User talk:Dbfirs

Welcome!

Hello, Dbfirs, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

The above is the "welcome template." I noticed you reverting some vandalism on Bermuda Triangle; thanks for helping out with Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting vandalism

I notice that you've been reverting a lof of vandalistic edits. In addition to that, you can help by leaving appropriate warnings on the talk pages of the vandals. This way, the persistant ones will get blocked. For a list of appropriate warnings, check out the WP:UTTM page. Corpx 23:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perpendicular axes

I've redirected your new article to the existing Perpendicular axes rule. Please try and expand the existing one further. --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 01:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was editing the parallel axis theorem, and was surprised to notice that the perpendicular axis theorem seemed not to be in Wikipedia, but I should have done an efficient search! I will have a go at expanding the existing article later. Dbfirs 11:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random changes to Sierra Leone and related articles

I have noticed that user Sittaconde, together with two unregistered editors, have been making apparently random changes to the population figures, and to some geographical and biographical data of this country. I investigated population figures elsewhere on the web and concluded that some of the changes entered by these users could not possibly represent reality unless there are regular mass migrations and re-counts in Sierra Leone. One difficulty is that several less-reliable websites give contradictory estimates of population. I have left several messages on the relevant talk pages, but have not received any response at all. They continue to make unusual and unexplained edits, some of which have been reverted by other users. Am I allowed to restore the attestable 2004 census population data where appropriate? dbfirs 22:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trapezoid

having looked into it I think you are right, I had a maths teacher who used trapezoid to no "quadrilateral with no parallel sides", but I cannot find and references to it. -- Q Chris (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He (or she) was probably using the 1851 definition. Originally both trapezium and trapezoid meant a general quadrilateral with no speacial properties i.e. nothing equal, but in the USA the word trapezoid came to be applied to the ones with one pair of parallel sides, and in the UK it was the trapezium word which was used with this meaning. French seems to have the same usage as your maths teacher, but all the modern British and Commonwealth usages I can find (I've collected the best twenty which include implied definitions) use trapezoid either as a synonym of British trapezium or referring to a solid which has some trapezium-shaped faces. I would be interested to know if you come across any modern usage (as apposed to copies of out-of-date dictionaries) which support your maths teacher. I expect there will be the odd one or two, but I haven't found any.

On a related matter, did your maths teacher regard a parallelogram and a rhombus etc as special cases of trapeziums? (possibly you called them trapezia at that time?)
dbfirs 19:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he would have done. I think his usage was probably out of date at the time. I my o-level maths in 1980, and the teacher was coming up to retirement, so it is quite possible that what he was teaching was already well out of date. -- Q Chris (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colony of British Columbia

I'm going to assume good faith here. Did you revert back to vandalism by accident? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was using popups to revert the edit by 70.71.224.36 - but something must have gone wrong with the process because Cluebot got there before me and the popup reverted the correction instead. Popups don't usually do that. Could it be because of my slow internet connection? How can I check that the popup has correctly reverted (without reading through the whole article)? dbfirs 17:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(later) I see now what happened. There were two edits by 70.71.224.36 and I should have read more carefully and looked at the history. Is it a waste of time reverting vandalism, because the bots do the job automatically? dbfirs 18:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the bots miss a lot of it, and sometimes take a long time. Then again, if it's a huge blanking or filled with profanity, they usually catch it pretty quick. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion of the Dingo

I'm confused about this deletion. Here is a person with references from leading snowboarding magazines. He is the largest personality in snowboarding. Announces every major event. Why not allow me to build on the article rather than just delete. Please advise. Thundata (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not involved with this deletion. I just happened to notice that the article was in danger of deletion, so I left a message on your talk page. As I said there, "The Dingo" is probably borderline on Wikipedia's notability criteria, so you needed to provide independent references to establish notability. (I don't know whether you had time to do this, but a {{hangon}} might have delayed deletion.) The fact that the article was written by his publicity agent, and contained links to The Dingo's own self-publicity web-page meant that administrators did not take it seriously. It is always better if articles are created by independent editors, with thorough research. You may wish to read the guidelines which have been left by other editors on your talk page. Best wishes. dbfirs 19:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lemba

I wasn't the first to edit Lemba, as it turns out; Lincspoacher had already edited it here, so that makes three! I'll leave it to you to amalgamate them. I think where I put mine is the best place, but otherwise I don't mind how you edit it.
P.S. You were lucky your message reached me, as I don't have a static IP. If you want to reply you can reply here. 83.70.237.60 (talk) 10:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colours

