User talk:Karol Langner/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] AfD aka VfD on Philosophical interpretation of classical physics

We could use your opinion on this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophical interpretation of classical physics

I have nominated as original research but feel that it is important to solicit additional opinions on the matter before an administrator is forced to make a decision. As I mention in the discussion on the [[AfD page - I think the underlying idea - to discuss the impact of classical Newtonian physics has had on other discpiplines and the impact that QM should (but in many cases has not fully) had on those same disciplines - is an interesting one; however, I need help in determining if existing article should be the starting point for such a discussion (or if this topic is covered elsewhere). Thx in adv -Trödel|talk 10:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Category policy for research institutions

Hi Karol,

your feedback is welcome :) --DarTar 13:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Karol, I've replied to your comments. Thanks for your help --DarTar

[edit] Brahma Kumari World Spiritual Organisation

Hi

got your message at the above entry. Yup, it is work in progress.

Partly, I was working late at night and had to call time; partly, I wanted to engage others in the process and so at least to leave some sense of form.

Will have a look at creating an account etc. and so will a few days to put some polish on this entry.

Thanks.

I have a dynamic IP address.

[edit] Categorization if Musical notation

See my edit summary: "rm supercats". Hyacinth 17:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of thermodynamics

Thanks for your contributions to this article. I was just admiring how much more filled out the early sections are than when I read them last. --arkuat (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Psy guy's RfA

Thanks for supporting my RfA. It recently closed with final tally of 51/1/2. I sincerely appreciate it and I hope I can live up to your expectations. I will try my best to be a good administrator. If you ever need anything, just let me know. Thanks! -- Psy guy (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pharmacology

I was wondering why you chose to remove pharmacology from the science catagory as it is clearly a science. Bartimaeus 07:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks, I'll keep that in mind in the future. If you like what i've done so far just wait until i've finished exams. I'm really going to shake things up. Bartimaeus 07:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Move Philosophy of thermal and statistical physics

Hello - I would like to move the information in Philosophy of thermal and statistical physics to the thermodynamics article. I think all of its content belongs there. What do you think? PAR 00:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Optical Tweezers should be under the physics categories

Hi Karol,

thanks for taking time to edit the categories of the optical tweezers page. I have some issues with the categorising the Optical Tweezers topic under Laser. First of all, the pheonmenon of optical tweezers is based the physics of light-matter interaction. The physical interaction have implications on condense matter physics(Brownian motion and statistical mechanics). On top of that, the study of novel optical tweezers require extensive study into laser physics and optical physics as well.

Furthermore, for the latest work in optical tweezers, lasers are not the main optical sources used in the mechanical tweezing action, LEDs and supercontiuum sources are used instead. I therefore feel that the optical tweezers would be better categorising with

Category:Physics|Atomic, molecular, and optical physics|Condensed matter physics|lasers

Cheers 08:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC) Leenewt 08:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is Cx necessary

Hello Karol - We have been having a discussion about the proper direction of the heat capacity article. Could you take a look at the talk page under "Is Cx necessary" and please give us your opinion? I know its a lot of back and forth to wade through, but we really need your help. Thanks - PAR 15:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipediology

I'd like to ask those fellows who have not indicated whether or not they grant permission for a wikibio on them to please do so soon. I'd also appreciate it everyone could expand or create the wikibios for which permission has been granted. The wikibio project simply won't be useful unless fellows actively participate; so I'd like to issue a challenge that each fellow contribute at least one sentence to two wikibios. I'll be on wikibreak for the next week and when I get back there will be prizes in store for the fellows who have the three highest edit counts on wikibios. Thanks. -JCarriker 22:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Re:[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Halibutt]

Thank you for your comments. Your comment made me think - how is a controversy a handicap for a 'broom and bucket' wielder? Also, what are the traits he is lacking? As his nominator, I wonder if I missed something.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. WikiThanks.
I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thermodynamic Evolution

Karol, today a created a nice image for everyone and posted it into a new subsection of the thermodynamics article thermodynamic evolution. Can you take a look at it, possibly smooth it a bit, and tell me what you think of it? Thanks, --Wavesmikey 18:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User page vandalism - Thanks!

