User talk:Beowulf314159

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Rome

Can you see what the general consensus of the others is before anything gets deleted?--CyberGhostface 02:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Beowulf. I am fairly new to wikipedia but if I understood it correctly you wrote the trivia section in the TV-series Rome including:

"Battle scenes in Rome depict authentic Roman infantry fighting techniques including the tightly-packed "Roman Wall" of shields, gladius thrusting techniques above and below the "shield wall", and the rotation of troops on the front lines every 30–45 seconds. "

The rotation part makes perfect sense. Having a soldier in the first line fight until he dies and his fellows do almost nothing until it is their turn in the first line seems at best to be a waste of human life. Yet, this is how ancient fighting is generally perceived. Taking turn makes much more sense. Close combat will exhaust you quickly and no matter how skilled you are, when you are exhausted you rapidly become much slower. If you are not rotated away by when, you are pretty much dead meat. I read a piece of historical fiction where the legion was described as fighting in this way, but when the author, Vibeke Olsson, kindly referred me to the original source, Livius, it seemed to talk more about the entire centurias rotating from hastati, to princeps, to triarii. Do you know of an ancient source that claims indivídual roman soldiers actually took turns being in the front row the way it is depicted in the TV-series Rome? Do you know of any source whatsoever you could refer me to on this subject? Please write and tell me at dag@mensa.se so I can present this source/debate/whatever in wikipedia (or you could write it yourself in the article about Rome the TV series, the article on Roman infantry tactics or the article on Roman Legion). Sensemaker


Please stop hightlighting all the words you think are important in a sentence so we can hear the cadence in your voice. 74.116.116.101 08:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dacoutts and his articles

I agree with you, it looks like original research to me. I ~think~ this magazine is the one he is talking about - it appears to be a journal for scientists, but not an academic journal, more of a venting philosophical ideas journal. I'll give him a few days, maybe until Christmas, but I'll tag them for AfD certainly by the end of the year if we don't see any external verification. I'm going to go tag all of them with {{Primarysources}}. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 15:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

5 of these articles are up for deletion; two more were redirected. The links: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Heliovore, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Couttsian_Growth_Model, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/6_Billion, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Malthusian_Selection, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nanosphere -- stillnotelf has a talk page 15:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merging into Harry Potter Magic

The page you want to eliminate has been around for short enough a period of time, and few enough pages link to it, that I would guess that you could probably roll it into the Harry Potter Magic with out much problem - as long as you update the linking pages.

Thanks for the tip! I'll get on it shortly, after I finish a couple of other edits and get distracted by something shiny for about a day. --Kizor 18:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I should've mentioned exactly how bad I am at making estimates. Well, I'm merging as I type. --Kizor 20:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It's an extremely logical move - I'm kicking myself for not doing it that way to begin with... Beowulf314159 17:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Most things are obvious in retrospect. --Kizor 18:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. I wanted to add that though we have our differences in editing styles, I'm thankful for your perservance in contributing to Potter- and space-related articles, especially because of your artful command of English (and my own sub-native one). --Kizor 02:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits to Dyson sphere

Firstly, I want to say thanks for all the work, I don't want you to think it wasn't appreciated. However, I suggest that next time you do something like your recent edits to Dyson sphere you should be a little more careful in how you do it. You generated 30 versions in rapid succession and didn't provide an edit summary for any of them. While edit summaries aren't absolutely required, adding them is a good guideline to follow. In this case I checked the diff of your thirty edits, saw that the net result was a large deletion from the article, and very nearly reverted everything because I didn't initially notice that you'd moved the deleted material to a new article. I wasn't going to spend the time combing through 30 edits looking for the one where the deletion occurred to just revert that one bit. Fortunately I did take the time to read the article over in addition to just checking the diffs and saw the link to the new article that time, but a simple "splitting fiction into new article" summary anywhere in those 30 edits would have saved me some bother. Bryan 00:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Image:En-CSLewis.ogg