You have set them up incompetently, and they turn all the entries below blue or orange! Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realised that things were going wrong as soon as I displayed the page after my comment. I then corrected my error, but had two edit conflicts before I could put things right. Apologies for the problems I've caused! I'm puzzled about why the problem hasn't shown up before, but I'll remove my colours until I learn what went wrong. Best wishes. Dbfirs 17:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(later) I've checked all other pages where my coloured signature appears and there was no affect on the rest of the page, so I think the problem must be an interaction with other coloured signatures (there was an orange one higher up that page). Does anyone know of a bug with colours, or had I missed a cancelling command? Dbfirs (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of Hitler´s escape

Let me know if/how you would like some help cleaning up this article. The biggest issue I see is referencing, so if you find any let me know and I'll go to work with citations. Otherwise I'm better at formatting and copyediting, but one foot in front of the other :-). -FrankTobia (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping that someone with reasonable knowledge of Germany in & after WW2 will improve the article. I haven't read any of the theories in detail, and History is not my subject, so I don't really feel qualified to re-write the complete article (which is what it needs). www.hitlersescape.com would give a start, but there are lots of other websites, though I haven't found many Google Books references yet. Dbfirs 20:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Touching 240

Wold you please consider removing your comment about using the fingers to test for live 240V at Ref Desk?? Too many people have been injured or killed that way. It is too eeasy to do it while the feet or other hand are gounded, with fatal current passing through the heart. Thanks. Edison (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, point taken. I did put in warnings, but I agree it was thoughtless of me to include the suggestion because there will always be someone who will try it out. Thanks for the guidance. Dbfirs 21:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalism

Hi, can you please remember to leave an appropriate warning on the talk pages of vandals, this helps build a case to have them blocked from editing. Thanks. ^Alex J _Fox (Talk) (Contribs) 19:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I usually do this when appropriate, though in the case of anonymous multiple-user IP addresses, there doesn't seem to be much point. But thanks, I see you have done this for me in the last case of vandalism. Dbfirs 19:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, we all need to do our bit! ^Alex J _Fox (Talk) (Contribs) 20:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what I said above, I've just reported anonymous user:66.192.59.10 and they have been blocked, so you are right about building a case, but this user was a regular vandal, and fairly obviously the same person each time. Dbfirs 20:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrels drying mushrooms

I made a mistake. It is American Red Squirrels that dry mushrooms. I moved the statement to that article. There are two citations, an episode of Ray Mears' Extreme Survival called "The Rockies" and a photograph. Edward (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. I thought that the photo looked like an American red, but I wasn't 100% sure. I watch English reds every day, and they are very resourceful creatures, so it wouldn't surprise me if they occasionally eat mushrooms. Dbfirs 22:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Push-bike

Wikipedia requires that citations are provided for assertions made. The assertion in question was not sourced, and I am not personally aware of that information being true, so I felt it appropriate to remove it. I have lived in the UK for my entire life and have never heard the term (in fact, coincidentally I had to look it up only recently). As you point out, that does not mean that it isn't used here, but in general, citations are required. Feel free to replace it, however, because I don't really care that much.

As an aside, Internet IP locator tools are in general, highly innaccurate. I do not live in, or near, Manchester.

Azimuth (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here [1]. Cited OED 2004 usages. IP does usually determine country. Dbfirs 17:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between equal and congruent

Hello. I realized that you have commented on me replacing "equal" with "congruent". "Equal" means the same exact thing. Picture a parallelogram, with vertices labeled A, B, C, and D (clockwise, starting with the top-left vertex). You're given that quadrilateral ABCD IS indeed a parallelogram. Angles A and C are opposite angles. Are they congruent? Yes. ("Congruent" means the same length, size, or measure.) Are they equal? No. Angle A is not the SAME THING as angle C. Let's try an example. Picture two congruent segments, segment AB and segment BC. Obviously, point B is the vertex is the included angle. Angle ABC is not 180 degrees (point B is not a midpoint). Segment AB is CONGRUENT to segment BC. Let's say I draw a perpendicular line through segment AB. We'll call the line "D". If segment AB were to be equal to segment BC (that is, if segment AB were to be the same exact thing as segment BC), then line D would be perpendicular to both segment AB AND segment BC. But you're given that angle B is not 180 degrees - the two segments are not parallel. Is segment BC perpendicular to line D? It can't be. "Equal" and "congruent" are somewhat different. If I am 6 feet tall and you are 6 feet tall, then you are congruent to me. Do I equal you? No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.147.182 (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, point taken. I should have said "equal in length". My aim was to keep the language simple for readers (who are likely to be unsophisticated if they are reading these basic articles), and to follow Euclid's usage. Equal does not mean "identical", and is regularly used to mean "equal in size". I think you are reading more into the word than common usage merits, but I do see the point you are making. However, you do misunderstand the word congruent. We are certainly not congruent, even if we do happen to be equal in height. See Congruence_(geometry). Dbfirs 11:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Congruent"

