User talk:AxelBoldt/Archive December 2004 - December 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Dear Axel,

I think your revisions of the hyperventilation article have improved it generally. Thank you. I do have one reservation though. I would like to somehow restore the information that breathing is the primary pH regulation mechanism both because it gives some perspective on how hyperventilation can get pH out of whack, and because this important fact is not easy to find. What do you think?

--AJim 01:26, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes certainly, I didn't really mean to cut that. Please restore. (Perhaps one could also mention this function of breathing in the respiration article.) Maybe you have also something to say regarding my question on Talk:Hyperventilation. Cheers, AxelBoldt 18:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Please make this mental ill flooding my page[edit]

Hello dear. You are a wiki admin and I need your help. Can you explain about this changes to my page? [Insulting, abusing and vandaling language!] He is flooding page Kourosh ziabari with under-18 langauge all time and I don't know what to do He uses many IPs and Wiki IDs and I don't know what to do. is his last IP. and also visit this comparation page that shows the changes of main page to the insulting content [1]


Hello Axel. I don't know what you think about the barnstars that are often awarded for outstanding contributions to Wikipedia, but I have taken the liberty of placing one on your user page after being amazed that there weren't a whole string of them there already. Feel free to move it to a more convenient location, change the caption, or remove it altogether as you wish. And keep up the good work! — Trilobite (Talk) 03:13, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I'm flattered! AxelBoldt 06:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


You deleted useful information about the neologism usage, replacing it with a wikilink to a nonexistent article. Are you creating or planning to create such an article? If not, the Santorum page should go back to its previous state. JamesMLane 06:56, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the information was useful, but it was a duplication of the material at Savage Love. Since duplication is bad and disambiguation pages aren't supposed to contain much information anyway, I directed the reader to that article. Then I realized that an article santorum (word) already exists which currently redirects to Savage Love. So pointing to santorum (word) seemed the most logical: if we ever decide to take the material out of Savage Love and place it in its own article (which I'm currently not planning to do), then the disambiguation page at santorum will still point to the right place. Cheers, AxelBoldt 07:10, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't think duplication is bad if it makes the information more accessible to the reader. (If it creates too much clutter, of course, then duplication makes the information less accessible.) In this instance, I think the setup that's most useful to readers is that someone who enters "Santorum" in the search box gets a listing of the different meanings and can find elaboration on either without getting bogged down in the Savage Love stuff, which may well be irrelevant to this reader. That could be done with a separate article at Santorum (word), but, like you, I'm not planning to create it. It's borderline whether it merits a separate article. Absent such an article, I think giving the information in the dab page is the way to go.
Meanwhile, I see that someone else reverted, unaware of the discussion here. I guess I should have put my comment on the article talk page instead of here, but I thought you might be doing a separate article, so I wanted to be sure you saw my question. JamesMLane 17:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I continued on Talk:Santorum. AxelBoldt 19:19, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Hi Axel,

I came across your article on the gyrocompass.
I'm curious: do you agree that the physics involved in how a gyrocompass works corroborates a hardly known aspect of general relativity? Many books on general relativity, especially books that popularize science, claim that all acceleration is as relative as the relativity between inertial velocities. If that would be true, the gyrocompass would violate general relativity. So a proper interpretation of general relativity must contain that angular velocity can be measured locally, without reference to other local matter.
An observer can measure an anisotropy in the Cosmic Background Radiation, presumebly that is the closest he can come to measuring his velocity with respect to the part of the universe visible to him. But it appears to me that a gyrocompass measures its own rotation with respect to the universe by comparing itself with local space-time.
I noticed the link to Reflections on Relativity, at, that's where I get most of my information on relativity. Cleon Teunissen 19:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it appears to me that one can locally determine angular velocity with a gyroscope, and I don't think that contradicts any statements of general relativity (except maybe the simplified accounts you mention). However, I shouldn't be trusted on any of this; it has been too long that I studied GR. Cheers, AxelBoldt 18:47, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ah, you know, I think this is very ironical. I get the impression that some people take personal pride the idea that they have absorbed the highly counter-intuitive idea that all reference frames are indistinguishable, including rotating reference frames. Lately I have been involved in discussions with someone about these matters, and I wonder whether he may decide to take the stance that gyroscopes contradict general relativity. Cheers, Cleon Teunissen 19:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New Mathematics Wikiportal[edit]

I noticed you've done some work on Mathematics articles. I wanted to point out to you the new Mathematics Wikiportal- more specifically, to the Mathematics Collaboration of the Week page. I'm looking for any math-related stubs or non-existant articles that you would like to see on Wikipedia. Additionally, I wondered if you'd be willing to help out on some of the Collaboration of the Week pages.

I encourage you to vote on the current Collaboration of the Week, because I'm very interested in which articles you think need to be written or added to, and because I understand that I cannot do the enormous amount of work required on some of the Math stubs alone. I'm asking for your help, and also your critiques on the way the portal is set up.

Please direct all comments to my user-talk page, the Math Wikiportal talk page, or the Math Collaboration of the Week talk page. Thanks a lot for your support! ral315 02:54, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

|Closeup of a house fly[edit]

Hi. The Image was on the commons, and got deleted because Stock.xchng images are not 100% free. I have uploaded it again to the english wiki. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:10, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

hydrogen chloride and hydrochloric acid[edit]

Hi, Axel,

you were the original one to create the [[hydrogen chloride] wikipage, to distinct it from hydrochloric acid, which is chemically correct. As the major product, the hydrochloric acid page has been up for review for some time, and now the question is asked whether it is optimal to re-combine the two or not. Would you please be so kind as to add to the discussion? Wim van Dorst 17:18, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

Mathematics Project Participants List[edit]

Hi Axel. After some discussion here, I've converted the "WikiProject Mathematics Participants List" into a table. It is now alphabetical, includes links to the participant's talk page and contribution list, and has a field for "Areas of Interest". I'm letting you know, so you can update your entry, if you want.

Paul August 22:41, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

fictitious force[edit]

Hi Axel,

I'd like an outside opinion on my article on fictitious force. Reading through early versions of the article and conversations on talk pages, I saw that a lot of people are struggling to make sense of it. I was a struggle for me too. My current article on fictitious force is rather long, and very detailed. I did that on purpose, knowing how confused many people are about it; I strive to dispell all confusion.

Can you please check out the article, and tell me whether you feel I have reached my objective? --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 13:44, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I don't really know enough about physics to meaningfully evaluate the article, but nevertheless here are a couple of random observations:

  • you need a link to force
  • in the intro paragraph, you mention "the force he can measure" yet it is not clear which force that is or why he can measure it
  • in the next section, the crucial role of the observer is never mentioned again
  • in the car example, it's not clear which is the ficticious force: the one pressing from the seat towards my back, or the opposite one of my back pressing into the seat. This should be clearly related with the definition in the intro paragraph
  • it's not explained in which direction the centripetal force acts
  • both the sections on linear and circular acceleration have a couple of concluding sentences that are of a general nature and don't belong in those sections
  • the general relativity section is not intelligible. At one point, it talks about a frame that's fixed relative to "the stars". The stars of our galaxy (which rotate around the galaxy's center), or those of distant galaxies? The repeated anthropomorphization with "know" is out of place.

Cheers, AxelBoldt 00:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try and see what I can do about it. The general relativity section is only intelligable to people who are thoroughly familiar with general relativity. The only purpose of the general relativity section is to show that it is unnecessary to invoke general relativity. Earlier versions of the fictitious force article claimed erroneously that General Relativity proves that centrifugal force is just as much a force as gravity.
About the expression: relative to "the stars". I'm a physicist. To me, the rotation of our galaxy is negligably small compared to rotations that matter in daily life, so to me 'distant stars' is unambiguous. To a mathematician 'the distant stars' leaves room for ambiguity. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 08:50, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • in the next section, the crucial role of the observer is never mentioned again AxelBoldt 00:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, in terms of physics, there is no role for the observer at all. The physics remains the same, independent of the perspective (and the physics understanding) of the observer.
The only role the observer can play is in his own mind, the observer may confuse himself. So I don't mention the observer in the case of linear acceleration, as people are usually not confused about that. The section on linear acceleration is meant as preparation for the next section. I aim to address the self-confusion in the case of circular motion, so in that section there is more focus on the observers mind.
Thanks again for your recommendations, I tried to work them into the article. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 09:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Anthere 06:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

small groups[edit]

Hi - I wanted to construct a cycle diagram for one of the order 12 groups listed in the "list of small groups" article. Its the one with the following description:

the semidirect product of C3 and C4, where C4 acts on C3 by inversion

Can you give me a product table for this group? Thanks - PAR 15:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather not write down the whole table with its 144 entries, but you should be able to construct it from the following information: take as elements the pairs (x,y) with x in {0,1,2} and y in {0,1,2,3} and define the group operation * by