I saw your comment on Image talk:En-CSLewis.ogg, so I thought I'd let you know that I've removed the advertisements from the recording. You may be interested in joining the discussion I started at WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia about this issue. ~MDD4696 01:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Alexkillby

Hi Beowulf. I just wanted to remind you to Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Although Alexkillby has uploaded spam/advertisements, he is still a new user and may become a valuable contributor. It's really not worth starting a flame war over. I think he's gotten the hint: if he continues to upload advertisements or he harasses you, we can take the appropriate action through other channels to have him blocked or whatnot. Thanks! ~MDD4696 02:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I know not to bite newcommers. But that particular newcomer ripped me a new <insert impolite term here> via email offline because he felt that I was criticizing his "right" to do so, making unfortunate comments about my own willingness to work on Wikipedia, and "what had I contributed". I very seldom bite first. - Beowulf314159 02:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
No problem. It's too bad that some people can be like that; I hope you don't take his attacks too personally! ~MDD4696 02:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dyson Sphere.ogg

Hi - I happened upon dyson sphere and decided to listen to the spoken version. Much to my disappointment I found it is synthesized. I do not feel that synthesized article recordings have a place on Wikipedia since:

  • any blind users would already have a speech synthesizer
  • the result is fairly painful for anyone else to listen to

In my opinion the 'spoken article' template should definitely be removed from the article and the file should probably be deleted, but I would like to hear your thoughts on it before I bring it up at the spoken wikipedia page. -SCEhardT 04:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the You

English is a somewhat limited language, "you" (plural) not you particularly. I saw several articles being dismantled... that even used to be FA articles. --Pedro 16:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matrioshka Brain

The recent changing of the primary External Link URL on the Matrioshka Brain page to the Future Hi URL is incorrect. That is *not* the "Matrioshka Brain Home Page" and is instead an outdated version of the original *copyrighted* Matrioshka Brain paper which was copied without permission to do so. The URL should be returned to the original, primary, Matrioshka Brain Home page -- [1] which I believe is now once again operational. In general it should be considered poor form to point to copyrighted material which is not obviously on an author approved site unless one is certain that permission to copy has been obtained. It would also be incorrect to indirectly assert that the Future Hi site is "Robert Bradbury's Matrioshka Brain site" when I have absolutely nothing to do with it! You can potentially damage reputations by not keeping citations and external references accurate.

Hmm. Wasn't my intention to associate you with anyone you do not wish to be associated with. I apologize. I changed the link because it was — and as of right now is — the only working copy of the webpage that I could find. I should have changed the link text as well. You are, of course, free to do with your intellectual property as you see fit, and if you feel the linking was damaging to your "online reputation", I apologize.
I've returned the link to the original URL, even though it is not working. It may only be a matter of time until someone does a similar "correction". I will check occasionally, but if the "main" page doesn't go back up within the next couple of days, I'll just take the like out rather than either point to a resource you do not wish linked to the concept, or leave a dead link in the article. - Beowulf314159 18:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arecibo message

I haven't yet seen anything that addresses the question of how broad a range of frequencies the Arecibo message was transmitted with. I would expect that they used as much of the "water hole" range as possible. I'm sure that the bulk of its "detectability" over long distances comes from the fact that it was "beamcast" using Arecibo. Let me know if you think I haven't made that clear enough in my edit. KarlBunker 02:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Both narrowband and narrow focus have an effect on range. The effect of narrowband on detectability isn't as obvious as narrow focus, but it's explained with lots of formulae in the Seti@home faq page [2]. In this faq page it's clearly stated that narrowband transmissions (with a correspondingly tuned receiver) are detectable over much greater distances than (relatively) broadband transmissions like AM radio and TV. KarlBunker 04:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Republic

User 205.152.15.232 has been temporally blocked. Mariano(t/c) 18:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your question, see Wikipedia:Blocking policy. In general, you have to assume that some bad edits are simply tests or ridiculous defacing of articles, and warn the user several times with increasing severity. If the user repeatedly vandalizes, especially in a short span of time, s/he can be blocked at the first "strike", and the blocking time can be increased too, up to an indefinite block in extreme cases. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flamarande

Hi, I allready corected the real edit that I had overlooked, Sorry. Still, I must say that: The BC dating was there "before" and as far as I know since the "beginning". "He" changed it in a "sneaky" way, hereby I meam that he changed it (importance debatable) whithout making a resume of it (which I didn´t, obviously). I don´t want to start a debate about BC or BCE "worthiness" (I read about them and they are boring) but I remember reading somewhere that: such a "change" must be anounced and, if it is foreseable that there will be oposition, debated in the talk page before making the change.