The vandalism love me, what can I say. Thanks for reverting the comment. -- Psy guy Talk 22:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I revoke your Psi Award! I just remembered that I have already given it to you. Instead please accept this Barnstar of Reversion along with my thanks. -- Psy guy Talk 22:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup tag on Education

Hi,

I have been assessing articles as part of the Wikipedia 1.0 core topics project, and I noticed your cleanup tag on the article education. Can you look over the article to see if you think the tag can be removed yet? If not, could I ask you to describe specifically what still needs to be done, and post this on the talk page? That way we will know that the cleanup has been achieved. Thanks a lot, Walkerma 03:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Physicalists and Monists (moved from my user page)

I couldn't help seeing your objections to removing the Ionian school. I hope you don't mind too much if I say your vocabulary is not in general use for ancient philosophy. I know that by physicalist you mean a person who studies physis or nature. The word is a specialized meaning to some catholic philosophers and is not in general use. To most people it means physicist or materialist. They don't know what physis is. But, strictly speaking, by your standards, there are no ancient philosophers who are not physicalists. Aristotle would seem to be the biggest physicalist of them all, having even written treatises on physis. And what do you do with Lucretius? He has to be a physicalist. No. No, no. The term is a bad one, a localized fad. I general I do not think it a good idea to apply modern categories. Ancients are not moderns. They didn't think like us and it isnt useful to apply our categories to them. Sweeping generalizations are never a good idea. We had the same thing with people like Hegel, Morgan and Marx. Hegel's historical stages are absurd. Of course at that time nothing much was known about the past. The only thing that survives is his theory. There is no Ionian unity, nothing you can put your finger on and say, these men thought alike in this respect.

There is no Ionian school. We have the Milesians. They were looking for to hypokeimenon. The we have Heraclitus, a totally different philosopher. He was exploring to on. Then we have some pluralists among whom were the atomists. If these are all physicalists, how are we to distinguish between them? Moreover, we all seek the nature of things. We are all physicalists. We dont want to rewrite history with ever new and ever faddish concepts that dont apply. We want to talk about the Pre-socratics as they were. They weren't physiologists, nor were they physicalists. If the Ionian school stays on the Internet, the only thing it is going to achieve is confusion in the minds of the uninitiated and disrespect for the Internet among the classical scholars.

Note: Posted by User:Botteville

Later. Well it is nice to hear from you. Wikipedia has not been acting rightly lately due to system problems so I have not been sure what it is doing. I did not realize anyone could "clean up" talk as well. I don't mind being "cleaned up" as long as the cleaned up text says the same thing as the uncleaned text and doesn't put words in my mouth. I don't always want to say what you want the public to think I said.

Well I am glad you are doing a lot of thinking. Thought is good at any age. Dialogue is always dynamic. I know your point of view seems to match that of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Are the Jesuits still in charge of all education in the church? I'm more familiar with them as we have Boston College around here and also Merrimack college not far from my home. Very nice people. I learn a lot from their publications.

I understand what they are trying to do with "physicalst" and that other riotous term "panmetabolism." This is fully in their tradition. To someone who knows Greek and Latin this is a very amusing approach. If you don't it is totally mystifying, which is what they want. They want you to start exploring the mystery. My only objection is that the words look like other English words. Their use of physiologist, for example, introduces an equivocal meaning for the word that was not there before. Although very clever, this use does not demonstrate, explain or simply present the topic.

But my point of view is that of the technical writer. I don't want to dazzle with innovative brilliance, only to explain. If I still cannot convince you then I suppose I will have to work around you, in as far as I do work on the subject. One suggestion I would have is to put in links to places that explain these dazzling terms or else give some brief explanation in the article, such as "a physicalist is...". We don't want to make the reader feel like an ignoramus when in fact almost no one would know what is meant there. Wikipedia has marked many philosophic articles that use confusing or equivocal language.

As for the Ionian school, nonsense. There was none. But, as long as the traditional approach of Pre-socratic and Milesian school get presented I suppose it is nothing I can't live with; that is, I'm still in the Wikipedia philosophy game. You are, however, going to lose the classicists with it (if you ever had them).

Well I like to move around to different subjects and I sort of got pulled back to this one, but I will be back in the course of my proretrokineticism to do more work and see how the issue got resolved and if there is anything I can do to clarify the topic. What do you think, is coexistence possible? au revoir, au revoir.Dave 12:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I did not modify the text you placed on my user page. Karol 14:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
No, not on that user page. On the deletion discussion. But you know, I probably never will find out what happened there. So, I am dropping it.
I did not know it was rude to place discussion on the user page. I am new to Wikipedia. I do apologize for my inadvertent rudeness. I hope you will forgive me.
Certainly, it is not my intent not to have a normal discussion. If you view it as not normal or are offended by it then clearly it should stop. Whatever points I had to make I made them. Nothing is to be gained by dwelling further on it. It's time to move on. Best of luck to you. Goodbye.Dave 17:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Where I was :)

I, JCarriker, reward you one silver wikibuck, for a good guess. Caution: Not recognized as currency except by: Elbonia, Franistan, Sealand, and people obssesed with Angela Beesley.
I, JCarriker, reward you one silver wikibuck, for a good guess. Caution: Not recognized as currency except by: Elbonia, Franistan, Sealand, and people obssesed with Angela Beesley.