I'd be happy to share why I changed "equals" to "congruent".

My definition of "equal" is "the same thing". 3+5=8, because the value of the sum of 3 and 5 is equal to 8.

My definition of "congruent" is "the same size and shape". You do not claim that two triangles are equal unless they are the EXACT SAME thing, the EXACT SAME triangle. The only triangle that triangle ABC is equal to is itself. The same thing applies to segments. Segment AB is congruent to segment BC if the measure of segment AB = the measure of segment BC. HOWEVER, segment AB is not the exact same thing as segment BC.

"Equal" and "congruent" are used interchangeably by lazy Americans (I live in the United States), though in Geometry, the two words are somewhat different.

I'm trying to make Wikipedia more accurate (since it has been accused of having false information). I used to take Geometry, and you know how many more times they used the word "congruent" rather than "equal"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.147.182 (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in the UK, we don't use congruent when we mean equal in length. By "they", I assume that you mean schools in the USA. It is important that Wikipedia is understood by all readers, and is not biased towards the usage in one country. The word congruent is NOT more accurate than "equal in length", is is just less clear to the general reader. Dbfirs 08:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dbfirs. This matter of equal versus congruent is a real pain. I'm with you! I altered every occurrence of congruent that was applied to angles or sides in the article Triangle, with associated rewording where necessary, back in December 2007. I explained why in an edit summary, and also rather fully in talk. But there, and also at Congruence (geometry) and some other places where I made changes, imprecision crept in again like rust or entropy, with subsequent barely explained or completely unexplained edits. That's the way of Wikipedia. (See talkpages for those articles, where no one bothered to answer the points I made.)

This is not a UK versus US matter; it is a traditional versus sloppy modern thing.

Euclid did not use a separate word equivalent to congruent; he used isos, ("equal") or anisos ("unequal"). (Too lazy to input the proper Greek: where I am it's late at night.) It is a stupid, misleading, and utterly unnecessary distraction to speak of congruent angles (or sides). After all, we also want to be able to say that angles are greater or lesser, as Euclid does; or unequal, as Euclid does. Those make no sense next to talk of congruence, which itself is never an ordinal quantitative matter (like the relations <, =, and >), but one of isometry or isomorphism.

If I had the energy I would fix all this in the articles, but I have grown pessimistic. If you want to fix them, call on me for support, OK?

Meanwhile, your anonymous interlocutor above is deeply wrong about a few things. Equality of angles A and B does not entail that A and B are numerically identical, so that they must occur at the very same location, between the very same rays (or lines). I hope that our anonymous friend has the excuse of being young! :)

All best wishes to you.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. I also presumed that our anonymous editor was someone who had just learnt the word and had been taught that it was somehow "better" than "equal", but, in my opinion, the edits made the articles harder to follow. I thought we had reached a compromise on "equal in length" for sides, but user:Youmils03 (who is probably the same anon.) has been changing back again. I don't know whether anyone actually reads the basic articles to find out information, but I will change them back to simple English when I have time. Best wishes, Dbfirs 07:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, D. See my addition at Talk:Triangle, answering yours. I agree with your conjecture concerning the identity of our anonymous and user:Youmils03. It is heuristically well-founded, based on certain evident congruences!

I hope we can do some work on this together. I have just recently fixed a few things in articles that give essentially Euclidean treatments of plane figures, angles, and so on. But in fact the discussion ought to centralised: at Congruence (geometry), Angle, or a relevant project page.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 09:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congruent AGAIN

Hello.