Let me just clariefy my POV: Believe it or not, I am not a christian, I am a atheist (I don´t believe in any supernatural Indentity who created the universe = god) but as our dating system is calculated at the "official" birth of "somebody" called Jesus of Nazareth, we should use "BC" as it the "most widely known" version. I even didn´t knew of the BCE/CE version and I read a lot of english books (besides other languages). Flamarande 18:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I want to thank you for the good improvements you are doing in the Roman Republic article. I am forced to aknowledge that I don´t know all that much about the inner workings of the early Republic being rather more knowlegable in the latter developments. For a long time I was kind of the sole "Keeper" of this article but now it seems more ppl are interrested in improving it (perhaps because the article was really being improved), and that is fine by me. I can only ask you to include your references in the proper place (perhaps I will buy these books, perhaps not). Again, thank you and C U around. Flamarande 18:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Speculation Template?

I was thinking perhaps it would be useful if some Wiki-admins of great Wiki-skill (I'm thinking perhaps you, Hermione1980, and Deathphoenix) could work together and create a "speculation" warning template - ie

 This article or section contains speculation and may try to argue its points.
Information must be verifiable and based on reliable published sources.
Please remove speculation and discussion from the article.

or Template:Speculative or something like that - which would theoretically be used on such wiki-pages as those that tend to attract a lot of rampant fan speculation. It could work much like the "spoiler" template - but alert readers and editors that "the following information is speculative", but is at least reasonable, supported by existing authentic text, or widely believed by concensus - something on those lines.

Some speculation items that seem reasonably probable (eg: In "Book Seven", Harry and his Hogwarts friends are expected to hunt down and attempt to destroy the remaining Horcrux(es), before Harry's final confrontation with Voldemort), or the list of known and "probable" horcruxes that were specifically mentioned by Dumbledore or otherwise in the text, would be allowed. Other posts that are clearly fanatical, agenda-driven speculation (eg: Harry is a horcrux, Harry's scar is a horcrux, Harry's wand is a horcrux, Neville's Toad is a horcrux, etc etc etc.) would be dismissed as having no foundation or supporting evidence in the existing texts, validated interviews, etc. Anything permitted as "authenticate" speculation (yes, I know it is oxymoronic) should have some kind of "chapter and verse" authority, or other reasonably conclusive evidence that anyone could recognize as reasonable.

At least it might help keep some of the random speculation, that keeps randomly and anonymously popping up, "corralled" in a smaller area for consideration. Or perhaps this is a terrible and counterproductive idea... --T-dot 01:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Singularity Rewrite

Does your re-write make perfect sense to a high-school freshman? Did the article do so before? If the answers are 'No', and 'Yes' - then your edit is failure. -- Beowulf314159 12:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

As was hopefully clear from the reasoning I posted in the talk for the article, my answer to "Did the article do so before" is a resounding "No". Everyone I pointed at the article reported that they found it rather confusing. In this case, we aren't even talking high school freshmen, but computer science majors and other various IT employees.

However, I am in agreement that the wording of the intro I wrote is too technical. Do you have any suggestions as to how the comprehensibility of the article can be improved? Perhaps you could edit the sections you feel are too technical, or post them on the article talk page for further discussion?

I am certainly not completely happy with my rewrite, but I do feel it provides immense improvements in clarity. I still see problems that need addressed (the second paragraph essentially sandwiches together two unrelated ideas) and I'd like to get as much feedback as possible to ensure a good clean-up rewrite.