Close but no cigar! I was in Chicago.

[edit] Final version?

What do you mean by final verion in the edit summary to your user page? -JCarriker 21:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I had similar concerns, I decided that the best way to conteract that is to thouroughly cite sources, with emphasis on the paper ones. It a pain in the ass, but its the only way to correct that problem. I'm still not as active in the article space as I once was because I spend most of that time finding paper sources and have also decicted a signifigant amount of time to wikicivics with orgnizations like Esperanza and IW. Take care. -JCarriker 22:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hot & Cold Photons?

I've left some comment on the thermodynamic evolution "Talk Page". Let me know if you have suggestions. Thanks:--Wavesmikey 04:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irregular / ragged matrices

Hi Karol. I'm a bit uncomfortable with your entry on irregular matrix. I'm sure they exist and are useful, but I feel they shouldn't be described as matrices; how about something like "An irregular matrix is a generalization of the concept of a matrix"? Or perhaps it's better to link them to two-dimensional arrays (my experience is that "array" is more a computing term and "matrix" more a maths term). Furthermore, they are not just "inconvenient", but not studied at all in linear algebra (as far as I am aware). For this reason, I'd also like to remove Category:Matrix theory. However, I realize that I have a slanted point of view as a numerical analyst, so I wanted to check with you before editing the article. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course. I took the info directly from here. I just changed some of the wording and recatogrized the thing. Hope it's fine now, because I don't plan to expand it anymore, just made a stub. Karol 18:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine now, except that you really should have stated where you took the information from. But I fixed that, so you can forget about it now ;) -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Casimir effect

Sorry for this but you can delete it

Can you please tell me only ONE BOOK that says the Casimir-effect is caused by virtual particles??? The Casimir-effect is explained by zero point oscillations and not by the concept of virtual particles. You can ask someone, every professor if he knows something about this would tell you the Casimir-effect is explained in terms of the electromagnetic zero point energy

[edit] Strings instruments

Nominated for DYK :

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article List_of_string_instruments, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Harvestman

Nice :) Karol 17:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Casimir effect

Sorry for all this, but I'm new here. Well, it was rude and I'm sorry for this. I thought you changed the article. However, virtual particles have nothing to do with the ground state of the electromagnetic field. They are present in the vacuum like the ground state oscillations of the electromagnetic quantum field that have energy hbar*omega/2. Virtual particles are virtual transition of these oscillations. These transitions cannot be observed. So, we have for a small amount of time the energy of an oscillation: E=hbar*omega/2 + Evirtualparticle where the second term is not directly observable. You must note that virutal particles exist only for a short time while the oscillations are always present. The original Casimir-force is however explained by zero point oscillations which are NOT virtual particles. I read enough books about this topic and in no book they call zero point oscillations virtual particles.

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article List of string instruments, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] Comp Chem stuff

Hi Karol, Thanks for fixing up some of my edits. It is tedious stuff fixing little things. At least we now have a table of codes with a page for each of them, even though many of the pages need a lot more adding. Any thoughts on the rest of the stuff I have added recently? Compliments of the season to you and a happy New Year. Bduke 13:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'll keep on trucking. Bduke 09:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

I see that you have modified the categorization at Portland, Oregon. Currently we are discussing the issue about how to categorize such articles. Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Defining_subcategories as we still need more input. Thanks, Cacophony 21:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Physics organization

Dear Karol, thanks for your invitation. I have indeed contributed approximately 600 articles about physics, most of them are rather specialized, and right now I don't see how a particular team of five people can improve these things significantly. You may try to edit the articles listed in "my contributions". At any rate, I wish you a good luck. All the best, LM --Lumidek 13:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statistical thermodynamics

How did you come across that article? I thought it would have been forgotten :-) Would you happen to be able to improve vibronic coupling a bit, you think? Anyway, nice to see another quantum chemist around! --HappyCamper 03:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Massive Attack from Major artists list

