User talk:Jheald

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

[edit] Archives

User talk:Jheald/Archive 1 Nov 2004 to Dec. 2006
User talk:Jheald/Archive 2 to June 2007
User talk:Jheald/Archive 3 to Dec. 2007

[edit] Jami al-Tawarikh

Hiya, I see that you're the main editor on Rashid al-Din's work. FYI, I have just received via interlibrary loan, two books which could be useful sources to the article, Blair's Compendium of Chronicles and Gray's World History of Rashid al-Din. I only have the books for a couple weeks though, so I figured I'd mention it to you directly, and see if there's anything in particular that you'd like me to doublecheck while I have them. :) --El on ka 00:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] deletion of restored copyright-violating images

You have restored images that (a) do not belong in this article where they are placed (scroll down to appropriate placement of images of the medals already in this article) and, more importantly, (b) are currently marked for deletion because they have been lifted from a copyrighted website; please click on the image and see the problems by following the links to the image being marked for deletion page. Please read the article on Nobel Prize section on the medals, where such illustrations (which are not currently marked for deletion) are included. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

See also editing history in Linus Pauling and the problems clearly described. The image uploader has taken these images from a copyright-protected website and provided no credit of the site, no source, no evidence of permission (though such is required on the site), and no required fair-use rationale for any article in which s/he placed these uploaded images. --NYScholar (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

here's the link to the listing on images marked for deletion page: [1] for your convenience. --NYScholar (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archeology articles

Hi Jheald. I noticed that you were involved in renaming articles to South Levant back in the day. There's a discussion over at something that started as Palestinian archaeology by a fine editor, Tiamut. I want to avoid an appearance of canvassing, but I would like to find out a bit about the history and logic of the naming dispute and how you all settled on South Levant. Thanks, HG | Talk 18:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Very long

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Jheald (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 15:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AWB sweep for multiple wikireferences

I agree with you. After using AWB for a bit, I noticed the "Alert" section in AWB that points out multiple links, and I decided to add cleaning up multiple wikilinks to the edits. I began going through the links it listed (I did go through each one manually on each article) and eliminating most (but not all) of the second and subsequent occurrences. However, after a few dozen of these, I came to the same conclusion as you that there are often valid reasons for multiple link occurrences and I was afraid I might be being overly aggressive in removing them. I decided it's not something I want to include in future AWB general cleanup as each case really needs closer attention. --MPerel 18:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Human genetics Wikiproject

I have signed up at the Wikiprojects page. I have recently edited several very obsolete or otherwise confusing pages (R1b, U, K) and I really hink it needs of this kind of group.

I nevertheless believe the project should focus specially in scholarly peer reviewed research and leave comercial testing in a second plane (and treat it with the due criticism it often deserves). I think the name of the project should be something like Human population genetics, rather than the ambiguous "Genetic History".

I have already some Wikiproject experience, specially in the Basque WikiProject. Alternatively a Task Force could do but surely this issue will draw enough people as to create a good WikiProject and even a Portal. --Sugaar (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I created a draft version of WikiProject Human Genetic History; feel free to go to it and flesh it out. Also, given that there has been some comments about starting a task force inside of an existing WikiProject vs. a full-blown project, I've started an informal poll on the WikiProject proposal page. – Swid ^{(talk · edits)} 00:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for going forward and making this live; I've been pretty busy in real life this week. Hopefully, sometime in the next few days I'll work up a draft on a generalized structure for the haplogroup articles. – Swid ^{(talk · edits)} 21:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whirlwind (novel)

Thank you so much for that! I have been trying to grow this from a stub over the last two months, and I _knew_ there had to be a backstory to Whirlwind, Clavell always does that. Now I can sleep tonight! :) Any idea what the events in Noble House stem from? @:^} Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Black hole electron

Hi Jheald; I believe the Bh electron article now defines electron mass and Compton wavelength units with sufficient clarity so that units are adequately explained and defined. I would like very much to know if you agree that units used are clearly explained. There seems to be no end to this electron story but I know we should limit the article to documented information and facts that can be readily verified.

