User:Jarcanist/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User:Jarcanist  (Redirected from User:Avriette/Archive3)
Jump to: navigation, search

Leet[edit]

First of all, don't use the word "unilateral" -- This is a wiki, get over it. Besides, I did post on the talk page, and the language box has been removed before. At some point, it was reinsered "unilaterally". -- Netoholic @ 22:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

By that logic I could blank the page, "unilaterally", and tell you to just "get over it." What harm was it doing to the page? For that matter, what information was it contributing which was not worthwhile to the article? Avriette 22:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Blanking a page is vandalism, making a good faith change to an article is not. What harm was it doing? When I saw it, I was immediately struck by a sense that Wikipedia was it was a joke. Discrediting Wikipedia is a bad thing to do for teh funny. Please follow-up on the talk page. -- Netoholic @ 22:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop trolling. -- Netoholic @ 04:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm a troll now? What, an elusive "sleeper troll"? I showed up, edited for a year, and then started to troll? Have you considered the possibility that you may be out of line? Seriously, I think you should think about that a little. Or, read over your talk page and notice the recurring theme there. Avriette 04:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Although Netoholic is very fond of quoting Wikipedia RULES, he always seems to forget about AGF and NPA. Calling other editors trolls is one of the things that caused him to be sanctioned by the ArbComm in his 2nd RFAR. BlankVerse 19:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians around DC[edit]

I remember making the comment you referred to, although I don't remember when. I didn't really think there were no other DC-area Wikipedians, and in fact I knew there were a couple and I've since run across others. But at the time, I believe I was the only one who was involved in highly visible pages like Requests for Adminship, policy discussions, VfD (now AfD), etc. Since then I've faded into the woodwork, but it's nice to know there are some other locals contributing. Isomorphic 17:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the ArbCom Vote![edit]

I wanted to thank my few "yes voters" in person...well, not in person, but at least contact you directly. Thank you for your vote, and helping diagnose my psychological disorder (haha). It is appreciated. I love you.

Rowlan 16:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow[edit]

That was absolutely lovely. Thanks! Radiant_>|< 23:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, that's disturbing a bit. The attitude that "I am right and everyone else is wrong" has become too prevalent on the Wiki. Some people just need a whack or two with a cluebat. In Neto's case, well, he's usually competent and knows what he's doing, it's just that he doesn't work well with others who disagree with him. Radiant_>|< 18:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm really sorry to hear that. I was about to say you're new and you run into people like that, but now I see your account predates mine by half a year (where have you been? :) ) and starts with some edits on the absolutely awesome Hyperion books. Cool!
    • Anyway. Yes, I've dealed with it (and him) before, and I yet live. First, let me assure you that Neto is not an admin (you can probably figure out why). Second, well, he's a trouble case, and is about as bad a user we have that is still allowed to edit. That would be because on the one hand he's a solid enthousiastic contributor with a good grasp of template logic, and on the other hand his social skills are off the scale in the negative zone.
    • I think it's laudable that you're still trying to make a compromise that he finds acceptable. That's, of course, what Wikispirit and WP:FAITH are all about. Unfortunately, there's a select few users in the place that you just can't argue with, and you've just met one. He is extremely vindictive (as near as I can tell, he has hated me with a passion ever since a disagreement on the wording of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user last May). If such people get angry, it's generally best to stay calm and respond with simple oneliners such as "please be WP:CIVIL" or "please don't make personal attacks", or (against people citing policy in defense) "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy".
    • So about the dispute. Well, it's sometimes easy to overlook, but most Wikipedians are in fact nice and rational people. So what you can do is get a third opinion, usually on the talk page of wherever the dispute was, or else on WP:3O. Of course I'm not saying that two people against one are by definition right, but someone who can't find another to back up his opinion is almost certainly wrong, even if he thinks that official policy is on their side.
    • That's the simple solution. If it doesn't work or turns into an angry revert war, there are some recourses, e.g. request that the page be protected, request an admin to take a closer look, or report somebody for outrageous reverting (but don't do the latter if you were also reverting, two wrongs don't make a right). That should help for most kinds of dispute, and none of that is escalating (if you must, that would be WP:RFC). If one party is unreasonable and incivil, and the other is rational and dismayed, it's usually pretty obvious where the cause of the problem lies. While I'm not saying there's never any fallout, improper sanctions are quite rare on the Wiki. One of the truisms is that people who hold extreme views are not sanctioned because of the views they hold, but because of the social norms they break while defending those views.
    • Or, of course, find some other user who likes Dan Simmons, and ask for advise :) Hope that helps! Yours, Radiant_>|< 02:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
As to where I've been, if you look around, I've been in a lot of places. I am just no good at interpersonal conflict and fear I'd wind up like MSK. Additionally, I don't find it productive to be spending time on policy here. I prefer to contribute. In fact, I'm pretty self conscious about the amount of time I've been spending in the User Talk/Talk/WP namespace. There are a lot of people here who seem to forget that there is an encyclopedia which doesn't contain the sum of human knowledge yet. Lastly, the contributions I am generally most happy with are the ones that find an image for an article which desperately needs it. This is such a nice thing to accomplish for an editor, and yet it rarely ever winds up causing a fracas that other people would be involved in. So you might not see me if you were looking for a lot of consistent edits (I move around a lot), or were looking at policy discussions (not for me). Thanks for your comments. I'd really like it if I could lean on you for guidance in situations like this. Every once in a while it happens (I think this is the third such time I've butted heads with somebody else).
Oh. I suppose to give a truly factual account of the situation, I've been pretty abrasive in "discussions" with other users. So far I'm batting 1.000 in resolving those conflicts. So I have deliberately stayed out of people's way and tried not to draw attention to myself. I suppose the cat is out of the bag. I suspect now somebody will dig up some old edit of mine and use it as proof that I'm an asshole. Raul's got a page on the cyclic nature of wikipedia, and it mentions that the longer you're here, and the more edits you make, the more likely it is that somebody will find something that you've done wrong and shriek about it. The same is not true for things you've done right. Avriette 02:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: RfA poll[edit]

