, the link in question. Would you object to that? What do you think my motives are? GangofOne 20:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Correction thanks!

GangofOne, thanks for the typo input on the human thermodynamics glossary page; much appreciated! If you have anymore input, let me know. Later, --Wavesmikey 05:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Removal AfD tag from Afshar experiment

Dear GangofOne, please remove the AfD tag from the experiment page. Who is supposed to close the voting process? It's already been 9 days, way over the usual voting time. Why?! -- Afshar 15:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Jason Group Edit

Dear Gang of One, I liked your solution to the links with more speculation that fact. I had removed those links, but you're right, readers should be able to choose for themselves. - Ann 151.196.123.30

I'm happy we can agree. Yes, it's up to the reader. GangofOne 22:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Gang of One, Your addition of recent studies is just fine, and thank you for keeping up with it. Several of those listed as members, however, may not be. Did you get their names from the studies? If so, not everyone who works on a study is a Jason -- sometimes the group brings in experts for just one study. Maybe the best solution is to introduce the membership list by saying where the names came from, and adding the caveat that study authors aren't necessarily members. - Ann

Also, dear Gang of One, I just noticed that you'd requested that I go through the links that I identified as having more speculation than fact and classify which was which. I think that's not feasible: separating the real from the imaginary would essentially mean rewriting the links' content, of which there's a lot. I'd just as soon leave it at caveat emptor. - Ann

To exercise the possibility to vote

FYI. thought you might like to vote on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/William_M._Connolley_2 --GangofOne 20:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I knew that William is up for adminship, I hadn't decided yet whether to vote. I don't know. We will see what the future will bring. --Cleonis | Talk 22:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Question forom Janusz Karpinski

Hi, this is Janusz Karpinski. I am writing to you because you voted "keep" in AfD for aetherometry entry. The present situation is that by Wikipedia standards there is no reputable secondary literature at all about aetherometry. The minority view is contained only in primary sources, which do not even fulfill Wikipedia standards for scientific references, and there are no other publications, so there is no majority view. "Majority view" here does not mean view of majority of Wikipedia administrators, it means published and generally accepted view of outside scientific community. There is nothing like this for aetherometry. As result, nothing in entry can be verified or referenced, it is all interpretation and opinion. This is not how encyclopedia should work, and is against Wikipedia policy. Since you said that entry should be kept, you must have idea how entry can start to provide verifiable encyclopedic information when there are no existing secondary sources. How can this problem be solved? I think you cannot just say "keep" and leave to others dealing with this problem, which to me seems completely not solvable. Please, describe what your solution is, and how you will personally help make aetherometry entry honest, reputable and verifiable. Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 23:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

if you're a good boy

one day i may tell you the story of One Man Gang, a notable personality i met at louisiana state penitentiary at angola. Zen Destiny 01:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)