User talk:Rei

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. You can learn more on the how to edit page. The naming conventions and style guide pages are also useful. There is a sandbox which you can use to experiment in. If you have any questions, see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted. Angela

Hi. Great pictures, but can you please try to scrunch then a bit smaller. I'm on broadband, but not everyone is and a 70k image can take a long time to load for some people. Many people use a small low resolution image on an article page and include a link to a larger higher resolution image, e.g. hummingbird hawk moth Mintguy 22:01, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Two nice pics on the Black locust page, but they're pics of Honey locust, not Black locust! - Michael - MPF 10:55, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi Rei, could you please make a tiny stub for al akba? I agree it's a subject that should be included, but you cannot leave the "announcement" in there, and you cannot leave it empty either. Mrdice 18:56, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

Hi Rei, thanks for adding the information about GWB's controversial appointments. However, I think Cecropia is right in saying that his ex-girl-friends' opinions are not important enough for an encyclopedia entry.

Hi Rei. Thanks for uploading the O'Hare image. Please could you tell us where the image is from on the image page, thanks. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 23:50, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Concerning pictures: Almost all pictures that I upload are ones that I've taken myself. The most recent batch of uploads was from a trip to Costa Rica about a year ago. These include pictures on the following pages: Refugee, Landfill, Erosion, (the OHare page, I forget what it's called), McDonalds Corporation, and Earring. Rei

Excellent, thanks for letting me know. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:56, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Cheese

Great article on home cheesmaking. However I think much of it would be better in the cheese article itself. This would also help solve the length issue (the "this page is too long to be edited by some browsers" limit). Also if the article seems to much like a how-to guide and not an encyclopedia article, it will get shuffled off to Wiki How-to or Wikibooks. [1] has a good list of some of the species of bacteria used which would I think be a good addition. I thought I would discus it with you before I made any changes. Rmhermen 19:03, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

Feel free. I wasn't sure if it was too much of a "howto" or not; feel free to do whatever you think is best with it. Rei

[edit] Your userpage

Hi there. I was monitoring recent changes and noticed an anon IP edited your userpage [2]. I reverted the edit just to be safe; if this IP was you, I apologise. -- Hadal 03:17, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Rei
You're quite welcome; glad to help where I can. :) -- Hadal 03:31, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rei, do you feel that the latest version of 'torture and murder in Iraq' before protection by 172 is acceptable? pir 13:42, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rei, what do you think about Cecropia's nominations for adminship? Get-back-world-respect 15:19, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just FYI, the MiG-21 et all are supersonic aircraft, they don't have supersonic combustion. The air is slowed to subsonic speeds with that cone in the intake, which creates shock waves that slow the air down. Depending on the speed the plane is designed for these intakes can be simple, like on the F-16, more complex as on the MiG, or really very very complex as on the B-70. However the theory remains the same.

In comparison a scramjet actually burns the air supersonically. This is MUCH more difficult. The speed of sound is the speed at which chemical reactions take move about, so trying to extract power from the expansion of the gas as it moves by you even faster is pretty tough. AFAIF there are only a few examples of scramjets that have actually worked, Marquart had one in the 60's though, so it's not that tough.

Maury 13:14, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that - I wasn't responding to a post about scramjets, I was responding to a post about supersonic "aircraft". Rei

You removed three pictures from the entry about the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I think it is disgusting to have an entry about a war without a picture of a victim. I'll see if I can get the official permission. In the photo of the toppling of the Hussein statue it just says "Public domain, universially reproduced." What kind of justification is that? Anyone could state so. Get-back-world-respect 02:20, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I removed two pictures, and neither of them was a victim. I have my questions about the statue picture as well, although I've been taking things one at a time. Rei
Update: If you want victim pictures, I'm sure Iraq Peace Teams[3] [4] would be glad to grant them - some are pretty graphic, though. They also have general destruction pics. I don't know where we could get a non-copyrighted statue, but I took the old one down because I found it listed as a Reuters photo. I should check the current victim pic, it looks like AP or Reuters... anyway, I'm emailing the Peace Teams people right now. --Rei

[edit] 9/11 + 911 = 3/11?

Actually, as days are counted it was 912 days; i.e., when you figure a security's maturity as 90 days, it occurs on the 90th day following the date of issue (not counting the date of issue as a day). There were 911 days in between 9/11 and 3/11.

Of course, I feel I'm giving too much honor to mass murderers sense of symbolism, anyway; I'm just pointing out a statistical curiosity. Cheers! Cecropia

[edit] Thanks

I just saw a note you left on MathKnight's talk page -- I have to say, I haven't followed that dispute at all, so I don't know what you've said or done elsewhere, but the note you left was absolutely wonderful. You were firm but calm, clear, and well-reasoned: in short, you did exactly what good editors here need to do. You communicated with someone who, it seems, has been inflammatory, without letting that behavior become your approach in return. I just thought you should know that I, for one, think it an excellent remark, and I hope that user responds well to such careful and thoughtful prose. If I can be of any help or use to you, please do let me know, Jwrosenzweig 22:36, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you - I really appreciate it. I'd love to see this issue resolved peacefully, and I figured this would probably be the best way to go about it. Rei

[edit] Atta nitpick

September 11, 2001 attacks>"Thus, it was Atta who chose the date."

Just because Atta communicated the date to Binalsibh doesn't necessarily mean that he chose it, right? Mdchachi 18:34, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Correct. That's why I removed that line. --Rei
If so, then you must have put it back in by mistake. This revision was yours. I haven't touched it. If you want to remove it, please do. Mdchachi 19:46, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Whoops! My bad, I'll correct it. --Rei

[edit] Oil for food allegations

I put it on vote for deletion: [5] Get-back-world-respect 00:03, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese confined to base

Re U.S.-led_occupation_of_Iraq : What evidence do you have that the Japanese are "currently" (as of 4/22) confined to their base? If you insist on trying to keep "real-time" information like that, then it is up to you to keep it verified & current. Did you confirm this statement before putting it back in? Mdchachi|Talk 17:54, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

First, this topic shouldn't have been posted in my user info - it should have been in the talk page for the occupation. I would actually ask you the inverse question: what evidence do you have that they lifted the confinement order (imposed after the al-Madhi incident, shortly before the kidnappings)? I read the news pretty thoroughly, so I would be surprised if I missed it, but it is possible. --Rei
Hee hee I thought you would ask me that. That is the sort of thing that wouldn't make the news much, if at all. And, actually, I did find a reference to it before I took it out yesterday but I am having trouble finding it now. But I read so much stuff yesterday I don't want to spend hours trying to find the reference again when you're the one who should have verified the statement before you put it back in. As an aside, I think it's useless to try to put in what each contingent is "currently" doing. It is going to be soon out-of-date and innaccurate anyway. Is there a point? Sorry for posting here instead of at the article. If you want to move the conversation, go ahead and I'll pick it up there. Mdchachi|Talk 20:17, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Israel is currently occupying the west bank. Bush is currently the US president. China is currently the world's second largest economy. Huge quantities of information in Wikipedia are explicitly due to "currently". In fact, that's the reason why Wikipedia is able to put "news" on the front page at all.
Also, I just did a news search, and can't seem to find anything about a return to normal duty by the Japanese. Are you really sure that you saw something? Again, I watch the news pretty closely. News sites all over news.google.com are still referring to the Japanese as being holed up. [6], [7], etc. Ah, here's what I think you're referring to [8] [9]. However, at least from the sound of this summary of his statements, he didn't say that they're leaving the base, only that he views it as being stable enough. I can't find anything that says otherwise. If I hear otherwise, I'll change the article; I guess since it's ambiguous, if you want to remove the statement, go ahead. --Rei
I question the inclusion of this kind of "current" news. The problem is that the situation isn't newsworthy. If the Japanese or Thai's start leaving the base to work, are we going to see that on our wire services? I doubt it. It may show up in Japanese or Thai newspapers which most of us can't read. (But it may not even then since those countries don't have embedded reporters to get the word out.) So then we end up with an article with inaccurate statements that weren't particularly useful even when they were true. But since I can't find the reference again, I'll leave it. Mdchachi|Talk 13:17, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
'If the Japanese or Thai's start leaving the base to work, are we going to see that on our wire services?' Well, the reason for having this information is because it is relevant. It was important enough that it was all over the news when it occurred. If coalition troops are hiding in their bases, that gives a good idea of how the occupation is going. If they're all working freely in the open, that gives a different message. So I feel it's important; of course, we can disagree on what is important. But, since it's ambiguous for now, I'll go ahead and take it out.  :) --Rei
Cheers. Coincidentally there are new reports out today based on a Thursday news conference. See [10] and [11]. Here it says they have "primarily stayed" within their camp but they plan to expand their activities in the near future. I'm not going to change the occupation article because, as I said, I don't think these day to day changes of mood/plan are worth capturing. But if you want to, feel free. Mdchachi|Talk 19:20, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Nah - it's detailed enough for now. I just want to get the major details.  :) --Rei
FYI