I'm sorry if you disagree with my tone. I readily admit to be a bit tired of hearing it's all RfA's fault, yet not a single person has been able to present evidence that RfA is to blame. I am well aware of the riots that broke out around the beginning of the year. Though I did not comment on the userbox fiasco, I closely watched it. You might like to see my edits here and here for some output from me regarding this situation. I believe it is quite serious. As for having "enough" admins; one of the primary tasks for admins is reverting vandalism. One metric for determining whether we need more admins or have enough is the number of edits per day per admin; i.e. the number of edits that need to be reviewed per admin, on average, to ensure that vandalism does not creep into the encyclopedia. You might be surprised to know that this number has shown an 80% increase over the last 10 months. Indeed, it appears RfA isn't promoting admins fast enough, even though the rate of admin promotions has been increasing as well. At this juncture, there is no evidence to suggest that RfA is the problem. It's conjecture. Are there bad admins getting through? Yes. RfA's fault? Hard to establish that, and even if there were that we could come up with a process to fix the problem. The source of the problem isn't, in my opinion, RfA. It's ArbCom and Jimbo. For example, for refusing to take a stance on wheel warring, and in fact in Jimbo's case engaging in it to a degree himself. See WP:RFAR#Wheel_warring. So far, it's 3-0 rejected. ArbCom has effectively vacated policy; it no longer applies. What matters is "common sense" and experience of past traditions. This is a terrible situation. You might like to have a look at User:Rd232/WikiProject Policy Matters (proposal) and Wikipedia:Process is Important. These are a step in the right direction I think. We are too large and too diverse of a community now to rely on "common sense". What is common sense to you might not be so to me, and vice versa. Process and policy must develop in consensus developed ways, and be enforced as such. --Durin 20:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I think we have different vantage points with some similarity in views. I wouldn't say we disagree really. I've despaired that there is any one person who can solve all of the problems or find a core problem that undermines the impact of the other problems. I think we can induce change that corrects some of the problems. One of these is the current ArbCom election which is unseating a number of current ArbCom members. Re: vandalism. Yes, it's hard work fighting vandalism and the software needs to evolve to handle it far better than it does now. I've some thoughts about this here. For my own part with regards to the riots, I haven't gotten involved. I am very self-strict about sticking to policy. With an exception, this has kept me out of trouble. I have seen the impact of the riots, and I am quite upset about it. --Durin 21:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