I saw the discussion between you and your persistent friend. I am indeed youmils03, though I usually get too lazy to log into my account lol.

Yes, I did agree on "equal in length". Next to it, I put "congruent" in parenthesis. Is that ok? I'm trying to get viewers to understand that "congruent" (at least in the U.S." means "the same size and shape". Two segments cannot be EQUAL unless they are the EXACT SAME THING.

I have outlined this for you twice in the past, but because you are so persistent, you may remove "congruent". But do not just put "equal"; but "equal in length". If I'm 6 feet and you're 6 feet, I'm congruent (equal in length) to you. I'm not EQUAL to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.147.182 (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

182, youmils03, or whatever your name is, if you want to get rigorous about identity you can start with your own. You show contempt for us if you sometimes "get too lazy to log in", therefore disguising the fact that there is only one editor who thinks as you do about this.

I and others will resist your unsourced editing. We know that in certain modern usage congruent can be applied to angles, sides, and the like: but if that usage is used consistently the word angle means something quite different from what it means in Euclidean or neo-Euclidean terminology. In the modern usage that you apply selectively and without respect for consistency, tradition, or arguments from other editors, triangles do not have angles. Every angle, in the system that speaks of "congruent angles", has parts that are rays; but since triangles with finite-lengthed sides do not have parts that are rays, triangles do not have angles! You also misrepresent the usage in question as the American usage. It is no such thing. Look for example at the mathworld articles angle (note the definition carefully), right angle, equilateral triangle, and then isosceles triangle ("This property is equivalent to two angles of the triangle being equal"). None of those articles uses the word congruent even once.

A little learning is a dangerous thing; and so is misguided zeal in amending articles that many others have worked on with great care.

I suggest you take up your sophomoric program of reform at Talk:angle. (When you do that, I shall also deftly refute your simplistic analogy involving persons and their heights.) Until matters are systematically resolved there or in some other appropriately general forum, you are behaving like a vandal, and I for one will treat you as such.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 03:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had already pointed out to this editor (in their anonymous guise) that their understanding of the word congruent was flawed, and had pointed them to the Wikipedia article, but understanding seems to be prevented by preconception. Dbfirs 09:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

discuss the lower bound of TSP length

How to explain length lower bound = sqrt(N/2) ?

Suppose there are N stations in a square and a station named j. Suppose the shortest tour is known. A mover stands on j marchs forward N/2 stations according to tour and paints them into red. A mover stands on j marchs backward N/2 stations according to tour and paints them into blue.

Thus the neighjbors of j have half possibility in color red.

Let j's next station on the shortest tour is named k. So k is red.

So distance(j,k) = distance(j, some red neighbor) >= distance(j, nearest red neighbor)

So distance(j,k) >= distance(j, nearest red neighbor) =0.5/sqrt(N/2)=0.707/sqrt(N)

So whole tour length >= 0.707/sqrt(N)*N=sqrt(N/2)

Lingwanjae (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you've convinced me. Probably better to write as 0.7071sqrt(N) for easy comparison with other results. Dbfirs 20:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rectangle image

Hey, Dbfirs. Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. I edited the image to your request: link.–Sidious1701_{(talk • email)} 21:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's great. Dbfirs 21:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regular polygon

Hi, you are concerned that the regular polygon article does not discuss the general properties of star polygons. This is because they should be discussed in the article on star polygons, and not anywhere else. As far as I am concerned you may feel free to add your remarks to that article – and make any other improvements you can, it needs it. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was concerned that the article on regular polygons makes a claim about star polygons that appears on first reading to be false (though I agree that to those with a full understanding of the way in which star polygons are defined, there is no problem). Dbfirs 21:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Segbwemas

Hello Dbfirs,

I found these two maps of Eastern Province and Southern Province Segbwemas. You may have already found them for yourself by now, but in case not ...