-- Tarcieri 02:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim Council boycott

why have you just removed all the text i just added? Veej 15:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Because the article is not about the boycott. The Boycott is relevant and needs to be mentioned, and the external references to BBC articles are relevant to that sub-issues.
However, by placing entire transcripts in the encyclopedia entry, your edit completely dominated the article, giving the issue far more coverage than the actual day that the article is supposed to be about! This is an encyclopedia, not a political issues debate forum.
I did not erase your entry - I moved it to the discussion page, where it is more appropriate. Some of the external links can and likely should be be worked back into the section on the boycott.
You may wish to include the material elsewhere. Perhaps the issue deserves it's own article? But a side-issue to the actual event should not "crowd out" the topic which the article is about. - Beowulf314159 15:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


  • The "entire transcript" of the interview was NOT included. only some text related to the denial of boycott & the motives for the boycott were included. this is a complex issue so it does take space. further editing could improve it but it's complete removal from the article seems over zealous. the MCB boycott has been a massive issue in the UK. the boycott has created more headlines than the HMD itself. This is a real life example of the 'side-issue' dominating the main event. my edit reflected that. i'm not trying to debate political issues. however, the MCB boycott has created a major political issue. that's why so many articles have been written about it & the BBC dedicated it's flagship documentary to it. surely wikipedia articles shouldn't ignore this? Veej 16:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kelvin

D'oh! I actually went and read the Kelvin article, which I should have done first. You're absolutely right. I was dead wrong. - Beowulf314159 15:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I remember writing it "degrees Kelvin" once and being corrected. I know what it is... :D — Poulpy 15:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Marvolo Riddle

Hi Beowulf, I notice you altered one of my changes. First, Tom Marvolo Riddle is a redirect, so shouldn't be used as a link, either use Tom Riddle or Lord Voldemort. I am trying to rearrange things so that tom riddle is only linked when it is explicitly only tom who is meant. Otherwise link Lord Voldemort, which includes his whole life history. Anything which is using both names so the reader knows they are the same person should go directly to Voldemort. Thaks,Sandpiper 16:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. Yes, i know there is a mess. The trouble is that there are an awful lot of links which have just grown up without people realising there is an issue. There are quite a few pages where i don't know what is the best way to proceed and I appreciate your point that in context, Slughorn is talking to riddle. However, to mention riddle by name is to make it clear that Riddle and Voldemort are one and the same person. A number of people (not really me, but i respect their POV) have been trying to protect the fact that Riddle and voldemort are the same person, as a plot spoiler. This was the supposed reason for having two separate articles, but in reality that simply did not work as it was immediately plain from either that they are the same person. The only way to protect this information is by rather careful choice of names. Now, I am not convinced this is necessarily worth worrying about, but it has placed itself in my path, so i am stuck with doing so. Suggestions?

For the moment, I am trying to change any links to Tom Riddle to Lord Voldemort, in the cases where it is plain that there is no secret to be kept.Sandpiper 16:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, a merger has already both been discussed and agreed upon Sandpiper 17:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Answer about MCB

this doesn't really belong anywhere else, as I want to know your opinion. Namely, why the Jewish Holocaust — while being a horrific and monstrous event which should never be allowed to happen again — is qualitatively different than other genocides?

  • I didn't say it was. Many people do say that, but I'm not qualified to judge. What is quite clear to me, as a UK resident, is that the Nazi Holocaust (of Jews, Gypsies, gays, and others) has a qualitatively different significance in British culture to other genocides. Within living memory, a large number of British soldiers, journalists and military nurses saw these things with their own eyes which they shared with their comrades at arms, and the wider population. That is the reason that there is a Holocaust memorial day in Britain. Holocaust memorial day commemorates the victims, but it is not for the sake of the victims, most of whom perished at the time. It is a cultural phenomenon based on collective British emotional experience.
  • Muslims in Britain are mostly post-war immigrants, who did not share this experience either as victims or as liberators. Understandably, Holocaust day may not be particularly meaningful to them. However the attitude of the MCB seems to be that Holocaust day is a commemoration of Jewish emotions, or was instituted at the Jews' request. Nothing could be further from the truth; it is a profoundly British occasion, and commemorates the significance of the Holocaust to British men and women. That is, I suppose, why the MCB's stance has been so widely condemned from every corner of British society. Jewish groups have in fact been relatively forgiving. Zargulon 00:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, and it's pretty much what I thought it would be. It sounds like you're saying that "this genocide over here is personally meaningful to me/us, and this one over here doesn't affect us directly so we don't count it as dearly as the one that does." That's a very human attitude, and I'm not about to say that anyone who has it should be censured for it - but I do think it's wrong. I think all atrocities should be condemned with the same ferocity of loathing. I think the Jewish holocaust should be remembered as it is - but I think so should the Rwandan, and the Cambodian genocides.

