User talk:FirstPrinciples/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< User talk:FirstPrinciples

Talk Archive 1 - August 2004 to December 2004

[edit] Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[edit] Hypokalemia and milliequivalent

Hey Doug! Nice work on Hypokalemia and Milliequivalent. I'm half thinking the latter should reside at Equivalent (chemistry), but haven't really made up my mind. What do you think? --Diberri | Talk 17:09, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Now that you mention it... you're absolutely right. (The 'milli' prefix doesn't really belong in the article heading, does it?) I will move the article, and set up a couple of redirects. -- FirstPrinciples 02:53, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I moved the article to Equivalent weight (chemistry) and set up two or three redirects. Also, I improved the definition to something that made sense :) -- FirstPrinciples 04:01, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Concentration

The article is pretty complete, and I wished I'd known about it last year, when I had to prepare solutions myself. However, it could still use some improvement.

I'd like to see an example in the Normality section (possibly 2, showing both monovalent and multivalent acids).
I don't like the order in which the different quantative measures are mentioned. I think less common ones should be moved down (while still keeping some sort of order) so instead of Molinity>Molality>Formal> Mole Fraction> Normality, I'd suggest something different. What about Molality>Molinity (these are linked) Normality> Mole Fraction> Formal (never even heard of that last one).
The table at the end is very useful, but it shouldn't be called Table of measurements, because technically that's reserved for solution you've measured using these formulas. Table of Concentration measures would be more gramatically correct.

Hope that's been helpful. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 09:53, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I will work on integrating them into the article. -- FirstPrinciples 07:55, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Moldy sandwich?

Posted on User:ClockworkTroll: May I ask what is the meaning of the great and mysterious moldy sandwich? -- FirstPrinciples 21:48, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Honestly, I have absolutely no idea. However, because Maestrosync took the time to post it for me, I like to think that it's a compliment. Unfortunately, he won't actually tell me what it means, so I can't be sure. ClockworkTroll 21:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Fresh FM

FYI, I have blocked that anon for 24 hours. -- Chris 73 Talk 12:53, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, it was getting a little frustrating. -- FirstPrinciples 12:54, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome. I also think we can revert the article to the previous version, since his claims sound doubtful to me. Also thanks for the compliments on the Japanese toilet. if you think it is amusing to read this, just imagine how amusing it is to USE one :) Chris 73 Talk 13:24, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Atlas Award

You have been awarded the near-prestigious Atlas Award, for your work in keeping the sandbox tidy. Generally considered an unimportant task, and without recognition, nothing on wikipedia goes completely unnoticed. Your efforts are appreciated. As a recipient of the Atlas Award, you may display it as you see fit and are also entitled to bestow it upon other editors who likewise keep the sand raked clean. "the sandbox is not a litterbox" thank you.Pedant 02:23, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks very much. (I used to be a 98-pound weakling!) -- FirstPrinciples 05:06, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Templates in VIP

sadly, one can't use templates in VIP in the way that would seem obvious (I wrote the VIPtemplate thing) -- because currently Wikipedia has a limit of five expansions per template per page. So while each one you add might seem to work, it breaks all but the next five succeeding ones. Apparently the limit is going to be removed in some future version. --jpgordon{gab} 17:31, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, sorry! -- FirstPrinciples 22:19, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright on Political Party Logos

Thanks for implementing all those tags — I uploaded most of the images before I really understood the licensing issue. -- Vardion 23:47, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No problem, I'm just getting the hang of copyrights myself. -- FirstPrinciples 05:04, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] sandbox

Thankyou very much for supporting me on User talk:82.32.22.235. Are you a Sysop, and if so can you block him? Thanks, --Honeycake 08:37, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think he's about to be banned by SWAdair. -- FirstPrinciples 08:38, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Get the s/box header to stay permanantly? What a fabulous idea. Need any help, just drop me a line on my talk page.--Honeycake 08:54, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Doug, it's a nice idea, but there is currently no way of protecting only part of a page. The {{sandbox}} template itself is protected, but that won't prevent people removing it altogether. If you want to suggest changes to the template, you can do so at Template talk:Sandbox. Don't get too worried about it though. It's far better vandals are playing in the sandbox than in the encyclopedia. :) Angela . 10:55, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Doug, in the current WikiMedia-structure, the only way to do this would be have a [[Special:Sandbox]], I think. That would allow [[Wikipedia:Sandbox]] to be used as the special-page-template, which could be protected. Aliter 19:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Honeycake

