User talk:Woodstone

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


Advantages of Multidimensional Root Finding[edit]

Woodstone, Why don't you concentrate on adding the advantages of the Multidimensional Root Finding method rather than removing the disadvantage. It is better to have both the advantages and disadvantages. If you have sourced information that this method has been used successfully it would be desirable to add this information. You could add something like "Despite this disadvantage this method has worked ... ". RHB100 (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

GPS and Trilateration[edit]

Hi there,

I note in this edit you removed my citation request for the assertion that "These distances along with the satellites' locations are used in a process called trilateration to compute the position of the receiver."

I note that the article on trilateration contains lots of equations, but no citations. It has been suggested, in a discussion of this matter at Talk:Global Positioning System#Iteration_using_Trilateraton, that the equations given may not work in certain circumstances, and are not what is done by GPS receivers. Would it be possible for you to visit that discussion and clear this up?

Thanks very much! Mike1024 (t/c) 13:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion on the way the iteration could be performed is admittedly original research and in my view of no importance to the article. The term "trilateration" is a rather generic term, that (in spite of its name) is not necessarily based on precisely 3 measurements. In the GPS, all visible satellites are used (many more than 3).

What an idiotic comment. It is certainly not many more than 3 in all cases. Furthermore it doesn't make any difference how many of the currently deployed GPS satellites are visible. Trilateration is in no way dependent on GPS. Trilateration is in no way dependent on GPS. Trilateration is in no way dependent on GPS. Can't you understand this? RHB100 (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

So the whole discussion is rather off the mark. What happens is an overdetermined (because of inaccuracies unsolvable) system of equations, to which an optimum fit is computed. −Woodstone (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Woodstone, are you engaging in deliberate vandalism? Trilateration is a method for determining the intersections of three sphere surfaces given the centers and radii of the three spheres. This is the definition which should be used for trilateration and it was the definition that was used until Woodstong started changing it. It is simple, straightforward and to the point. It is in conformance with the method of solution that is provided. Trilateration is a mathematical technique which in no way depends on GPS. RHB100 (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You and I can argue about the algorithms used provided we have clear and precise definitions. But you seem to be interested in turning clear and precise definitions into vague and ambiguous definitions. I can see no other reason for doing this than deliberate vandalism. Are you engaging in deliberate vandalism? RHB100 (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Your statement that "Trilateration is by no means limited to precisely 3 spheres; it is a general procedure in geodesy, generally involving many points" is completely idiotic nonsense. Trilateration is a specific mathematical technique for determining the intersections of the surfaces of exactly 3 spheres. As a licensed Professional Engineer with advanced engineering degrees from better quality American Universities, it is hard for me to see how anyone could make such an idiotic statement. I don't believe you could get even an undergraduate engineering degree from an accredited American University. RHB100 (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I assure you that I am fully serious. I agree that "trilateration is in no way dependent on GPS", but on the contrary, GPS is dependent on trilateration by definition. Most practical trilateration, including GPS, involves more than 3 reference points. So the basic system of equations is overdetermined and because of measurement errors, has no exact solution. Therefore an optimum fit to the data is computed. See the relevant talk page for more information. −Woodstone (talk) 07:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

IPA and final /r/[edit]

Hi Woodstone, the 'special Kudpung page' Kwami was referring to is here. I have tried to present this as balanced as possible but I do think, on evidence, that some editors are largely using OR and strawman arguments to defend their Wikipedia implementation of the IPA -which BTW, is not supported by policy. It has not yet reached debate stage, but I urge you to read it and formulate your own opinion. Once a debate has been held, and closed in a fair manner, I will accept any decision that becomes official policy. I was born in England in 1949, have a PhD in lingustics, and live in Thailand :) --Kudpung (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, I have been following your altercations with Kwamikagami from a distance. I just read up on your IPA saga referenced above, and must say it is hard to follow. It is not altogether clear who is saying what. The only actionable part seems the proposal under "what to do next" under number "2", which however reads more like a rather opinionated view than the start of a good discussion. It would help if you removed the history and accusations and reformulated the issue at hand using neutral terms and representing both (all) views. As you might have seen from my earlier comments, I would prefer to use a broad transdialectic IPA scheme if at all possible, likely enhanced by a few rules how to distill the various dialects from it. Instead of fighting over a single letter (r) we might want to discuss principles and purpose. −Woodstone (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Woodstone.jpg[edit]


Thank you for uploading File:Woodstone.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


I note that you prefer the term barycenter for center of area or volume because you consider that it is more common than centroid. In my experience, centroid is both more common and more precise because barycenter is used with different meanings in different disciplines. I would be interested to find out in what fields barycenter is a synonym for centroid. Dbfirs 20:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Barycenter is a precise term stating its meaning (center of weight), whereas centroid is a vague term (center-like). A centroid is not necessarily a barycenter, but for a triangle it is. Although it is indeed my personal preference, I added it to the article as a secondary name. −Woodstone (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The term for centre of weight is "centre of gravity". This coincides with "centre of mass" in a uniform gravitational field, and this in turn coincides with "centroid" for a uniform mass distribution. The terms are not synonyms. "Barycentre" (Barycenter) seems to be used with varying meaning, but usually, as you say, as a synonym for centre of mass, especially for the combined centre of mass of a planet-moon system (or sun-planet). Centroid is a precise term universally understood by mathematicians. There is nothing vague about it. Dbfirs 06:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Nevertheless, barycentre is a term used in the scientific community, even for abstract massless triangles. We would not want to withhold that information from the readers, who may be meeting that term. Specifically there is the concept of barycentric coordinates in a triangle, to which I have supplied a reference. More information does not hurt, too little is a missed opportunity. −Woodstone (talk) 07:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
My only objection is that barycentre derives from the Greek βάρος, meaning weight, and is used in so many different ways. I've added a suggested compromise at Talk:triangle. Dbfirs 14:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts on GPS?[edit]

I don't know if you are still following the discussion thread at Talk:Global Positioning System. On principle I hate to give in to an editor that is deliberately stalling progress. But it is unclear what the right way to move things forward is right now.

If you have any thoughts please feel free to share ...

--Mcorazao (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Just tuning[edit]

You "did not check if the file contains microtuning controls". Can you please please state why you think this file is misleading? Hyacinth (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC).

Many devices just ignore microtuning. So we can never be sure what the reader will hear. By your answer I assume it does contain the microtuning? In a piano-like sound this is very difficult to hear. −Woodstone (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't allow the uploading of MP3s. Hyacinth (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
It seems "ogg" is the preferred audio format. −Woodstone (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Redaktor Wikipedia 600px.png

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


This is regarding your contributed block chart JustTune.png

(Wow, that actually embedded the chart into the message!) Anyway, while you may not wish to make any major changes to the chart at this time, I still strongly recommend you fix your C, which is currently a D. Its current block size is 112 + 12590 = 12702 = 1200*9 + 1902, whereas C's block size should be 70 + 12590 = 12660 = 1200*2 + 1902 + 2786*3. — Glenn L (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Glenn, You are right that it should be Db instead of C# in the picture. However while waiting for a decision what is the most commonly used 5-limit just tuning, I hesitate to make the change now. For educational purposes the now selected notes are good, because of the symmetry. However, perhaps a better choice would be to replace Bb with 9/5 (now not shown in the table). That way the maximum number of just intervals is achieved in the scale and it forms a compact block of 3x4 from the table. But I'm still struggling with the overkill in flats, whereas normally in C you would encounter more sharps than flats.
While studying all this in more detail, I realised that a stack of three thirds is (almost) an octave. Therefore the extension you added to the article does not make much sense. It does not add selectable notes. Extension in the fifths dimension (factor 3) makes sense, the ultimate being the Pythagorean.
Woodstone (talk) 07:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you can't have C in your table. Just make sure you use the correct blocks, since using the blocks for D and calling it C is just plain tacky. And it's unlikely I'm the only other person who can understand you blocks. :)

As for B, I'm in favor of you using 9:5 in place of the current 16:9 since it then makes a pure 5:4 third with the 9:8 D. While you correctly state that "extension in the fifths dimension (factor 3) makes sense, the ultimate being the Pythagorean," the wide 81:64 thirds so produced is precisely why Just intonation was introduced as an alternative. Music purists want as many pure thirds as possible, and to do so means sacrificing one-quarter of the pure fifths (such as B-F, D-A and F-C).