Hamamelis (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I hadn't found them, though I suspected that there might be two. Thanks for checking. The one in Eastern Province is the more notable, being the 24th largest town in the country in the 2004 census, but we could add a separate article (or a note, perhaps?) about the village in Southern province. What do you think? Dbfirs 01:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the southerly one is just, as you put it, a 'village' (perhaps named in homage to the easterly 'town') a note should be enough to avoid the sort of confusion that has already occured. Then if someone is ambitious enough to start a new article about the village, more power. Hamamelis (talk) 08:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've added a note. I don't know the size of the southerly Segbwema, just that it is not in the published list of the biggest 80 towns, and so it had a population of less than 3000 in the 2004 census. I suppose it could be classed as a small town? Dbfirs 08:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed 'small town' to 'smaller town', but otherwise I think your note is just right. Calling them both 'towns' keeps it simple. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't think there is agreement in England over the distinction between village and town, so probably even less distinction in Sierra Leone. (I've never been to the country, though I know people who have lived there.) Dbfirs 17:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Pyramid

Nice job on the vandalism fighting. Keep up the good work buddy! :) --A3RO (mailbox) 09:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Talk:Kongo language

I left there a response for you about the Portugese word zebra, whether it derives from the Kongo language or not.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the pressure of one's peers

I noticed that you have the following box on your page:

This user does not smoke.

I had always assumed that the characteristics of being British and being a non–smoker were mutually exclusive due to the enormous influence of ambient culture. The only way that I can reconcile the two properties is to guess that you were a smoker in most of your earlier life but have quit smoking recently as a result of some strong counter–motivation.Lestrade (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Actually, no, I have never smoked, but you are partially correct because my father smoked quite heavily, and wished that he didn't need to do so, so I observed the addiction early in life. Dbfirs 17:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain in a river

Is that mountain still in a river? If so, could you tell me where? I love strange mapping errors like that, and that one sounds quite odd! Pfly (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Baugh Fell is still in the middle of the Clough River. On a world-scale, this is a minor hill and a very small river, but Baugh Fell just qualifies as a mountain by British definitions. The true summit is at British Grid SD740916 (54° 19′ 11.16″ N, 2° 24′ 1.6″ W). On Google ~~Maps~~ Earth it is marked at its southernmost extremity, where the Clough River forms the boundary between the slopes of Baugh Fell and those of Rise Hill. I haven't tried reporting this recently. Perhaps I should try again? Dbfirs 16:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... Sorry, it was Google Earth, not Google Maps. Perhaps we don't expect accuracy on Google Earth? Dbfirs 16:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pen guns

Greetings, Dbfirs! Thanks for your response to my Ref Desk query. I added some clarification of my own. The context was indeed skimpy, as I figured Ref Desk regulars are rather familiar with my turf, knowing that my Holocaust archive work involves deciphering texts about Third Reich armaments, inter alia. The item in question appears to have been a manufactured model rather than an improvised firearm, but I want to straighten out those two articles before I leave this topic, and can't do so based on the partial knowledge I have at present. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clarification. I wasn't aware of your area of research, otherwise I wouldn't have suggested the possible confusion. I'm sorry I can't help you with the firearm enquiry, but I hope that someone else can. Dbfirs 23:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

seasons

Why do you keep changing back information on the length of the days in the seasons. There is no debate that winter (dec 21-mar 20) has the same day lenghts on average as fall (sep 22-dec 20) and spring mar (21-june 20) has the same day lengths as summer (june 21-sept. 20). Having it the other way furhthers misconceptions about summer days being longer than spring, and winter days shorter than fall, when in fact summer is tied with spring and winter is tied with fall. Even if you see season change over dates as different, these are the ASTRONOMICAL dates, which are the scientific ones, the ones that actually matter. Crd721 (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree fully with your point about day length. Where we differ is on the pseudo-science of astronomically defined seasons. There is absolutely no reason why winter should begin at the solstice, in fact, without temperature lag, the solstice would be the middle of winter. It just so happens that, in parts of the USA, the temperature lag is about six and a half weeks, or just half a season, and in these areas (only) it is logical to regard winter as starting on the December solstice. Most of the rest of the world has a different definition, as you will see if you read the articles on the seasons. My edits were attempts to present a neutral point of view which includes both the USA seasons and those elsewhere in the world. It would be wrong to make a claim in the lead which is then contradicted lower down the article. I'm happy to discuss a better compromise because I was not entirely happy with my own wording. Dbfirs 12:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your reply to my query, which I only read today; your suggestion essentially accomplishes what I was seeking.

God bless,

88.189.248.66 (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vacuum cannot be proper vacuum. There must be a medium to hold the dark energy and there exists an isometric medium consisting of photons which are holding the dark energy as photons are the smallest elementary particle in term of energy as well as mass.

If we cannot create a perfect vacuum, then we cannot conclude that an electro magnetic radiation can propagate without a medium.