Mdchachi|Talk 20:06, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not saying that human rights and state terrorism are the same thing. I'm saying that the content focused too narrowly on torture and murder - in other words grave violations of human rights - to belong in under a title that entails a broader look at the social and political situation in Iraq. 172 21:56, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If that is your complaint, then we can fix that (although torture and murder are typically the vast majority of what people talk about when they talk about human rights, so I'm not sure what your main issue is). But you need to leave the article alone for long enough, and to enumerate the things you want changed, if you want this to happen. BTW, I changed the header to be more fitting. --Rei
I already did. I just don't think that you're understanding why I'm saying. 172 22:06, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for Oil for food

Hello -- I've made a proposal for trying to make some progress on Oil for food. The proposal is here: Talk:Oil_for_food#A_proposal_and_some_suggestions_for_moving_forward.

Please read it over and indicate if you feel that you can accept it as a way of making some progress. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 13:07, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mordechai Vanunu

You asked: "Where did Vanunu say that she was CIA? Reference, please" while reverting the edit by 81.6.195.106.

  • ABC's Alison Caldwell says: "Mordechai Vanunu, at his press conference, said that she was not with Mossad – that Cindy was an FBI or CIA agent". [12]
  • The Globe and Mail's Matthew Kalman quoted Vanunu as saying "Cindy was not a Mossad agent. Cindy was CIA or FBI". [13]
  • Gush Shalom leader Uri Avnery wrote: "In the short address Vanunu was able to make to the media immediately on his release, he made a strange remark: that the young woman who served as bait for his kidnapping, some 18 years ago, was not a Mossad agent, as generally assumed, but an agent of the FBI or CIA". [14]
  • Haaretz correspondents wrote: "Vanunu also alleged that the woman known as `Cindy` who helped ensnare him in September 1989 in Rome on the eve of the Sunday Times expose, was not a Mossad agent, but was working for FBI or CIA". [15]

It is extremely rude, in my opinion, to revert somebody's edit just because their information is new to you. If you doubt the accuracy of an edit, and you can't substantiate it, it is OK to ask for references in Talk, and if none are provided within a reasonable period of time, to revert. It seems as if you didn't bother to try to find references, because as you can see there are plenty. I presume you'll be honest enough to revert your own revert now. 217.132.0.102 18:55, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are correct; my apologies. I guess I read the wrong articles about the event. I would ask that you next time try a "catching flies with honey, not vinegar" approach, but I do apologize for my mistake. --Rei

[edit] Vocabulary Project

Hej Rei, since not all our time should be spent on fighting with vandals like TDC, I would like to know if you are interested in a project I am starting with some people from here, wikibooks and wiktionary. Maybe you could contribute some things to learn about cheeses and mushrooms? Please check my page and let me know what you think about it. By the way, do I interpret your email correctly that you are a female employee in Iowa? "Medical computer programmer" as a google search makes me think? The project definitely needs a programmer... Get-back-world-respect 20:00, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I updated my user info to make it clearer who I am. Yes, I'm a female programmer from Iowa City, IA, and I work at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics. I usually do wikipedia in my spare time at work while I'm waiting for a chunk of code to compile, waiting for a response to a question about requirements for a project, etc. So, I'm not sure if I'd want to get involved in a programming project, because I might get a bit too distracted from my work if I did that. Conversation and edits (apart from the recent stuff with TDC... grr....) are something you can jump into and out with little notice, and spend as much or as little time working on as you want to. I did make an entry concerning cheese that probably would be better in wikibooks than wikipedia - home cheesemaking. It still needs some refinement, though - it takes a long time to get good at cheesemaking, and I myself am still learning (for example, I'm having trouble on cheeses with a low melting point, and I still have some problems with mold control during aging). Rei

Congrats for admin nomination. I guess it will not increase my chances to gain your support with our project though. Would be fun to nominate TDC for adminship just to show him how many people agree his behaviour is unacceptable. I hope I can focus more on my project and refrain from allowing him to tease me into procrastinating too much with "discussions". Get-back-world-respect 21:03, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sysop

Rei, you've been nominated for adminiship. Please accept or reject. Good luck! -- Cecropia 07:38, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Happy May Day. Hope you had a good time at the barricades. ;-) Cecropia 15:02, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] You're welcome!

Well, "I calls 'em as I sees 'em" I really don't have any doubt that you will take your powers seriously and use them fairly and wisely, because you seem to be reaching for the truth, even if we don't always agree on what that is. Maybe it would help if you expressed what you just said to me on my talk page (about studying the guidelines) and maybe say how you would use the admin powers on the nomination page. Good luck! -- Cecropia 17:00, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