If you read my page 415 link to the extension you will see why I so designed it, since all 14 notes from D up to G in the extension are the same ones used in the Just intonation columns of that table. As you can see, there really is no ideal solution, although some ET-meantone hybrid systems attempt to make a compromise, such as 12-tone equal temperament, 31 equal temperament and Pier Francesco Tosi's 55 equal temperament (five 9-comma tones and two 5-comma semitones). Curiously enough, Pythagorean tuning is virtually identical to 53 equal temperament. — Glenn L (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Your chart JustTuneOct.png looks super now! Thanks.

Glenn L (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Paolo states on my talk page that one of the two graphic displays doesn't belong. − Glenn L (talk) 05:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Too bad I don't have the tools to edit your graphic displays myself, because I can visualize how to expand them from the current 13 to 22 notes by expanding to 7 sharps and 7 flats. However, I can provide the number of bars needed to do the trick. The base size

for JustTune

will increase by 4 1/3 octaves, from B+8 octaves (1200 log2(480) or 10688.3 cents) to D+13 octaves (1200 log2(9600) or 15874.6 cents). For JustTuneOct,

the increase is simply one pure third (1200 log2(1.25) or 386.3 cents), from B+1 octave (1200 log2(3.75) or 2288.3 cents) to D+2 octaves (1200 log2(4.6875) or 2674.6 cents). Here it is in column format, based on the extension chart:

Note Cents 612 2-3-5/2-1.5-1.25
- C - 000.0 000 07-1-2 1-1-2
- C - 070.7 036 04-0-4 1-0-4
- D - 111.7 057 11-0-1 2-0-1
- D - 203.9 104 04-3-2 0-3-2
- D - 274.6 140 01-2-4 0-2-4
- E - 315.6 161 08-2-1 1-2-1
- E - 386.3 197 05-1-3 1-1-3
- F - 427.4 218 12-1-0 2-1-0
- E - 457.0 233 02-0-5 1-0-5
- F - 498.0 254 09-0-2 2-0-2
- F - 590.2 301 02-3-3 0-3-3
- G - 631.3 322 09-3-0 1-3-0
- G - 702.0 358 06-2-2 1-2-2
- G - 772.6 394 03-1-4 1-1-4
- A - 813.7 415 10-1-1 2-1-1
- A - 884.4 451 07-0-3 2-0-3
- A - 976.5 498 00-3-4 0-3-4
- B-1017.6 519 07-3-1 1-3-1
- B-1088.3 555 04-2-3 1-2-3
- C-1129.3 576 11-2-0 2-2-0
- B-1158.9 591 01-1-5 1-1-5
- C-1200.0 612 08-1-2 2-1-2
Glenn L (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I will see what I can do, but let's first decide on the centering: C or D (I'm now leaning to D). It does not make any difference to the scale itself, but it alters the column labels. In contrast to 3-limit or QCM, there are more ways to make a 5-limit scale. Basically you cut the CoF in a few pieces, that you lay over each other at 3rd distance. You can cut 4-4-4, or 4-5-3 or 3-6-3 or even 2-4-4-2. I have now exercised them in the CoF sorted view and it becomes clear that 4-4-4 is the "best". I may work on this to show you guys. −Woodstone (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Using Word to write wikitables[edit]

Hi Woodstone, I am sorry to bother you. I was wandering if you could explain me how exactly you used Word to produce your table. Is there a way to save a table in a text format compatible with Wikipedia? Or you just used word as a more advanced editing tool to write the source code for a Wikitable? --Paolo.dL (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Paolo, I use Word just as a plain ascii text editor to prepare the wikiformats. However there are some tricks that help. For example if you cut/paste an Excel table into word it becomes a table as well, but you can simply convert it to text. You can define the cell separator to be "|", and subsequently do a replace all to change it to "||". That takes care of most of the work.
Fractions in Excel are possible directly from the computed values by cell format "fraction upto 3 digits". Unfortunately our fractions 8/5 look like 1 3/5. So I inverted all values and get 5/8. Then I copy/paste result intoWword, and back to Excel with "paste special"/"text" to get rid of the underlying real values. Then I reverse the fractions in a new table by a formula picking everything after the "/", a new separator "~" and the part before the "/". (You cannot use "/" as new separator, because Excel will see most of them as a date, which is not suppressable as far as I know). Then back to Word and put the "/" back with a replace all. Quite few steps, but nothing compared to copying all fields manually. If you find better ways of doing this, please let me know. P.S. after tomorrow I will be off-line for a small week. −Woodstone (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe I can help you in this case. I discovered today that in Excel you can set the format to show fractions as xxx/yyy or xx/yy. The trick is to choose a "personalized" format, and write "???/???" or "??/??", rather than the standard "# ???/???" or "# ??/??" which Excel uses by default for some arbitrary reason. Have a good time and thank for your interesting suggestions. --Paolo.dL (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that works. Thanks for the tip. It's a pleasure working with you. Excel can be such a bitch. And not well documented. I was googling for turning off the automatic date formatting. It seems quite many people are gnashing their teeth over this one. No proper solution. It can only be suppressed when importing from outside Excel. −Woodstone (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You might be interested in the short discussion on "Approximated ratio in Pythagorean tuning." It also contains some notes about the personalized format to show fractions in Excel. − Paolo.dL (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Railtime.jpg[edit]


Thank you for uploading File:Railtime.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Shizhao (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Two similar drawings, one of which apparently pointless[edit]

Hi Woodstone, this is on User talk:Glenn L

Read this only today. Now I'm truly surprised. I made the "pointless" version as response to the remark of Paolo " I cannot understand why, in your hystogram, you represented factor 3 and 5, rather than the ratios 3:2 and 4/3." Furthermore there is no such thing as "first up" then "down". Multiplication by a factor is commutative: the order makes no difference. −Woodstone (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion belongs in Talk:Just intonation, where I posted a message for you 10 days ago. I summarized my point to Glenn L, who decided to publish your second diagram in the article, together with the first one. Creating a new diagram with a new arbitrary starting point was your idea, not mine, and totally indipendent from my remark. I never implied that the order of factors makes a difference in the final outcome! First up (e.g. by a fifth), then down (e.g. by a third), for some intervals, is implied by the method shown in the construction table. Paolo.dL (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Intervals per starting note[edit]

I moved this section from Talk:Just intonation to Talk:Five-limit tuning, where it belongs, because the table showing the interval sizes is not published in Just intonation. The warning is given here. − Paolo.dL (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC).