A photon cannot be mass less. Its rest mass is assumed to be zero as it is so small that it cannot be weighed. Its momentum can be observed as it is not so negligible.

A photon cannot travel from the source of an electro magnetic radiation to another to carry out the energy. Photons only transfer the energy from one point to another as per the basic rule of the transverse wave as an electro magnetic wave is a special kind of transverse wave.

Vibration is the only way to transfer energy from one point to another. Different mode of vibration produces different kind of energy. So if we try to construct the T.O.E. equation, then we have to find out the equation of different mode of vibrations.

A string is hypothetical as we cannot explain that by which matter it is made of. What there exists in any elementary particle to produce the mass, charge etc. is a medium of high dense photons. The photons absorb energy from different rays of different frequencies. As there exists a magnetic moment in every elementary particle, the photons cannot escape from the particles. The continuous energy state change (as it absorbs energy from a ray having a definite frequency or of its multiple integral) of the photons produces a definite mode of vibration. As a result the mass and charges (in some cases) of the particles are produced.

A black hole is continuously expanding and the proper vacuum only exists in the active gravitational field of it because the gravity of a black hole is so intense that it attracts even the particles of negligible masses, like photons.

The Big Bang is a cyclic process and it could occur from any black hole irrespective of its size or energy. The time period can be different but any black hole can end up with a Big Bang.

I, Soumya Roy, to whom you've answered before, am definite to prove all those things stated above. But I cannot do it alone without your help because of insufficient equipments and proper laboratory. I'm definite if we prove all those things no one can stop us from winning the Nobel. These things cannot be proved yet because no one has ever think these in this point of view. Please try to help me. Contact me in this number : +919800706005. Please contact me as early as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.162.85 (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I can't afford to make telephone calls to India, nor do I have access to any equipment or laboratory, but I wish you luck with your Nobel prize. Dbfirs 14:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's all right. But can you tell me that whether my thinking could be right or not? If you think it could be right,then can you forward this to any person who could help me in these things? One more thing,if I get a Nobel for this,then I won't forget to mention your name,I promise. You can email to me in soumyaroy.rocks@gmail.com. Please help me as I could not achieve it without your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.161.233 (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can explain how a photon is a particle when it is observed in transit, but a wave when it is not, then I think you deserve your Nobel prize without my help. I have doubts about the truth of some of your claims, so I am not the best person to help you. Are you claiming that all elementary particles are made up of photons? Dbfirs 07:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think so as many research works of many scientists leads my thinking to this. I give you one example. When a ray of high intensity passes through a high magnetic field, it produces a particle and an anti-particle (charged or neutral). Now,how can it be possible to produce a definite mass from a definite frequency and magnetic moment? You definitely know that all of the elementary particles have definite magnetic moment. That's why the photons get densiled and produce a definite mass and charges in some case. It cannot be proved yet as no one tried to find out the cause of producing charge or the mass in an elementary particle. As the charge is one kind of an energy then it must have converted from another form to this. This point is the main basis of my thinking. I can give you another interesting equation though I'm not quite sure that whether it could be right or not. A photon's energy is measured by the equation, E=hv. But if we converted this amount of energy into mass by considering it a particle,then the equation turns into this type. hv=mc2. Now what does the 'm' stands for? It must be the corresponding mass of a photon. You could find that it is of a range of (10)to the power (-57). That's why it is impossible to detect the mass of a photon. It's a promise to you if I could be able to prove these things,then I'll definitely contact you and will take your name in front of the whole world as you are the only one who took interest in my thinking. Thanks for your support.

Sierra Leone and Bangla

Okay, sounds good enough. Ratibgreat (talk) 09:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you find any other reference to this "official language", we could reassess its validity. Dbfirs 09:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion nomination of File talk:Grade slope.png

blanked page

Hi Dbfirs, this is a message from an automated bot, regarding File talk:Grade slope.png. You blanked the page and, since you are its sole author, FrescoBot has interpreted it as a request for deletion of the page and asked administrators to satisfy the requests per speedy deletion criterion G7. Next time you want a page that you've created deleted, you can explicitly request the deletion by inserting the text {{db-author}}. If you didn't want the page deleted, please remove the {{db-author}} tag from the page and undo your blanking or put some content in the page. Admins are able to recover deleted pages. Please do not contact the bot operator for issues not related with bot's behaviour. To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=FrescoBot}} somewhere on your talk page. -- FrescoBot (msg) 21:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have marked you as a reviewer

I have added the "reviewers" property to your user account. This property is related to the Pending changes system that is currently being tried. This system loosens page protection by allowing anonymous users to make "pending" changes which don't become "live" until they're "reviewed". However, logged-in users always see the very latest version of each page with no delay. A good explanation of the system is given in this image. The system is only being used for pages that would otherwise be protected from editing.