Thanks very much for reverting my talkpage. I didn't think that nutcase 82.32.22.235 would actually vandalise it. Thanks again,--Honeycake 17:56, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He's still on the case, changing his IP regularly. Look out for any IPs beginning with 222.152.***.*** -- FirstPrinciples 17:57, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Sent a complaint to abuse@xtra.co.nz regarding the 222.152.x.x IPs and they might look into it. No gtees but they are usually good. Probably include links to the history pages so they can easily check the time plus IP plus what was done. SimonLyall 18:40, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's interesting, I'll look into it. -- FirstPrinciples 18:43, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

No problem. :-) Evercat 00:22, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Sbox

Thankyou very much for all your improvements and reversions of vandalism to my template (although when I say my I mean the new!). I'm amazed at how much vandalism it got within 12 hours of it being in existence! That surely must be a record. Anyway, thanks again,--Honeycake 18:05, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Atlas Award" received with great thanks.--Honeycake 18:38, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Improved user page

Since you asked for help regarding the HTML on your user page, I edited your page to look better. That actually meant taking out most HTML: THis is not the Web, this is a Wiki; pages look better here if you go easy on the lay-out. But, of course, it's up to you. Feel free to revert if you don't want your page to look like a Wikipedia page. Aliter 19:09, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I agree that a simpler design is best. -- FirstPrinciples 22:17, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sandpaper Award

OK, I've removed it. However, I've kept the talk page one along with your reply lest I should be accused of removing criticism (spelling?). Thanks for your help.--Honeycake13:39, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Neutral"

Quote: To be bold and innovative but always maintain a neutral point of view. Is this goal really achievable? --(unsigned by 67.65.21.245)

Well, perhaps not in the short term - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't aim for it. Actually, I think it's perfectly possible to be bold (i.e. not hesitant to contribute) and innovative (i.e. ready to come up with new ideas) while maintaining a neutral point of view. It's possible to add reasoned ideas and opinions to an article provided you add the appropriate preface (e.g. "Many commentators feel that..." or "Critics have noted..." &tc.) Note that being bold does not equate with recklessness or aggression. -- FirstPrinciples 00:19, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Celebrity usernames

I've raised the general issue of celebrity usernames at Wikipedia talk:Username#Celebrity usernames. I'd be interested in your comments. JamesMLane 20:43, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A quick note to say thanks

I just wanted to drop you a quick note to thank you for your support in my request for adminship. It was certainly a wild ride, and I really appreciate you taking some time out to contribute. ClockworkSoul 16:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome! -- FirstPrinciples 02:47, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Misunderstood "vanity link"

You misunderstood my placement of a link to my userpage on "list of notable eccentrics". The link was not motivated by vanity, it was motivated by a desire to point out what a piece of crap idea that whole page is. Because, in all honesty, YES, I am eccentric, and no one can argue, because "eccentric" is a vague, subjective term that doesn't really tell you much about someone. My point was that, to be true to the term, really ANYONE should be eligible. That's how worthless and pointless that article is. Revolver 09:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the list of notable eccentrics article is a little silly, and I understand that you added your name to the list with a sense of irony. However, just because you disagree with a page's content or even its existence is not a reason to vandalise it -- even if your objection/vandalism is witty and ironic. Such discussions belong on the article's talk page; I think Wikipedia policy is fairly explicit on this point. Furthermore, I do understand what the terms 'eccentric' and 'notable' mean, and an anonymous internet user prima facie does not meet the definition. -- FirstPrinciples 09:48, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

To clarify, I wasn't objecting to you calling yourself "eccentric", but a "notable eccentric". -- FirstPrinciples 09:52, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page, I did raise all my objections with some explanation. Several weeks later, apparently nothing has been done. This seems to be a common problem at wikipedia — pointless articles being kept because of a fervent minority. I find it hard to understand why this is still here and yet I had to fight pretty hard to keep baseball slang from being deleted. Revolver 22:03, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I sympathise with you Revolver, really. I understand that there are a large number of less-than-encyclopedic articles out there. I also understand that talk pages are routinely overlooked. However, none of this justifies defacing the article, even in a little way, to "make a statement". There are better alternatives you can try such as listing the page on pages needing attention or re-listing it on votes for deletion (as far as I can tell, the last aborted VfD was many many months ago), and make your case where many more people will be able to see it and comment. So in conclusion, I largely agree with your sentiments; but I still feel that I was quite justified removing your self-reference (which I called "vanity" for want of a better term). -- FirstPrinciples 03:12, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I have attempted to list it at VfD; I'm not really sure I succeeded. The directions are thoroughly confusing, you need a ph.d. just to understand them. Revolver 23:52, 2 Dec 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:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

