User talk:Alchemist Jack

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Hello World
Fed up with other editors smugness.

Picture of the day

The Kefermarkt altarpiece is a richly decorated wooden altarpiece in the Late Gothic style in the parish church of Kefermarkt in Upper Austria. Commissioned by the knight Christoph von Zelking, it was completed around 1497. Saints Peter, Wolfgang and Christopher are depicted in the central section. The wing panels depict scenes from the life of Mary, and the altarpiece also has an intricate superstructure and two side figures of Saints George and Florian. The identity of its maker, known by the notname Master of the Kefermarkt Altarpiece, is unknown, but at least two skilled sculptors appear to have created the main statuary. Throughout the centuries, it has been altered and lost its original paint and gilding; a major restoration was undertaken in the 19th century under the direction of Adalbert Stifter. The altarpiece has been described as "one of the greatest achievements in late-medieval sculpture in the German-speaking area". This image shows the upper-left wing panel of the Kefermarkt altarpiece, depicting the birth of Christ. Mary is portrayed kneeling in devotion in front of the infant Christ, who is placed before her on a fold of her dress. On the other side, Joseph is also kneeling in front of the child. Above Mary, on the roof of the building behind them, are two angels playing a mandolin and a lute. The annunciation to the shepherds can be seen in the background.Sculpture credit: Master of the Kefermarkt Altarpiece; photographed by Uoaei1

It happened once upon a time...

A Summary of talk

I was welcomed by-LeSnail (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC) [1]

A reply from xeno^talk 16:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[2]

Useful advice from Favonian (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[3]

Fellow editors supporting each other and offering encouragement Nick Ottery (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[4]

Useful advice about new page patrol and merging See Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/patrolled_pages from Smartse (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[5]

On the merge of Facebook Lite. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[6] the last. Some useful pointers on merging pages User talk:Gonzonoir #Facebook Lite.

Reply from IP User after I posted Cease and Desist Lvl 3 --not sure if this is how i reply jack but im sorry and it won't happen again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.252.144 (talk) 11:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC) [7]

You're quite welcome If reverting vandalism ..., you may want to seek having rollback rights ...as it would make your task a lot easier.. -- WikHead (talk) 11:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC) [8]

My revert of your edit .. This [9] looked like vandalism to me, so I hit the revert button. Care to explain? Philip Trueman (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC) [10] and [11]

My suggestion at this point for John Bulwer is to look at the Manual of Style (MOS) and get the article to adhere to it. WilliamKF (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC) [12]

I noticed that you left a message for User:Bongwarrior. I just thought I would inform you that he hasn't edited in nearly a month and appears to be "missing" from Wikipedia.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 02:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC) [13]

Distinguished Service Cross (United States) If they were not categorised as US they got classed as UK by cydebot. I wrote to- User:Packerfansam who had started some articles. After help from Thanks-RFD (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC). Contacted User talk:Cydebot and recieved claarification from User talk:Good Olfactory 22:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)here the end was these will have to be fixed manually by changing the categories. But as far as I can tell the merge by the bot was done as it should have been. Good Ol’factory [14]

Template:Infobox Central Bank give me a hand to put the template in the Italian Wikipedia. Sorry for the error in the English wiki. Hello and good work! [Andre86].[15]

After PKK-Turkey conflict [16]

Rollback-Hello. I noticed the issues at Turkey–Kurdistan Workers' Party conflict. Have you heard of WP:ROLLBACK? It makes situations like this much easier. If or when you're interested just ask on my talk page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC) me[17] reply I know exactly what you mean. Just remember with vandalism there will always be so much vandalism and so many vandal fighters that one person will make little difference. If you want to concentrate on building articles you should do exactly that and simply ignore the rest. You'll find rollback occasionally useful in any case.. and so it is yours. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to [18] I think I just assumed it was vandalism to be honest, It's just because that editor made the edit once, I reverted it and then proceeded to make the same change again. I will bare in mind to make sure I revert edits like that with the good faith action. Thanks for asking anyway. :) W93 (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Cpl Syx Random thanks reply [19]

Re: Ali Rıza Efendi and we typically don't semi-protect articles just to lock IP editors or new users out of content disputes.--Aqwis (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Searching in categories

Hi, re searching for pages in specified categories, could you let me know what search string you tried that didn't work? (Not that I have any influence over how it works, but I like to keep the documentation reasonably accurate.) Thanks, --Kotniski (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Within Wikipedia the Category:People of German descent Category:German Jews and with hamburg mentioned. So I tried the +incategory:"People from Hamburg" +incategory:"People of German descent" method, but that didn't work. Then incategory:"German Jews"incategory:"People of German descent" with no result. I wanted to see if it was possible to find someone who was Jewish, of German descent and from Hamburg, Pennsylvania. Is that of any help? --Alchemist Jack (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're supposed to include quote marks. Does it work without them? (You might need to replace spaces with underscores.) I presume there is an article which is in all these categories?--Kotniski (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

quote marks included [20] and it worked--Alchemist Jack (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I presume there is an article which is in all these categories?