RFA/Interiot, Neutral[edit]

I was bold and moved your edit to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Interiot from the Comment section to the Neutral section, as your edit summary was "ehh, neutral". If it wasn't your intention to vote neutral, please move it back to where you had it. Thanks. --Interiot 20:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't my intent to vote at all, as I don't hold it as a particularly strong opinion. However, I would not vote support. Your RFA is not the place to be bold. Avriette 20:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
You're right, I've reverted it. For what it's worth, I think there should be something to offset the numerous support votes, since Avar's RFA clearly showed that development contributions and admin contributions should be judged independently of each other (and because my code contributions are negligable compared to Avar's). Though, per my revised answer #1, I do definitely expect to contribute to admin tasks. --Interiot 21:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

USS Secret[edit]

With a name like that one wonders if she should be flying a flag at all. But, she was commissioned[1], so she's a genuine US Navy ship. Image:USN-Jack.png is fine, though Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships recommends Image:US Naval Jack.svg (actually, that seems to be the Commons version of the same image). —wwoods 21:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


Cartridge load data for cartridge template[edit]

Hodgdon has load data online, and Accurate has a free booklet they'll snail mail you (I requested one to supplement my out of date Speer manual). And Hodgdon does have a few loads for the .50 BMG listed, from 655 to 800 grain bullets:

http://www.hodgdon.com/data/rifle/50bmg.php

I'm pretty sure the 750 @ 2800 is a near-match to the military loading. They also have Cowboy loads using Pyrodex black powder substitute, which should do for BP equivalent load data if you think that would be useful for the pre-1900s cartridges. scot 22:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, would you like to organize an effort to add velocity/energy info? I was pondering this myself, and I think a template might be in order. However, I would think that such a template would be best worked like the "userbox" template, where there is a "Ballistics" box, with nested smaller boxes of "55 gr / 2200 lb-f / 3680 fps". I'd just like to make sure it gets standardized. I'd be happy to go through adding the information to pages as I have time. Avriette 22:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Point me in the right direction to start, and I'll try. I've never made a template before, so I'll need some help there, and you mentioned "WP:Weaponry" at some point--if that's a user group, I've never been to one before, and don't know how to get there. It'd be nice if the generation of templates could be automated--maybe start with a spreadsheet with weight/velocity pairs for differing loads from a source, then use a program to parse that that spit out filled out templates for each cartridge, with caliber, summary, source, and disclaimer. Those could then be cut and pasted into the appropriate pages. I can certainly do the spreadsheet and parser program, though it will take me a while--having too much spare time isn't exactly a concern of mine right now. I can grab a few minutes here and there, though, and a few days of that should be enough to get something going. And if we're going to automate this, we should DEFINATELY automate the metric conversions. I sure as heck have no grasp of ballistics in SI, I've worked in grains and ft-lbs. for too long--but even many Americans have even less of a grasp of a grain or a ft-lb than they do a gram or a newton-meter. scot 04:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
First off, see WP:Weapon. However it seems inactive. We could probably recruit people. It seems to me that we're in the same boat. Either of us could write a quick tool to generate templates and do the conversion. However, we have two obstacles -- getting the data in a normalized format, and the design of the template. Once we have the data, we can fiddle with the template all we want. As well, there is a perl module to do conversions of units, so we might be able to do that (don't know what you were planning to use). Alternatively, we could probably do the conversion with Google's SOAP interface, but I hear that's unreliable of late. Do you know how to get past the "data entry" phase without lots of typing? Also, I notice that there's no .22-250 Remington. It seems to me that by actually getting the raw data, we could also create the stubs for the ammunition, and flesh it out somewhat. I think a category is probably also in order. Thoughts? Avriette 07:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it would be perfect for stubs--the basic ballistics, plus a breif note on appliations and history would probably be enough for most cartridges. It's only the ones with a long and checkered history, like .223 Remington, that really require much more than that. As far as format and entry goes, I think a spreadsheet with a given format would be fine, and then it can be hand entered. We don't care about powder, all we care about is ballistics, so we want bullet weights and velocities. Since all the reference stuff, at least in the US, is in grains and fps, then that would be the units for input. The data can be stored in comma separated value files (CSV), which are portable to just about anything, and can be parsed by any programming language. If we can get a group, then once we agree on a format, each person can volunteer to do a set of cartridges, say, .40-45 caliber handgun cartridges from Hogdon's website.
The CSV files can be concatenated together to make the "database", and then that can be processed by a program to generate the templates. I'm a C/C++ person primarily, so I'd probably pick that or a generic BASIC like QBASIC or SmallBASIC (slow (which won't matter) but OK for text processing, and readily available). Unit conversions can be done in the code, and should be pretty straightforward--7000/545 grains per gram, 12/39.37 meters per foot, and energy will take a bit more math, but we can find a simple conversion from ft-lbs to joules or whatever.
It would also be pretty easy, once the data was in hand, to generate a big list of cartridges, sorted by any given attribute and use that as a "list of" article. For example:
  • "List of cartridges sorted by bullet diameter"
  • "List of cartridges sorted by bullet mass"
  • "List of cartridges sorted by velocity"
  • "List of cartridges sorted by Taylor Knock-Out factor"
  • "List of cartridges sorted by IPSC power factor"
For those charts, you would probably sort by maximum, and also include the value for the minimum load as well. The lists would let you quickly compare calibers, and the template on the caliber pages would let you look at all those values for a given caliber all at once.
To get all that, we'd need, for each load:
  • Name, bullet diameter (to .001 inches), bullet mass (grains), velocity (fps), +P (boolean)
For loads with min/max data, supply both. The template could also have a slot for SAAMI max pressure for normal and +P, which could be supplied by hand (as it's going to be PSI or CUP, and may not be available for wildcats). scot 16:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the page for Joule or watt has the information to convert ft-lbs, kN etc. Or maybe it was horsepower. I forget. As far as templates, your best bet is to just read a couple. I'd suggest Template:Main and any of the userboxes. I don't think we need any special flags for referring page, or anything like that. As far as how to get the data into a regular format, how do we do that? I could probably write something to scrape Hornady's site, but that would only get us the stuff they're selling. Furthermore, Hornady has many variations on the theme. A moly coated bullet is supposedly higher energy (because of slightly higer velocity...) than not. The Wiki style guide has a quick tutorial on creating tables, which we'd need to do, but it is woefully inadequate. Avriette 18:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
You know, after looking at the hodgdon page, I am confident I could scrape that into a CSV for us. We could then figure out what was missing, and scrape those where necessary. I've got some links elsewhere I could poll again. I think Black Hills also has data for some of their rounds. I can probably find data for newish rounds like the .338 LM and .410 chey-tac, as well.
I bet User:Wwoods would be able to help us out here. He's done great work for the ships project with templates and making things standardized. The weapons could really use that. I'll ping him. Avriette 18:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not quite clear what you're looking for:
—wwoods 20:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I think something like the Infobox for catridges might work for individual cartridge data; have a row for each loading, and columns for weight, velocity, and calculated stats like energy, IPSC power factor and TKO. For the comparison charts, the table would work. Sorting by bullet mas and velocity we'd need 3 columns (name, mass, velocity). Sorting by calculated value, like energy, power factor or TKO we'd need 4--name, mass, velocity, and the calculated value in question. scot 20:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey folks, need help with anything? RPellessier | Talk 00:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Heh, what are you offering? :) Avriette 05:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Offering proofreads, tests, modest Excel skills, and a little shotgun experience. RPellessier | Talk 16:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Would you like to start an informal proofing of WP:Weapon articles? Scot and I seem to be shaping up to add a lot of content. Hm, thinking of which, WP:Hawaii and WP:California both have badges indicating they're a member of the weaponry project. We might do that, and it would get rid of the Category:Firearms stubs that you objected to (for some articles). Thoughts? Also, I'm really not much of a shotgun shooter. Trap and some skeet, but only recreationally. Avriette 22:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

After much fussing around with it, I have produced what I was aiming for: User:Avriette/Cartridge Energy Box

The source of which is:

{{
User:Avriette/Cartridge_Energy_Box | 1=
  {{
    User:Avriette/Cartridge_Energy |
    bullet=Hornady 40gr V-MAX | 
    mass=40           |
    velocity=4150     |
    energy=1529       |
    CUP=50100         |
  }}
}}

Note that if we try to use two templates:

{{
User:Avriette/Cartridge_Energy_Box | 1=
  {{
    User:Avriette/Cartridge_Energy |
    bullet=Hornady 40gr V-MAX | 
    mass=40           |
    velocity=4150     |
    energy=1529       |
    CUP=50100         |
  }}{{
    User:Avriette/Cartridge_Energy |
    bullet=Hornady 55gr V-MAX MOLY | 
    mass=55           |
    velocity=3680     |
    energy=1654       |
    CUP=47800         |
  }}
}}

It breaks. Also I am not sure where the extra |} is coming from. With regards to formatting, I'd like to have some extra spacing between the columns, so that they don't run into eachother as they are now. What do you think? If this works, all that remains is to do the scraping, auto-generate it with perl, and stuff it into pages. One thing (and scot, you can probably answer this): the Hodgdon statistics list "bullet", "velocity", and "cup". I would imagine we can derive energy from those numbers. I don't know how to do that, however. Additionally, is CUP relevant if we want to give a realstic comparison for muzzle energy per each load? Also, if we wanted to put links in this to explain things (such as "energy", "Cartridge", CUP), where would you do it? Where would you indicate that this is muzzle energy, and is obviously different at 30, 100, etc yards. Note that there is a SAAMI article, but no CUP article. Cartridge (weaponry) should work. Anyways, I'm going to ping Wwoods about this, I suspect he can help with the little bits.

There's a microbrew calling my name, I'll check back later. (of course, feel free to edit any of those templates, they live under my userspace only for testing purposes) Avriette 23:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Cartridge table[edit]

I'm not really an expert on these templates with parameters, so let me just mess around with the underlying table. Assuming there's going to be multiple rows,

Cartridge energy statistics
Bullet   Mass
(gr)
  Velocity
(fps)
  Energy
(lbf)
  CUP
(?)

Hornady 40gr V-MAX 40 4150 1529 50100
Hornady 80gr 80 4150 3058  ???
Hornady 120gr 120 4150 4587  ???

Energy ought to be ½mv².

Cartridge energy statistics
Hornady 40gr V-MAX

Mass: 40 gr (xx g)
Velocity:   4150 fps (yy m/s)
Energy: 1529 lbf (zz J)
CUP: 50100

On the other hand, if these are all the numbers that're going in this box, it'd better with two columns:

—wwoods [sig added 07:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC) ]

Wow, those look superb. (the above was Wwoods) My only concern is that they don't have parameters. While they look cleaner the way you had them, I'd like to be able to provide "arguments" such as mass= and so on. This way editors aren't going to mess up the display inadvertently. I know the ship articles all have tables like the one above, do you have a problem with people accidentally breaking them? Scot, what's your take on this? Would you rather pick one "standard" load per cartridge, or have statistics for several of them? There's a huge difference between a 230 gr .45 ACP +P and a 185 gr .45 ACP. Seems like it might be good to include both ends of the range...? Afterwhich, I can begin the scraping and autopopulate the tables, and we can divvy up the insertions.
Excited we can add this much content. That's going to be really nice if we can actually provide data for all the catridges we have. I need a way to buy you guys a beer. :) Avriette 01:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The templates look good, from the outside at least (haven't puzzeled out the workings yet, gotta get cat out and dogs and and head to bed in a few minutes). I think we should definately have room for up to 3 loads; a lightweight, a heavyweight, and a "standard" load (which will be a source for argument, but such is life). Some loads may only have two, and some might only have one. As far as parameterization goes, if we plan on doing the bulk of the work in one big chunk with automated tools, I don't see that it makes a big difference at this point. scot 04:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Ship articles will eventually be moving to a parameterized template, but things are still in, mm, flux. (See David Newton's Ship table.)
At this stage of development, it seemed much easier to work with a table, since I could Preview it here, and see the result here, instead of Saveing it on one page and reloading another to see what it looked like. But once you're happy with the layout, I think that making a parameterized template will be straightforward. For actual deployment, separating the data from the formatting will indeed be an advantage.
So, what about the layout? If you want several different loads, then I guess the two-column format won't suit. Do you really want a link to a Category at the top, looking like it leads to an general article on cartridges? Maybe a link to the Category, or to a list of cartridges would go better at the bottom? Is this field wedded to premetric units, or do we need to make room for conversions? "CUP" needs a link to an explanation, and maybe a unit. It's a pretty wide table—do you want this toward the top of an article, with text flowing around it, or down at the bottom and centered? What about including a picture?
—wwoods 07:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
CUP and LUP, copper uints of pressure and lead units of pressure, probably should have their own articles. They are specific to firearms, and don't translate well into PSI or other pressure units, as the are more representative of the area under the pressure curve than they are of peak pressure. Velocity, mass, and energy will probably need conversions, and pressure in PSI can be converted. Might be best to leave space for 2 units for each (maybe 3 for pressure if SAAMI has both CUP/LUP and PSI for some cartridges) and let the automated table generator handle the conversions. Things like IPSC power factor and TKO don't really have equivalent metric units, so they won't need room for conversions. As far as pictures go, I think it might be better to have those be separate from the table, since not all cartridges will have them. scot 20:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually[edit]