In response to my comments on your nomination, GBWR labelled this edit by Cecropia as "misbehavior." I would appreciate your comment on this, as you voiced somewhat similar opinions during Cecropia's nomination. It is important that an admin distinguish between misbehavior and disagreement, as admins have powers like page protection and even banning at their disposal. I think you'll be fine, but I would like to hear it from you (and as Cecropia said, you should probably post it to the nomination page so others can see also.) Thanks, Isomorphic 22:41, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I can provide you with the context of Cecropia and my conversation on the subject over on the talk page.
The Iraq material was moved because material contesting the assumptions of critics has been consitently deleted by any number of anti-Bush users. The article is hardly pro-Bush. Bush critics want this to be an anti-Bush polemic. Kerry's article is a virtual campaign committee biography. Cecropia 16:17, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You still do not get it. What you posted was not "contesting the assumptions of critics", it was an attempt to throw mud on critics, completely off-topic since it did not go in any way to the basis of the criticism and instead was just ridiculously trying to defame two of the critics already the Bush administration had singled out for propaganda purposes. I explained to you on my talk page but all you had to answer was "and that is all"? If you see anti-Bush polemics clear them up, do not make it even worse by adding counter-polemics. Kerry's article is not a virtual campaign committee biography but a lengthy article some idiots try to pump full of "opium" - the word once showed up seven times - a green French presidential candidate - showed up four times - fingernail scrapes, Hanoi Jane, a meeting some thirty years ago he allegedly does not remember etc., etc. Get-back-world-respect 01:13, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Yo! GBWR! Check it out, man! Of course "I still don't get it"! Check out the date! You're responding to something I wrote 6 weeks ago! :D (Look, go back to bed until the full moon is gone, OK?) ;-) Cecropia did not sign on May 5th 2004 (UTC)
Ok, I had not understood that this was just copied from somewhere else, I give you that. Your reaction to my charges at other places however show that you never got it and just stop replying when you lack arguments. Get-back-world-respect 21:50, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Or get bored with it. Cecropia 21:57, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Interesting strategy. When you cannot defend yourself you just declare you got bored. Very convincing. Get-back-world-respect 20:15, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
On reflection, I suppose you must be right. Who could ever get bored reading your exquisite prose? -- Cecropia 20:32, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
Yes, tell us again and again that you cannot defend yourself and therefore try to insult others. Get-back-world-respect 16:07, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
Gee, that's fair :P. It's been deleted because there are already way too many articles about it, and the exact same points will need to be replicated over and over again for each article. If the goal was to make it an "anti-Bush polemic", opponents of Bush could just as easily put the counters for those arguments on this page. It's not where these things belong, though. A summary is fine, but extensive details, pro and con, do not belong here. Rei
I understand. The Iraq material is covered in excruciating detail in the posted links. And, yes, the campaign has started--the earliest ever due to the Democrats having effectively picked their candidate 8 months before the election. I don't how the US public will take the level of vituperation already evident for 200 or so days. This is new territory we're exploring... Cecropia 17:32, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
My main concern was that, since the 7th of March, I had been attempting (with support from some other users) to try and pry the buildup of Iraq war content (pro and con) from the George W. Bush article into the Iraq articles. Meanwhile, Cecropia added a whole paragraph in about Iraq content. At the time, the Bush article was really suffering from bloat, which was partially remedied by extracting the Vietnam controversy to a secondary article and by removing most of the Iraq content. We eventually worked it out on talk. To me, it was more of a disagreement than misbehavior, and it was relatively minor; however, GBWR requested that I weigh in over on Cecropia's talk page, so I did.
It certainly wouldn't have been the kind of case case that I felt any sort of censure was needed. In fact, I have only had one disagreement which hasn't just worked itself out, that being one with TDC about the Oil For Food allegations. He has been insisting to include a large amount of false and misleading content, and refuses to back it up with references. I've tried to help resolve that one by requesting outside input; hopefully it will go somewhere.
I was pleasantly surprised to see Cecropia be the one to offer my nomination. I only hope that I can be as open-minded and fair as he was to me. -- Rei 23:11, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
Thank you very much. That's what I'd hoped to hear, and I appreciate the context. I will change my vote now. The community here is quite a cross-section of backgrounds and opinions. Learning to work with the all of them can be quite an undertaking, but it's worth the effort. Isomorphic 23:32, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Oil for food, again

Hi Rei. I saw your note and TDC's predictable responses to it on the talk page. I don't quite understand what happened here. I see that you made your comment within minutes of my copying the revision from Oil for food/revision to Oil for food, so I assume that you have the article and the talk page on your watchlist, but I guess that you never looked at either the original article or the top of the talk page during the last five days, even though you made some edits to the talk page a number of times after I placed the link to the revision in answer to Ed Poor's question. I placed a prominent link and an explanation at the top of the article and the talk page (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Oil_for_food&oldid=3465496 ).

I'm afraid that this mediation attempt may have just been a wasted effort -- which I don't mind personally, but it seems that instead of descalating the conflict, it's just as bad -- if not worse than before. All I can do is ask you to moderate your remarks as you keep working on it, as I don't think that calling the content a "smear" or saying that you cannot accept this will ever do anything but provoke a strong reaction from TDC -- however justified that characterization may be.

Sadly, BCorr|Брайен 00:19, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

I never bothered to click on the article during this time, because in your proposal you said that we should refrain from editing it. After searching through the talk page, I found where you listed the "revision" page - it was in the middle of all of the clutter, and not in with the proposal itself. That would explain why I never saw it.
What is the suggestion? Do you have any ideas? Currently, the viewpoint of active editors on the article is standing 2:1 in favor of my viewpoint, but TDCs version is currently active. We're not even trying to propose to get rid of all of TDC's stuff - we just don't want it 4:1 in favor of stuff that is either grossly distorted our outright false. Rei 15:59, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
For now, my only suggestions is not to play TDC's game. Just work on editing the article without letting TDC get a rise out of you -- as difficult as that may be. And more importantly, keep working to involve other people in the article. Part of the problem is that TDC is extremely motivated, and you can't do this on your own. I hope that this is helpful. Thanks BCorr|Брайен 20:21, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
Would you care to comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/TDC? Unless there are two users expressing they tried to deal with the vandal the request for comment will be removed. And his latest attempts to insult others cannot be tolerated. Get-back-world-respect 01:28, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

have you checked the meaning of the word Rei in languages other than english? just a thought.

I think the poster is trying to say that on the Iberian peninsula you'll be fine, but on the Italian one you should speak softly and carry a big gat. :) -- Cecropia 19:06, 6 May 2004 (UTC) (the evil).
Ah! I never checked that before. I knew what it meant in Japanese (I speak some Japanese), although I chose it because it's my middle name. Rei 19:09, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
I thought maybe you were a Rei of Sunshine. :) -- Cecropia 19:35, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
Nah...  ;) But in Japanese, it can mean example, an expression of gratitude, zero, soul or ghost, command, cool, actor, or companion. It's kind of an overloaded word.  ;) Rei 19:45, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
Keanu! (That mean "coolness" or something like that, in Hawaiian, I think. -- Cecropia 20:05, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Space elevator

Rei, I regret that you have taken such great exception to my contributions. That they were some of them flawed I admit. But that you have wrongfully attacked me on issues which I have not been addressing, that you take me task on the cost of fuel so aggressively and vehemently (while ignoring your own screw ups such as the density of LH2), your thoughtless reversions in economics, your general tone, is difficult to take. I am very far from whiter-than-white here but I refer you to NPOV, NPOV tutorial (both of which I refer to from time to time) and, of course, to this excellent code of practise to be found here. Paul Beardsell 15:12, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Psb, what I take exception to is you coming in to an article on a subject that you know nothing about, not reading any papers on the subject because you're so confident in your view, trying to change the whole thing, having to be constantly corrected about your misconceptions about space elevators, and have annoyed almost everyone who has worked on that article. I would appreciate you pointing out where I even mentioned the density of LH - to the best of my knowledge, I only spoke of the costs of LH. You, on the other hand, misread your own reference about the cost of LH per kg, (misreading pounds as gallons, then converting gallons to kg, which is a huge difference). You ignored the very expensive cost of fuel for booster rockets, and, my biggest complaint, have been implying that NASA and ESA are stupid because they just don't see your brilliant solution of "mass manufacturing" to reduce rocket costs.
I have just seen this response. You take the opportunity to repeat here what you have said on the Talk:Space elevator page. Some criticisms you make of me are correct here and there but they are made in an overly aggressive manner. This intemperateness is inappropriate. But other criticisms are incorrect. I did not misread pounds as gallons and, if I had, it would have increased the cost, not decreased it. I did convert gallons to kg, and I used the correct factor for doing so. I implied nothing about ESA and NASA - these words you put in my mouth. It is not my "brillaint solution" - all I did was supply an external reference you did not like - and the other person who suggested there were good reasons to think rocket costs can be reduced you have bullied into silence with your characteristic slap down. Paul Beardsell 18:33, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Space organizations around the world have spent an utter fortune on research and production, with some of the brightest minds in the world, and it is insulting to claim that they just don't get it. They are working on ways to notably reduce the cost of space launch, and believe me, the drastic reductions do *not* come from "better chemical rockets". They come from scramjets. They come from ballistic/electrical acceleration on the ground. They come from magnetospheric acceleration. And, more distantly, they come from things like skyhooks and space elevators.
I made no such claim. Paul Beardsell 18:33, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
I support your presence, and I would love to work constructively with you - you did raise some good points about needing to include the overall economics of the system - but you came in with completely the wrong approach, and need to stop, read about the subject first, discuss, and then edit. I'm sure that if you do that, you'll do a good job. Rei 17:04, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
I do not need to be patronised by you. You should learn some manners and good grace. Paul Beardsell 18:33, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