Undoing ɹ revision in H:IPA[edit]

Does ɹ have a different meaning than r in IPA? If so, ɹ should be added to H:IPA as its own entry; if not, ɹ should be translated to r so we don't have heteronyms (the same reason that ʤ translates as dʒ, ɚ translates as ər). -- deflective (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

In straight IPA (not restricted to English), the inverted r (ɹ) has a different meaning from standard r. In order not to block using the full IPA, it should pass unmodified. I went on the assumption that anything without "translation" would pass unmodified. If that is not the case, indeed a separate line should be added (or the template should be modified such that "all else" passes as is. −Woodstone (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I did a mini test and indeed using {{IPAc-en}} passes all else unmodified. Example: /rr/. We had this discussion in an earlier stage about the "o" and a few other vowels. −Woodstone (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Table in 5-limit tuning[edit]

Hi Woodstone,

in the table you recently edited, the two fractions LD/DS and GD/LD do not need to be separated in two different rows, because they are exactly the same. It was reasonable to explicitly show that by writing LD/DS=GD/LD in a single row with rowspan=2. The formulas S2/S1=... and S4/S3=... are in different rows only because they are different (although their result is the same). It appears misleading to give LD/DS the same row as S2/S1=... and GD/LD the same row as S4/S3=..., because they are both equal to both. By the way, I did not understand your last edit summary. Paolo.dL (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem to merge those back to one cell. If you have a formula  A \div B , it is easy to understand that you replace A with m \over n and B with u \over v. The original ÷ sign stays the same. If you start with a / and change it during substitution into ÷, it is no longer clear what happened. Not wrong, just inconsistent.
I'm also still not at ease with the inconsistency over the article in precision. It looks sloppy to vary it from none to one to three at random. −Woodstone (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, you are right about that. Besides the motivated exceptions on which we agreed, everything should be with one decimal place (the compromise proposed by Glenn on which we agreed). I obtained the table with commas by modifying the table in comma (music), and I respected that rule (in comma (music) two decimal places were used, and that's ok in that article, but in this article I reduced the precision for the values in cents in the last column, according to the results of our discussion).
Not only you are right, but I also asked you to make all the articles about tuning systems (including 5-limit tuning) consistent with what we decided in the discussion about precision (be sure to respect also the exceptions on which we agreed). I did not do it, because as I wrote I care more about other problems, but this does not mean I do not agree. It is good when agreement is reached in a discussion, and we reached it in this discussion, which you started. So, what are you waiting for? Paolo.dL (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Quite many intervals in the articles are expressed in whole cents, including all in your colorful full 12x12 interval tables. In 5-limit tuning that is the case for the far majority. That is musically accurate enough and minimises clutter. I am not in favour of adding accuracy anywhere beyond whole cents, except in definitions. So while I might be willing to reduce to 1 decimal, I am not willing top add accuracy below 1 cent. So with the current state we cannot achieve consistency. −Woodstone (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

My tables show integers just because 1 decimal place would occupy too much space and the purpose of my table is not to give accurate figures, but only to show that some intervals are not consistent with the construction table. That's one of the motivated exceptions.

I don't think it is a good idea to reopen a discussion in which we reached an agreement with Glenn L. By the way, you left two other discussions open. You stated you feel "not at ease" about precision. Well, I feel the same about your picture, which shows an alternative method to construct the scale, starting from a note that is several octaves below D#, rather than starting from the base note. And this is supposed to make clear, somehow, an original method which is much simpler. What's more important in your opinion, consistency in precision, which by no means hinders understanding or reduces readability, or removing images which are likely to confuse the reader, to force him into a time-consuming effort to understand something which does not make clearer what is already clear? If I can't understand your rationale (and I know much about tuning systems, I hope you agree), how do you think a beginner could understand it?

Anyway, there are huge problems in some articles about tuning which are much more important than consistency in precision or even your picture. If you can't accept a decision taken together with other editors (1 decimal place), when in most other articles you find 2 or more decimal places, then don't edit, but don't ask me to do it either. Have you seen what I wrote at the end of the discussion about ε, in Talk:Pythagorean comma?

Paolo.dL (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Dutch demographics - height[edit]

Hi Woodstone. I have for the moment restored my original version about national heights for the following reasons: I see your point that it is senseless comparing state with region, but on the whole, it is region and not state that counts. State discludes adjoining areas where the phenomenon applies but can also incorporate regions where it doesn't apply, after all, average height goes up and down in gradual stages as you travel. With anthropology, all factors are taken into account so as not to produce artificial data. In the US for example, there is variation between white, black and Latin. In Italy there is geographical variation with northerners significantly taller than southerners. Now I have no problem with editing my revision but there is no way we can remove sources and replace the text with erroneous information, and saying "Dutch people are world's tallest" is just that. And if states are essential, then it may be worth you knowing that there is one country entirely within the Dinaric Alps, that being Montenegro; and more often than not, people that know of the Montenegrins being tall speak only of them being tall forgetting about the neighbouring Herzegovinians and Dalmatians, yet I can tell you that the very tallest are in the Croatian hinterland and over into the Bosnian Krajina, but just like the suggestion than Frisians are on average taller than the people of Maastricht, it is original research. These are the things we need to consider. Evlekis (Евлекис) 19:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You rightly start above by talking about "national heights". Since this is an article about a country, you should only use country aggregated data to compare. I understand your reasoning about gradual geographic spread and racial influence, but that would belong in an article on "human body", not in a country article. If you can find sources showing a higher average length in Montenegro, (and it is deemed to be a country, I'm not keeping up with developments) you can state that fact. −Woodstone (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
As it stands, another user reverted me back to your revision and so I found a better solution by adding the word "among" before "the tallest"; that now removes the need to restore all the irrelevant data I originally gave. It seems to have survived and given the variation in measurement applications from one source to the other, I may just add the word "among" on all the references to Dinarians being the tallest too (such as in the Dinaric Alps article). After all, it is more accurate and less insistent upon one fact that nobody can honestly prove. The Dinarians and the Dutch are most definitely the tallest, but which is bigger than the other is the hard part, and in any case, it is by mm and not cm. I won't revert again if anyone cancels my contribution but doing so would present a conflict in information between two articles. Thanks Woodstone. Evlekis (Евлекис) 15:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Advice needed[edit]

Woodstone, you probably have much more experience than I have. Do you know what I should do to ask an administrator to block a user who keeps inserting wrong versions of a formula which I proved to be correct in Talk:Pennate muscle? He confessed he is sleep deprived, and started with personal attacks (he called me "little shit" :-). Paolo.dL (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Paolo, I think Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents might be a good starting point. Which might lead you on to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.
P.S. Now we're talking privately. Could you try to use more "preview" often instead of "save", so the history doesn't get cluttered so much. And try to use the button "new section" on talk pages, so the new header shows correctly in the history. −Woodstone (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'll try. Thank you. Paolo.dL (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Simplest set of rules to interpret chord symbols[edit]

Hi Woodstone. Your recent edit on Interval (music) ignored my explanation on Talk:Interval (music). Also,

  1. your interpretation is more complex than mine.
  2. your interpretation is slightly inconsistent with Cdim7 (as you admitted).
  3. your interpretation is slightly inconsistent with Cm7. (It requires an additional explanation for it: "If m7 is added that stands for making the third minor and adding a minor seventh.")

Please read carefully my comment on the talk page. I found simpler and more "self-sonsistent" rules. They make everything simpler, even the interpretation of CM6. I know that you are used to your own rules, and I guess you are more comfortable using them, but I trust you to be a fair judge. As far as two sets of rules are equivalent, we need to choose the simplest set. Paolo.dL (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how "your" rules are simpler and/or more consistent than "mine". Cm7 is just added to avoid uncertainty, but is just a consequence of prior rules. Cm has a minor third and 7 adds a minor seventh. There is no need to apply the symbols to several things. There is musical logic that constrains intervals to be not too different in quality. One cannot combine major and diminished, or minor and augmented. The only exception, and clearly visible is "half diminished" vs "diminished" as discussed before.
Woodstone (talk) 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Think about the "slight inconsistency" that you noted for dim7. It is solved with my rules. And how do you explain, for instance, Caug7? I mean, when a symbol is between C and 7, how can you decide whether it applies to the third, fifth, or seventh? My rules say it explicitly, very clearly, very consistently. Your rules don't. OK, this text may help you (I just rewrote it from scratch, trying to be crystal clear):

Notice that, provided they appear immediately after the root note, maj, min, M, and m, always refer, at least, to the third interval, while aug, dim, +, and ° always refer, at least, to the fifth, even when they are followed by an interval number (such as 7). For instance, if C is the root, in the chord symbol CM, M refers only to the interval M3, while in CM7, M refers both to M3 and M7. However, in Cm(M7), or Cm/M7, a minor-major seventh chord, M refers only to the M7 interval, as it does not appear immediately after C. Namely, in 4-note chords (tetrads),

  • M or maj stands for M/M or maj/maj (major-major),
  • m or min stands for m/m or min/min (minor-minor),
  • + or aug stands for +/m or aug/min (augmented-minor),
  • ° or dim stands for °/° or dim/dim (diminished-diminished).

provided they appear immediately after the root note, and are not followed by "/" or "(". Moreover,

  • ø stands for °/m or dim/min (diminished-minor).