If there are "pending" (unreviewed) edits for a page, they will be apparent in a page's history screen; you do not have to go looking for them. There is, however, a list of all articles with changes awaiting review at Special:OldReviewedPages. Because there are so few pages in the trial so far, the latter list is almost always empty. The list of all pages in the pending review system is at Special:StablePages.

To use the system, you can simply edit the page as you normally would, but you should also mark the latest revision as "reviewed" if you have looked at it to ensure it isn't problematic. Edits should generally be accepted if you wouldn't undo them in normal editing: they don't have obvious vandalism, personal attacks, etc. If an edit is problematic, you can fix it by editing or undoing it, just like normal. You are permitted to mark your own changes as reviewed.

The "reviewers" property does not obligate you to do any additional work, and if you like you can simply ignore it. The expectation is that many users will have this property, so that they can review pending revisions in the course of normal editing. However, if you explicitly want to decline the "reviewer" property, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC) — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this sounds a sensible system as an alternative to full protection. Dbfirs 15:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waitby

Hi. I'm not the owner of Waitby school website, I'm not really sure why I got a copyright message. This is the waitby school page [2] I wrote the text in the article using info from that page and other sources which are referenced. It's not clear to me why the bot thinks it's a copyright violation.Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Now I've read it properly, I can't see what the bot picked up that it thought was copied. It's not worth worrying about - bots sometimes do strange things, so just ignore it. I'm looking forward to your Smardale article. Dbfirs 20:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help

Your response to my Reference Desk question about the size of various civil services was the most useful. Many thanks! DOR (HK) (talk) 06:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm glad to be of help. Sorry I went off-topic before I eventually found a useful link. Dbfirs 07:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppets galore

Hey Dbfirs, you just beat me to it at Praveen Kochar. I appreciate your help--with one new user name and two IPs, editing that article and a couple of lists, they slip through easily. Anyway, please have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Astrologist praveen; if you know how to properly add that new name and the IPs, please go ahead and clean up my amateurish addition. Thanks for keeping an eye out! Drmies (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's a very determined self-publicist, isn't he? I'm not an expert on sockpuppets, so thanks for adding the info. Dbfirs 16:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Praveen Kochar

In case you were not aware a page being speedy deleted is not a criteria for speedy deleting it again, it should be deleted (and s tagged) under the appropriate criteria (in this case possibly A7 or G11). A page having previously been deleted after a discussion is a criteria for speedy deletion (G4 - with certain important caveats) but this only applies after a discussion so not after a previous speedy or prod deletion. Sorry if you already knew this but the reason you gave on this page made it look like you may not. Dpmuk (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I should have said "self-publicity by a sockpuppet"! I'll read the criteria and change to a valid reason. As you correctly guessed, I'm not familiar with these procedures. ( ... later ...) The article has now been deleted before I could correct the reason, but thanks anyway. Dbfirs 16:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I left it tagged as it was as it did make it perfectly clear why it should be deleted - I just wanted to make sure you knew for future reference. Cheers. Dpmuk (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Celts

Neither do I, but I already gave you the facts, Ireland is the official and accepted name for the Republic, Ireland/Republic/Éire is a Celtic nation, so what exactly is the problem here and how is it inappropiate, as this is the country we are talking about?Sheodred (talk) 10:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that I had made it plain (also) that Ireland can refer to either the historic nation (the whole island, as it does here) or to the sovereign state. The map clearly shows that the Celtic nation is the whole island which currently consists of the sovereign Irish state, and part of another sovereign state. I would also point out that my Celtic ancestry is Cumbrian, so I have no axe to grind on Irish issues. I regard all inhabitants of the island and historic nation of Ireland as fellow-celts (at least in part), regardless of their current political affiliations. Dbfirs 10:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is part of a discussion on the Celts at Sheodred's talk page . The misunderstandings have been amicably resolved by removing the flags. Dbfirs 10:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]