I think the whole economics section is entirely based on sand. Consider:

i) the cable material does not currently exist and hence no price is available on it ii) the rockets actually are paying off the R&D on the launch system, whereas the pricings here assume that the government just provides the cable for free iii) no final design has been reached for the architecture of the elevator at all iv) the market size for the elevator is unknown v) the same financial pressures that make the elevator cheaper also make other launch systems cheaper (these include: laser launch, conventional rocketry, skyhooks, airbreathing spaceplanes etc. etc.)

Over at everything2 it basically says that "Brad Edwards is currently projecting a cost of ~$200 per pound, which is 50 times cheaper than the Space Shuttle. However the exact price will depend on how much the elevator is used, how often they are severed, how thick the elevator is built up to be and how much the cables actually cost to make."

Less is more, I'm inclined remove the entire section and leaving it pretty much at that; the unknowns are so enormous at this stage; and this is about the only totally true thing we can say here. I would seperate out the electricity costs into a power beaming section. But I won't unless there is consensus.

Oh yeah, you keep removing my edits; given I gave a well researched reference and given that the existing graph in reference 4 at [16] gives a price of $6500/kg for Ariane I am at a loss to explain this; it seems extrememly inappropriate of you. You are not the authority on what it takes to be an authority! If you have data to the contrary- simply add it.

Incidentally, I don't know where you got the 0.5% beamed power efficiency number from; do you have a reference for that? Laser Power beaming efficiency can, in some situations, be as high as 20% or more; (it turns out that semiconductor lasers wavelengths are a much better match for photovoltaic panels than broadspectrum sunlight); and beamed thermal power can be even higher, in some cases approaching 100% [*very* special case]. Brad Edwards gave 2-3% in his NIAC paper; I just checked (again). Wolfkeeper

Your 2 latest contributions to the Space Elevator Van Allen Belt section are on probation; either add a cite in the next few days where how the ideas for the moving shielding and active shielding are directly applicable to the Beanstalk, and are *not* your idea; or they are gone for lack of substantiation. 'Do not make shit up'. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia- right? Wolfkeeper

Excuse me, but I take offense to that. I defended it with a reference. Are you going to provide a reference to challenge it? Rei 23:50, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

The reference is nothing whatsoever to do with a Space Elevator, it is to do with protecting a Mars mission in interplanetary space- not even in the Van Allen belts. Accordingly, unless you can come up with a better reference, it will be gone. I actually asked this very question myself at a lecture for orbital objects from the Van Allen belts; and thus I have it on very good authority that this does *not* work as a Radiation shield in LEO unless the magnetic field is simply stupendously large; note that HiVolt uses not a magnetic field, but a high electrical charge- hence the name. There's a reason for that.

Wolfkeeper
Laf, so let me get this straight: I provided a reference for not one, but two types of shielding. Because they aren't *specifically* for the Van Allen belt, you, who have no references, just an assurance that you have it on a "good authority", and haven't even specified which type of active shielding you're referring to, are insisting that *all* active shielding doesn't work, and without a reference, you are going to remove it. Do I have all this straight?
Active shielding is very effective against high-energy protons - as high as 100MeV with some designs [17]. It is not effective against galactic cosmic radiation. So? The inner Van Allen belt is high energy protons, 10-100MeV. So don't give me this "It doesn't work!" garbage. And don't try and use threats to get your way. Rei 16:20, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Rei, the "threats" gibe is just a little rich, don't you think? I have found that I have had to adopt an aggressive posture when "discussing" the SE with you. You are most intolerant of other views and are very quick to shout "stupid" and yet you never admit to being wrong, although a number of instances of this are glaring. Yet you have much of value to add. I was struck recently when reading another Wikipedia article. A description of a pejorative epithet, not one I would ordinarily use, was a person who is obstinately devoted to their opinions, often engaging in a rude and intolerant manner when these are challenged. You should consider how you are perceived. Paul Beardsell 19:28, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Paul, I do appreciate your input on the page, even if we don't always disagree. However, please do understand that being threatened with reversion due to "references" when wolfkeeper doesn't even understand the basics of the radiation belts and hasn't presented a single one is going to get my goat, so to speak :) Really, though - Wolfkeeper is still going through the introductory stage where he's unfamiliar with some concepts (such as this, his comments about laser efficiency,
No, as usual, I'm going through the stage where Rei doesn't understand how much about it Wolfkeeper knows. I do have a degree in physics, including studying lasers, and my job includes working with semiconductor lasers. It's no exageration to say that in the past I have designed laser power beaming systems... and I'm well aware of the costs and efficiencies typically developed--Wolfkeeper 12:48, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
Ok, so let me get this straight. You've designed laser power beaming systems before, and yet you're unfamilair with the problems of coherency involved in diode laser arrays? Rei 16:36, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
No, not at all, having coherent laser arrays makes it much easier, in many ways, to beam to large distances, but depending on distance the distance you are trying to beam to, and other details of the array, it isn't the case that non coherent sources (e.g. unlocked diode laser arrays) are inherently unsuitable given suitable collimating optics.
actually, coherent arrays don't solve all the problems anyway- the gaps between the arrays tend to act as diffraction gratings and can give significant dispersion.
You know the distance you are trying to beam to here is immense,
Yup. Well, it's only 38000km or so; but it's quite a long way.
and consequently, an array without a high degree of coherency is a serious problem.
Not exactly. The main advantage of a fully coherent system is that you don't need any further collimating (ideally). However optical lenses are really, really good at collimating the light from diode lasers; so that full coherence isn't actually necessary. In fact the optics needed are just telescopes run backwards- you shine the light the other way through them. It's exactly the same problem- and telescopes work fine on incoherent light.
Furthermore, the only need for a laser array, really, is if you're using diode lasers, since they're not very powerful compared with the chemical lasers that would otherwise be used.
Yes, but they are really cheap and really efficient. The efficiency is really important; particularly as *you* are ignoring capital costs. The costs and performance of laser diodes are tracking Moore's law; as most semiconductors. They should be well below $1/watt in the next few years.
Consequently, the additional problem of the gaps between the arrays is introduced by the use of diode lasers, something that you suggested to get your higher efficiency figures. That is why it really surprised me that you, who claim to have worked with power beaming, brought it up in trying to claim that better efficiency is currently possible for the space elevator. What is the best theoretical long-range (~36,000 km) power beaming efficiency that you have gotten?
I was designing for 1000km for a different purpose, and the efficiency I got was plenty good for that. Beyond that the atmosphere turns out to be the big problem due to atmospheric turbulence; and coherency, or not of the optics doesn't seem to be the primary problem. I also did look into active optics; out to 1000km it doesn't seem to be required; and I wasn't that impressed with the effectiveness of the active optics that I read about either.
It also amazes me that a person who claims to have a degree in Physics would seem to be unaware of how particles can be deflected via Lorentz force,
That's a gross mischaracterisation of my position.
both causing the Van Allen belts and likewise giving a means to deflect the radiation from them. I can't believe that you actually tried to claim that having a strong magnetic field would "make it worse', as if you thought it were like some child's bar magnet pulling on ball bearings.
That's even worse.
Sure, if you put some random magnetic field up there you could make it worse, but if you know the direction of the particle stream (which we do, obviously),
Actually you don't! Otherwise shielding would be easier than it is- the charged particles are doing the helical thing with very large diameters- IRC of order a kilometer- they are coming at you from all directions; except at low altitudes where they predominately approach from (IRC- need to check my notes) the away from the earth and West (most of the rest of the other particles intersected the atmosphere). It's all a bit counterintuitive- you'd expect a strong north-south direction but that's not at all what happens.
it's a rather simple problem for how you want the field lines to be near where the passengers are to deflect the stream around them.
That's exactly what I mean; I asked how you know it doesn't make it worse :-)
IMHO if you think this stuff is simple, you clearly haven't understood it. The magnetic thing does seem to work, although whether a system ends up massing less; (in other words whether it really works on an elevator) I haven't seen any estimates.
You've said a number of things that have been of a highly questionable nature given the background you claim. Perhaps, though, you have just been out of school for so long that you've let this all lapse. Or perhaps I have misunderstood what you have been trying to claim (I can pull up your quotes if you'd like).
I think so. I generally try to track reality as best I can; and reality is frequently surprising.
But, either way, lets try to be more clear and keep things as properly researched as possible (both of us. :) ). Rei 16:29, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
etc); you had your introductory stage earlier, and I got put in my place several times when I first started discussing space elevators over at Edwards' old talk board. Not that I'm perfect - for example, I'll freely admit that I did misread the inclination section of the Proton, confusing its information with information from another rocket I had been reading about earlier whose apogee had been discussed as being 200km ;) Although, it still seems clear that the 8K82K was an anomaly, given the cost of all of the Protons still in service, and the necessity of adding the 4th stage. Rei 20:41, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Rei, "even if we don't always disagree" :-) I too like a good argument. And I am not saying I have been entirely without blame over our squabbles. Indeed, both my Jetsons points were calculated to irritate: You didn't bite this time. But it's better to encourage participation in the editing of the article. Wolfkeeper obviously has stuff to contribute which you and others had not necessarily thought of. If he is wrong then explaining why rather than having a go will work better - he will respond better. His point about how the editing groundrules is something with which I am wholeheartedly in agreement. I think there are others who would usefully contribute if it were not so rough-and-tumble in there. Where are all those who have got the article to the point where it was featured? They are elsewhere, constructively editing other articles. Paul Beardsell 20:54, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Admin vote