Please let me know if the present wording is adequate (your opinion) or if a better explanation of units is needed. DonJStevens (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your tweaks

Thanks for your tweaks on the Bering land bridge article, any chance you could talk me through them so I do a better job next time? Thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Speedy unblock for User:Aaronjhill please

Thank you for your message on my talk page [2]. Despite the four levels of warnings given by Steve Crossin (talk · contribs) and the AIV report [3], I was not entirely convinced as to its merit, so I only gave Aaronjhill (talk · contribs) a 15 minute block. As such, this editor has been unblocked since 11 minutes before you left me your message. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: WP:ANI Thread

I'm very sorry about that. I was using Lupin's Anti-Vandal tool at the time and I used rollback to revert what I thought was vandalism. The thing that came up was Line 380 - :'Forward 5′→ 3′: gcaacaatgagggtttttttg'- I immediately thought that this was vandalism, did one revert and moved on. I didn't look into the page history but my personal policy is to rollback once and then go to the revision history. I express my apologies to Aaronjhill. This was a complete misunderstanding. I had no idea what he was trying to do. When anti-vandalising, I come accross vandalism like that all time and I simply believed this was another case. Olly₁₅₀ 13:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's odd. I actually saw the same line in Huggle. However I agree I've had an error of judgment here, and it's something I'm not proud of at all. I give my deepest apologies, this is most rare, I can assure you. Steve Crossin (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Settlement infoboxes for Iran

Hey don't forget about Iran cities. Many still don't have infoboxes!!! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free content

"Where non-free content (i) is legal, (ii) is not in competition with the creation of any free content, and (iii) would add value to an article, then it's hard to see any useful purpose served by excluding it."

That's exactly my opinion. I tried to write this up here but it's not as clear as I would like. — Omegatron 03:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of {{lowercase}}

About that, when is it utilized for surnames? Best one I was able to find was this sample. Thoughts? Please reply on your talk page, as I'm watching it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There should be something in WP:MOS about this. As a counter-example, consider Van der Waals force. My view is that a prefix is not usually capitalised; but the first word of an article title is like the first word of a sentance, which is capitalised. So IMO capitalization of the prefix is correct. Hmmm. Time to look through WP:MOS... Jheald (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This probably should be taken to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization) for a definitive view. I haven't been able to find any specific guidance in WP:MOS, and I definitely think that there should be. Jheald (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Now we wait. Would you happen to have a preference? I think lowercase. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I've seen your important contributions for the article Exact trigonometric constants.

I'm looking for the general (non-iterative) algebraic expression for the exact trigonometric constants of the form: $\begin{align}\cos \frac{\pi}{2^n}\end{align}$ , when n is natural (and is not given in advance). Do you know of any such general (non-iterative) algebraic (non-trigonometric) expression?

Let me explain: if we choose n=1 then the term $\begin{align}\cos \frac{\pi}{2^n}\end{align}$ becomes "0", which is a simple (non-trigonometric) constant. If we choose n=2 then the term $\begin{align}\cos \frac{\pi}{2^n}\end{align}$ becomes $\begin{align}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{align}$ , which is again an algebraic (non-trigonometric) constant. etc. etc. Generally, for every natural n, the term $\begin{align}\cos \frac{\pi}{2^n}\end{align}$ becomes an algebraic (non-trigonometric) constant. However, when n is not given in advance, then the very expression $\begin{align}\cos \frac{\pi}{2^n}\end{align}$ per se - is not an algebraic expression but rather is a trigonometric (non-algebraic) expression. I'm looking for the general (non-iterative) algebraic (non-trigonometric) expression equivalent to $\begin{align}\cos \frac{\pi}{2^n}\end{align}$ , when n is not given in advance. If not for the cosine - then for the sine or the tangent or the cotangent.