How come Massive Attack was removed from the list? Like the section is titled, it's a list of major artists, and the group were one of the stalwarts of the genre. --JB Adder | Talk 21:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] reply

please see my reply on the AfD of golden age hip hop. thanks, --Urthogie 15:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gas phase ion chemistry

I randomly picked your name from editors on a chemistry article. I was going through the 0 length pages at Special:Shortpages and correcting the blanking I found. However, on the article Gas phase ion chemistry, I'm not sure what to do. An anom user blanked the article, but what was there solely consisted of "Gas phase ion chemistry is the study of gaseous ion particles". I could mark it was a dictdef, but was wondering if this should be redirected instead. Are should it be made a stub? I would appreciate your opinion or a suggestion of who else to ask. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 00:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks,

Hi Karol, Thank you for the barnstar! linas 20:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Computational Chemistry Software

Hi Karol,

I see you have removed PQS and Quantum3.1 from the software list on the Computational chemistry page. PQS looks OK although it is very commercial and code is not available. [1] shows what it does. Quantum is less clear. I do not think from the page that it does what has been flagged with 'Y' in the table. I can live with them not there and they were both put there by someone who is not registered. However perhaps PQS should be there, although I do not feel like doing a page for it. What were your thoughts when you removed them? Regards. Bduke 22:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I fully understand the point that it seems a bad idea to have an entry with no page. That was the situation with JAGUAR for a long time, until I looked up the JAGUAR page and wrote a stub. I think it was true of several entries. I suggest we put PQS back in and I'll change my mind and write a stub sometime today. Lets leave QUANTUM out and see if the original editor complains. A quick glance at its web page does not suggest it does ab initio. Bduke 23:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I have added the table item for PQS and found that there is indeed a page for this program. I have added a lot to it and vikified the rest. It leaves several 'red' links. I will add the one for Peter Pulay as this is already a 'red' link from the International Academy of Quantum Molecular Science page. I do not feel qualified to add the other pages required. It shows real gaps in the molecular mechanics area, the combined methods such as ONIOM, the solvation models and NBO analysis, unless I have failed to find stuff in my searches. Bduke 04:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly it looks as if Peter Pulay himself (User:Ppulay) "highjacked"" this PQS page from a redirect to a section of Q-switching two days ago. Nobody has complained. The redirect was done in November. Bduke 04:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I have sorted this out. I moved PQS to PQS (chemical) and then made PQS to a disambiguation page that allows the original intent as well as the PQS program. The table now links to PQS (chemical). Do you think this is OK? Bduke

[edit] wikimodel.com modeling causality help wanted...

... facilitating quality wiki work.

I have synthesized a wiki at http://www.wikimodel.com for modeling causality. I would greatly appreciate additions to the work in progress! Thank you --Dialectic 00:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:BrunoTouschek.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BrunoTouschek.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. --OrphanBot 07:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] no problem

I'm pretty sure that the image on your user page is not fair use, so I don't understand what Gmaxwell was concerned about. Keep up the good work :-) Alhutch 19:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not sure if it's OK or not. You'd have to ask someone who knows more about the fair use policy. You could ask at the help desk or somewhere like that.--Alhutch 19:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipediology Elections

Voting for the positon of Regent Ñ will begin on February 5th at the voting page. All candidates should list themselves there before then. Please take the time to vote, and become more active in the Wikipediology Institute. Thanks - Pureblade | Θ 04:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use images and userpages

Hi, I notice you have a number of fair use images (some albumcovers and logos and such) on your userpage (21 acording to this report). Seeing as this is not permitted by Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:Fair use#Fair use policy (point #9)) I'll have to ask you to please remove these as soon as possible (it's ok to link to them (add a colon (:) at the start of the link to make a text link instead of displaying an image)). The free licensed and public domain images can stay, just not the fair use ones. Thanks in advance. --Sherool (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page:
Hi. I have a question concerning the fair use images on my page. They are really small thumbs (see for yourself), that I use as "quick links" for myself. Is that still wrong? Karol 20:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid so. If you only use them as "quick links" anyway I suggest you simply replace the images with links to the images as explained above ([[:Image:some image.jpg]] instead of [[Image:some image.jpg]] for example). --Sherool (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reform