Karen, please don't leave Wikipedia if the Admin Vote doesn't go your way. I myself had to undergo a long period of near-ostracism in the early months of the project before being granted "Sysop Status", as it was called then. I had to prove myself, and part of that was learning how to deal with people I cannot hear or see.

After several months, I earned enough trust to become not only an Admin but a sort of Steward (I was just about the only Developer who was willing to spend the time determining if there was consensus for "promotion" to admin). Other responsibilities followed in due course.

"Editing is quick, but trust is slow." Think about that, my dear sister. --Uncle Ed 21:12, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

As I wasn't expecting the nomination, I won't be devastated if it doesn't go my way. I take part in some controversial topics, and while I would never use admin powers in something that I'm involved in, I know I've probably ruffled feathers just by taking part in such articles. For example, it would be almost impossible to be involved in the Al-Aqsa Intifada article without some people not liking your edits. But, I try. I'll be fine. :) Rei 21:36, 7 May 2004 (UTC)


Hello Rei, unfortunately your adminship nomination failed to reach any consensus on this occassion. The details are archived here. Good luck with any future application you make. Angela. 07:10, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

Do not worry, I think you just do not need this, and it would only cost more time. Keep up your work with Oil for food as you are the only one who defends sanity over there. And maybe one day you will participate somewhat in my learning project. Someone suggested to include the vocabulary lists in wikibooks, which I think is a great idea. Get-back-world-respect 22:48, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sysop again

Rei, I'm sorry you didn't make Sysop this time around, but I think most of the comments on your nomination were constructive and, as I said, I think both you and Wikipedia would benefit by your involvement in the future. I think you will have a much better reception with a little more "seasoning" and I will be happy to nominate you again in maybe 6-8 weeks time, but I will ask your approval before I do so. -- Cheers, Cecropia 23:52, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Cecropia (and everyone else!). I really appreciate your support - and even, from the people who opposed, their constructive criticism. Rei 16:41, 10 May 2004 (UTC)


Talk:Child Suicide Bomber

(no response regarding the Iran/Iraq and Africa material moved to Military use of children....assumed that there there is no issue here.)
furthermore the article seems over concentrated on Palestinian child suicide bombers. a name change might be in order, or perhaps a separate page. 209.135.35.83 17:32, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Inquiring minds want to know

Rei, you really need to to tell me something. I think of it every time I see your user name, but finally thought to ask:

Is it pronounced REE, RYE, or RAY. Thanks. The nosy Cecropia | Talk 23:16, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Hehe... it's pronounced RAY. Although I've recently taken to pronouncing it in a more Japanese fashion, as RAY-EE. :) Rei 23:42, 11 May 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Kerry and Fonda

Rei, I have no complaint with your edits to this so far, and you have a direct quote (I assume) but can you appreciate that Fonda is hardly one to speak about others impugning vets. -- Cecropia | Talk 20:17, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Hm... I thought that a quote from Fonda in an article about her would be appropriate. Do you not think that it belongs? Rei 20:45, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
A direct quote is always appropriate, but is subject to impeachment, don't you think? -- Cecropia | Talk 21:52, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Depends on what you mean by "impeachment". I'll remove it if you don't want it there - I was just trying to use Fonda's own words to clear up her own actions. Rei 22:30, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
By "impechment" I mean factual material that casts doubt on the honesty of her perspective or the accuracy of her assertions. You don't need to remove it on my account but since you say "clear up her own actions," I think her actions are fairly transparent. What I'm saying is that this is not a person with standing to dictate who is patriotic or play a violin for veterans.
I'll make a side note about Kerry, just for your interest. His testimony did have a negative impact on the perception of Viet Nam veterans, but looking at Kerry the Presidential Candidate, what concerns me about him is somewhat different: he made a surprising move in volunteering for service--the nature of our Viet Nam "adventure" was already apparent. Then, upon leaving, he took some really terrible assertions (which he acknowledged he didn't experience firsthand) and used them as the lead in his testimony, delivering the charges in his still-familiar lecturing tone. Yes, I know he was young then, but testimony before the Senate is not a high school debate. If he becomes President, I hope he has developed a better sense of proportion and better judgment in what he believes. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:17, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
I certainly do as well. I think he felt it was his duty given his role in the organization to sum up in his Senate testimony what he had heard from other veterans; however, secondhand information is dangerous, as the "friend of a friend" stories provided to the US about WMDs (and the like) in Iraq shows. I personally think he'd be a fine president - he's not a kid anymore, and as one can see with Bush as well (who spent his youth drinking, only to find God in the middle of his life and turn things around), people really do change.
Unlike a lot of Democrats, I do respect Bush for turning his life around, and don't think he's a bad person. I just think that the people he has surrounded himself with have provided disastrous policies, both foreign (as evidenced by the incredible drop in public opinion of America in almost every country in the world - in many places, US support was cut in half or worse) and domestic (while, unlike many democrats, I don't blame the first dip of the recession on Bush (that was clearly due to the dotcom bubble popping); however this is a triple dip recession (the second dip was mostly brought on by the buildup to the Iraq war, and the most recent one by rising crude prices spurring inflation), and his tax policy hardly spurred anything while racking up a yearly defecit that makes me want to faint). Kerry is no saint either, but if you ignore the spin (for example, watching Bush ads, you'd think he's voted against everything military under the sun, and yet his voting record actually garners good marks from veterans-interest organizations) he's been pretty solid (in my opinion).
As for Fonda, at least she apologized. That's about all I can say for her. She made the classic mistake of blaming the warrior, not the war. To her, stopping the war and helping the Vietnamese people was everything. She didn't stop and think about the fact that many of our people were suffering as well. So, about the only thing good I can say is, at least she apologized for her actions; it's the least she can do. A lot of the peace movement nowadays uses her as an example of how *not* to behave. I'll defend her along the lines of trying to stop inaccuracy and out of context claims from being introduced, and of course I'll try and make the relationship between Fonda and Kerry clear (very minimal - she spoke at a few VVAW events, and worked with a couple people who were in VVAW, before her trip to Vietnam) - but things like ignoring the North Vietnamese summary executions and torture while condemning our own (both sides used it, the US mainly through the South Vietnamese as a proxy, but only condemning one side shows clear bias), and posing for a photo in an antiaircraft battery - there's just no excuse. She did some good - for example, delivering letters from American POWs - but overall I don't like her. Rei 16:03, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Interesting discussion above, love to discuss those matter with you sometime espcially given my wartime experiences.