  • CM7 means CM/M7,
  • Cm7 means Cm/m7,
  • C+7 means C+/m7,
  • C°7 means C°/°7,
  • Cø7 means C°/m7.

Furthermore, ... A plain 6 stands for M6, a chord formed by a major sixth interval, added to the implied major triad. A plain 7 stands for dom7, a chord formed by a minor seventh interval, added to the implied major triad.

Can you see how the last two sentences (about 6 and 7) follow easily from the general rule? And I don't need to specify (as you needed to):

  1. "If m7 is added that stands for making the third minor and adding a minor seventh."
  2. "while M7 or Maj7 stand for an added major seventh"

Both of these "exceptions" are not exceptions with my set of rules. They are consistent with the general rule. Believe me, my set of rules is simpler to understand. I am not used to your or my set of rules, I can compare them as a beginner. The beginner (and I am a beginner in a way, although I used to play these chords on guitar) does not know that Cm7 implies a minor3-minor7. My rules help a lot to remember this. Your ones are too complex.

Paolo.dL (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You're not reading my comment. The two lines quoted above are not an exception, but follow from the general rule. −Woodstone (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually the point is that you do not give a general and consistent rule, easy to grasp and remember. You give a list of specific and inconsistent rules, difficult to remember. The question we need to answer is: when the interval quality is specifyed in the symbol and in the name of the chord, to what interval(s) does it apply? I answered that question with a general rule, you didn't. Here's an example of inconsistency in your method:

  • In Cm7, you insist that m refers to 7.
  • In Caug7, dim does not refer to 7.

According to my rules:

  • In Cm7, m refers to the triad (and it happens to refer also to 7).
  • In Caug7, dim refers to the triad.

In other words, whereas you listed a series of specific rules, which are inconsistent with respect to each other (i.e. they are not general rules) I found and underlined some consistency which you neglected.

Paolo.dL (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Again you're not reading my statements. In Cm7 the m refers only to 3, and 7 is m by default. What do you mean by the combinations of aug and dim? −Woodstone (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Trust me, I do understand your set of rules. The problem is that I cannot remember them exactly, because they are a set of too many and too specific rules. And that's why I had to search for a new set of rules! However, the inconsistencies do exist and even though I cannot remember them exactly, I saw them clearly in your version of the table, and I wonder how can you not see them, after I explained you my approach with a new text, and a series of new examples. Here is your table:

Main chords Component intervals
Name Symbol (C is used as root) Third Fifth Seventh
Major triad C maj3 perf5
CM, or Cmaj (rarely CM3, or Cmaj3) maj3 perf5
Minor triad Cm, or Cmin (rarely Cm3, or Cmin3) min3 perf5
Augmented triad C+, or Caug (rarely C+5, or Caug5) maj3 aug5
Diminished triad C°, or Cdim (rarely C°5, or Cdim5) min3 dim5
Dominant seventh chord C7, or Cdom7 maj3 perf5 min7
Minor seventh chord Cm7, or Cmin7 min3 perf5 min7
Major seventh chord CM7, or Cmaj7 maj3 perf5 maj7
Diminished seventh chord C°7, or Cdim7 min3 dim5 dim7
Half-diminished seventh chord Cø7 min3 dim5 min7

Now, forgive me for giving you two wrong examples, and let me correct them. Here are a few examples showing the "inconsistency" in your method:

  • In CM7, you insist that M refers to 7, rather than to both 3 and 7.
  • In Cm7, you insist that m refers to 3, rather than to both 3 and 7.
  • In Caug7, aug refers to 3 (as the added interval is min7).
  • In Cdim7, we agree that dim refers to both 5 and 7.

This is explained by a set of separate specific rules in your approach. On the contrary, according to my general rule:

  • In CM7, M refers to the triad (it happens to refer also to the added 7th, but this is not a general rule).
  • In Cm7, m refers to the triad (it happens to refer also to the added 7th, but this is not a general rule).
  • In Caug7, aug refers to the triad.
  • In Cdim7, dim refers to the triad (it happens to refer also to the added 7th, but this is not a general rule).

Whereas you listed a series of specific rules, which are inconsistent with respect to each other (i.e., they are almost exceptions, rather than rules), I have found and underlined some consistency which you had neglected, some order in the apparent chaos, and this makes everything much easier to understand and remember:

  1. The general rule is always valid: chord quality always refers to the basic triad.
  2. Specific rules are needed only to decide whether it also refers to the added interval.
  3. Even these specific rules have a pattern and are easy to remember: in most cases the quality "duplicates", as in major-major, or dim-dim. However, aug does not duplicate in the augmented seventh chord, and min does not duplicate in the minor sixth chord.

So, although the specific rules have some exception, the general rule (1) has no exceptions.

Please compare the two set of rules. I worked hard to explain mine, it should be crystal clear. We give a different answer to the following question: what is the relationship between chord quality and interval quality? We need to decide:

  1. Are these answers both correct?
  2. Provided they are, what is the simplest one?

Paolo.dL (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Interval (music). I rearranged my rules and applied in the table only the main general rule. This way, my table is almost identical to yours. The only difference is in CM7 and Cdim7 (I cannot accept inconsistencies). I did much to reach a compromise, I hope now you will accept it. Obviously, the text in Talk:Interval (music) is too long for section "Intervals in chords", and it will be summarized. E.g., the part about seventh chords will be deleted. The table provides that info. Paolo.dL (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thai Language External links[edit]

Hello Woodstone. Sorry to bother you, but I put a link in the thai language page and you have removed it. See Diff. Compared with the links that are in the section it refers to a similar page: free lessons to learn thai. The school uses a system where you only listen to the classes. So watching the videos is a very similar experience compared to being in class, but it's free. I think it's different from the other sources referred to in the article and might suit different types of language learners better (or worse). That made me think it's a valuable and relevant resource in that section, but feel free to correct me. Thanks for your work you put into the wikipedia project. I'm using the site every day. (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

They were not suitable for English speaking people (the target group of this site). It was just a recording of some people speaking Thai in a class room. Moreover, the technical quality of the recording was rather poor. −Woodstone (talk) 06:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Woodstone, thanks for your reply. I don't find the quality that bad. it's not broadcast quality, but it's quite clear to hear. Regarding that it's not suitable for English speaking people, i need to explain to the methods of that school a bit more. Actually what you see in the video is how they teach Thai to foreigners. Their idea is to put you in situations that are understandable from what you see, so that you memorize words and conversations the same way you have picked up your mother language as a kid. They want to bring you on a level of a native speaker and not of a student. I read in your bio that you speak thai yourself, so it might seem weird for you to learn that way. You probably learned it the traditional way through translations. But i got some friends that report about the success of that method. It doesn't require homework or memorization outside of the class so the rate of people to finish the course is pretty high. And because the difference between being in the class and watching the videos is smaller than with traditional methods, i thought it's a valuable source for people wanting to learn Thai. The owner has some of his ideas on another page. There are a couple of bloggers reporting from their experiences with that method. If you want to i can post some links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Symbol A to denote augmented quality in chords[edit]

Hi Woodstone, do you mind to give me your opinion about the symbols used for "augmented"? As far as I know, in chord symbols, the symbol A is not used, and is typically replaced by + or ♯.

