Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:36, 18 June 2006

Welcome!

Hello, Sbharris, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  JFW | T@lk 19:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Viramidine

Image:Viramidine.png is done, enjoy it. Mykhal 12:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Doc Holliday

You could, of course, be right about the photo on the Doc Holliday article. You might want to edit both the photo Talk page and the caption of the photo in the Holliday article, and yes, by all means, see if you can get your hands on the photo you think is legit. BTW, you may find people claiming copyright on a Doc Holliday photo (Denver public Library does, for example) but I, personally, think the claim is bogus. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. on the issue of copyrighting pre-1923 images. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Historical photos

Photos published in the US prior to 1923 are generally in the public domain, even when the site or book claims copyright (see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.), so yes, you should be able to use them wherever you find them. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Issue with link

Greetings Dr. Harris - I have responded to your message at Template_talk:Drugbox#Issue_with_link. --Arcadian 04:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I did a little more research and found more options. Details are at Template_talk:Drugbox#Issue_with_link. --Arcadian 12:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Gas phase heat capacities

Hello, thanks for your comments about my gas phase heat capacities table. You're right, it was foolish not to include the temperatures at which the heat capacities were taken, I'm not sure why I forgot that, considering temperature dependence of gas phase heat capacities is one of the easier things to compute using quantum mechanics. If you'd like to improve my table, I'd be glad to see it happen, go right ahead. And of course, if your numbers prove my point better than mine, I'll be even happier to see them put in there. As for where the extra energy goes when liquids are heated up, the answer to that question is that half of it goes into the potential energy of interaction between the liquid molecules, rather than all into kinetic energy like in a gas. And of course the reason why lighter (and stiffer) diatomics have lower heat capacities is because of the quantization of angular momentum for the rotational energy levels, and quantization of total energy for the bond between the two atoms, which causes the rotational and vibrational energy levels to become few and far apart for these diatomics. So, less energy is required to get the molecules into the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution corresponding to a higher temperature. Ed Sanville 17:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. I'll fix the numbers.

I think you missed the point about where the heat goes in liquids. Going into potential energy between "connected" liquid molecules is no different than that happens if the molecules were entirely connected, ie, solidified in a way that all vibrational modes are available to be excited (non-stiff). In that case, the C limit is R for every degree of freedom for each atom, which is (as you point out) composed of 1/2 R/mole for the kinetic and 1/2 R/mole for the potential energy storable in each mode/degree of freedom for each atom. So there's really no way to get better than 3R per mole of atoms, by that mechanism.

The whole point of heat capacities which result from translation and rotation is that they're always less than vibrational ones (measured PER ATOM), because translation and rotation are (after all) ultimately ways of storing just kinetic energy and you don't get the potential storage modes available with vibration. The LIMIT is what you get from non-stiff vibration (ie, the high temp limit for solids), and that's 3 R per mole of atoms.

So, I think I respectfully reject your answer, unless you can come up with a better argument.

Sbharris 22:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I completely missed your original point. I wasn't looking closely at the number you gave, 3.88 R per mole Br atoms in the liquid. Where did you get that number, and are you sure they're talking about per mole of atoms or molecules? If that is the correct value, then of course the only other place the energy could go is into electronic excitations, which actually would not surprise me too much with a molecule like bromine. Thanks for the interesting point! Ed Sanville 11:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the band structure, (MO energy diagram), for Br₂ is, but I suspect from the experimental data that it has a small HOMO-LUMO gap, possibly combined with a lot of degeneracy or closely-spaced excited levels. This would explain the significant contribution of the electronic excitations to the heat capacity, because then the electronic partition function would be significantly greater than 1, even at room temperature. A set of ab initio calculations could be performed on Br₂ in about 5 minutes to find out if this is the case, and also to calculate the expected electronic contribution to the heat capacity at 298K. Hmmm... sounds like an interesting project to do in my free time, I'll let you know what I find out. You raise some very interesting points which I have actually thought about many times during my walks to and from work:

"Anyway, I'm going to make the point to a greater extent that calculating "specific" molar heat capacities per mole of *molecules* really introduces an artificial parameter which makes the things less "intensive" (even though they still look intensive), because the larger the molecule, the better this number looks! That fakes out a lot of students. Diatomic gases at high temps go to 3.5 R, but that's really only 1.75 R per mole of atoms. For (linear) triatomic gases at full vibration you have 9-3-2 = 4 vibration modes so you get 4R + 5/2 R = 13/2 R = 6.5 R, which sounds like a lot. Until you divide by 3 and find it's only 2.17 R per atom. The bigger the molecule, the closer this gets to 3 R per atom (because the vibrational mode number goes up fast and swamps the rest).

Liquid water has a heat capcity of 9 R per mole which looks very impressive until you see that it's really 3 R per mole of atoms, so it's more or less the same as for solids with larger atoms. The amazing thing about water's heat capacity is NOT how large it is in specific terms: per mole of atoms, it's the same as for most metals. The amazing thing is that liquid water manages to do that at room temp, even with all the light H atoms thrown in. That's the hydrogen bonds and (I suspect) rotational modes storing potential energy (which can only happen in a liquid), which odd modes are like speed bumps and stand in for (and sort of ARE) vibrational modes that would otherwise be frozen out at these temps by the lightness of H (as happens in solid ice, where the per atom heat capacity is cut in half). Remarkable."