On a different subject: you prefer "As of 2001, 81% of Israel's population is Jewish." to "As of 2001, 81% of Israel's population are Jews." If I remember right on the Talk:Israel page, you said that the second version indicates that its a matter of race. I have been think about that and would lik e to understand your thoughts on this matter better. It seems to me that the word used in English to describe adherents of Judaism and the word used to descibe a particular group of people that some claim to be an identifable racial grouping is the same: Jew. It would seem that Jewish describes those people or practices that are particular to Jews or significantly influenced by Jews...such as the Pope and all other bishops wearing a yamulke and the British royal family being circumsized by a qualified Jewish circumsizer. Can you help me understand why you prefer the first formulation to the second? 209.135.35.83 14:06, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Sure thing. While there initially was a single jewish race, modern jews come from a variety of sources (despite the best efforts of the Nazis in world war II to try and hide that fact to justify their ethnic cleansing). For example, most Jews from Russia are Khazars or are a mix of Khazars and other races. The Khazars had a kingdom in what is now the Ukraine from 610 to 1016; they were ironically vital for stopping the spread of Islam to Europe in the eastern end. Some time in the 9th century, Khazaria converted to Judaism; they had long had a minority jewish population, but after the royal house converted, the nation in general followed suit. They began writing in Hebrew, adopted Jewish names, began worshipping according to Judaism, etc. They later adopted the cyrillic script, but kept the religion and naming conventions. From Russia, they migrated to Poland and much of eastern europe. Europe had several waves of influx of jews, some from the original diaspora, some from other sources. This is just one example (although probably the most prominant). The modern jewish community has a lot of genetic diversity, containing not only close links to their semitic neighbors (which most still retain), but also much of Europe and western Asia. Rei 15:49, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

The Khazar thing is rather doubtful, no? This seems to be especially true in light of the identification of a Priestly gene known as the Cohen Modal Haplotype. (article from wikipedia but now missing from wikipedia? search fails to find it?) The whole Khazar thing is based upon a book called "The Kuzari" written by Rav Yehuda HaLevi. Its a disputation between a Priest, an Imam and a Rabbi before the King of the Kharzars. Arthur Koestler took this and some other material and wrote a book that i read some, my 30 years is it, ago.

This is not to say that there are not other sources of genetic material in the Jewish population....conversion at times has been a source of large numbers of people and continues to be a source of some Jews today. The Mishnah discusses who is a Jew and who is not by birth based upon parentage...material that was committed to paper over 1800 years ago (long before any Khazar connection). The Mishnah is structured to ease memorization and is believed to have existed for a considerable time prior to its being written.

But my question was one of English to start before getting into the genetic material. Nonetheless this is interesting as well ;)

No, it's not really doubtful. I can get you some pictures of Khazar artifacts if you want, written in Hebrew. They weren't some minor kingdom, either - at one point, Constantine Porphyrogenitus (a 10th century Byzantine emperor) sent correspondance to the Khazars with a gold seal worth 3 solidi (compared to 2 solidi for Rome, for the prince of Rus, for the prince of the Hungarians, etc). Israeli president Itzhak Ben-Zvi talks about it in his book The Exiled and the Redeemed. Abba Eban, Israel's foreign minister from 1966 to 1974, argued in his book My People that it is that "...Khazar progeny reached the various Slavic lands where they helped to build the great Jewish centers of Eastern Europe."
There are references to the Khazar kingdom all over the place, and to its religion - Christian of Stavelot wrote "all of them profess the Jewish faith in its entirety."; Ibn al-Faqih al-Hamadani, wrote "All of the Khazars are Jews."; Denkart (a persian work) referenced Judaism as the Khazar religion; Abd al-Jabbar ibn Muhammad al-Hamdan wrote, in the 11th century, "They took upon themselves the difficult obligations enjoined by the law of the Torah, such as circumcision, the ritual ablutions, washing after a discharge of the semen, the prohibition of work on the Sabbath and during the feasts, the prohibition of eating the flesh of forbidden animals according to this religion, and so on.". Etc. It was referenced at the time as far away as Spain.
The Cohen Modal Haplotype is an interesting case - I've read about it. Unfortunately, the frequency of the haplotype in the Jewish priesthood is ~.50 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10677325&dopt=Abstract). This indicates that, while it is very common, it is certainly not universal. In lay jews, the frequency is ~.12, which is only moderately common. The CMH also has some "false positives" - it is common in Italians, Hungarians, Armenians, South African Lembas, and Iraqi Kurds. Still, it's very interesting to see that there is a group with a ~.50 correlation out there, even if it is just for a portion of the world's jewish population. Rei 18:23, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Are they false positives? Could they be Kohanim that married out? Some of course see these as the remnants of the ten lost tribes...the northern kingdom had its share of Kohanim who there located in Levitical cities throughout the area of habitation.

not universal...some people might aspire to be what they are not...yisrael claiming to be levi, levi claiming to be kohen etc.

regarding the Khazars, they could well have been Jews...dont argue against it. Rather the idea that they form the majority of Askenazi Jews is one that is dicey.

There is another involuntary source of Y chromosomes in the Jewish population. The dynamics of marriage could result in the progeny of this source claiming to be Kohanim regardless of genetic material.

but all this strays from the idea of whether or not Jews are an ethnic group with some measure of admixture. which is the central question.