For instance, the C augmented major seventh chord (C+M7, or C+M7), is sometimes also called C major seventh sharp five, or C major seventh augmented fifth, and in this case the corresponding symbol is, as far as I know, CM7+5, CM75, or Cmaj7aug5.

Have you ever seen CAM7, or CM7A5? I guess that this option is avoided, as A may be confused with a note, but this is only an hypothesis. Feel free to answer here, or not answer at all if you are too busy. Thank you.

Paolo.dL (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Paolo, I have never seen A for augmented in chord symbols. It's always + or aug, while # is only used with a number, like #5. C+ or Caug or C#5. In combinations C+M7 or CM7+5 or CM7#5 (often with superscripting). I agree with your hypothesis that it would be too easily confused with the note A. Aside from this, I personally think CM, for the plain major triad is exceedingly rare. Have you actually seen it in practice? −Woodstone (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I have never seen CM, except on Wikipedia. I guess we can safely write it is rare. It is quite plausible that, since musicians tend to write the minimum possible amount of info, to increase efficiency, they tend not to use CM.
C#5 (which I guess means augmetned triad) could be confused with (C#)5 (which is meaningless, I know), are you sure you have seen it? What about an augm triad with C# as root? Would it be written C##5? I am sure C#5 was not included among the symbols for triads listed on the articles I edited.
I agree that # and b is only used with a number, but as far as I know this number is always 5. And this is only in the "alternative syntax" (see Chord names and symbols (jazz and pop music)#Altered fifths), which uses the altered fifth AFTER the chord quality. This way, # and b never occur imediately after the root, and this is desirable to avoid ambiguity. Maybe someone uses b7 to mean m7, but this is questionable and I wouldn't publicize this approach, unless you or someother editor says it is frequently used, or shows a relevant bibliographic source.
Paolo.dL (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not completely sure, but I think I've seen C#5. And of course the ones you mention CM7#5. Using superscript makes clear that the # does not belong to C. But C##5 would still be awkward. I do not have any of my music with me here, so I cannot check it. The majority was using the Northern European Fis and Bes instead of F# and Bb, so there would be no confusion anyway. Theoretically there could be a #4 in a chord, but it would normally be seen as a -5. And actually, the dim7 is normally denoted as a 6 in pop music (I mean in the left hand notation, not the chord symbol). −Woodstone (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone inserted in the table a new symbol Cm#7 as a synonym of CmM7. The edit summary says it is used by "broadway copyists". I will insert footnotes for rare symbols. Two questions for you:

  1. do you think the "long" notation (e.g. Cdim7 rather than C°7) is rare?
  2. What about Cø and Cø7? Is this similar to C and CM? In other words, is Cø7 rare as well?

I am not sure I have seen b7, but I checked and I found b9, meaning m9. See Chord (music)#Altered chords.

--Paolo.dL (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Cm#7 looks wrong to me. But CmM7 is quite rare anyway.
  • Cdim7 is seen rather often, perhaps even more than C°7.
  • I think Cø is wrong, what could it mean? It should be Cø7 always
  • The system is not symmetric. Per default major is understood. So n (or -n) makes sense for n=2,3,6,7 (plus their octaves) in meaning minor (not diminished). However, examples show that for n=5 it means diminished. In contrast #n can only mean augmented.
  • I still think that it is better not to talk about "chord quality". In my view (after discarding CM), in Cmxxx, the m always applies to the 3 only, and Cdim and Caug (or C+, C-) always apply to the 5 only. (The m3 is implicitly forced by the presence of a dim5). A number 7 is minor by default, all others are major. Accidentals (or +/# and -/b) can be used to modify numbers.
Woodstone (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll give now a complete answer only to the first four of your comments. But I promise I'll answer the other one as soon as I can. Your last comment requires careful thinking. I'll only anticipate my first reaction about it.

  1. Cm#7 seems to be the very first edit from a non-registered user identified only by an IP address, but I respect it because it makes sense to me (see below), and the edit summary shows the editor was aware of the "weirdness" of the symbol. I guess she/he might even be an experienced editor, which was not using his own computer.
  2. Thank you for sharing your opinion about Cdim7.
  3. I think Cø was the only symbol given for half-dim seventh, in Chord notation, before my edits (I recently moved the article to Chord names and symbols (jazz and pop music)). You asked "what could it mean?". In my opinion, the meaning is clear, there's no ambiguity (not more than in the symbol C). "Half diminished" is used only for sevenths. It is not used for triads... So, I guess this notation is consistent with the principle of minimum information for maximum efficiency. The same principle which explains the frequent use of C, rather than CM.
  4. #7 = M7 may refer to the dominant scale (this is how they define an altered chord in jazz), where the seventh is minor. You wrote that by default 2,3,6,7 are major. I agree about 2,3,6, but not about 7. You taught me that by default 7 is supposed to be minor, and this is one of the rules we published.
  5. On "first thought", I can't see the problem in defining chord quality as the quality of the basic triad, portraied to the reader as the structural core of the chord, upon which the chord is built... Thus, this is not only a definition of "chord quality" (which is a frequently used concept and needs to be explained anyway), but also and more importantly a powerful tool to understand chord structure. Moreover, it is a definition which has no exceptions (not even in the "altered fifth" notational approach). This is only my first reaction. Give me time to think about all the consequences of your approach.

Paolo.dL (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the mistake about 7, which indeed is minor by default. −Woodstone (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I am still thinking about point 5. As usual, even when I partly disagree with you, your comments are challenging and very interesting (are you a musician?). I think I can adjust my text according to your comment, although we should first discuss about "rule 1". Please be patient, this discussion and the consequent edit requires time, and I am very busy in this period. Paolo.dL (talk) 09:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I am an amateur musician (strictly for my own amusement), during my university years I took some classes in music theory as a sideline and my former wife is a professional pianist. −Woodstone (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
This is an amazing coincidence, as my former wife is a professional pianist as well, and I was attending some classes with her during my university years in USA (but they were not about music theory, they were about the interpretation of classical pieces for piano). By the way, I discussed some of this stuff with her, but she is not interested in music theory. Paolo.dL (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Point 5[edit]

First, I would love to understand what's (or what are) the meaning(s) of the symbol −, whithin "popular" chord notation. In Wikipedia, we say it stands for minor. As far as I know, there's no example in which it stands for diminished. Of course, I would love to discover that Wikipedia is wrong and you are right, as this notation is confusing. Or we might discover that you and Wikipedia are both right. In that case, however, another question would arise: does + have 2 meanings as well? (aug and maj) Paolo.dL (talk) 12:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I found the following set of rules, in Seventh chord (I edited them a little, but they are different from my favourite approach):

  • Most textbooks name these chords formally by the type of triad and type of seventh; hence, a chord consisting of a major triad and a minor seventh above the root is referred to as a "major/minor seventh chord." When the triad type and seventh type are identical (IE both notes are major or minor), the name is shortened; a major/major seventh is generally referred to as a "major seventh". This rule is not valid for augmented seventh chords, as in this case augmented stands for augmented/minor, rather than augmented/augmented. Additionally, half-diminished stands for diminished/minor, and dominant stands for major/minor. When the type is not specified at all, the triad is assumed to be major, and the seventh is understood as a minor seventh (e.g. a "C" chord is a "C major triad", and a "C7" chord is a "C major/minor seventh chord", also known as a "C dominant seventh chord").