Wikipedia began as an open effort to create an encyclopedia of the people, by the people, for the people. Sadly, its bureaucracy has put an end to those goals. To this end, we must promote a peaceful revolution to reform it. We must eliminate the undue influence of certain people and remake Wikipedia as a people's encyclopedia. We, the reformers, are led by TJWhite who endured only briefly before suffering an indefinite block. Visit his user page to see our ideology, roughly outlined. I for one do not condone his call to vandalism. Instead, by using the power of the people, we can reform wikipedia. Join us to recreate an encyclopedia where all are equal; an encyclopedia that does not strive to become Brittannica, but rather seeks to be a one of kind encyclopedia for all of the people of the world. Please pass this message in some form to as many people as you can. Secondly, petition for the unblock of TJWhite, the one who began our glorious movement. Finally, link to his page from your user page and express your sentiments for reform on your page. Thank You, fellow wikipedians. LaRevolution 15:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GAMESS

I have split the GAMESS article into GAMESS (US) and GAMESS (UK). They are as different from each other as either are from the other ab initio codes we list. I now have GAMESS (UK) so I will be able to add more material that differenciates them further as time goes on. I have fixed up all the pages that linked to GAMESS (now a disamb page) except for your user page and your watchlist, and a resources page that can continue to link to the disamb page.

On the list of codes in Computational chemistry, what do think about the recent addition of pure DFT codes? Should we remove them but add a reference above the table, as we have with the VB codes page, to the list of DFT codes on the DFT page? Regards. --Bduke 00:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Good further edits on the GAMESS pages. I thought again about DFT. Should we delete entries that have only one "Y" in the table? The only ones are AMPAC & MOPAC and I do not think that makes sense. So I propose leaving them. The DFT codes have two "Y"s, but "Periodic" really should not be there. I did add a sentence and link at the top of the table to the section in DFT on codes. I'm inclined to leave it like that. --Bduke 08:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are you aware of this Wikipedia talk:Censorship ?

For myself, I would like to say that the method is not innocent. The subject is truly important : there is one talk page and twoscore people discussing auto censorship for one million (counting non active users). Will you give your advice ? --DLL 20:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you expect of me here. I have no time for participating in this discussion. Karol 20:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monte Carlo molecular modeling

Regarding your change of Monte Carlo molecular modeling to redirect to Monte Carlo method. I agree that there was almost no content on the molecular modeling page, but Monte Carlo methods in general is a huge field, one application of which is to problems involving statistical mechanics. There was no information that I could find on Wikipedia on this application of Monte Carlo methods so I started the page. I'm inclined to revert your edit and see if it doesn't grow. There are book chapters devoted to the subject so there definately is content, I was just too lazy to write it all at once. Comments? —Ben FrantzDale 22:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] warning from balatonfüreed

sorted. ferkovax

[edit] equiaxed

Hi, what did you mean with "are almost close in length" on equiaxed crystals? That they are arranged almost parallel, or that their size is the same every time? Please let me know... my translation software also is not helping me out either. SietskeEN 14:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) SietskeEN 08:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Computational Chemistry Software table

You are absolutely right to remove the DFT codes. As I explained in my review, I think the key is removing the "Periodic" column as this is a quite different category from the methods. I'll try to write an article on periodic systems and on semi-empirical today. Once these are written, we can list the codes there and then clean up the table. --Bduke 02:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A revert you made

Hi. You reverted part of the US Constitutional Law page. The revert was not of an edit I made, but I am just wondering why you considered the link (a link to this site, was, as you said in your edit summary, "spam"? I have had a look at it, and it seems to be an informative article from a page from a reputable source. I know how easy it is to overlook anon IP contibutions as "spam", but would you at least take a second look and reconsider? I do not want to get into some pathetic edit war, so I thought I would come straight here rather than restore the link. Batmanand | Talk 09:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

OK that is fair enough (I would probably thought the same thing), but would you reconsider in this case, because I checked out the site and it seems "clean"? Batmanand | Talk 08:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
No I will not re-add it. I try to balance being bold with seeking consensus, and in this case 1. I do not care that much and 2. you, as an influential and "good" user, clearly do not agree, and hence consensus could hardly be said to have been reached. Happy editing. Batmanand | Talk 10:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Lol true true. And no hard feelings taken. Batmanand | Talk 13:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jabir ibn Hayyan

Hi Karol!

Im sorry to bother you. But since you have been involved in many chemistry history related articles, your neutral stand is needed in the Jabir ibn Hayyan article, regarding his ethnicity. Nearly all reliable sources say that he was an Arab. I listed all sources here: [2].

Thank you!jidan 01:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)