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:

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:

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)

OK, I've set up a notice at User:FirstPrinciples/Copyrights. I've actually been meaning to do this for a while, thanks for the note! -- FirstPrinciples 00:01, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

Templates like cleanup and attention warn readers that this article is sub-standard and should not be relied upon. Telling them a page does not have an image is not a useful warning. This issued has already been debated with the proposed CSB and featured article templates. Feel free to add the template to the talk pages of these articles, they are all listed at Wikipedia:Requested pictures, so this should not be a difficult task. - SimonP 02:01, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

You deleted the template from seven articles, so you have the obligation of replacing it in the talk page, in those instances. -- FirstPrinciples 02:04, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Requested images

You've put this template on the talk page of several articles I wrote. I think it is a good idea. Some time ago I've put a message on the talk page of the Tree of Life Proposal about this subject. I've also had the opportunity to discuss this with Jimbo Wales at the Wikimeeting in Rotterdam, Holland. He seemed rather favourable to this idea. But there are changes to be made in the MediaWiki programming and this is not likely to be happen soon. Meanwhile we'll have to do with Wikipedia:Requested pictures and hope for the best. JoJan 08:38, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi JoJan, thanks very much for your comments. I decided to be bold and add the image request template to every page listed in Wikipedia:Requested pictures (partly prompted by a rather curt exchange with SimonP). The problem, as I see it, is that the "requested picture" page is tucked away from most users, with often no sign whatsoever in the actual article that an image was wanted! I still feel that the template is far from perfect, but at least it's better than what was there before. I love your suggestion of a "default" image contribution box at the bottom of every article (which can be turned off using a simple checkbox or something similar). -- FirstPrinciples 10:25, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead. You have my support. Let's hope that it gives some results. I have had another idea for a while. If we did an appeal in the Village Pump to the Wikipedians all over the world to go out and take pictures in botanical gardens and zoos. We could then soon have a wealth of copyright-free pictures at our disposal to illustrate our articles, instead of having to beg by email to institutions, only to get no response at all or a polite refusal. JoJan 17:37, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've written a biography of Richard Dell, a New Zealand malacologist. Later in life, he became director of the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. I've asked them for a photo of him, but they refused politely because they could not comply with the Wikipedia restrictions on copyright. Perhaps you know a way to obtain a {{GFDL}} or {{cc-by-2.0}} photo (perhaps via contacts at your university) ? And if you can, a photo of William Ponder would also be welcome. he's a New Zealander, one of the top malacologist in the world and now at the University of Sidney. I was pondering writing a biography of Ponder (no pun intended). Anyway, see what you can do. Thanks. JoJan 08:50, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Hmmmm, malacology :) -- FirstPrinciples 10:25, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

I have done quite a number of articles on seaslugs (very colourful creatures !). But even after a worldwide appeal in a scientific magazine (Spirula) to malacologist for cooperation, I got no response. Since then, I switched over to botany and lately to orchids. These will keep me busy for quite some time. If you could put your template on my 'orphaned' orchid pages (Start with Orchidaceae and go down the blue links), perhaps it would give some results. Thanks anyway. JoJan 17:37, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sandboxpaste template

Thanks! Dysprosia 03:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome! -- FirstPrinciples 06:27, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] there were about 10 attack attempts between 12:33 and 12:55pm mountain time

I checked the pages I was accessing then, and the only new ones were Sollog and Talk:JamesMLane, however, one of my usual pages may have temporarily had one of these in it. However, I don't recall a behavior at the time that would have me attempt to access a page 10 or so times at that time. --Silverback 23:23, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whoops, I found it! It is this page:

[1]

--Silverback 23:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Excellent, I will inform the developers immediately. -- FirstPrinciples 23:38, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

I checked past versions of the page, and this picture has been there at the same address for weeks, however, my logs don't show the attack until that time yesterday. So someone overwrote the picture, because the same address did not have the problem before.--Silverback 23:41, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK. See here for more info. There is a chance that it is a false alarm, but it must be checked out immediately. BTW, can I ask what operating system, browser and firewall you are using?