(x1,y1) * (x2,y2) = ((x1+ φ(y1)x2) mod 3, (y1+y2) mod 4)

where φ(y) is defined to be +1 if y is even and -1 if y is odd. The neutral element is (0,0). Cheers, AxelBoldt 23:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good, that worked - Thanks PAR 01:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi again- I wanted to construct cycle graphs for all 16-element groups, but I don't have an exhaustive list or their product tables. I can figure out the ones that are composed of lower order groups, but I will have a hard time with the others. Do you have a least a list of all 16-element groups, and at best, an algorithm or table for the difficult ones? Thanks - PAR 23:17, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a list -- most lists in text books stop at 15, since there are so many groups of order 16. I believe the software GAP includes a complete list though, and it can produce product tables, but I don't know the details of how to do it. AxelBoldt 00:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Retina article - perception of red blood cells[edit]

Would you happen to have a citation handy regarding the cause of tiny moving dots in the field of vision? See my question at Talk:Retina. Thanks - mjb 08:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Hi Axel,

Just to let you know that I have nominated for deletion the image Image:Death of Marat.jpg that you uploaded. It seems to have largely been obsoleted by Image:Death of Marat by David.jpg now. -- Solipsist 20:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! I'm not opposed to the deletion, but when comparing the two images I just noticed that they differ substantially in their color and in the inscriptions on the wood block and on the paper. Interesting! Cheers, AxelBoldt 18:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Are you sure antibodies are not glycoproteins? JFW | T@lk 08:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oops, you are right, they are. I'm reverting. Thanks, AxelBoldt 17:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ladder paradox[edit]

I noticed you contributed to the twin paradox in special relativity. I wonder if you would comment on the arguements going on on the ladder paradox page. We could really use your help. PAR 05:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know you may be busy and its a pain to go thru the arguments on this thing, but we are going around in circles and really need a third (fourth or fifth) party in the discussion. If you could participate, that would be good, if not, do you know anyone who understands special relativity enough to add something here? Thanks - PAR 28 June 2005 15:40 (UTC)

Carl Friedrich Gauss[edit]

The Gauss article which you started is having a FAC here and looks likely to pass. Would you mind having a look at it, seeing if it needs any imoprovement, and hopefully support? Thanks Borisblue 3 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)

IP doesn't exist, eh?[edit]

I suggest you read "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal" by Ayn Rand et. al. It will set you straight. Kurt Weber 5 July 2005 02:01 (UTC)

Vasco da Gama[edit]

An article that you've edited before (Vasco da Gama) is nominated for Article Improvement Drive. If you want go there and vote. Thanks. Gameiro 02:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Venter image[edit]

You can change the tag if you would like. I only did that project for a few days when I realized I wasn't doing it correctly, so I stopped working on it. --Woohookitty 04:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Why the "certain sexual conduct"?[edit]

Is there a point you have in mind for the WWeM lead, or are you just trying to be over-literal about Miller (but still not really literal). To my mind, the sexual conduct bit is not the chief interest in a "quasi-Miller" analysis. Or course we're not actually lawyers arguing Miller before a court, so literalness is irrelevant. I would like editors/members to think also about other offensive material, such as violent or scatological, that is not necessarily sexual. In judging the WP-merit of such content, keeping in mind a quasi-Miller SLAPS framework could be useful. But if the lead insists we only care about "certain sexual conduct", it excludes the WikiProject from thinking about that other content. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:40, 2005 September 8 (UTC)

I'm not really involved in your WikiProject, and you are certainly free to consider both sexual and non-sexual materials, formulate the lead section to properly capture your intentions, and use whatever definition of "obscene" you prefer. I just don't like it if you try to pretend that the Supreme Court agrees with your definition. For the Supreme Court, only patently offensive depictions of specified sexual conduct can be obscene, nothing else. This is not being "over-literal"; the Miller test has three prongs and you cannot simply leave one of them out because you don't like it. You can of course say something like "SLAPS is part of the Miller test...".

But if I were you, I would stay away from Miller, because Miller considers the work as a whole, which in our case is Wikipedia, and there can be no doubt that Wikipedia passes SLAPS with flying colors, no matter what image we present on Clitoris. What's more, pretty much every porn site on the internet passes Miller. Cheers, AxelBoldt 22:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I still cannot figure out what point you have in mind here. Of course the Supreme Court does not agree, nor disagree, with my "definition". For one thing, I am not suggesting any definition of anything. For another, I'm not a lawyer, and a WikiProject is not a court case. For yet another matter, the page is not concerned with "obscenity" per se. I am the editor who inserted the reference to Miller, but as it states, it's to Miller as an indirect inpiration for how we might want to think about the Wikiproject issues. Specifically, thinking about SLAPS is kinda a useful conceptual framework. That's why the description explicitly says "quasi-Miller".
FWIW, I opined on the WikiProject talk page, that Miller would most likely apply more at the article level than the "WP as a whole" level. The only apparent lawyer in the discussion seems to endorse my analysis. But again, a WikiProject is not a court case, so whatever might hypothetically apply in a hypothetical court case is very distant.
Btw. I may be wrong, but I kinda get the impression you understand Miller just from the WP article, or similar popular summary. If you are genuinely interested in it, I recommend reading the whole opinion (and even the dissents), it's pretty interesting stuff. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:14, 2005 September 9 (UTC)
My only point, as concise as I can put it: if you say "the Miller test defines obscene material as..." then you have to provide a honest summary of the three-prong Miller test and cannot leave out one prong because if doesn't fit into the goals of your WikiProject. AxelBoldt 16:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Still not much closer[edit]

I'm still failing to see any point in your change. I really want to think you're not simply being dissiumulative, but it's harder to find another explanation now.

I had quoted a brief extract from the Miller test. You insert a slightly longer extract from the Miller test. Neither one of them is anything close to the full Miller description. In my opinion, the extra part you insert is not relevant to the Wikiproject in question, which is why I wish to omit it. If your edit comments had stated "the certain sexual conduct" part should be the core of this Wikiproject, I would understand your edits; I wouldn't necessarily agree with the goal, but it would make sense conceptually.

The actual Miller test includes (take a look at the opinion at [2]):

Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion);
Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, would find that the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct (i.e.: ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated; masturbation; excretory functions; lewd exhibition of the genitals; or sado-masochistic sexual abuse);
Whether a reasonable person would find that the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

In other words, there are numerous aspects of Miller that your slightly expanded excerpt still omits, e.g.:

  1. Average person
  2. applying contemporary adult community standards
  3. appeals to the prurient interest
  4. parenthetical definition of prurient interest
  5. depicts or describes
  6. in patently offensive way
  7. "sexual conduct" includes "excretory functions", "lewd exhibition of the genitals", "sado-masochistic sexual abuse. (none, IMO, normally considered as "specified sexual conduct).
  8. A reasonable person would find [lack of SLAPS]

So clearly what you characterize is not Miller itself, but a slightly larger quasi-Miller.

But, of course, as I have tried so many times to state, this Wikiproject is not a court case, and we are not lawyers. And it is not Miller that is being presented, but "those aspects of Miller that may be illustrative."

Is it honestly just that you like to stick in the phrase "sexual conduct"?! It obviously has nothing to do with your edit comment that "mischaracterization of Miller is not acceptable", since your characterization is probably slightly farther from a good characterization of Miller than is the shorter version. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:55, 2005 September 9 (UTC)

You cannot write "Miller defines obscenity as..." if you then go on to provide only a shortened quasi-Miller that leaves out features that don't fit your purposes. It is false and unacceptable. Why don't you simply openly state the SLAP standard you'd like to use, and say that it is inspired by part of the Miller test? AxelBoldt 17:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Ummm... what you describe is exactly what the section did before you edited it! Is this some kind of schoolyard semantic game or something? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:59, 2005 September 9 (UTC)
I guess that depends on how liberally you use the word "exactly". Before I edited it, the page said: "The Miller test is illustrative in defining obscene material as that which taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. (SLAPS)." This statement, as written, is false and misleading, as this is not how the Miller test defines obscene material, and it is not even an honest summary of it. You are still of course welcome to use that SLAPS criterion for your project; just don't claim that your criterion is equivalent to Miller. But I think I'm repeating myself. AxelBoldt 18:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I guess in some hypertechnical way you can pull a falsehood out of that... maybe. The version you present is certainly closer to being literally false, since it comes closer to insinuating that it presents the exact Miller test. If you think the recently added "in part" doesn't clarify enough, maybe you can propose some other modifier that clarifies that we're excerpting/paraphrasing Miller rather blindly copying it in full and verbatim. (I'd think common sense, plus a wikilink, would have sufficed, but...). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:30, 2005 September 9 (UTC)

Rosicrucian article[edit]

Dear AxelBoldt, as I having seen your edition at the article Rosicrucian and a related article, I come to request your support to this article that I have just purposed for nomination at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Rosicrucian. May you may give a look into it? And, if you consider it acceptable, then may you support it? Thank you! :) --GalaazV 02:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Minneapolis meetup[edit]