I removed my previous posting on here because I hadn't read your user page. You don't see vandalism as a problem. So never mind. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to be snarky about it. I see users who task themselves with nothing more than chasing down vandals to be the problem. Vandals are also a problem, but people like.. the CVU are antagonizing the vandals, in turn creating more vandalism. Do you honestly think WoW would have gone to such great lengths if we hadn't gotten our collective panties in such a contentious wad? xoxo, Avriette 18:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Please review Inertia_action[edit]

Just a little Sunday morning content boost. RPellessier | Talk 19:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that looks like what I've usually seen referred to as "recoil operation". Examples would be the M14 etc. It seems to me that Benneli has come up with a novel implementation of it, and named it something specific to them. My guess is it's trademarked, as well. However, it's a useful article. (yay sunday morning content!) Avriette 19:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I've never operated the M14, the Wikipedia description wasn't perfectly clear. I thought the M14 was gas operated. Is it the same as Ruger's Mini-14?

I referred to a Benelli SBE as "recoil operated" in a duck camp once, and the owner thought I was nuts. He felt that term should be reserved for the older Browning shotguns and big military guns, where the barrel moved rearward. With respect to that discussion, a clarification between blowback, gas operated, recoil operated, and inertia operated should be useful.

I have heard the the modern inertia design comes from a Swedish design of 1908. RPellessier | Talk 19:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, you may be right. However, I have heard the terms used interchangably. I suspect that is incorrect. I'm not an expert on firearm actions, so I couldn't really comment. Avriette 19:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The Garand series (M-1, M-14, Mini-14) are all gas operated, and actually show the evolution of the design quite well--long stroke, short stroke/captive piston, and short stroke with a self cleaning piston. If you do have any ation questions, I can probably answer them. Chances are I've shot one, taken one apart, or laughed derisively at the patent (say, for example, the "blow forward" action--discovered when I went to a patent library with the express purpose of looking up the most silly possible firearm operating mechanism I could come up with, only to find it had in fact been patented about a decade or two earlier). scot 20:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

White Dawg[edit]

Hi Avriette,

Yeah, I kinda have to admit that I don't think it looked very good. I mean, what was with all the extra spacing? It's just that all the problems that you mentioned with the lines, it's going to look the same on all articles in your browser, right? What's the point of changing that one? --Khoikhoi 05:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm just glad the article has less nonsense in it now. :) Avriette 05:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup?[edit]

Certainly, it's appropriate, especially if you're willing to help in our various deletion processes. However, you may want to look over those processes first to see what it's like and to gain some understanding as to what is and is not deletable. Otherwise yes, you can request adminship of the community, but if you would do that right now you would probably fail because of lack of experience. Radiant_>|< 09:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Top quark condensate[edit]