It is quite true that they could have been descended from the original tribes of Israel. In fact, I'd say it is fairly reasonable - the Lembas have a fairly clear (if bizarre) migration history, and Northern Iraq, Italy, etc seem very reasonable spots for the Diaspora to spread to. The only problem, though, is that if you adopt this as the definition of who is a Jew, you would be saying that Italians are "Jews", but not "Jewish"; on the other hand, you'd have to say that most people around the world who profess to be Jewish are not Jews. That is why I support using the word "Jewish" here.
As for the Ashkenazi Jews, there is a fair bit of evidence (certainly not conclusive - that would be pretty hard to do). The Khazars remained in Kiev well after the fall of Khazaria. Family oral traditions in Hungary, Transylvania, Lithuania, and central Ukraine often trace back to where the Khazar kingdom was. A fair bit of the European Jewish population, especially the Eastern European population, have Asian features. Certain genetic diseases - such as "Mediterranean Fever" are found in Armenians and Anatolian Turks, and less frequently in Ashkenazic Jews but more commonly than in European and Asian populations. There is also some counterevidence, for sure - the lack of Turkic names, for example. I think most scholars now (correct me if I'm wrong - this is just judging from what I've read on Jewish ancestry sites) credit Jews in Europe, especially Eastern Europe, to an intermarriage between the Khazar immigrants (who arrived later) and the earlier Diaspora immigrants, who arrived in several waves from different locations (the on and off anti-semitism in parts of Europe and the middle east led to different waves of exile).
P.S. - I've really enjoyed having this conversation with you. I know we disagree on some things about Israel, but it's good to have discussions like this. Have you considered registering a username for Wikipedia? Rei 19:01, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm confused in how you are using the terms "Jew" and "Jewish" in "you would be saying that Italians are 'Jews', but not 'Jewish'; on the other hand, you'd have to say that most people around the world who profess to be Jewish are not Jews." especially in light of 0.50 (Jews) vs 0.12 (Italians, Hungarians, etc)....which basketball star recently claimed to have done a remarkable job of donating Y chromosomes...he might get the US population up to 0.12 of his material.

If you are using Jew for the genetic then 0.12 vs 0.50 is a bit of a gap and could come from forced conversion, extramarital relations as well as voluntary conversion. This may be a case in which symmetry of claims fails....such as all Kohanim are Jews but not all Jews are Kohanim. All (0.50) Kohanim are CMH positive but not all CMH positives are Kohanim...or Jews.

regarding a username...you are one of the few people i have encountered on Wikipedia that are willing to talk, discuss and consider (Uncle Ed is another). Many i have run into (Zero0000, Viajero, MyRedDice) are different in that regard....hence my IP address status...this IP that IP we are all based upon four octets equally ;)

I think you misunderstood me; I'll quote the relevant section of the pubmed article:
The distribution of haplotypes identified was considered to be consistent with Lemba oral tradition but could not distinguish a Jewish from a more general Semitic contribution to the Lemba gene pool. Markers used in this study comprise six microsatellites (DYS19, DYS388, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, and DYS393) and six UEP (YAP, SRY4064, sY81, SRY+465, 92R7, and Tat). The 12 polymorphisms listed above were characterized in multiple Jewish populations and identified a single haplotype (Cohen modal haplotype [CMH]) that is dominant (frequency .50) in the Jewish priesthood and that may be more generally characteristic of Hebraic ancestry. Although the frequency is moderate (.12) in lay Jews, the CMH is absent or at low frequency in Yakut, Mongolians, Nepalese, Armenians, Greeks, and Cypriots (authors' unpublished data) and, interestingly, in Palestinian Arabs (A. Nebel, D. Filon, M. Faerman, A. Oppenheim, personal communication). The combination of the presence of the CMH at high frequency in the Lemba and its absence in neighboring Bantu populations would be supportive of Lemba claims of a paternal Judaic ancestry, especially if its frequency is relatively low in other Semitic groups.
The rate of CMH in lay Jews is .12, not in Italians, Kurds, etc. I haven't found an article stating the rate in the other groups, just that it is moderately common there as well. Rei 19:53, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Your right! i did misunderstand. 0.50 in Kohanim and 0.12 on non-Kohanic Jews...interesting. There is within the Jewish community a preference for deciding doubtful cases of Kohanic ancestry to be non-Kohanic...could be one source of the 0.12....clearly all this makes the idea of perfect Y chromosome transmission and tracibility (sp?) seem rather too simplistic.

[edit] Space elevator

Thank you. I don't want to get involved with factual issues of the dispute, though. To be honest, I've seen some silly edits and comments by representatives from both sides. The trend tends to be that one person inserts clumsy POV speculation and the other person counters by wording it into something with twice as much POV but in the other direction. I have an opinion here, but I'm for various reasons mostly monitoring the article passively and occasionally throwing in grammatical and structural improvements. I'll probably continue doing that. Fredrik 18:18, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Oslo Accords

Rei, hello again. You recommended to me to get a username and we had a very nice exchange regarding a number of topics (part of which is visible just above Space elevator). I mentioned that there are several people, unlike yourself, whose behavior distances me from Wikipedia and makes me reluctant to get a username. Perhaps, I should have provided an example. I have a current one now, if you are interested, you could take a peek at the page Oslo Accords. The Peace Center at the Univ of Tel Aviv tracks Israeli (Arab, Jew and others) attitudes toward the Oslo Accords (as well as other issues). I added information to the Oslo Accords page based upon surveys done in May 2000 (before the Al-Aqsa Intifada) and in May 2004. Viajero has thrice deleted the information without comment, in spite of my asking him why on both the discussion page and his own talk page.

This person (Viajero) is a Wikipedia administrator.

209.135.35.83 19:32, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Rei, as a brief look at this anon user's edits will show, he/she is a rentless pusher of pro-Israel/anti-Palestine propaganda who is taking advantage of wikipedia's openness to turn it into a Zionist soapbox. This individual should be resisted at every opportunity. Thanks. -- Viajero 19:39, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Rei, is it possible that Admin can access a page that details all the edits performed by a user or an IP address? Viajero seems to following me around Wikipedia reverting or locking pages daily. This person (Viajero) is a Wikipedia administrator. 209.135.35.83 20:09, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Visiting?

Ah, a Rei of Sunshine peeks into Wikiworld. Are you back in the madness or just visiting? -- Cecropia | Talk 03:37, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Image tag

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status?

You can use {{gfdl}} if you wish to release your own work under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{PD-self}} if you wish to release your own work to the public domain, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use of someone else's work, and so on. Click here for a list of the various tags.

If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the image from, and I'll tag it for you. (And if you know exactly what this means and are really tired of the constant reminders, please excuse me. They will stop once the tagging project is complete.) Thanks so much. Denni☯ 03:47, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at Wikipedia:Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

[edit] Unverified images

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{PD-self}} if you wish to release your own work to the public domain, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 05:03, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

[edit] Images with permission

Thanks for uploading these images. You stated that they're used with permission of Liftport (www.liftport.com). Could you perhaps document the details of that permission on their discussion pages and check that I've chosen the correct copyright tag for them? Thanks! Kbh3rd 19:15, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program

Hi Rei!

I merged a number of your articles on different spacecraft propulsion drives, such as the Bias drive with the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program article. The Alcubierre drive was a bit too long to be merged. The reason is that a Votes for deletion was initiated against a number of these drives, and the result of the debate on Bias drive was to merge it. Most of the other VfD debates ended with an outright keep, but I merged those anyway because it looked a bit silly to let all these drives have separate articles except the Bias drive. I hope I did the right thing. If you think I screwed up feel free to yell at me.

Yours, Sjakkalle 08:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Space elevator tensile strength

Minor followup from a slashdot post: While the tapering is exponential, you could build a space elevator with as little as around 30 GPa tensile strength. Calculations here. This seems within reach of mass-manufacturable nanotube composites, though when they get here and how much they'll cost is anyone's guess. --Christopher Thomas 23:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration for User:TDC

Hi, you don’t know me but we have had contact with a mutual person, User:TDC.