Again, as you can see, there's an exception to the general rule. This is the reason why I prefer the approach described in Popular music symbols, in which the main general rule has no exceptions. This is the best compromise between your original approach and my original approach (as explained in Talk:Interval (music)). Have you read the footnote to the first general rule? CM7, Caug7, and Cdim7 challenge the alternative approaches, including yours.

This is only the first part of my answer. Your point 5 is full of interesting ideas. But I still need time to discuss the remaining parts.

Paolo.dL (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This is how I reinterpreted the remaining part of your point 5 (i.e. "A number 7 is minor by default, all others are major"):

Names and symbols which contain only a plain interval number (e.g. “Seventh chord”) or the chord root and a number (e.g. “C seventh”, or C7) are interpreted as follows:

  • If the number is 2, 4, 6, etc., the chord is a major added tone chord (e.g. C6 = CM6 = Cadd6) and contains, together with the implied major triad, an extra major 2nd, perfect 4th, or major 6th (see below).
  • If the number is 7, 9, 11, 13, etc., the chord is dominant (e.g. C7 = Cdom7) and contains, together with the implied major triad, one or more of the following extra intervals: minor 7th, major 9th, perfect 11th, and major 13th (see Seventh chords and Extended chords below).

How do you like this new subset of specific rules, inspired by your sentence? As you can see, I needed more words than those you used (by the way, the 4th and the 11th are perfect, not major; diminished chords are always an exception, and half-diminished chords are sometimes an exception to your rule: "all others are major"). Readers need the simplest possible set of rules. Possibly, without exceptions. If exceptions exist, they must be declared. Everything seems fascinatingly simple in your point 5, it aroused my curiosity, but unfortunately it is not accurate. It is impossible to accurately explain this set in a few words.

Paolo.dL (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thai Clusters[edit]

Hello Woodstone. I saw your edition of 'Clusters' in the article "Thai language". I do not have any ambiguity except that you simply put /tʰr/ together with /tr/ which had been mentioned as a cluster presenting in original Thai words, whereas /tʰr/ had not. /tʰr/ comes in only loanwords such as the example from Sanskrit I wrote, so please do not mind restoring (and rephrasing) that part. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards : Suasysar (talk) 05:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


Hi, you have undone my change to the article about RTGS. I think that the RTGS transcription does not transcribe Thai language words but it transcribes text in Thai script into Latin script, so I think there should be a link to the Thai script article and not to the Thai language article. Maybe the text of the link could be different, but if there is a link, it should be to Thai script.

FredTC (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a doubtful distinction. I would say that any script expresses the words of a language. A transcription is the expression of the words in another than the usual script. You are right of course that the RTGS system is explained in terms of the Thai script, but it still transcribes Thai words, not Thai script. −Woodstone (talk) 08:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Then what about the Thai script but not Thai language บารัก โอบามา, which after using RTGS results into ba rák o-ba-ma known to us as Barack Obama? FredTC (talk) 10:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


Wondering about your reversion of the line I added. Massage therapists who read Wikipedia may wish to learn how to post their services without charge on the web; may have great difficulty finding clients. SkillSlate is one way for them to do this without cost. It isn't spam; rather, it's a way for people to get work. Please reinstate the addition.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment -- if it's the word "advertise" in the line that's the problem, is there a way to say it better? I'm thinking that massage therapists don't make loads of money (particulary in recession) and have trouble making their services known on the web, and this is a free way to do it -- so if you can think of a better way to word it, we'll go with your wording.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

WP is an encyclopedia, not a bulletin board, a job market or a forum. The addition did not describe massage and does not belong in the article. −Woodstone (talk) 04:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Need help with a Thai language issue[edit]

Hi. I saw your messages on the Thai language talk page. Do you read and write Thai? If so, can you translate the image permission on this image from the Thai Wikipedia to its English Wikipedia equivalent here? I would greatly appreciate it. If you don't read or write Thai, just let me know. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nightscream, my Thai skills are split between theoretical knowledge about script, pronunciation and structure on one side and practical exercise of relatively basic conversation on the other side. So although I read the script, I could not translate any legal texts. −Woodstone (talk) 11:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Districts in Thailand[edit]

Hi there, I have taken heed of your criticism and developed two tables to replace the old. Check out List of Districts in Thailand and

Petebutt (talk) 08:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Table Headings in "24-hour clock"[edit]

I changed the table headings in 24-hour clock to read "by 24-hour time" and "by 12-hour time" because the first column made no sense the way it was.

The first column was labeled "24-hour clock". Yes, that's also the title of the article but that's not relevant. The heading "24-hour clock" would function fine if the table had 24 entries from 00:00 to 23:00 but somebody stuck a 25th row at the bottom of the table reading (in the left column) "24:00".

There is no such reading on a 24-hour clock. (And until somebody shows me a Bosch Siemens microwave oven that some imbecile programmed to read "24:00" instead of "00:00", I'll remain adamant on this point.) So at least there's no such reading on any properly designed chronometer.

But "24:00" is a designation we wrote in the service (for example) when using 24-hour time. We would write that Joe would be on watch from 1600 to 2400 and then James would take his place from 0000 to 0800. Do you see the difference? The table ought not be headed "24-hour clock" because it's not describing the displays on a chronometer. Instead, it's about a time-telling scheme. A method. Not a device.

"By 24-hour time" not "24-hour clock". It's an editing issue that messes up the table and ought be corrected.

It should either go back as I had it or the table row reading "24:00" ought be removed. [In fact, the title of the article is an imprecise synechdoche wherein "clock" (a device) stands in for "time-telling scheme". But I believe it's fine to leave the article's title as it stands because people hunting for information will have an easier time finding it.]


RobertSegal (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The definition in the article starts: "The 24-hour clock is a convention of time keeping ...". It is not about a physical clock, but a system of time keeping. Both 00:00 and 24:00 are defined. There has been a photo of the oven clock showing 24:00 and an e-mail conversation with a Siemens engineer. So even physical clocks may show it. Just no clock would show both 00:00 and 24:00. The table compares the 12-hour clock system with the 12-hour clock system under correct headings. −Woodstone (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Then, if I were editing the article (and I tried -- but Wikipedia is apparently not the encyclopedia anyone can edit), I would have the table headings read "24-hour clock system" or "24-hour system" or some other thing than what it says now. Just because the heading is technically correct does not make it as clear as possible. If an editor can improve the headings' clarity, there is no good reason for him to not do it. I cannot see a legitimate purpose in leaving it as is.
I very much would like a photo of that ludicrous microwave oven showing the time 24:00. Is it available on Wikipedia or, alternatively, can I get a copy from you? Ditto the correspondence with the Siemens engineer. Certainly, physical clocks may show 24:00. I once popped the direction restrictor tab off the motor of a cheap wall clock once so it would run counter"clock"wise. I believe such CCW clocks have been available commercially as novelties, perhaps on It would also be easy to construct a digital clock capable of displaying "23:60" or "22:120" or generating random characters.
But none of that alters the convention -- and the convention is what this article is about. Wikipedia has within its mission a duty to explain the standard 24-hour timekeeping system and Wikipedia might even properly digress into things like non-standard clock displays, engineering mistakes, novelties, and other peculiarities -- but none of that would justify leaving the table as it is. If Wikipedia, through less-than-superb construction, implies a clock reading "24:00" is within the convention (i.e. within the subject of the article), then Wikipedia is wrong and ought be corrected, no matter how many confused Siemens engineers bring forth how many mal-formed products.
But, yes, I certainly would like to see the photo and read the correspondence. I may be opinionated but I love being corrected when wrong!
RobertSegal (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Binary Prefix[edit]