Hello Axel. I'm contacting you since you are listed at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Minnesota. I'm going to be at a conference in Minneapolis and am planning a Wikipedia meetup for October 8. If you are near Minneapolis at that time, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Minneapolis. Angela. 20:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Please vote on list of lists, a featured article candidate[edit]

Please vote at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of lists of mathematical topics. Michael Hardy 20:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

request service[edit]

Thank you, my first crack was quite unrefined. lots of issues | leave me a message 02:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Typos, Cleanup[edit]

Hi! I just wanted to tell you that you're doing a good job fixing up those typos- It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it :), and for doing some nice cleanup on Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare, which has been on my to-do list for some time. All these horror movie articles are a pretty weak, and I'm glad that they're slowly, but surely, improving. Thanks again, and keep up the good work!--Sean|Black 03:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Miss Saigon[edit]

Thanks for your message. You are right. I just corrected my previous edit on [Patpong]. Cheers. --Anagnorisis 22:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Birthday paradox#Klamkin (1967)[edit]

Could you take a look at the question? Thanks. Superm401 | Talk 04:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


According to someone I emailed an article to -- he was prompted with a login page when he tried to open the pdf link. lots of issues | leave me a message 16:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes lots_of_issues at hotmail lots of issues | leave me a message 16:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC) was a pdf attachment, worked. Don't know what happened with the other person.

lots of issues | leave me a message 17:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

male prostitution[edit]

I had moved that text, as I said in the comments, from the Cherry Patch Ranch since it was not right there either. Not sure where it should go, so I have no problem with what you did. 06:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


Read your request and fullfilled it. Rewritten it a bit. Soi Cowboy was a bad example, is a special case. Given better examples. Greetings from Bangkok Thanon Pracharat Bamphen soi 7 ;) Waerth 22:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

About the plural Thais wouldn't use it no. But in the talk between us farangs ;iving here we use it. How to write it ... I am not sure whether it is soi's or sois. Waerth 05:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


I see that you asked about the meaning of Sukhumvit. According to th:ถนนสุขุมวิท it was named after the fifth chief of Department of Highways, Phra Pisan Sukhumvit. -- Lerdsuwa 12:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! AxelBoldt 17:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I have checked and there is no Thai pages for the peoples you mentioned. -- Lerdsuwa 15:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


"Soi Sukhumvit 4", "Sukhumvit Soi 4", or "Sukhumvit 4" are all equally popular way of saying. The most formal way of the three, for writing address on letter, road signs, etc., is "Soi Sukhumvit 4".

"25 Soi Sukhumvit 4": here 25 is the house number, where houses on one side of the road are all odd-numbered (1, 3, 5, ...) the other side are all even.

  • If the plot of land are splitted, for example number 28, its becomes 28/1, 28/2, ....
  • If the plot of land are merged, Ex: buying lots of small house to build a big office building, only one of the address is used (the number is no longer consecutive and contain holes).

Most Soi doesn't start its own number (except big ones) and use the number system of its street. Ex: you may see number 848 for a house on the main road next to a soi, number 850 to 928 used in the soi, number 930 next house on the main road. -- Lerdsuwa 10:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


(copied from my user page) Hi! Thanks for starting the Artemis (brothel) article, that was indeed missing. I hope you don't mind that I changed it a bit and added some information. Cheers, AxelBoldt 17:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Mind? Are you kidding? I love it when people add to subjects I have added to. As for changing, well I'll take a look and get back to you.(I notice from your user page that we share a lot of interests and I want to say something about that, too). WAS 4.250 19:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm back. I have no problem with the changes. Some of the data varied from one report to the next (number of people it holds and cost of services). But that is variable by its nature (one might be with tax and another not; one might be people allowed by law due to fire codes and the other number might represent number of people it was designed to comfortably fit). Bottom line, I see no reason to change anything there.

Next subject similar interests: Evolution needs a few words on molecular biology. Multiverse (science) needs something (maybe something from User:WAS 4.250/1 and maybe not). And Mass, Relativistic mass, and E=mc² (with regard to relativistic mass versus rest mass; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics). Do nothing ... do something ... just thought I'd mention a few things you might care to look into. Thanks again for helping on Artemis (brothel). Cheers. WAS 4.250 20:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Picture of brothel?[edit]

Yes, it would be nice to get a few. I'm not usually out where they are so that makes it difficult to get a picture. I'll see if I can find someone who has some to upload. I suspect that there are a few pictures for Sherry's out there and I don't think it has an article yet. Vegaswikian 01:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Forer effect: Variables influencing the effect[edit]

Hi, I noticed your addition to Forer effect of additional variables influencing the effect. While I found the information interesting and totally reasonable, I noticed that there were no references to the specific studies where these conclusions came from. It would be greatly appreciated if you could cite the studies that derived these conclusions. P.S. I know that unsourced stuff is all over Wikipedia, and that it's unreasonable to try to track it all down, but you seem to be a fine contributor and the addition could be isolated to edits by you, so I figured it would be a fairly easy task for you to find your original sources. Alas, I don't have access to databases with abstracts for these psychological studies, so I can't do it. Thanks for reading this message! — Ambush Commander(Talk) 20:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I got if from the web somewhere at the time, I don't really remember. But this article seems to be the right one:

  • Dickson, D.H. and I.W. Kelly. "The 'Barnum Effect' in Personality Assessment: A Review of the Literature," Psychological Reports, 1985, 57, 367-382.

I'll check later. Thanks! AxelBoldt 22:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Fungu'lu and other hoaxes[edit]

Hi, Axel! I don't know enough Swahili to say with much certainty, but fungu'lu and unguru (span (unit)) do appear to be hoaxes. I guess you also saw this edit and Oliver Bayley, which are equally suspicious. (There's also a poet by the same name mentioned here, but he's probably genuine.) Even _if_ they are true (very unlikely), none of these contributions seem to be able to be substantiated. I would delete the lot. (But if you do want to check for certain if these words are Swahili or not, you could ask sw:User:Ndesanjo or sw:User:Marcos.) --Chamdarae 02:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi AxelBoldt, I've deleted Oliver Bayley as a hoax after seeing your post at Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board. I never heard of him despite living in Uganda for a bit. Despite the general dubiousness, I'm also unsure how a Ugandan living in England would know enough Swahili to sing it as it is strictly a trade language there. There are a couple Ugandans who have moved to Nairobi and had moderately successful singing careers, but it's rare and I'm not sure how it would be possible if you are coming from England. To top it off, "Jambo" is the Swahili greeting, so the title of the rap "Jambo Kitty" would translate as Hello Kitty. If this is indicative of the edits you're looking at, I think a speedy is in order. Cheers, BanyanTree 19:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for assistance[edit]

Hi Axel. I'm in the midst of a debate with an anonymous user at Talk:Rat who claims that a source[3] states that Black Rats are listed as an endangered species (local listing, not IUCN) in Germany and other parts of Europe. The source is in German and really requires splitting hairs over the wording. If the animals are "in decline" or "becoming scarce", then that does not translate to legal protection. I thought if it's not too much trouble you might be able to help. Thanks. --Aranae 11:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the translation and arbitration. --Aranae 07:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


I just want to say you rock!. Peace out Funkyj 07:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well thank you. Cheers, AxelBoldt 19:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Sultana (steamboat)[edit]

Thanks for your help with info. If my "E-mail this user" button is not working, please send info to: lessogg att Thanks, mervyn 10:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Persondata project[edit]

Hi Axel, just wanted to let you know that I'm attempting to start a metadata project on the English Wikipedia similar to the German Personendaten project. I would love to get feedback from people experienced with the German project. Do you know much about it? Kaldari 16:55, 24. Dez 2005 (CET)

Not really, but the German Wikipedians are usually ok with English, so you could contact the author (jakob.voss at of the Personendaten article for Wikimania, or leave a message (in English), on the talk page of the project. Cheers, AxelBoldt 16:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Hallo, Boldt[edit]

I like your work. Very logical. Why no "beauty of these girls is legendary" in De Wallen? It's a very basic fact. -MPD 09:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Having continued to read your work, I can conclude only that your Weltanschauung fails to account for the fact that many individuals consider pain to be merely data. In any case, thanks for the laughs. - MPD 08:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

German Wikipedia[edit]

Hallo Axel,

könntest Du den Artikel German Wikipedia nochmal erweitern um folgende Fakten: -in der de.wikipedia werden an stubs höhere ansprüche gestellt als in der -in der de.wikipedia werden an Lemmas höhere ansprüche gestellt, so sind zB Artikel über fiktive Personen (zB einzelne Charaktere aus Herr der Ringe,...) generell nicht gewünscht (es sei denn, sie haben Bedeutungen in mehreren verschiedenen Werken). mein englisch reicht nicht aus um das schön zu formulieren.

