User talk:Kenwarren

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leave me a message. I will normally answer here, to keep the conversation together, but I will also leave a note on your talk page so you'll know I did so.

Contents 1 Thanks for double checking 2 IVC 3 Mile 4 Rktect arbitration

[edit] Thanks for double checking

the web page as Lithuanian (I cannot claim knowledge of Lithuanian, but cross checking various words on the page it was obvious it could be nothing else).

Speaking of, I could not help myself the other day, so I added this comment to a talk page.

You mentioned http://users.skynet.be/sky60754/genealbe/hulpwetgewicht.htm#Kasselrij%20Brugse%20Vrije which seems to be nothing controversial or anything. (I don't speak Dutch, but its pretty straight forward to read, assuming you know German, English and Scandinavian languages). It simply shows the value of various measures as used in the Free Brugge, of the West Flanders in Belgium. el is an elle, voet is a foot, roede is rod, and there are also units for measuring cereals, milk, butter etc. The one thing I don't understand is the elle divided in 16 taillen, which in the Dutch I know means 16 waists, which does not make much sense (and duim is thumb/inch, vinger is finger). It may even be some word only used in the Flanders - I can ask around if you think it is important. -- Egil 16:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IVC

since you seem to be on top of metrology, could you maybe look at Indus_Valley_Civilization#Science? Some unsourced claims there smell a bit kooky, esp.

They were among the first to develop a system of uniform weights and measures. Their measurements were extremely precise. Their smallest division, which is marked on an ivory scale found in Lothal, was approximately 1.704mm

(note the implicit claim that this Bronze Age society could measure stuff to the accuracy of a micrometer!) thanks, dab (ᛏ) 19:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I looked at the article. I can find the same figure elsewhere online, and similar figures as well. I'm pretty sure it's been reported in the literature just on that basis. I don't have any familiarity with the source material, though. So I would probably try to find out who originally added that fact, and get a cite from him or her.

I think the stated measurement is overly precise, but given a material as easy to work as ivory, it's not too hard to produce a scale with a high degree of accuracy. The trick isn't to produce one scale, it's to produce identical scales over a long period of time, of course...

Ken ^{talk|contribs} 23:04, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

that's my point. I can believe they had one notch of 'approximately 1.704mm', but for the final digit to be significant, they would have to repeatedly produce notches between 1.7035 and 1.7045 mm. That's impossible; nobody could do that before the 20th century. I imagine that "approximately 1.7 mm" would be more correct, and astonishing enough for the Bronze Age. dab (ᛏ) 06:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I still think that the original figure of 1.704 mm was probably reported in the literature, though I haven't seen the source of the figure. It's probably a case of someone averaging several markings, then not thinking about whether three decimals is reasonable in the measurement they report.

As for the Bronze Age capability to produce repeatable markings, I'll mention that woodworkers have worked reliably to the thousandth of an inch for hundreds of years. It's easier with modern tools, but there are common joints that go from too tight to assemble to too loose to stay together in a few thousandths. And a thousandth of an inch is about 25 thousandths of a millimeter. I don't see anything challenging, conceptually, to turning out a scale with markings that vary by less than a thousandth of an inch using the tools that might be available in the time period.

Ken ^{talk|contribs} 22:38, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mile

I understand the unprotecting of this article, but the lack of discussion on the article talk page is because the whole issue progressed with regrettable speed to arbitration. Discussion hasn't been working on any of the articles involved, as far as I can see. The primary parties are still in opposition on the various pages they have been editing, and I'm somewhat afraid that unprotecting this article will only add fuel to the fire, as it was a major point of contention until protected.

Once the ArbCom has accepted or declined the arbitration, and (assuming acceptance) issued any temporary restraints they see fit, I woul think that unprotecting would be workable.

Ken ^{talk|contribs} 13:20, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Based on my experience I adopt an approach to article protection that can appear suicidal to some. I've found that unprotecting an article usually doesn't have the bad effects predicted, and if it does it only takes a few seconds to restore protection. As a result of your advice I'll be watching this article especially closely, but I won't reprotect unless I see sterile edit warring. I won't stand in the way of another sysop who thinks protection is best, though, so please do ask someone else if you really think it should be protected pending a decision from the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 13:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

There has been lots of disscussion on the talk pages. What I would like to see, and have not as yet, is anyone removing the disputed tags that have been slapped up all over the place. Correct me if I'm wrong but a dispute should state on the discussion page specifically what is disputed and not simply "You said this and I don't believe it" but some reason why it is disputed. That allows a dispute to be ended simply by providing a reference. Speaking of references, I sent you a link to where you can get a used copy of Klein for $3. Rktect 18:50, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rktect arbitration

Since you left a statement, you may be interested to know that there is now a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rktect/Evidence. -- Egil 13:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)