Jump to content

User talk:Jayen466

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BarnardKnox (talk | contribs) at 19:03, 12 October 2009 (→Hannibal Fogg). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Siege of Godesberg The Seduction of Ingmar Bergman Idries Shah Scientology in Germany The Seduction of Ingmar Bergman Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death Andreas Grünschloß Anna Murray-Douglass Bolton Brown Bo Ningen Bruce High Quality Foundation Dick Anthony Frank Crichlow Frightful Cave Hilya Īhām INFORM (Information Network Focus on Religious Movements) Ivy Alvarez James A. Beckford John A. Saliba Journal of Contemporary Religion Lorne L. Dawson Magnus Manske Mangrove Restaurant Marimba Ani Maureen Corrigan Peter B. Clarke Race Today Red Barked Tree Remi Kanazi Rosie Vanier Swim ~ The Lazarus Effect (film) The Seduction of Ingmar Bergman The Stool Pigeon (newspaper) PetitPiton.JPG Barnstars
HI! IF YOU LEAVE ME A MESSAGE HERE, I WILL USUALLY ANSWER HERE, RATHER THAN ON YOUR OWN TALK PAGE, SO PLEASE WATCHLIST THIS PAGE OR CHECK BACK.


RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 21:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online


Encounter group/T-group

Hi, thanks for your comment on my talk page. You're right in thinking I'd forgotten about these articles - I wouldn't have noticed your comment if you hadn't drawn my attention to it. Having looked again, I agree that they don't seem to be covering quite the same subject, although their subjects are clearly linked to one another. A merge may not be appropriate, but I would prefer if the differences between the two topics was made clear, and covering them in the same article would be one way to do that. Unfortunately, I am entirely unfamiliar with the subject, so I couldn't do that myself; until there is someone who can, we may as well remove the merge tags. Perhaps {{Expert}} would be more appropriate here. Robofish (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inner German Border

Good article, isn't it? I've left him some suggestions on the German project page, and he's looking for a peer review at MHP. did you have a chance to look into the Cologne War battles? Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, jaw-dropping. I think it's even longer than your German unification article; we'll have to pull our fingers out to make sure the article finds reviewers willing to read the whole thing. The peer review page is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Peer_review/Inner_German_border If the peer review is done properly, we should be able to support at FAC without much further ado. I've done the nbsps already and will do the n-dashes etc. as well.
I haven't looked at the Cologne War battles yet (got sidetracked into other things), but I've noted the redlinks in the Cologne War info box ... --JN466 22:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
take a look at my comments on the germany talk page; they cover the dashes etc. He's done a magnificent job, although it needs MINOR (very minor) tweaks. What do you think of the images? Will this get bogged down on issues of OR? Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Be CAREFUL or you'll be a major contributor, not a reviewer....! He uploaded the page intact, so he only has 64 edits. Let him do the hyphens, etc. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okeydoke, I guess I got carried away. :) Placing dashes is just donkey work (which I quite enjoy doing sometimes). --JN466 01:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the pictures should be alright per Wikipedia:NOR#Original_images. JN466 01:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Yes, you were carried away. I did one section, so he could see. You'll need to be able to support at FA, so keeping your contributions within some kind of limit would be sensible.  :) Oh, have you seen Bee's article on Lent? Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

38 metres = 120 feet?

And can you tell me why the convert template converts 38 metres into 120 feet? 38/.3048 = 124.67, i.e. it's really much nearer 125 ft than 120. --JN466 23:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are only two significant digits in the metric value ("38"), there should be only two significant digits in the imperial value. Thus the question is whether to use "120" or "130", and "124.67" is closer to the former than the latter.
If you were to input {{convert|38.0|m}} there would be three significant digits and the convert template would output 38.0 metres (124.7 ft). But I think the source says 38 rather than 38.0, so I'd leave it as it is. Gabbe (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I hadn't known that the number of significant digits was the relevant criterion in metre–foot conversions. I understand the logic, but where one of the units is in a different order of magnitude, this currently makes for some counterintuitive conversions:
  • 36 metres (118 ft) 37 metres (121 ft) 38 metres (125 ft)
  • 37 metres (1,500 in) 38 metres (1,500 in) 39 metres (1,500 in)
Note that for ft–in or mile–metre conversions, we do allow the smaller unit to have more significant digits:
  • 3 feet (36 in) 4 feet (48 in) 5 feet (60 in)
  • 1 mile (1,600 m) 2 miles (3,200 m) 3 miles (4,800 m)
I might raise the point on the template talk page.
I do realise there is a manual fix, using the sigfig parameter:
  • {{convert|36|m|ft|sigfig=3}} {{convert|37|m|ft|sigfig=3}} {{convert|38|m|ft|sigfig=3}} yields:
  • 36 metres (118 ft) 37 metres (121 ft) 38 metres (125 ft)
--JN466 10:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Things are more complicated than I thought; there is a related discussion on the template talk page already. See Template_talk:Convert#Some_suggestions_for_changes_to_the_default_precision. JN466 11:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