Eliko (talk) 07:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Entropy

Hi,

There are a number of editors who are trying to bring a sense of order and structure to the various articles on entropy. Engaging in revert wars is counter-productive to this effort. The core problem is that the DAB page is fundamentally incorrect in what it states, and in particular, is incorrect in pointing to a "lead" article that provides an inappropriate/verging on wrong/ definition of entropy. Please do not interfere in the creation and maintenance of articles about topics in which you have no interest. Thank you. linas (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I bit, I've been reverted three times today, and I view the first few as spurious and clueless. I'm rather loosing my temper in resolving what should be an easy and clear problem, with an obvious and immediate direct way forward.

The topic got pounded to death on the talk pages. There was (I thought) a clear consensus for the need for a general article on the concept of entropy, that wasn't strongly focused on thermodynamics. The obvious path from here to there was blocked when the page move went awry. The next step is then to create the desired, factually correct article on the general concept of entropy, and when its completed, take another shot at installing it as the "main" article. linas (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NFCC 8 revisited

You were involved in this discussion last year, so I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Criterion 8 objection. howcheng {chat} 20:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HP MfD

My apologies; this was my first time processing one, and I had followed the cue of another editor who added it to the HP dab page. I have since found out he was wrong toadd it, and I was wrong to select the miscellany for deletion. I apologize if my mistake harshed your calm. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] E3b vs. E1b1b

Don't you think we should wait to see if the rest of the scientific community accepts this new nomenclature before moving the E3b page to E1b1b and changing all references? E3b has been used pretty consistently (although some of its subclades have been moved around a bit) for a while now, and I'm not sure it will be so quickly renamed. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jehovah

Wow - that's a big step forward. Good work! StAnselm (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edward Wright (mathematician): DYK nomination

Hi. I've nominated Edward Wright (mathematician), an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on May 1, where you can improve it if you see fit. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 01:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 5/7 DYK

On 7 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edward Wright (mathematician), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford 00:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Helmholtz free energy

I'm not sure what the best convention is. As I understand it, the chemists prefer A while physicists prefer F. Most textbooks I've seen (admittedly these are physics textbooks) still use F. I was about to start writing the up derivation of "A = - kT Log(Z)" and I tought "A = - k T Log(Z)" looks so strange compared to the usual "F = - k T Log(Z)", so I changed A to F. Anyway, I can change it back to A if that is what most involved editors want... Count Iblis (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll change it back and we'll discus this later with the other editors. Count Iblis (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edward Wright (mathematician): Lead section

Hi, I've more or less finished the updates to the article "Edward Wright (mathematician)" that I intended to do. The lead section needs to be expanded so that it is a better summary of the article – would you like to try your hand at that, if you have time? I've also added a {{Maintained}} template to the talk page. Do add your username to the template if you'd like to. Finally, I've listed the article for peer review for suggestions on how it might be improved. I think this is an article we should be able to get up to Good Article, and possibly even Featured Article, status at some stage! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 01:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:CKeeler1.jpg

Jheald. I am sure you are right. I only reversed my earlier restoration because of what appeared to be some sort of representation from the copyrightholder. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics of Israel‎

I've replied on the article talk page - I don't think we are that far apart. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coin images

Hi there,

I think you may misunderstand the non-fair use of currency images in general.

First, it is difficult (if not impossible) to determine if a currency image is free-of-use. That can change by the image of the currency and the country where the currency is issued. The euro coins dedicated to circulation, for example, are free-to-use copyrights; this has been checked several times with the ECB. The euro commemorative coins, which have not legal tender in the union, they may adhere to the laws of the issuing country. Same happens for other currencies of other countries, some countries' are free-to-use rationale some countries' are not.

However, even if the country says that they are not free-to-use (like England for example) they are under the fair-use rationale. For currency images that has a very specific meaning: the image can be use, as long as the image on the coin is used to be described or criticized. The image you removed was described in the article; hence it is in the fair-use rationale.

Maybe I am incorrect, what is your opinion?

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)