  • I still think you are confusing the moral dimension and the emotional dimension. It would certainly be legitimate to complain if different legal standards were used in punishing different perpetrators for the same crime, or if victims who suffered the same loss were compensated differently. It is unreasonable, however, to complain that a country chooses to commemorate its own history and not to commemorate someone else's. That is a matter of completely free choice for the country concerned. The MCB is entitled to try to influence this choice, but the British are also entitled to reject its influence.

And, frankly, if the particular "emotional impact" of the Jewish Holocaust can only be maintained by claiming that it is somehow "different" or "worse" or "more significant" than other genocides on the same scale (millions of people), then does it deserve that level of impact? If it gains in prominence only at the expense of denying the significance of other crimes of that type, is that just? I don't think so.

  • The idea that a genocide deserves or does not deserve things seems slightly strange to me. However I don't think anyone is trying to maintain the emotional impact of the Holocaust artifically. Quite the opposite, really, at least in the UK.. Holocaust day is to help people cope with something that had a great impact when it happened, not to create an impact of its own. Zargulon 01:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb

I realise that the discovery was a group effort of many scientists and institiutions, I just wanted to make it more clear who played a major/the most impertant(?) role in the discovery. It is hard to point out who exacly "discoevered" that planet because as far as I know, now one actually saw it but the planet was discovered through a complicated process of data analisis. Anyway as we often say in Poland "A success has many fathers, while a failure is always an orphan" :) If you don't like my recent edits we can always put the names of the institiutions and scientists in alphabetical order that would be very NPOV. See you around Mieciu K 16:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SpellBound

Thank you for recommending SpellBound. I was certain that something like it existed, but since I couldn't find it on mozilla.org's extension listings, I thought that it was in FireFox-only land and I was just going to have to wait. I'm happy to say I have it installed and working now. --James S. 03:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Republic

Nope, nothing else to aim it at, and that's what the disambig page directs folks to go to. :-)
Search4Lancer 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List idea

hahaha... yeah, Top 100 fan theories of Horcruxes sounds like a smashing idea. I have one for you: how about Lord Voldemort's belly button lint? --Deathphoenix 21:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. :-) --Deathphoenix 21:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-reference and original research in Dyson sphere

I just brought up some issues about a reference in Dyson sphere to Talk:Dyson sphere#A defense of Staties., thought you might like a heads-up. Bryan 07:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: 3RR violation

The user in question has only made 3 reverts so far, as the first time s/he removed several paragraphs is not quonted as a revert. If s/he stops reverting now there is nothing to worry about, if she makes another revert you can report hir at WP:AN/3RR (I will no longer be online). Cheers, —Ruud 23:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] test message

this is beowulf, adding a message as an anon user - 70.52.197.210 07:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dyson Sphere.ogg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dyson Sphere.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 04:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Pullo.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Pullo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Harry Potter magical spells

Category:Harry Potter magical spells has been nominated for deletion; you are invited to comment in the discussion located here. – Black Falcon (Talk) 06:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Character appearances in Rome

Character appearances in Rome, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Character appearances in Rome satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Character appearances in Rome and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Character appearances in Rome during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Collectonian (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Chronology of Rome (TV series)

Chronology of Rome (TV series), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Chronology of Rome (TV series) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Rome (TV series) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Chronology of Rome (TV series) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Collectonian (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)