I never got that far because it didn't seem to work for what I assumed were dead-certs. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

“"Correct" spelling, indeed, is one of the arts that are far more esteemed by schoolteachers than by practical men, neck-deep in the heat and agony of the world”

Johnsy88 (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Styles?

What styles are you talking about? You tell me not use styles that "unappropriate" but I haven't used any style, that I'm aware of. Care to explain further...... TH43 (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but that's not *my* style, that's official title of the show. Check out EW, People or TV Guide and that's what you'll find. TH43 (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:

I don't think it's a particularly good idea to include information on pricing, as it's localized, constantly changing, and difficult to verify. Other than that, what of that information would you like to see included? Chubbles (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's difficult to justify leaving that paragraph in a featured article. If there is specific information that you think is missing, I can look around for sources in order to include it. Was there anything else that you thought was missing? Aside from the pricing, I thought the new paragraph was pretty redundant. Chubbles (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

for your concern. minor quibble: "Wikipedia, as an agent[1] in the creation of,“a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge” needs a better search engine".. Actually, that should, I think be wikimedia. Wikipedia has pretty strong nonnotability deletion policies, so that quote couldn't possibly apply to it... Plus, I googled the quote. :) Luminifer (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

But Wikipedia in particular has got a rubbish search facility. See [21]. I did say as an agent, not the agent in the creation... ;) --Alchemist Jack (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point. :) I'm sure the argument (however valid) is - why write one when you can just use google? ;) Luminifer (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Maslow's hierarchy of needs

Oops [22] Sorry [23] - I misread the diff.  Chzz  ►  14:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Easily done, Been there got the heated exchange [24][25] --Alchemist Jack (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Kars Holt, Australian Capital Territory Van Province Trypanosomiasis Bitlis Province V Diyarbakır Province J Summer Flynn, Australian Capital Territory Blackwater, Queensland Naghadeh Subaltern Mardin Province Grasshopper Quinary Scullin, Australian Capital Territory Ghoul Higgins, Australian Capital Territory

Cleanup Stromatolite Ahmad Kasravi Sumptuary law Merge Amasya Crow Jus soli Add Sources Samsun Bayburt Province Tonsil Wikify Portuguese people The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People British property bubble Expand Showtime Arabia International News Service Extreme sport

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Alchemy

Hi. I commented your comment at alchemy / Talk / Major changes:

It must be remembered that Alchemy is a pre-cartesian activity and divisions like Philosophical, Mystical and Scientific are almost meaningless.--Alchemist Jack (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the above. Alchemy never pretended to be science or proto-science - when alchemy began there was no such thing as science, just technologies, recipes to achieve this and that, passed from master to apprentice and kept in secret. Considering it an "ancient study of science" or a pseudo-science is, at least, weird and self-contradictory. Alchemists called themselves philosophers, and although the term might loosely mean "one who studied bodies of knowledge before science (the scientific method) existed", they were always quite careful in stating that even their metals had little to do with the common metals -- they were more interested in the metal's souls than the metal's dead bodies (the common metal). Yet this is a difficult matter to present, due to alchemy's double nature, a practical manipulative one and a meditative one. It's not a "either-or" situation. Both attitudes, the technology and the wisdom, occured at least since Zosimos; although Marie-Louise von Franz states that it occurred long before him, as the practical execution of the technologies would be accompanied by religious chants (Egypt mummies) or the melting of ores done at an astrologically selected time. It's as if you selected an appropriate day and put up a ceremony to change your engine's oil or do a PET scan. --Xyzt1234 (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Fulcanelli made a strong distinction, in Dwellings of the Philosophers, between alchemy, with its double nature, and archemy, consisting of primitive chemical and metalurgical manipulations for strictly pragmatic purposes. No accompanying philosophy, no alchemy.--Xyzt1234 (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to leave me a small note on my talk page if you feel like commenting further. Regds., --Xyzt1234 (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Treblinka

No doubt he was baiting. Objectively speaking, he does raise a valid question, I suppose, as to exactly how the gas chambers worked. If that's known and is not in the article, maybe it should be researched. The tone of his questions, though, reminds me of the typical conspiracy-theorist kinds of questions: If an article doesn't explain something, somehow that "proves" the conspiracy theory. I had my fill of that kind of nonsense on the Apollo hoax page. I just happened to see a reference to that character in WP:ANI, so I followed up a little bit. I thought it worthwhile to point out that the SPA was dispatched (notice I resisted the temptation to say he was sent to the wikipedia gas chamber). But I'm not about to get sucked into the Holocaust denial maelstrom. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have updated the Treblinka article to answer the valid points raised. (of course the Appollo landings weren't faked, just the photographs) :)--Alchemist Jack (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:129.12.213.202

Hi.

You sent a message to this user talk page while I was logged out so I received it which resulted in much confusion: it's an IP address owned by the University of Kent and I was browsing Wikipedia on campus. I've searched the help pages for a way to highlight this as a public IP address but can't find a way to.

Thanks for sending the message to whomever was supposed to receive it but I doubt it'll get to them. If you do know what I'm supposed to do so that this confusion doesn't reoccur then I'd appreciate help there.

--Paul Carpenter (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)