Do you know of any "binary prefix" that is not a power-of-1024? I believe the change you reverted was accurate, and in the reverted form it implies there exist power-of-two prefixes for 2n for any n>0. I suppose u might argue that hex and octal are binary prefixes (sometimes) but I suspect you would not find any reliable source to support such a contention. I will watch this page for an answer. Tom94022 (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The name binary prefix in opposition to decimal prefix contrasts the number 2 to 10. The concept is that powers of 2 are used. That comes first. It is not relevant if all powers of 2 (or 10 for that matter) are really used. By convention powers that are multiples of 10 (or 3 for decimal) are most frequent (or perhaps the only ones for binary?). That practical limitiation is mentioned as well. −Woodstone (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Energy = power * time. Thank you[edit]

Thank you very much for correctly identifying that energy is power multiplied by time. I appreciate it. Lightmouse (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course that is only correct in the special case where power is constant over that time. More generally, power is the derivative of energy with respect to time. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
We were talking units there, in which case it is always true. A unit of power is a unit of energy divided by a unit of time (derivative by time also divides by unit time). −Woodstone (talk) 07:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm being too pedantic, but you seem to be referring to the dimensions of those units, not the units themselves. No one would say "A ton of air conditioning is a barrel of oil divided by an age of the universe." It isn't, of course: but that wouldn't even be a sensible computation to do if it was. Likewise, the ISO would not say "A watt is a joule divided by a second." Instead they say "One watt equals one joule per one second exactly" or "The watt is the power that produces energy at the rate of one joule per second." Clarity counts, so how about "A unit of power has the dimensions of energy per unit time"? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
You are right to say that discussed statement is correct for dimensions, but it is equally so for units. The SI defines energy and power units in terms of the SI base units. So J = m2·kg·s-2 and W = m2·kg·s-3. As a consequence it is fully correct to state J = W·s. According to the SI definitions, units can be manipulated as algebraic entities. −Woodstone (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The discussion was not specific to SI units. Tragically, certain parts of the world continue to drag their feet on adoption of SI and WP continues to cater to them. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Earth... is the only place in the universe where life is known to exist[edit]

The exact wording from the Earth article is also is also used in the Solar System Earth section. Have posted a message to the talk page over there if you were interested. SkyMachine (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In Thai language, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Khmer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It might be OK[edit]

Hi, you may not like it or not understand it, but that does not mean it is wrong. -DePiep (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


Hello Woodstone:

I noticed on various pages that some Template:Music items are suddenly not displaying properly: characters are now smushed together. I checked the page history and noticed that you made a change yesterday with the edit summary "remove mysterious excessive spacing." I'm no expert on these templates, but I am wondering if your change had an effect on the proper display of this template's items. Would you please review your edit?

Best regards, Hrdinský 16:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

See answer at the template. −Woodstone (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)



Over on Template:Nowrap/doc, the documentation says this:

The actual code that does the job is this HTML+CSS code:

<span style="white-space:nowrap">This text will not wrap</span>

However, the actual code as I read it is this:

<span class="nowrap">{{{1}}}</span>

I have a private wiki based on the same MediaWiki engine as Wikipedia and am trying to make use of the nowrap template. I am not grasping what it takes to get a text-string variable inside the <spän style>; the triple-braced {{{1}}} makes no sense to me.

FWIW, this code from Template:Hilite does work on my wiki:

<span style="background:{{{2|yellow}}}">{{{1}}}</span>

Based on the Hilite template, it wouild appear that the {{{1}}} represents a text-string variable. I don’t know why the “2|yellow” would be in triple braces but there is no matching syntax for the nowrap template.

Is there an error in the “Nowrap” documentation? The {{{1}}} syntax works for at least one template on my wiki.

Please advise. Greg L (talk) 03:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


I figured it out. The actual code needs to be this:

<span style="white-space:nowrap">{{{1}}}</span>

Greg L (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Followup 2[edit]

(edit conflict):Greg L, you seem to be on a learning curve. The workings of templates and CSS are quite intricate.

  • When you call a template called by [[template-name | argument1 | ... ]], the string offered as argument1 can be used inside the template as {{{1}}} (and so for 2 etc)
  • The "class" of a span refers to a definition in a CSS file
  • The CSS file is linked in the header section of the HTML document; in this case MediaWiki:Common.css, containing somewhere:
{white-space: nowrap}
  • So the template makes a span containing the "argument1" of the template and having a class "nowrap", invoking the nowrap action from CSS.
Woodstone (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Indeed: “Learning curve.” I am amazed at how much learning I had to do in order to get the wiki privatized and fully operational.

    First off, I wanted to make an iron-clad-security main page, like ArbCom’s wiki. That wasn’t too terribly difficult but there is a gaping hole in MediaWiki’s security in the default installation whereby all uploaded files (generally images) in a completely private wiki can be directly accessed by anyone familiar with MediaWiki merely by typing a URL path. That took some reading and trial & error. MediaWiki’s excuse is that “♬♩ MediaWiki is designed to be open to everyone, maaaan. It’s—like—about *openness*. ♬♩” The thing is, those who don’t care to think about security, wouldn’t mind if images cannot be viewed via intelligent URL typing. However, those making a private wiki who do care wouldn’t want them viewable by I.P.s.

    And then thumbnails of images wouldn’t work no matter what I did to LocalSettings.php file. Like many things, I would go to talk pages on MediaWiki and discover there have been many others wrestling with the same issues. It turned out that ImageMagick has been omitted from recent builds of MediaWiki. Moreover, installing ImageMagick isn’t a matter of dropping files and folders into the /wiki using FTP; it’s a Linux installer rpm and only the webmaster can do that.

    And, after all that is done, there are bunch of gotta-have templates like Template:!xt, Template:-, Template:Hilite, Template:Nbhyph, Template:Nowrap, and Template:Xt. I think I have all the gotta-haves now. I was the shepherding author/sponsor on a bunch of them so I’m fond of them.

    I can’t complain about *free* stuff. MediaWiki is an amazing product that few commercial interests could match for under $1500. I’ll take the poor documentation associated with open-source software any day. Greg L (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Equivalent dose weighting[edit]

I have reviewed the articles you pointed out to me and provided my answers.--Yannick (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Here, this should help add confusion:--Yannick (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Neutron radiation weighting factor as a function of kinetic energy.gif

RM for "Musical scale"[edit]

Woodstone, you expressed an interest in the title of Musical scale. After you did that, I initiated a formal RM action to change the title to Scale (music). Your comments would be welcome there, of course.

NoeticaTea? 23:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


Do you mean you dont think there should be a LGBT subsection on rainbow? Pass a Method talk 14:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


Hi, sorry I undid your BMI change - could we take it to the article Talk page please? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
Thanks! Your version on the whole flyover thing was a massive improvement over mine. HuskyHuskie (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Interchange (road)[edit]

In Interchange (road), you restored a bullet point about U-turn ramps in this diff. I placed a "citation needed" tag on the sentence "The use of U-turn ramps is common in less wealthy countries." While this may be true, there is no citation behind it. Was the intent to refer to divided highways that have been converted to so-called RIRO expressways or Jersey freeways with some, but not expressway-standard, access control? Please let me know your thoughts on this. Thanks! --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

See response at article talk. −Woodstone (talk) 11:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ISO 11940-2, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages RTGS and Alveolo-palatal affricate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


Tai and Thai are two different words. Too, they are not to different spellings when appearing together in the expressions, Tai Thai and Thai Tai. --Pawyilee (talk) 06:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, ไท and ไทย are different words, but both transcribed as "thai". What would be the Thai spelling of "tai" as in the language group? Perhaps ไต, or is it just from a different romanisation system? −Woodstone (talk) 06:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


เมื่อกี้ผมเขียนโดยลืมลอกอิน กรุณาอภิปรายว่าทำไมถึงย้อน--โจ : แฟนท่าเรือ : เกรียนที่หน้าตาไม่ดีแห่งไร้สาระนุกรม : พูดคุยกับควายตัวนี้ได้ที่นี่ 09:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