I got your username from the Requests for comment/TDC-2[18] or the Requests for comment/TDC[19]


Currently there is arbitration pending on User:TDC. [20]

I welcome and encourage your comments on the arbitration page.Travb 01:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joan of Arc

It looks like there's been an honest misunderstanding. I was not the anonymous editor who reverted your edit. I was the second editor. You reverted again and posted to the discussion board while I was composing my explanation for the talk page.

Actually the editors did branch off two articles within the last two months. That is why the note appears on the top of the edit page: about as much basic pruning as possible has already been done. The condemnation trial is a good place to shorten if you'd like to expand clothing. Please see my comments on the talk page. References are important. We've received criticism at peer review that 25 citations isn't enough.

You may have received the mistaken impression that new contributions aren't welcome. I don't know who reverted your post originally. Since the issue you raise about article length has already been addressed I'd prefer to discuss your changes on the talk page - especially since the additions are unsourced. I'll leave things unchanged overnight because I don't want to give the impression of an edit war. Best wishes, and welcome to Joan of Arc. Durova 03:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up

On the article talk page I mention that the editors have been through mediation. Here's the lay of the land:

I'm pretty confident that Dzonatas and Mr. Ballard are the same person. He can work with other editors on a lot of matters. He tends to be inflexible on one subject: he believes he is a descendant of one of Joan of Arc's brothers. Conclusions he draws from his family tree have colored many of his contributions. This might also be 82.127.99.246 who reverted your posts - I can't really say.

AWilliamson might make a reappearance. He also edited as Center-for-Medieval-Studies last summer. This fall he seems to have come back as an unregistered user through a randomized AOL IP address. He leaves long and contentious edit notes while avoiding the talk page. He maintains the [21] site. We haven't seen him in about a month. If he's still watching this page your edits will probably bring him back. He's a devout Roman Catholic who venerates Joan of Arc and appears to have stirred trouble on some of Wikipedia's LGBT pages.

Switisweti is a good guy. He used a sock puppet HAJARS for a while and admitted it - as humor directed at AWilliamson's behavior. He's long on common sense and a consensus builder.

Noisy doesn't edit much anymore, which is a shame. Another good person.

As for myself, I'm a female war veteran from the United States. I hold a bachelor's degree in history and studied writing in graduate school. I do my best to source my contributions and created most of the article's citations. My admitted bias regards Joan of Arc's military career (I do my best to observe NPOV but I'm human). Regards, Durova 08:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Footnotes: If you check the article history and the talk pages then you'll see how very deep this problem goes. Between you and User:Dzonatas there have been six attempts to fix it, none of which came close to solving the deep and extensive problems. It's easy enough for you to cut and paste a few paragraphs of text. I'm not going to reverify every citation against its original source, which is what it would take to keep an accurate article with newer footnote versions. Durova 01:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] 2003 invasion of Iraq

Could you please take a look at the discussion page? 84.59.102.68 14:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sulfuric acid

Hello. Do you have a source or reference for the paragraph you added to sulfuric acid about the "common myth"? If so, it should probably be added to Venus and Colonization of Venus. siafu 21:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Magome.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Magome.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hezbollah

Hezbollah is listed to some degree as "terrorist" by the US, UK, EU, Canada, Australia, and the Netherlands. Israel has no such legal designation, so I believe it is relevant to include. We are not using "terrorist" as a definition, merely saying that some important actors believe they are. Why do you believe this is POV, and what would you propose qualifying Israel with? Let me know, TewfikTalk 23:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Tewfik. As a newcomer to the article, naturally I respect your position.
First, some premises that I would like to operate on. If the world as a whole or even a strong majority typically viewed one side as justified and the other not, I would argue that it is acceptable to tip the article in favor of that side; both sides don't deserve "equal time" when one side is "wrong" as viewed by the world. However, no single person can be the judge of who is right and who is wrong; only the broader public opinion matters. Do you accept these premises?
As much as one may disagree with Hezbollah as an organization, with its actions, with its history, etc, there is no such tipping in world opinion as a whole. In the US? Yes; polls support the attack, and while the numbers are falling, they're still a clear majority. In Israel? Very much so; public support there is overwhelming. In the world, however? This is not the case. The world, apart from the US and Israel, is trying to end the conflict *without* the disarmament of Hezbollah. This includes the Lebanese (interestingly enough, they seem to be most angry at the *Americans*, who they view as trying to stall a ceasefire).
That said, it would seem that one should present it in a balanced fashion. "Terrorist" is an extremely loaded and harsh word, especially to use against Lebanon's second largest employer and one of their largest political parties. If one wishes to use such a strong word, the only fair balance would seem to be for the other side to cite the harsh criticisms levied by Human Rights Watch against the IDF (which, as you probably know, has come down much harder on Israel than on Hezbollah due to the scale of actions).
Do we want that? Personally, I think that would be an open request for edit war. Instead, lets look at what we do have instead: links to Hezbollah and the IDF right at the top. Therein, by not adding descriptive phrases to either entity, we pass the buck on to those respective articles to let anyone (who strangely doesn't already know) see the track records of those two entities to look them up for themselves. Personally, I think most americans who read the article and see "Hezbollah" will already inherently associate the word with "terrorist".
I think this is quite responsible and fair. Do you not agree? Lastly, should I move this to the discussion page of the article? -- Rei 23:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where were they?

Please read the sources at Ayta al-Sha`b incident. The UN, EU, G8, and mainstream media including Al Jazeera have all characterised the Hezbollah raid as taking place in Israel. This has been discussed extensively on Talk. TewfikTalk 23:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify; the article you read is cited as an example of the incorrect initial claim. Today it is accepted as fact (as not many elements of this, or any other conflict are) by the mainstream media that the raid took place in Israel. TewfikTalk 23:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] San Antonio pictures

Hmmm, looks like someone took a Texas trip recently. Hope you enjoyed it. Quick question: what is the location of the tree in "TexasLiveOak.jpg"? Looks like mission San Jose or the Alamo grounds. Kuru talk 22:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Alamo, correct. :) The Texas trip was a month ago; I'm just stopping being lazy and actually getting around to sorting out the pictures of potential encyclopedic merit, like I did from my Japan trip prior. I just got a new camera, and I figure wikipedia could use some nice images. -- Rei 22:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice pics of Natural Bridge Caverns. studerby 05:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank ya! :) -- Rei 05:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tossing around accusations

Let's watch who we're accusing of vandalism. If you'd bothered to look at the Steve Irwin page, you'd notice that there was a near-simultaneous three-editor revert, all trying to clear out the same bit of vandalism. Thanks for giving me a reason NOT to do that again. -- Robster2001 04:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This edit looks like straightforward vandalism, whatever you call it: [22]. If you didn't mean to vandalize, that doesn't change the fact that you *did* vandalize, so it's wrong to fault someone for reverting and reporting your vandalism. -- Rei 04:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Did you notice that (1) the header was from the automated "popups" tool, (2) there were three attempts to revert the same vandalism at the same time, and (3) the header on my revert attempt didn't match the text underneath it? The "popups" tool clearly wasn't designed to handle several revert attempts simultaneously and grabbed the wrong revision (apparently, one that snuck in between the time I fired off the revert attempt and the time the tool actually did the revert). It was an unusual error caused by unusual circumstances. So while you pat yourself on the back for "reporting vandalism", try to take a moment to understand how things work in the real world. -- Robster2001 01:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/i/User_talk%7ERei_c689.html"