Pssst! I shouldn't get involved, but here are some refs that might be useful:

  • Payton, Jack R. (1998-02-28). "German panel brings concerns on Scientology to Washington". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved 2009-09-27.
  • Jacoby, Mary (1998-12-13). "High profile couple never pairs church and state". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved 2009-09-27. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Grove, Lloyd (2000-01-04). "Scientology's Funny Photos". The Reliable Source. Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-09-27. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Frantz, Douglas (1998-02-13). "Scientology's Star Roster Enhances Image". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-09-27.
  • Dahl, David (1998-03-29). "Scientology's influence grows in Washington". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved 2009-09-27.

The first one is quite relevant, unfortunately, SP Times has recently switched to pay-access for archive full text versions. Here's the synopsis. Other Germany refs. AndroidCat (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks ... will look at them ... Cheers. --JN466 01:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything in the early 1998 timeframe that might have German officials directly commenting on Bill Clinton. Unfortunately a straight search on Clinton in my article archive returns too many false hits (other stories in a sidebar, etc). If I get a chance, I'll look for ones with Clinton AND Travolta, which should find any that I've missed indexing. AndroidCat (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I hate it when that happens (thinking one has read something, and not being able to find it again). JN466 10:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lyndon LaRouche article

I'd like to encourage you to keep editing the article, because your edits seem carefully neutral, and otherwise the process is dominated by disputes between Mr. Beback and myself over article neutrality. --Leatherstocking (talk)

Edit conflict

Sorry for the edit conflict just now. No risk of another one if you want to continue editing: I am now back to catching up with my day job. :) JN466 22:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. Took me a while to work out what to do, as we had edited very closely, but I think (I hope!) I got it right! I'm actually off to bed now. I sometimes stay up late fiddling on Wikipedia, but I've been working this evening on a slightly overdue article for What's Brewing, so I'm a bit knackered, and I have my house-husband duties to do tomorrow, so I need my sleep! Enjoy your day job! Regards SilkTork *YES! 22:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hannibal Fogg

Hi Jayen, I hate to spoil a good jape, but if you have a spare minute, can you verify any of the references or book titles in Hannibal Fogg? Cheers, Esowteric+Talk 14:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very well done. Looks like a complete hoax. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL The cited book on Balliol College is visible in google books; no mention of "Fogg" anywhere in it. I would consider taking the editors involved to WP:ANI. JN466 14:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jayen, and for added the suss hoax category. Will leave others to deal with the article and editor/s as they see fit. Had me fooled until someone else at caravansarai actually followed up on the references. Will Z. also ran a whois on the Society registration ... Guess who? Esowteric+Talk 15:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realize you have RL commitments, J. Maybe just take to ANI and let them decide if it needs moving somewhere more appropriate? Just a thought. Many thanks, Esowteric+Talk 18:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as things go, I've just spent another hour on it :( ... Special:Contributions/Patrick_H.Ingram is involved too. Basically anyone who edits Robert Twigger (friend of Shah's) seems suspect. I've chatted to Durova about it (User_talk:Durova#Hoax_articles); I am at a loss to figure out what the best venue is. But yes, I suppose WP:ANI would fit. JN466 18:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hannibal Fogg

Hello, You messaged me requesting that I change my edits regarding Hannibal Fogg. Having looked at the HF page I can see that it has been put up for deletion on the grounds that it is supposedly a hoax. The main evidence cited seems to be that a writer, Tahir Shah, is writing a book about Fogg. I am indeed a fan of Foggs and would like to see more authorative material available in the public domain, but I have no connection and indeed, had not previously heard of Shah. I would like to see a more thorough response to the complete set of sources referenced on the Hannibal Fogg page before it is deleted and am concerned that the attack on the article seems to centre on the fact that a new book has been proposed about Fogg. User:BarnardKnox

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayen466&oldid=319471967"