Windows XP Pro, Internet Explorer 6.0.2800, I don't think they would be involved because the picture was blocked by Sygate Security Agent 3.5 before it got to these.--Silverback 23:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I had been on the page about 9 hours before without an attack. I checked the log for my firewall, and if I read it correctly, its profile had not been updated for several days. I think the evidence points to an overwrite of the picture. I hope that is what your investigation shows.--Silverback 00:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've checked the images, and they provisionally seem OK. The Sygate website (here) suggests there may be a problem at your end with an outdated DLL file; try using this Microsoft tool to check your system. You should also visit here and here for latest patches, especially Xp SP2. Finally, you might want to use Microsoft's free Baseline Security Analyser to check for vulnerabilities. -- FirstPrinciples 00:15, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

I'll let you know if anything more comes up. -- FirstPrinciples 00:20, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

I am not affected by the exploit because my firewall blocks it. this is the picture: [2] that sygate blocks. If it doesn't really have a problem then the problem is that sygate suddenly decided to give a false alarm. So any updates would need to be to my sygate software. When I look at the history of the picture, nothing has happened to it. So, unless there is an overwrite that is not reflected in the history then the picture is not bad. Hmmm, a mystery. I will see if I can find something that changed on my end. I know that I upgraded by anti-virus software, perhaps the behavior of Sygate changed in response to that. --Silverback 00:27, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here's what I think is happening. It looks as though your firewall is intermittently detecting an out-of-date DLL on your system when you access certain JPEGs. I think this may occur whether or not the JPEG is actually "malformed". I still strongly suggest you visit this page and patch your system. In fact, anyone running a Microsoft OS should apply all applicable patches unless they have a very good reason not to. I think it is very likely that once you update your system, the firewall will stop detecting any problems. (P.S. I'm still running some tests on the JPEGS in question to see if they are malicious). -- FirstPrinciples 00:40, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Apologies, the problem disappeared when I upgraded Sygate to the latest version, 3.5 build 2312b3, I had been at 2312b2. I do keep my windows up to date, although it has been about 3 weeks. Why it suddenly started alerting, I may never know. Thanx for being so responsive. --Silverback 01:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No problem, don't worry about it. You've (inadvertently) helped to raise an important issue about viruses on Wikipedia! :) -- FirstPrinciples 02:56, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Classification of BZP

I did a search for BZP + sympathometic amine [3] and the only real result i got was a Canterbury Health Lab presentation [4] saying specifically that BZP "is not [their emphasis not mine!] a sympathomimetic amine!".

Being a ppt presentation it was not well-referenced, so i can't check either way. Where'd you get your info?

Thanks, Tristanb 02:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Benzylpiperazine structural formula

Hi TristanB. My reasoning was:

A) Benzylpiperazine is (apparently) sympathomimetic, in that it has highly comparable effects and approximately 1/10th the potency (or efficacy?) of amphetamine, with sympathomimetic effects on the cardiovascular system, pupils, etc., etc.

B) It's been four years since I studied chemistry - but if you look at the chemical structure here it certainly looks like an aromatic amine.

Based on A) and B) I made the leap to 'sympathomimetic amine'. In hindsight that was perhaps a little too bold, and I apologise for wrongly classifying it. Where would you suggest it is put in the current drug templates?

P.S. I am working on a infobox for BZP here; I will finish it some time over the Christmas vacation. -- FirstPrinciples 05:08, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I've done some background reading and it does seem to be an benzyl amine and has at least peripheral sympathomimetic action; at least according to sites like erowid. Also, try googling "benzylpiperazine (sympathomimetic OR amine)" (without quote marks). Personally, I think the powerpoint presenter was over-emphasising the differences between BZP and "nasty" illicit drugs, and the emphatic claim that BZP is not a sympathomimetic amine is not 100% right -- FirstPrinciples 05:24, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Your reasoning sounds good to me. It is sympathometic, and (it's been 6 years since i've done any chem) i'll agree that it's an amine. I know next to nothing about drug classifications, so i'd just leave it where it is. I was just a bit worried by the fact he said not so vigorously, as if he's sick of people say calling it that!

But yeah, while there's nowhere else to put it, i think s~ a~ will do fine. Tristanb 10:27, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. Many thanks for bringing the issue to my attention. :) -- FirstPrinciples 10:48, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] {{bottompostusertalk}}

I noticed you're using my {{bottompostusertalk}} template. I just made a new one that you might like better, {{usercomment}}. --Theodore Kloba 19:58, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)