Werde ich machen, besten Dank! AxelBoldt 16:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


Are you a contributor to Wikiweise? I have some questions about it if so. --Angr (t·c) 22:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, one thing I'm wondering is whether they require cited sources the way Wikipedia does. I was browsing through some articles and some authors' pages, and saw that they pride themselves on using books as sources rather than having their articles being "zusammengegoogelt" like Wikipedia... and yet I didn't see a single article where sources were actually cited. --Angr (t·c) 01:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


To clarify... no, the Foundation is not paying anyone to develop grants. Danny was made the grant officer maybe a year ago. Later (this fall), we started needing very badly an assistant to help us in the office with all the paperwork. Jimbo hired Danny to do this (not grants). So, Danny is now working full time to take care of paper stuff, answering phones etc.... but is not taking care of grants. So... basically, no one is taking care of grants right now. One idea was to find another assistant, so that Danny could work at least part time on doing grants. But to be fair, we first need the money to hire another person and second, even two assistants would be well used I guess :-) Another point is that we could also benefit of hiring another developer to work full time for us, and we also badly need a CEO. So, budget considerations run high there :-) Anthere


Hi, I recieved a rather flattering offer to consult on Wikis for the International Rice Research Institute in the Phillipines. They are using MediaWiki for a few intra-institution wikis. I really doubt I'd be what they are looking for, they are looking for someone with knowledge about Wikis and molecular biology (especially plants and agriculture). Anyway you came to mind when I was thinking of other suitable people, since you know about wikis, biochem, and bioinformatics - if you email me I can foward you the email from IRRI.--nixie 14:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


Hallo Axel,

ich habe gesehen, daß Du im Artikel en:Batangas erhebliche Kürzungen vorgenommen hast und u.a. auch interwiki-Links entfernt hast. Bevor ich die Änderungen vorschnell rückgängig mache, wollte ich mich nach den Motiven erkundigen. Martinwilke1980 11:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


No problem; fixed and referenced. You caught me with some free time while doing my laundry! :) Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Germany is being replaced by a category[edit]

Hello! You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Germany page as living in or being associated with Germany. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, or one of the Bundesland-based subcategories, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Germany for instructions. --Angr (tɔk) 14:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

H. pylori image[edit]

I added the URL for the actual image file as well as the search site at the CDC i used to retrieve the picture. Unfortunately I can't directly link to the image description page there, but a quick search on "helicobacter" will pull it up. Zvesoulis 03:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


I reckon that geo refs should be used in entries-I think that user Adam Carr is too old and hasnt caught up with the electronic age. Also he is a notorius bully. So dont let him push you around. Ill reinstate geog refs Personpersonperson 05:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Google Earth Placemark[edit]

You shouldn't need to check or uncheck anything. I tried to open the link you used as an example and was able to replicate the behavior you described. However, the link did appear in the Temporary Places folder where from I was able to double click it and get to Bangkok. I then closed Google Earth and tried another random placemark and in its case it did go to the position as it was supposed to. I then loaded your placemark (while GE was open) and this time it went straight to Thailand. (The GE worked a little slowly, so it might have "forgot" that it was supposed to go to a placemark while it was waiting for the graphics to load... This is of course just an uneducated guess, but I can't come up with a better explanation anyway.) Does it work for you if you first start and let GE load and then click the placemark? --ZeroOne 22:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That is very strange. Do placemarks downloaded from elsewhere work correctly? I see that someone now removed the link from the Map Sources page. :/ --ZeroOne 22:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
No, I have no standard placemark that I'd use regularly... Have you got one for me to try? --ZeroOne 20:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The link you gave contained a kmz-file which is in binary format... I use kml-files, which are pure ASCII. If you want to see the code my placemark uses, just add &debug to the end of the address, like this. I now added the <visibility>1</visibility> tag but the default value is 1 anyway. The placemark does have a title also. --ZeroOne 22:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
It's good that you found a working service. :) Maybe I can learn from it, too. --ZeroOne 12:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


I hearby grant you this barnstar for the splendid contributions you made in Wikipedia. Keep it up! --Siva1979Talk to me14:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, you can display it on your user page. You deserve this barnstar and keep up the good work! --Siva1979Talk to me05:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on your user page[edit]

No problem; sorry for not catching it earlier. But I really do wonder why someone bothered to create multiple accounts just to insert that URL several times over. Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 23:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

To make you feel better, I'll keep your page on watch for a week or so. I hope Fredrik does the same as well ;) Dr Debug (Talk) 23:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Page name for temperature articles[edit]

To avoid flip-flopping between 'degree Fahrenheit' and 'Fahrenheit' or 'degree Celsius' and 'Celsius', I propose that we have a discussion on which we want. I see you have contributed on units of measurement, please express your opinion at Talk:Units of measurement. Thanks. bobblewik 23:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Quotient field or Field of fractions[edit]

I've proposed on Talk:Quotient field to rename the page. I'd be very grateful to hear your comments there on what you think - thanks!

Talk:Abortion-breast cancer (ABC) hypothesis[edit]

Just noticed your excellent feedback on the ABC article. I've answered the questions, but I won't do anything about the article until tomorrow as I'm heading to bed. G'night! - RoyBoy 800 08:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I fibbed. :") The issues you brought up forced me to try and address some that night, with the exception of the Rat study; where I added carcinomas a short while ago. - RoyBoy 800 02:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments from Mens rea v Cheung[edit]

The following was originally posted by user: to user talk:AxelBoldt/Archive (see [4]). I moved it here. AxelBoldt 23:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

All germans are arrogant and racists as if Adolf Hilter

Anti- German Group 13:58 17 Feb 2006

I think many users of this wikipedia are humiliating female, and sadly, the wikipedia is without much professional supervision, many obscene/indecent articles, illustrations can be easily read. Wikipedians can "legally" being offensive, in the sense of upholding "freedom of speech", the results of this will be like the destructive events after the danish "Islamic Cartoons" posted. I hate promiscousity and notorious womanisers/menisers who bullsit here and everywhere. Please shut up!

(the writers here - licensed offenders - enjoy what G-spot, mating, menstruation.....I think it is time of Mr Jimbo Wales to do something with his brain right now)

Mens rea v Cheung 13:51 17 Feb 2006

Nine lemma[edit]

Hello! A while ago, I came across this article about the nine lemma and the five lemma - if you have a spare moment, could you tell me where these lemmas are used, and why they are useful? Thanks for your help! --HappyCamper 12:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Mechai Viravaidya[edit]

Re: information request on the Thailand-related topics notice board, the senate in Thailand is (supposed to be) non-partisan, and senators independent. Paul C 11:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Field trace[edit]

This isn't Wikipedia related, so feel free to delete if you're not inclined to answer for whatever reason. I'm told the field trace has the property that for any linear function f from GF(pn) -> GF(p), there is an element β of GF(pn) s.t. f(x) = <β,x>. I have been Googling around for a proof without success, and I haven't managed to figure it out for myself. If you could point me in the right direction I'd be most grateful. I am not a student and this is not a homework question. Thanks! — ciphergoth 10:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I assume that when you say "linear function" you mean "GF(p)-linear function". In that case, the above statement is correct, and indeed, β is uniquely determined by f. The statement does not have much to do with the field trace; it is a special case of the following statement from linear algebra: given a finite-dimensional vector space V over the field K and a bilinear form <.,.>: VxVK which is not degenerate (i.e. for every x in V there exists y in V such that <x,y> ≠ 0), then for every linear f : VK there exists a unique y in V such that for all x in V: f(x) = <x,y>.
The proof of this fact uses the square matrix of the bilinear form, which in our case is non-singular, and therefore every system of linear equations can be uniquely solved, which is essentially what we are doing here. To apply this fact to your question, you have to realize that GF(pn) is an n-dimensional vector space over GF(p) and that your bilinear form is non-degenerate. Cheers, AxelBoldt 17:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

FISHY STICK award![edit]

Thank you for you valuable edits to sex tourism! Have a FISHY STICK!
Oarias 01:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


I added a barnstar to your user page. You may not know me, but I've definitely noticed your edits. So... keep it up. Cheers! :) Gflores Talk 18:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, and have fun! AxelBoldt 18:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Histone deacetylase[edit]

Sources! Answers! It's a miracle! (Why I can't apply myself like that to the paper I'm supposed to be writing instead, I don't know...) -- stillnotelf has a talk page 20:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Nochmal German Wikipedia[edit]

Hallo Axel,

da mein Englisch nicht gut genug ist, möchte ich dich bitten folgende Punkte in German Wikipedia zu ergänzen:

  • Botgestützte Massenstubs werden in G.W. vermieden im Gegensatz zu beispielsweise der italiensichen, französischen oder polnischen Wikipedia
  • Unterscheidung zu wikiweise: Dort werden Abkürzungen und unvollständige Sätze bevorzugt, hier wird Fließtext unbedingt verlangt. wikiweise hat keine disambiguation-pages
  • (zu forks) es gibt eine ganze anzahl von mediawiki-basierten deutschen Spezialenzyklopädien zB
  • sollte der Artikel nicht besser unter "german language wikipedia" lemmatisiert werden, um klarer zu machen, dass es eine sprach- und keine landes-wiki ist?