Dear Avriette, thanks for your nice words. I've attempted to add some explanatory words to the top quark condensate to direct you to explanations what is left-handed etc. - Dirac spinor etc. More importantly, the top quark condensate was shown to be equivalent to the standard fundamental Higgs field back in 1991. BTW, I like that you can defend your right-wing-ness here on Wikipedia without being immediately destroyed. A good sign. ;-) All the best, LM --Lumidek 02:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know that I'd call it defending... It's just that with the warning up there, I think people have stopped complaining at me. I have gotten a few messages from other editors asking me why I "love" guns, or make rude remarks about it, or whatever. Anyways, thanks for your words, and thank you very much for updating and expanding the article. I do have one question. When you say,
The equivalence is exact in the limit of the large number of colors but even for a finite number of colors, it has been shown that no new predictions can be derived from the top quark condensate.
Do you mean infinite number of colors? The previous fragment says that The equivalence is exact in the limit..., whereas the second seems to indicate a lack of exact limit. Otherwise, though, it helps a lot. Thank you again. Avriette 03:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Avriette, I think that there was no big typo confusing finite and infinite. The equivalence may be proved exactly and rigorously for an infinite number of colors. For a finite number, it is more confusing but assuming that one gets the bound state of the top and antitop with the desired interactions, it is not really possible to distinguish an elementary Higgs from a composite one. The difference between elementary particles and composite ones only becomes sharp in the limit of weak coupling but it is violated in this model, and it is infinitely strongly violated for many colors... --Lumidek 05:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Book cover[edit]

You're probably right; the term "copyrighted but usable for any purpose" is pretty close to an oxymoron. I've dropped a note on Possibly Unfree Images. Radiant_>|< 10:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

More cartridge template experiments[edit]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fluzwup#Template_experiment and down. Avriette managed to catch me in mid-creation, and apparently thinks not everyone has a 1600x1200 pixel screen. I suppose he might have a point--at work I have TWO 1600x1200 screens :) scot 01:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Surely we could get some style nazis to give us their opinion on it. At this point, I'm inclined to put them in articles as-is. Using a template means we can reformat it later as needed. And my screen is 1400x1050. I use a 12" and a 15" laptop at home/work. Avriette 01:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:Vimes[edit]

Re [2]:

Yep - and from plenty of other books, too, I think there's about five of them which feature Sam. I'm not that much like him, but I like the name and it's usually not taken. Sam Vimes 07:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Please weigh in on request for semi-protection for Cannabis[edit]

The request is meeting resistance, and I am arguing special circumstances. -SM 13:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me[edit]

I kow it didn't revert anything, because the guy had reverted himself. I see no need to be pissy about it. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been here five years. I don't need lectures from you. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I most certainly did read what I reverted. I have no idea what your problem is, but I have no interest in continuing this nonsensical discussion. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

WHITEDAWG[edit]

yo, where u get that info on WhiteDawg's age? iz he really almost 40 years old? damn...

Actually I just cleaned that article up. Before I got there, the birth date information was already extant. Sorry. Avriette 00:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

re: firing squad[edit]

Good morning. Thank you for your comments on my Talk page. That text was originally added to the article as a result of a dispute about a year ago (though I may have the timing wrong) when a reader questioned the very existence of the "blank cartridge". Not knowing the reasons behind the practice, the reader considered it incredible. It was easy to prove that the technique was used in at least some cases and to show why. The psychological factors in such situations have actually been studied in great detail. The studies I know of were conducted primarily by the US Army. Selective or malleable memory is a known coping mechanism for stress disorders triggered by combat guilt. The guilt associated with executions is closely related. By briefly explaining the practice, we have been able to preempt other claims that "it never happened". Given that we are documenting practices that are largely historic, we have recurring problems with readers who are unaware of the context and who doubt anything they can't find in Google. I encourage the scepticism but this particular research is too old to be online (at least, as far as I know).

So I would politely dispute your characterisation of the description as "apologetic". I consider it a fact no more value-laden than the observation that most condemned are blindfolded. I do strongly agree with you that we should be consise but not to the point of sacrificing facts or knowledge. If we can agree on the appropriateness of the content, I would encourage your continued copyedits to the article. I don't pretend to be a master of golden prose.