English please. −Woodstone (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
ไม่มีทาง หากคุณเขียนในกล่องผู้ใช้ว่าคุณรู้ภาษาไทยจริง นี้ยังดีนะหากผมจะเขียนจีนหนักเข้าไปใหญ่ ถ้าคุณไม่รู้ภาษาไทยจริงกรุณาอย่าเสือก
อีกเรื่อง ในฐานะที่คุณเป็นฝรั่งหรือผิวดำนี่แหล่ะ คุณมีความเห็นอย่างไรกับคำว่า บางกอก กับคำว่า กรุงเทพ--โจ : แฟนท่าเรือ : เกรียนที่หน้าตาไม่ดีแห่งไร้สาระนุกรม : พูดคุยกับควายตัวนี้ได้ที่นี่ 15:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanx a Lot !!![edit]

Snoqualmie Moondance meditation 02.jpg Groovy
It took me this long to figure out how to send you a message. Thanx for correcting my sentence on Intervals. Does each page have a moderator or something? Is the person in charge of the Interval page biased against the use of Prime in favor of the incorrect usage of Unison?

Anyway, I'm obviously new here but have been around long enough to still be using "Groovy" so I've named this award based on the International Flag of Peace and Harmony ... Tie-Dye ... owing to the psychedelic era and the Grateful Dead. WOOHOO!


Thanx again, idGnomes IdGnomes (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

On WP, pages have neither owners nor moderators. No-one is in charge. If you are signed in and modify (or "star") an article, you will be kept informed about further changes. All is supposed to be agreed by discussion. There are however some people who behave like they own an article and revert anything not to their liking. Keep trying to improve articles where you can. I agree that prime is much more systematic and logical, but unfortunately in English, unison is more common, although till recently "augmented prime" was more common than the illogical "augmented unison". −Woodstone (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Tidal force thank you[edit]

You are totally right about my revision on the tidal forces of the moon. There is just so much stuff that is crappy out there and I like to think in terms of acceleration when it comes to tides. In short thank you and sorry. (Anorderofmagnitude (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC))

Royal Thai General System of Transcription[edit]

please see th:การถอดอักษรไทยเป็นอักษรโรมันแบบถ่ายเสียงของราชบัณฑิตยสถาน before revert --โจ : แฟนท่าเรือ : เกรียนที่หน้าตาไม่ดีแห่งไร้สาระนุกรม : พูดคุยกับควายตัวนี้ได้ที่นี่ 11:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

WP is never an acceptable source. And citing your own work (I looked at the history list) adds even less credibility. −Woodstone (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Thai addressing system may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • They are divided into groups ''mu'' (หมู่), often transliterated ''moo'' or abbreviated "M"), which are divided into numbered plots (บ้านเลขที่ ''ban lek ti''), which may (or may not) contain

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Discuss on the talk page[edit]

Do not see consensus for your version. And you have not joined the discussion I started a while ago on this point. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

If you do not like the WHOs classification of BMI write to them and ask them to change it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Bézier Curves[edit]

Hi Woodstone, I see now what the Bézier article means by the intermediate points. I was interpreting the discussion as, for example, "the points Q0, Q1, Q2 for any instantaneous time t form the coordinates of a quadratic Bézier curve that, at time t, has a point collocated with the position of the original cubic Bézier at time t." As far as I can tell, this is also a correct interpretation of the recursive nature of nth order Bézier curves. I would have realized that the intended interpretation was already correct if I had paid more attention to the "Quadratic curves" header immediately previous to where I made my edit. In order to make this more clear, perhaps something like the following change would be beneficial?

  • "For cubic curves one can construct intermediate points Q0, Q1, and Q2 that describe linear Bézier curves..."
  • "For cubic curves one can construct intermediate points Q0, Q1, and Q2, each of which describes a linear Bézier curve..."

thanks, Tapiralec (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 12-hour clock may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Abrams|date=13 December 2012|accessdate=26 October 2013|publisher=Bleeping Computer}}</ref>)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

List of pitch intervals[edit]

You have removed prime factorization of non-rational numbers, but also rational powers of rational numbers can be factorized in an unique way as product of rational powers of different prime numbers. I have asked on Mathematics Stack Exchange. I don't have source, but two people have agreed that it is obvious. Can I put the factorizations back? And if you find most of my calculations too trivial, I think that quarter-comma meantone simplifications are useful, even if you do not want to call them factorization. BartekChom (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

See response at article. −Woodstone (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Hi! Please try to avoid edit-warring, as at List of musical intervals. If you make a change and it is reverted, the next step is discussion, not to make the same edit again (WP:BRD, in other words). Continuing to repeatedly make the same edit without discussion doesn't get anybody anywhere. Since you've not done so, I've started a discussion on the talk page of that list. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Corrections to Sievert[edit]

I plan to reapply the changes that you recently undid. Please read WP:NOTUSA. Please learn what a compound modifier is (e.g. "20-year" in "20-year period") and why they are hyphenated (WP:HYPHEN). That guideline also explains that a hyphen is not used after standard "-ly" adverbs (e.g. "differently named"). All of the changes that I made were done to bring the article into compliance with the Manual of Style, not just because I felt like it. You should not undo such changes on a whim. Chris the speller yack 02:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Bg-c[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Bg-c has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 25 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

GPS Removed contrarian remark, You removed important material from the GPS Article[edit]

Woodstone, you have removed important material from the article section, "Problem Description". You removed a statement that the equations to be solved are not equations for a hyperbola. Rather than state what you had done, you gave the vague description, removed contrarian remark. This was a terrible edit on your part because not only is it absolute truth that the equations to be solved are not equations for a hyperbola, it is extremely important that the readers be told this fact. The reason for this is because there is much discussion relating to hyperbolas in the section which is quite likely to mislead the reader into believing that the equations to be solved are equations for a hyperbola. The fact that you only say, removed contrarian remark, indicates that you were very superficial in your thinking. It is therefore concluded that we do need a statement alerting readers to the fact that the equations to be solved are not equations for a hyperbola. RHB100 (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Tropical year[edit]

In this edit you changed "mean vernal equinox tropical year" to "the tropical year". But in the context of the "Tropical year" article I believe "the tropical year" means the tropical year calculate according to the methods of 21st century astronomers. Putting "the tropical year" in the sentence forces the reader to perform mental gymnastics, something like this:

The Gregorian calender was designed to maintain synchrony with the tropical year. The tropical year is the time required for the mean longitude of the Sun to increase by 360°. That relies on a formula like the one devised by Leverrier. But wait a minute, Leverrier lived in the 1800s and the Gregorian calendar was designed in the 1500s. So "the tropical year" in this sentence doesn't mean what it means in the rest of the article, it means whatever those 16th century Catholics thought it meant.

So I think it's better to be specific about which kind of tropical year, or at least write "a tropical year". Jc3s5h (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

hey man[edit]

Stop abruptly reverting my changes. If there is a mistake, either fix it or send me a message. Don't revert my changes along with other changes I have made. Thanks Outedexits (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

There is already a mention of the possibility of solstices marking the midpoint of a season. While all point of views have to be presented, you must take care to give due weight to them. The solstices marking the beggining of a season are more common throughout the world. Oh, and since this is the english encyclopedia, you must consider WP:RELEVANCE. Our culture uses solstices as the beginning of the season, hence it is more relevant to give more emphasis to that. Cheers. Outedexits (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Gini and Dirac[edit]

If one person has all the income, and the rest have nothing, then we get a Dirac. It is an illusion of equality. The problem is that one needs to count those who have zero income. Thanks. Limit-theorem (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I took your interpretation and added the qualifier.Limit-theorem (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)