vielen dank


Congratulations Axel, you're one of the very few people i've seen who is a stage 6. Cheers. JoeSmack Talk 20:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Cool. So do I win anything or what? AxelBoldt 21:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Not really. :) Still, you in particular might be interested in things like moral objectivism, the categorical imperative, utilitarianism etc. Noted neato stage 6 figures would be peps like A.S. Neill, George Orwell, Immanuel Kant, Noam Chomsky, Ricardo Semler and John Rawls. I dunno, i guess if you get bored on wikipedia you could read about them, i think you'd dig em'. JoeSmack Talk 18:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Here is a little more should you want to dive deeper. JoeSmack Talk 19:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

"All transcendental numbers are irrational."[edit]

Some authors have the transcendental numbers a subset of the real numbers, other authors have them a subset of the complex numbers. But if the transcendental numbers are a subset of the complex numbers, and all transcendental numbers are irrational, then the rational numbers are a subset of the real numbers but the irrational numbers are not. Is this your intention? Rick Norwood 21:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I definitely want transcendental numbers to be complex, because that generality is needed for several theorems such as the Gelfond-Schneider theorem. The term "irrational number" is typically restricted to the reals, so the statement "all transcendentals are irrational" is not good. I'll fix it. AxelBoldt 21:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Compass and straightedge[edit]

Please comment. John Reid 14:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sonagachi photos[edit]

Hi! The photos you added to Sonagachi were much needed for the article. Thanks a lot, and thanks to J. Gresham as well. I wish the photos were color! Of course B&W has its own appeal, still...

Oh well, Mr Gresham is the same person as BorisEarth! Great. He has lots of great photos in FlickR also. I already saw those. And in photonet as well! He must be a great photographer. Bye--Dwaipayanc 17:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia on CD[edit]

Greetings! Yes... the CD is and the relevant WikiEN-l discussion of it began here. Cheers, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the links; I'll announce it at the Village pump. AxelBoldt 18:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi AxelBoldt, I noticed that you added (a version of) the following regarding women in the renaissance to the article on atropine:

In the Renaissance, women used the juice of the berries of Atropa belladonna to enlarge the pupils of their eyes, for cosmetic reasons; "belladonna" is Italian for "beautiful lady".

Would it be possible to get a source for this? All the best, Eric 19:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes it would! PMID 324554. AxelBoldt 19:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Prostitution in Germany (FKK clubs)[edit]


I don't understand your rationale for removing my numerous additions to what goes on in FKK clubs. I've been to many FKK clubs there and what I wrote is from personal experience. What I said about "unlimited foreplay" is true. In fact, I am friends with a guy who has a company leading tours from the U.S. to FKK clubs six or seven times a year, and this is what all the customers will tell you. I notice you also deleted the information I gave about the men being given towels to wear, the fact that some of the girls are as beautiful as in Playboy, the fact that session fee doesn't run until you take the girl to the room, etc. What are the reasons for these other deletions?


Replied at Talk:Prostitution in Germany. Cheers, AxelBoldt 13:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


I saw that you're interested in the P versus NP question. I thought you might be interested in checking out [], a wiki dedicated to the Millennium Prize Problems. Cheers!

DiceDiceBaby 14:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


On the Buffer overflow page you added references to the Metasploit project. I don't feel that this is particularly relevant to a discussion of Buffer Overflows. I think a mention in the references section is sufficient. Also the comment you made about the opcode database makes perfect sense to somebody already familiar with the subject, but not to a general reader. Please tell me what you think. -- Tompsci 12:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is rather technical information, and so it might be over the head of the general reader. If it can be phrased more gently and/or farmed out to a special article, I'm all for it. However, I find that it is important to provide this technical information, and especially tell the reader how buffer exploits are actually constructed in practice. It isn't some black art only open to experts; it's pretty simple in fact and every computer science student can do it. We mention a list of ways a stack overflow could be exploited, but most of these are mere theoretical possibilities; we need to explain how they actually are exploited in practice. The standard way of doing it is a rather straightforward procedure, and does involve the Metasploit database at a crucial step (on Windows; on Unix it's a lot simpler still because you know where the stack is). With that database, every kiddie can do it; without it, only experts could do it.

Maybe I didn't explain the basic problem properly: the attacker puts payload on the stack, and now wants to jump into the payload. So on Unix they simply overwrite the current function's return address with the start of the payload, and it works. On Windows you can't do that, because you don't know the location of the stack. So you experimentally find a register R which currently points to a location on the stack, and then you use the Metasploit database to find a command C somewhere in the system which will jump to the location contained in R. Then you overwrite the current function's return address with the location of C, and you put the start of your payload at the address contained in R. You see how important the Metasploit database is in this scheme. AxelBoldt 15:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I have written exploits myself, so you don't need to explain it to me, but you would to the reader, which isn't currently the case. I think that paragraph needs to be rewritten, so that it's much clearer. Also it needs to be clear that Metasploit isn't the only (or best) method of locating byte sequences that can be used for "trampolining" or whatever it's called. I'll rework it when I have time. What's your relationship to the MetaSploit Project? I personally wasn't impressed, it just appears to be a collection of customisable exploits for script kiddies. -- Tompsci 17:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we should clarify that paragraph explaining the writing of exploits. I have no relationship with Metasploit, it's just the only opcode database I know. Other such databases should definitely be mentioned as well. Cheers, AxelBoldt 21:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Please check out the changes I've made and possible clarify the information further. -- Tompsci 12:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Basal Lamina[edit]

Hi, I partially undid/rewrote your edits to basal lamina and wanted to drop you a note explaining why. As you can see, basement membrane is a redirect to basal lamina and I felt the former deserved a mention in the first sentence of the latter's article. This redirect strikes me as somewhat bizarre, partly because the basal lamina is a component of the basement membrane (though I agree with you basement membrane is not really a 'more general' term) but mostly because there are no articles for other structures associated with the basement membrane such as the reticular lamina, lamina densa, and lamina lucida. I was considering incorporating the basal lamina content into a basement membrane article that includes subsections for basal lamina as well as the other terms (instead of the other way around), since that would allow description of all the layers together. Do you think this is a good idea? Robotsintrouble 12:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I replied in Talk:Basal lamina. Cheers, AxelBoldt 16:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk Ex-Yugoslavia[edit]

Talk:Kosovo#2 Administrator for Ex-Yugoslavien articels in Wikipedia- The voice of Kosovar

degree of a field extension[edit]

You made a good point adding the material "addition and multiplication in F are restrictions of the corresponding operations in E". This is missing on the main article field extension too. I wonder however if there is a more accessible way to state this, i.e. without using the word "restriction", which may be slightly too high-tech for people just learning this stuff. Perhaps just "the same as"? In field extension, the formal definition given later in terms of ring injections covers this issue automatically anyway. Dmharvey 19:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose we could say "the addition and multiplication in F are the same as those in E" or slightly more correctly "...yield the same results as those in E". Or we could first cleanly define what a subfield is and then say that E/F means that F is a subfield of E. In any event, it's probably best to not define it at all in degree of a field extension, and to try harder to get it correct and accessible in field extension. AxelBoldt 20:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Very much agree. By the way, I believe this is the first time I have encountered you "face-to-face", and I just want to issue a hearty congratulations for all the fine work you did, years before I had heard of this place :-) So many math articles here have your name at or near the beginning of the history page. Dmharvey 21:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Riemann mapping theorem[edit]

You wrote that the idea of a conformal map is that “such a map preserves the shape of any sufficiently small figure, while possibly rotating and stretching it”. I don't agree with this, because the conjugation would then be a conformal map. One must add that such maps also preserve angle orientation. What do you think? JCSantos 16:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I said that "such a map preserves angles and small shapes" which it does; I didn't say that every map that preserves angles and small shapes is conformal. Furthermore, by emphasizing that rotations and stretchings are allowed, it is I believe implied by omission that reflections are not allowed. Anyway, most laymen would probably agree that the letters P and b have different "shapes", even though they are reflections of each other. So I think the rough intuitive idea of a conformal map is conveyed well enough by my statement, and people who want more detail can always click on "conformal". We could of course say "small oriented shapes are preserved", but then the layman would be put off by the non-standard term "oriented", and linking to orientation (mathematics) would make matters worse.

I was just thinking, how do you like this: "such a map preserves the shape of any sufficiently small figure, while possibly rotating and stretching (but not reflecting) it." Cheers, AxelBoldt 19:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's better. Do it. Best regards, JCSantos 13:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Continued fraction of 'e'[edit]

Your latest edit of the Transcendental Numbers entry contains the statement (for example e, whose continued fraction terms are bounded), which is not correct.