Thanks also for your update on HANEs. I originally intended to draft that article based on an earlier Scientific American article on the topic. I thought they used "event" in that article but my memory could be off. I've also fallen more than a bit behind in my reading. Thanks for letting me know about the update. Rossami (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I saw that you'd kept the mention of the existence of the blank cartridge. I felt that you'd cut the discussion of its purpose - content that, while not perfectly phrased, was verified and useful.
If you have time and interest to fill out the HANE article, go for it. That's been on my to-do list for about a year and a half. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Crappy Admin[edit]

I've heard you might have been having a few problems with Admin from Wikipedia. Is it possible that can I ask what you think?--Masssiveego 08:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about, other than my general unhappiness with the state of admins. I've made my feelings pretty clear in the recent discussions, such as the RFC re: Kelly Martin, the RFC re: Mistress Selina Kyle, the proposed userbox policy, and many others. If there's something specific in mind, I'm happy to discuss it with you, but I don't really feel that there's anything specific to talk about. Avriette 15:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Condensed ballistics screen scrapes[edit]

I've made a pass at prettifying and condensing the load data you scraped off Hodgdon's website, it's on my talk page. scot 20:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Leet (2)[edit]

I will be defeaturing the article shortly, so a peer review and re-FAC is a very good idea. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review - instructions are on the page. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates is where you put up an article for featured consideration. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I explained my position on the talk page. The addition of the infobox/dialects box is inappropriate. The comments on the WP:FACR page said the same thing. Do not artificially elevate that form of slang based on your whims. You must cite reliable sources that classify it as anything more than slang. IF you want to make that article featured again, you'll need to be extra watchful for these sorts of unsourced additions... it is why it is no longer feature - a victim of the culture it tries to describe. -- Netoholic @ 06:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I did cite sources which describe it as an emergent language. Did you actually read those sources? Second, the reason it is no longer a FA is because you initiated the process to remove it. Nobody but you was complaining. Lastly, you expressed displeasure over the use of the language infobox. I changed it to a dialect infobox, which I felt was more appropriate. I still do. And I agree that the language infobox doesn't really belong there. However, that's not what we're discussing. As I said, I'd like some third party involvement in this. Additionally, I'd like you to read the sources before stating that I need to find more. I worked pretty hard to find the ones I added, and I did in fact read them. Avriette 06:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ec5618[edit]

You recently voted to oppose my Request for Adminship, based on the fact that I had stated I wanted to be able to edit protected pages. It seems I had not made myself clear, which I have tried to rectify.

I desire to be an admin, and part of that is the ability to edit protected pages. I specifically mentioned it, because it is perhaps the most visible part of being an admin. See for example Template:Protected, where I was forced to impose on another editor's time to make a simple formatting change. I do not desire to edit protected pages haphazardly, and firmly believe that all such edits must be discussed and easily reversible.

You may have other issues with my request, and I can accept honest criticism. But since you may have voted negatively because of a misunderstanding, I would ask you to please reconsider your vote (or at least your reasoning). Thank you. -- Ec5618 14:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Informal mediation[edit]

I'm a bit backlogged right now, but yes I can have a look; just no guarantees that I'll have all the time needed to give it a thorough rundown, at least not in the next day or two. --Durin 14:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

For your kind support of my Rfa, which passed. If you should ever have any complaints about my admin actions, please let me know. Also, should you ever need my help with anything, please do not hesitate to ask! Thanks again! All the best Banez 17:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!
I do wish to lodge a complaint. The wikipedia is lacking in pie. As a janitor, I feel it is your job to provide pies such as pecan, lemon meringue, coconut cream, rum raisin, and many others, to the hard working contributors of the Wikipedia. Pie, pie, pie. And congratulations. Please bring more pie. Avriette 23:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:Ied munitions.jpg[edit]

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Ied munitions.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 23:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you blind ? It says, very clearly, it is a work of an employee of the US government, taken during the performing of their duties. If you had bothered to look at my other image contributions, you would see that I have uploaded DOZENS of images under such copyright. Please remove the tag yourself, and pay closer attention next time you are looking for things to delete. Avriette 23:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The source website still needs to be listed. --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 00:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Had it occurred to you that the picture was taken by somebody in the field, and not posted to any website? Avriette 00:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)