Thanks for catching that! Cheers, AxelBoldt 18:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

German Wikipedia[edit]

Hi, ich hab auf User:Elian/comparison mal einen Vergleich der deutschen mit der englischen Wikipedia aufgestellt, vielleicht kann man einige Sachen daraus für den Artikel brauchen. Würde das aber ungern selbst einarbeiten, nachdem ich bei dem Thema etwas biased bin. --Elian Talk 19:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Braid group[edit]

Looking at the article history, it seems that you originally wrote most of the text in that article, so I think you should probably be involved in revising it now. I've commented on the talk page there with my issues about the article, basically that it's written more like a math lesson than an encyclopedia. It's good work but needs to have its tone changed to fit in here. would you mind helping out with that process a bit? Night Gyr 23:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Your vote interpreted[edit]

Hallo Axel, da Du Deutsch als Muttersprache angegeben hast, schreibe ich Dir auf Deutsch. Ich habe deine Stimmabgabe auf der Diskussionseite "Ignore all rules" gesehen. Ich selbst bin zwar auch ein wenig verwirrt darüber, doch noch mehr wundere ich mich über die Versuche, deine Stimme zu interpretieren. Kannst Du bitte auf der Seite nachlesen und entweder der Interpretation widersprechen oder deine Haltung präzisieren. Meinen Kommentar kannst Du dabei gerne löschen. Gruß, Str1977 (smile back) 21:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Axel,
Str1977 might be "surprised at the attempts to interpret" your vote, but that was not what I did. I am surprised at his interpretion of my comment, about your argument for voting oppose. My comment was only meant as a counter argument/comment on the rationale you gave for your vote, which I think can be consistent with those agree with your comment but want to vote for support. It does not question your vote, only the reasons for it. Danke, Kamerad.Giovanni33 21:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I think you guys have too much time on your hands. Don't you have an encyclopedia to write? :-) AxelBoldt 22:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

About Prostitution[edit]

You are familiar over this topic, you don't have a wife? why not? Anon.

Freedom and simplicity. AxelBoldt 03:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Old and not handsome? Anon.

Nicer Picture[edit]

Can you post a nicer personal photo on your user page? You look weird.. Anon.

Come As You Are (sex toy shop) proposed for deletion[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Come As You Are (sex toy shop), has been proposed for deletion. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Zpb52 15:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

PMMA, Addition[edit]

Ill check on that in a bit. BTW, the addition article used to be a rather nice overview that took the reader from elementary concepts all the way up to advanced summation and series examples. While some of the splitting and development looks good, Im not sure I like excessive simplification. Maybe just some examples would be useful? -Ste|vertigo 20:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


I think there is no translation from Taburiente to English nor Spanish. Taburiente is a guanche word, a old language related to bereber that is spoken no more since 5 centuries ago. The word is nos properly Spanish, and its etimologic meaning has been lost over the years. The name the guanches give Caldera de Taburiente was Aceró which means strong place, but Aceró is used no more, instead now we use Taburiente. Sorry for my bad English. Felipealvarez 05:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

compact space[edit]

Do you happen to know the proof (or where it can be found) of the statement

A metric space X is compact if and only if every metric space homeomorphic to X is complete.

that you added to the compact space entry in 2002? Slawekk 17:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll reply on Talk:compact space. Cheers, AxelBoldt 21:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap[edit]

Read through WP:RFD. --SPUI (T - C) 15:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion#When should we delete a redirect? --SPUI (T - C) 16:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

My specific reason is that it's harmless. --SPUI (T - C) 16:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Amistad (case)[edit]

Hello Professor Boldt,

In response to your question about my edits on the Amistad (case) page, I did remove the information because I believed the page's intent was to focus on the Supreme Court's ruling in the case, and that that information belonged elsewhere. However, I believe I still have the information on my computer, and would be happy to provide it to you should you want it.

Thanks, Buckaroo54 05:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sedimentary Basins[edit]

Hi Axel, I was just reading the sedimentary basin page, and you were the most recent editor. It says that lithospheric stretching can be caused by things like trench-pull and ridge-push. Doesn't ridge-push cause lithospheric compression? Gcolive 17:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know enough about this to answer the question. Apparently we don't have a Geology Wikiproject; maybe we can ask at the Science reference desk? AxelBoldt 03:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi Axel, how come that I can't place comments on: know, about the article "Prostitution: Selling the Sisters (Out)".....
I don't understand. 1 minute after I placed a comment, the comment is gone, while at first it was there. And it happens all the time.
Plwleaase help me!!!!
(Such an interesting discussion).
--Bruno Junqueira 18:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There are two possibilities: if your post contains (certain types of) external links, the software will automatically delete it; if your post contains material offensive to the moderators, they will delete it. Cheers, AxelBoldt 04:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
It's a shame really. I really thought I could bring a useful twist in that debate. There's an error in her article though. She says:"The Budapest Group, in 1999, identified that 70 per cent of the women ‘employed’ in The Netherlands’ legally operating brothels had been trafficked from other countries." It's wrong. She refers to this document: [5] (Sorry, website is down at this moment). This documents says in a footnote that “However, it needs to be emphasized that not all prostitutes are trafficked or exploited but a part of them are working independently and voluntarily. Again, the numbers vary greatly in different countries. In the Netherlands, an estimated 80 percent of the prostitutes are being trafficked to the country. In Finland, on the other hand, the percentage is very low, roughly around 10.”......without reference. They probably equate 'foreign' with 'trafficked'. Many feminists groups take this document very literally and cite this as evidence.--Bruno Junqueira 15:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please watch[edit]

Can you add this page to your watch list: Amygdala. You'll soon understand why.MirnaSun 00:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Request your attention to the GoldToeMarionette case[edit]

GoldToeMarionette (talk · contribs) had a WP:RFCU inappropriately completed on their account by Jayjg (talk · contribs) and Hall Monitor (talk · contribs) blocked the account after it was identified as a multiple account despite their being no violation of Wikipedia policy by GoldToeMarionette. These users did not respond to requests to undo the action.

Other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Comments on RFCU itself [6]
Other Admins contacted [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]
Hall Monitor was emailed with no reply
GoldToeMarionette posted on the account's User and Talk Pages seeking assistance when the talk page was protected without the issue being discussed. User:GoldToeMarionette User_talk:GoldToeMarionette

GoldToeMarionette notified article contributors that illustrative examples were subject to an AfD. The account strictly followed the WP:SPAM#Internal_spamming guideline. The AfD was without controversy. GoldToeMarionette did not participate in the vote. HereToCleanup removed the posts following the AfD in accord with the widely accepted Wikipedia Guideline Wikipedia:Spam#Internal_spamming that states "Clean up your mess. For example, after engaging in cross-posting to promote some election, be sure to remove those cross-posts after the election is complete." [12]

Since GoldToeMarionette was strictly following Wikipedia Policy, there should not have been a Check User completed by Jayjg. Hall Monitor only blocked the account because it was labeled as a sockpuppet by Jayjg's completed Check User. Absent policy violation it should not have been processed in RFCU or been blocked. I am asking for your help to confirm that policy was not violated, administrative action should not have been taken, and request that the administrative action be reversed by unblocking GoldToeMarionette and unprotecting the talk page. Thank you for your time with this request. RealTime 02:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This user went around spamming all the admins beginning with A, see my talk page Ashibaka tock 18:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Greetings from Germany[edit]

Vielleicht magst du einen Blick auf werfen und deine Erfahrungen mit dem magazin request einbringen? Gerade wird ein ANSI-Norm-Text gesucht (siehe Diskussionsseite). Many thanks! --Historiograf 02:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

libavcodec, DivX, XviD[edit]

Hello, I would like to explain some common misconceptions regarding DivX and XviD and your libavcodec edits - libavcodec does not implement DivX or XviD and it does not decode "DivX video" or "XviD video". As a mathematician, I'm sure you can appreciate the necessity of exact terminology (as opposed to a "muddy" way of thinking). DivX and XviD are MPEG-4 ASP codecs, video encoded with them is MPEG-4 ASP video. Saying that libavcodec can decode "XviD video" is exactly the same nonsense as saying that XviD can decode "libavcodec video". Codec is not a format, codec is only software that decodes/encodes data to/from some format. For example, when you encode an MP3 file with the LAME codec, you don't encode to "LAME format". It is MP3. And you don't call other MP3 codecs "alternative LAME implementations than can decode LAME audio". Or when you save a text file in Notepad and open it in PSPad, you don't say PSPad is an alternative Notepad implementation (unofficial Notepad) that can open "Notepad files". Yet, you apply the same twisted logic to video codecs - libavcodec is not an "alternative implementation of the official DivX codec that can decode DivX video", as you call it in the article:

  1. The term "official DivX codec" suggests that there are some "unofficial DivX codecs" (and that libavcodec MPEG-4 is one of them) — there's only one DivX, which is a trademark of DivX, Inc. Nothing else than DivX (i.e. commercial software product made by this company) is DivX. DivX, XviD, libavcodec, 3ivx, Nero Digital etc. are all just different software products made by different people. They're not implementations or unofficial versions of each other. Calling libavcodec MPEG-4 "unofficial DivX codec" and "alternative DivX implementation" is exactly the same nonsense as calling Mozilla Firefox "unofficial Microsoft Internet Explorer" and "alternative MSIE implementation" — sure, it is an alternative to MSIE, but not an alternative MSIE implementation (generally, calling a software product X an alternative implementation of a software product Y would require for X having the same API/ABI and functionality as Y).
  2. libavcodec MPEG-4 (aka FFmpeg MPEG-4) is not "DivX implementation", it is MPEG-4 ASP implementation. DivX, XviD and all other MPEG-4 ASP codecs are MPEG-4 ASP implementations, too. They're all equal in this relation. When you encode video with XviD, it is MPEG-4 video and when you decode it with libacodec, you decode MPEG-4 video, not "XviD video".
  3. It does not seem appropriate dedicating a whole paragraph in the DivX article to libavcodec (a competing product) — if you want to be fair, you would have to dedicate a paragraph to DivX in the libavcodec article, calling it "an alternative to the official libavcodec implementation that can decode libavcodec video, too". But that would of course be total nonsense. The edits you've made in the DivX article do not make much sense either. If you feel mentioning competing or compatible software products in the articles is necessary, there are ways to mention them correctly.—J. M. 00:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this explanation; I do indeed value proper terminology. I'm not sure however that your analogy between MPEG and ASCII holds water: the MPEG-4 Part 2 specs give a lot of leeway to the encoder, which ASCII does not. By looking at the structure of an MPEG-4 ASP file, one can immediately tell whether it was produced by XviD or DivX or neither. So instead of saying "MPEG-4 ASP video encoded with the XviD codec looks better than MPEG-4 ASP video encoded with the DivX codec" I think it is admissable (and common) to say "XviD video looks better than DivX video". Experts will know what is meant, and laymen won't be confused.

Also, when you buy a DVD player and it says "Plays DivX" on the box, that doesn't mean it can play every MPEG-4 ASP file, in fact it probably won't.

I agree with you that my phrase "official DivX codec" is nonsense. I do believe that XviD and libavcodec deserve to be mentioned in DivX, and DivX and XviD should be mentioned in libavcodec.

Cheers, AxelBoldt 01:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"Also, when you buy a DVD player and it says "Plays DivX" on the box, that doesn't mean it can play every MPEG-4 ASP file, in fact it probably won't."
When you buy a DVD player with the DivX name or logo on the box, it means either that the player is officially certified by the DivX company (which is OK, DivX certified partners have right to use the DivX name and logo in their products — it means the player is compliant with the MPEG-4 ASP features DivX uses in its profiles, which doesn't cover the whole ASP), or if it's not certified, it just means that the player maker is a deceiver and swindler, abusing the popular trademarked DivX name for their commercial interest (increasing sales, intentionally confusing people, taking advantage of the Great DivX Myth, the fact that 99,9 % of people haven't heard of MPEG-4, but have heard of DivX but don't know what DivX is even if they're 100% sure they do — this is extremely common, many people intentionally lie about DivX and related things). And even if DivX certified partners say their product "plays DivX", they violate DivX trademark guidelines with such expressions.—J. M. 02:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC);
So when I look at a random DVD player's spec sheet, and under "Supported file formats" it says "DivX", are you saying that that is imprecise and illegal, and it should instead say "MPEG-4 ASP files that use only the features used by the DivX codec"? I don't see how that clarifies anything. For all practical purposes, DivX is a file format, namely precisely "MPEG-4 ASP files that use only the features used by the DivX codec". AxelBoldt 02:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
By this logic, the User talk:AxelBoldt page is a format, too, because it only uses HTML and CSS features that are used in this particular web page. :-) A GIF file created with Photoshop is a "Photoshop file", because it may not use all features that are allowed in the GIF specification. Why don't you use the term "LAME format" for MP3 files encoded with the LAME MP3 codec when the files were encoded in a particular way that's different from other MP3 codecs and there are many different ways of encoding an MP3 file? The main reason why people use these terms in digital video (and mostly MPEG-4 video) is not because they think about it this way, it's because they don't think about it at all — this is the "standard industry practice" originating in the world of proprietary software companies like Microsoft who could not imagine there could be a common standard shared by multiple codecs, and the nonsensical FourCC system in AVI files where every codec is supposed to use its own FourCC in the file, so users have to install multiple video decoders for the same format. That's what makes people believe that codec=format. It is not true but people just don't know it. That's why people call DivX and XviD "formats", because they have no idea what it really is and everyone just calls it like that. It is nothing else than general lack of knowledge. Interestingly, nobody calls MPEG-4 video encoded with FFmpeg "FFmpeg video" (because FFmpeg is not as popular as DivX, some people even call it "DivX") — but to be consistent, they would have to call it like that, because it's the same thing as with DivX. MPEG-2 or MPEG-1 video encoded with various codecs is also called "MPEG-1 video" or "MPEG-2 video", not by the name of the software that created it. Software and formats (or standard/specification and implementation) are two completely different things. And calling MPEG-4 video "MPEG-4 video" is also the way it was supposed to be from the beginning - in the standard MPEG-4 container (MP4), MPEG-4 video is just marked as "mp4v", no matter if it was encoded with XviD, FFmpeg MPEG-4 or other codecs. That's the way it should be — no nonsensical FourCCs that only confuse people and make them install plenty of useless software that causes problems on their computers. In short, the fact that a file is in a format XY does not mean it has to use all features allowed in XY specification to be in the XY format. A file using a subset of XY format features is still XY compliant. That's perfectly normal and common, there's nothing impractical or strange about it.—J. M. 03:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
And one more thing — a format is usually defined in its specification. Where is the "XviD specification"? Why would the XviD developers release something like that when the specification they use is defined in the MPEG-4 standard? Also, you can use the same MPEG-4 features with various codecs — does this mean that when you encode 2 MPEG-4 video files using the same MPEG-4 features subset, the first one with FFmpeg MPEG-4 and the second one with DivX, the DivX-encoded file is in FFmpeg format? And when you encode with DivX first, then with FFmpeg, the FFmpeg-encoded file is now in DivX format? And what if you encode them simultaneously?—J. M. 03:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
"In short, the fact that a file is in a format XY does not mean it has to use all features allowed in XY specification to be in the XY format." True - but the fact that a decoder can only understand a subset of a certain file format means that it is not a decoder for that file format. So what file format does the DivX codec decode? I'm not allowed to say "DivX format", right? What am I allowed to say in your world? AxelBoldt 16:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

do you have some time to help out?[edit]

I have done some work on Evolutionary developmental biology but I think it needs a lot more work and I have reached the limits of my competence. The May 11 issue of the New York Review of Books has an essay by Israel Rosenfeld and Edward Ziff on evo-devo, reviewing three books: From DNA to Diversity, Endless Forms and The Plausibility of Life. Are you familiar with any of these or other works by their authors (Sean B. Carroll, Jennifer K. Grenier, Scott D. Weatherbee, John Gerhart or Marc Kirschner)? Roland Deschain has done some good work on the article too, but it still seems woefully underdeveloped for such an important new field in evolutionary science. I´d appreciate it if you would look over it. Or perhaps you know other wikipedians who might be able to pitch in. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It's truly a fascinating topic; unfortunately my understanding of it is still at a layman's level. I'm not familiar with the books you mention, but I will ask my biology friends for a recommendation of a good text, and maybe then I can make meaningful contributions to the article. Thanks a lot for letting me know and for the invitation, I'm really looking forward to learning more about this. AxelBoldt 20:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Axel. I think it would be great if you could check with your biologist friends. It seems like an area that is just on the periphery of many of our more knowledgable (with regards to genetics and evolution) - and is certainly beyond my competence - but from everything I have read this article and the Embryology article both merit a lot more attention. Based on the NYRB review, all three books are good and when I am back in the UK I plan on getting at least two of them. If you read any of them, do let me know what you think. The NYRB review itself is very enjoyable and clear for the most part, but not detailed enough to provide the basis for expanding an article ... If you know of anyone who specializes in embryology, perhaps you can get them to contribute directly to Wikipedia, at least these two articles. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Riemann mapping theorem[edit]

Hi, you added text to Riemann mapping theorem a few months ago implying that it holds for domains with fractal boundaries. However, the proof appeals to the Dirichlet principle which is painted as being somehow suspect. I was wondering if you would know enough about this to clarify the situation. In particular, does the Dirichlet principle hold for regions with fractal boundaries? What are the cases where the principle does not apply? linas 03:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The theorem is true even if the boundary is a fractal. The proof given by Riemann and sketched in the article does not work if the boundary is a fractal, because the Dirichlet principle does not work in those situations. I don't know the precise conditions that make the Dirichlet principle work. AxelBoldt 03:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Admin pic[edit]

Have you noticed the series labels on the right? If so hopefully the bars (number of admins) is clear, as that is the only series to be a bar. I realise the 3 lines might be hard to tell apart if you have trouble seeing different colours. Could you maybe suggest clearer colours? Petros471 19:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you definitely see the series box (the one with the black border around it, and 'sample' of each series colour and style next to its label) which is to the right of the axis label (the one called Trend (Articles, Users, Edits))? This is the standard way Excel labels graphs, and as long as you can tell the difference between the colours seems clear enough to me. If you confirm you can see this (for example, if you may need to scroll horizontally at your screen resolution to do so) but still don't think that is clear enough, then I'll have a go at modifying it. Sorry if I'm sounding like a pain, it's hard to tell what you're thinking and seeing without being right next to you ;) Petros471 20:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, glad it's sorted :) Petros471 07:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Carboxy.png listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Carboxy.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 10:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Readers' FAQ[edit]

Hi AxelBoldt, I was just going through the above page. This question refers to some bookmarklets created by you and gives an external link. The link is not working anymore. Thought I'd inform you -- Lost(talk) 08:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll point them to a working version. AxelBoldt 18:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

IPA2: an article for deletion[edit]

Hi, Axel! I just logged in and noticed that my article is tagged as AfD. I read the comments and I think it is tagged for personal reasons of the AfD initiator. Would you pls leave your comment? As the author, I do not see myself the right person to give comments. I really appreciate your opinion, regardless of what you decide. Thanx! -DrMoslehi 00:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC+3:30)

Image:Acrylamide.png listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Acrylamide.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 10:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

== Catbird Seat ==[edit]

Thank you for backing up my comment on the origins of "catbird seat" with a reference. I also found an article on the net that disagreed with Reb Barber's daughter's statement about where he first heard the term. But will the article cited a source, I couldn't find the orginal source, so I didn't add it to the article. WVhybrid 04:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Re H. pylori[edit]

I am extremely sorry for not reply earlier regarding the correction I made to the H. pylori article. Apart from being rude, it was quite unlike me not to acknowledge receipt of a message. . I haven't had a chance to read the Science paper but I notice you've made a lot of significant changes. Thanks for that too. I'll do some reading up to see how I can contribute on the metabolism section soon. I would have replied at the bottom of my page but since it's been a while, I didn't know if you were still "watching" it. Regards. --Antorjal 00:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: 3D picture of glyceraldehyde[edit]

Hi Axel, I've replied to your message on my talk page.


Ben 21:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Phenol Red[edit]

I do believe it has a double bond at the top of the structure. Here are the three sources indicating it has a double bond [13] [14] [15] furthremore my chem teacher actually commented and said it had a double bond but then again I'm not sure how much weight that would carry around here. Just let me know. SirGrant 20:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah I see I messed up on the oxygens when I made that, I didn't even catch that. Thanks and yeah I think it would be a reasonable compromise to have both structures although I'm not sure if I actually have time to go make another soon because I have class/tutoring and all that good stuff. Thanks for catching the mistake. SirGrant 20:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the picture at commons which was inaccurate. You can take a look at commons:Image:Phenol red 2.png, commons:Image:Phenol red.png, and commons:Commons:Help_desk#Image:Phenol red.png. One of the admins there have moved from 2 to the phenol red.png file. It's not false; I believe it's just the server taking a while to refresh. Do assume good faith. --Rifleman 82 00:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault, I should have cleaned my cache first. The picture is fine now. AxelBoldt 00:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It's alright. I've added the acid base equilibria as you've suggested on the article talk page. Comments? --Rifleman 82 01:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have a couple:

  • I assume that at neutral pH most of it is in the cyclic form, no? Maybe we should have our main structure picture in the upper right then also be the cyclic form. That's what PubChem does.
  • The pKa constant shows that it is a weak acid. Which proton does it lose, the one by the sulfur? Is my understanding correct that the pKa constant does not have anything to do with the interconversion between the two structures?
  • The two structures, for low pH and high pH, should be presented in opposite order to match the table above with the yellow and red colors.
  • I'm not so happy with the arrows indicating how the structure rearranges, because it's labeled "under basic conditions". The rearrangement doesn't happen under basic conditions. Also, why is there a proton leaving at the top? Doesn't the proton drop off the hydroxide by the sulfur?
  • I think it would be nicer if we had separate pictures for the two structures, presented them underneath the colored boxes in the proper order, and then explained in a new paragraph how the structures interconvert, using your arrow picture.

AxelBoldt 02:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried to search online, but I couldn't find much information. In my opinion, the neutral molecule will be an equilibrium between (II) in my diagram and the acyclic -SO3H form at the Chembox. I think of it as an extended keto-enol tautomerization. Why are you convinced that it is the cyclic form? While pubchem shows the cyclic keto-structure, I found a few other structures online which showed the enol form.

I'm not very sure what you mean by your second para. Usually, where there are more than one acidic protons, each pKa can be identified. However, if there is a keto-enol tautomerization like I think there is, that will be a bit complicated.

I've made the amendment for the yellow/red to be reversed: Phenol red - acid base equilibria - 2.gif.

I don't understand what you mean about the rearrangement in the original diagram. It is not a rearrangement. Rather, the sulfate O- is acting as a nucleophile, making a conjugate addition to the extended alkene system finally ending up with the C=O being protonated. I am drawing the arrows in the same convention as electron pushing - the arrow represents the movement of an electron pair. --Rifleman 82 02:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I copied this discussion to talk:phenol red since it seems to fit better there. AxelBoldt 15:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


AxelBoldt - thanks for the pics sent to my tiny comment on the Discussion page of the Chymical Wedding Of Christian Rosencreutz. How did you know? :-) ThePeg

User korrupt[edit]

Hallo Axel,

ich wende mich an Dich, weil du zum einen hier Admin und zum anderen des Deutschen mächtig bist.

Folgendes Problem: Ich hatte hier mal einen User "Frank C. Müller", allerdings ohne Emailadresse. Mittlerweile kann ich den User in der Userliste nicht mehr finden. Neu anlegen kann ich ihn aber auch nicht, weil ich dann lese, dass das Passwort nicht stimmt. Mag sein, dass ich das Passwort vergessen habe (eher unwahrscheinlich). Da aber keine Emailadresse von mir beim User eingetragen war, kann ich mir auch kein neues Passwort schicken lassen.

Kannst Du mir ein neues Passwort verpassen? Zu erreichen bin ich per Email über meinen deutschen Account Frank C. Müller.

Da ich in mehreren Sprachen wiki-aktiv bin, hätte ich gerne überall den gleichen User-Namen.

gruß, fcm 17:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Antwort auf Deiner deutschen Seite. AxelBoldt 18:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Super, das hat geklappt. Bin wieder drin. Vielen Dank, auch an User:JeLuF. Frank C. Müller 19:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


Added December 2003, thanks. --Lumidek 00:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


A meetup of Wikipedians in Minnesota is planned for Sunday, October 29, 2006 at one o'clock at the Mall of America. It would be nice to see you there if you can make it. Jonathunder 14:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the late notice, but there is a change within the mall for the meetup location today: see this page. Jonathunder 15:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Replied...[edit] Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Immendorff artwork[edit]

Please see your talk page at Commons [16]. Thank you! --Matt314 20:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Your sirtuin redirect to Sir2[edit]

Yes, I got your info about sir2=SIRT1, and I agree that the info on Sirtuin and sir2 is redundant. I think it will take some time to figure out the best way, because I'm no organic chemist, and it looks like, from the research I read, that they are still figuring out how to categorize them and what exactly they do (such as your Sinclair citation). So I'm in no hurry, but it would seem logical to find a broad header under which to include all of our information. Thanks, Rhetth 02:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Litvinenko's "Blowing Up Russia"[edit]

The Book 'Blowing Up Russia' was published in 2001, so I imagine the photp was taken shortly after that as it is a promotional photo for the book. codu (t/c) 17:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


I'm not sure if you've noticed, but I've added details to Image:A Litvinenko.jpg that you queried. —Leatheristough 00:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! AxelBoldt 04:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Litvinenko[edit]

Who sneaked 'a jew' in Alexander Litvinenko's bio? What's the source? I've also heard this but not sourced it.Chavatshimshon 06:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I moved the "Jew" claim from one point in the article to another. It was originally added here: [17]. I don't have a source. AxelBoldt 18:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
ok, so it will stay out untill there is one. ta! Chavatshimshon 11:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

't Hooft image[edit]

Hi Axel! I took the image on December 3rd, 2003, five meters from the place where I sit now. ;-) It's written in the description of the file. --Lumidek 16:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that you added the date to the image caption in the article, thanks a lot! Cheers, AxelBoldt 18:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)