You're absolutely right about calculating specific heat capacities per molecule versus atom. This is especially interesting to consider when the idea of a molecule becomes less well-defined anyway, (such as in a heavily hydrogen-bonded liquid like water itself). And of course the idea of separate rotational, vibrational, translational modes all get intermixed and confused. In the end of course, all you really have are a bunch of energy levels, like in statistical mechanics. Of course you're right that the bigger the molecule, the closer it gets to 3R per atom; I have an amendment to make to your explanation though: low frequency vibrational modes swamp out all of the other modes. This is important because the vibrational modes that cause the approach to 3R have to be classically accessible, and therefore very low frequency so that ${\displaystyle \hbar \omega }$ is tiny and the partition function approaches the one with a continuous energy spectrum, thereby contributing about R heat capacity per mode. For big, floppy molecules this is quite easy to accomplish! Ed Sanville 11:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

doubly-labeled water test

I changed this from a cross-reference to a proper redirect page. Michael Hardy 20:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Energy edits

I have been activly editing the energy page. I noticed your recent edits. However, I have some minor differences in opinion. In my opinion there is no need for detailed explanations, providing links to pages that have the required information should be sufficient.

In addition, I believe I have more experience than you regarding communicating this topic to the general reader.Charlie 03:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

See my response on your user page. Sbharris 21:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Invariant

Please, before you undertake any more large discussions of invariant mass, commit to memory the spelling of this word. Invariant, not invarient. I've noticed people cleaning up your spelling don't catch all the instances of this misspelling, so it requires three or four passes of cleanup. Please, let's make an effort. -lethe 23:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You've got me. This is a common misspelling, almost a variant one :), and I'm one of the offenders. Mea culpa. It's one of those unstressed syllables in English which are all pronounced the same, as "ə". I see the Wiki has a whole article on the schwa, and these things have been a bane of mine. Spanish is so much nicer. Anyway, I'll try to commit it to memory as a word which forces the stress on the vowel I need: vari-A-tion. Sbharris 00:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Deuterium lamps

You are certainly correct that the spectra of D2 lamps cannot/should not differ significantly from H2 gas-discharge lamps. All these are simple plasma discharge lamps, like the carbon arc lamp, but using H. You can see spectral aborption lines superimposed on the main radiation, but where does THAT radiation come from?? It's not blackbody. Some kind of thermoluminescense like lime-light and thorium gas mantles?? This whole thing is very confusing to me. D2 lamps are common in UV spectrophotometers as convenient medium power (20 watt) UV light sources that go all the way down to 100 nm or so. And I've read that their UV power and stability is superior to H2 lamps (though perhaps not by a lot-- enough to make them). But WHY should this be? Who invented the dang things, and why do they work better with D2? It must be some trick of higher plasma density at the same temp or something, due to the simple increased mass. But it would be nice to explain for the Wiki. Problem is, I can't seem to easily find the answer on the net. Do you know offhand? Sbharris 02:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Good luck. I searched for like an hour to try to find a good explanation for the source of the UV continuum in a D lamp. IANAP. I'm still VERY fuzzy on the whole thing but I think the source of the continuum spectrum is from the "smearing out" of the UV lines of the H (or D) discharge. The deuterium lamp is really a deuterium ARC lamp (try searching on "hydrogen arc" continuum) and I think the smearing out of the short wavelengths is due to spectral line broadening type things going on. As to why D instead of H is used, I suspect probably because it is a bit heavier and doesn't diffuse out of the bulb as quickly (slower movement of molecules). Though this is a guess. We should really get an actual physicist in on this. --Deglr6328 03:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I did get the arc connection, which is how I found out as much as I did. Carbon arc, hydrogen arc-- it's all the same process. More than spectral line broadening or else carbon arcs would give even better UV, yes? Any old gas has lines in the UV since elements in atomic number greater than H all have electrons bound at higher potentials than the 13 eV of atomic H. What's the process?? I guessed the same as you about lamps lasting longer due to lower diffusion, but one article really did claim the UV spec from D2 was stronger (more intense, not different frequency). So there's something very odd here.Sbharris 05:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh. The answer appears to be "molecular emission" as what is responsible for the broadband continuum spectrum. Spectral broadening may play a very small roll but who knows. We were assuming all the light had to come from radiative transitions of lone hydrogen or deuterium ATOMS when actually it is the D₂ species in these lamps that causes the continuum spectrum via radiative decay of MOLECULAR electronic states. Just like a sulfur lamp does except with D2 instead of S2 the peak of the emission curve is shifted down by like 300nm. (apparently) This paper is helpful page 8. At least I THINK this is correct. Why is D2 brighter than H2 in the UV for these lamps? Who knows but I suspect the answer involves understanding incredibly complex QM calculations way beyond me. It may have something to do with the fact that since the D2 molecule is more massive than H2 its vibrational trasitions (modes? is that the term?) that give rise to the continuum are slightly shifted....or....something... what do you think? --Deglr6328 06:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think this is right. Do you have access to the Institute of Physics online journals? If so, look at this paper . It appears we have happened upon a question which is interesting even in today's physics! as it looks like they are still attempting to model the continuum spectrum. look at the modeled (calculated) spectra for H2 D2 HD and so on in this plot from the paper:

and now look at the (properly) measured spectrum of a D2 lamp: it cuts off a bit early but still! this has got to be the answer. continuum molecular emission. what a fun trip that was, learn something new every day I guess! --Deglr6328 21:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You still around? do you think this looks right?--Deglr6328 06:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Started the article. Deuterium arc lamp.--Deglr6328 05:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope I'm not intruding here, but I just picked up on this discussion. I've been trying to dig into the quantum physics behind sulfur lamps. It's not easy for me, because it's far beyond my education in physics. Is the Vibronic transition relevant to this discussion? Also, Franck-Condon principle seems to have something to do with the broad spectrum emitted by sulfur lamps; it shows up in a number of technical papers I've seen. SDC 06:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Kennedy contribution

I don't understand the point being made in your Zapruder contribution.

RPJ 08:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is that Zapruder saw the SIDE of JFK's head blown out, above the ear. Not the back. The side. Okay? What he saw, was what his film shows. This is strong evidence the film was not altered, unless it was altered to fit his story, which seems unlikely. Sbharris 09:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Let us assume all that is accurate, meaning the side of President Kennedy's head was blown out above the right ear: What conclusions, if any, can be drawn from that?

RPJ 20:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Answer

None, by itself. However, a parietal exit wound is consistant with a lone-gunman roughly behind the president, whereas a large occipital exit wound (and nothing else in the head), is not. This is not to say the Dallas people didn't see what they saw. One of the autopsy photos looks at this wound from behind, and you see basically the entire right upper skull blasted away, However, the scalp is very, very tough (the hair through it acts like re-bar) and it appears that little of JFK's scalp was actually gone, even if he was missing some of the side of his skull and brain. With the scalp sides down, you get the Dallas rear wound if that flap is back. With the rear flap pulled over to show the small entrance hole (as Humes does in another famous photo) you see no big wound in the back of the head at all (this flap is covering a loss of skull underneath, with a beveled half-hole at the edge of what is gone). Put ALL the flaps back, with some artificial support with cement underneath (as the morticians finally did after the autopsy), and you see the head miraculously undamaged, with hair combed normally. Which Admiral Burkely, his doctor, reports. JFK was prepared relatively quickly for open-coffin viewing by all accounts (not just Burkely's-- also the mortician), and nobody needed a toupee to do it with. But all of this has confused many people. It needn't if you remember all or nearly all, of the scalp is there.

Speaking of which, Dr. Burkely's report in the WC does not discuss wounds anatomically. Okay, I now see page 2 of the death certificate, thanks. I don't think I've ever seen a typed addendum to a death certificate, so it's hardly expected. Dr. Burkely must have been confused about what a death certificate is for.

On page 2 of the death certificate Burkley does indeed locate the back wound at "about" the 3rd thoracic verteba, but I'm afraid the photos from the autopsy and the official autopsy doctors' report (which both show C6) has to take precedent over an informal report. If Dr. Burkely had some big inside knowledge to report, as you suggest in your revisions to the article, he should have included it in his 10 page letter, not stuff like how many flowers he gave to Jackie. In his report he does say he spent a lot of time shuttling between the autopsy and the family, so one supposes he missed the befuddlement of the autopsy doctors about an exit for the back/neck wound. Humes later found out about the trach by talking over the phone to a Dallas doctor, long after the autopsy had concluded. Wups. Dr. Burkely could presumably have put him straight if he knew enough to do it. But he either didn't, or was missing. So he's not in the picture as a big expert on JFK's wounds, no matter what he wrote on the death certificate, and no matter if he was both in Dallas and at Bethesda. He didn't do his main job given two chances at it (in the autopsy room and in his letter to the WC), so why should we assume he had anything real to offer? Sbharris 22:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Pussy Galore

What is your source for saying that this character was a nod to Catwoman? Thats a gross error, in my opinion and contradicts everything I've read on the subject. K1Bond007 23:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, this is a gang of all-female cat burglars. Trained as acrobats, called "abrocats" (a pun). Led by a trapeze artist woman named Pussy who doesn't like men, on general principle, meow. Maybe Fleming had never heard of Catwoman, but as a nemesis for an action hero, Pussy Galore of the novel is pretty much as close as it gets to Catwoman, without being Catwoman. Coincidence, you think?

Maybe if Bond had gone up against an acrobatic man who liked artifical webbing, and maybe named Arachno Grande, you'd complain if I thought it was a nod to spiderman? Or you'd just figure Fleming was unusually creative?Sbharris 00:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No Original Research. According to published researchers, Pussy Galore is named after Mrs. 'Pussy' Deakin (Livia Stela), an SOE agent. According to Noel Coward (a good friend of Fleming's) and his partner Graham Payn, she's based off Blanche Blackwell, an intimate friend of Fleming's. That's citable. We can quote that. We can't add this Catwoman stuff because you can't prove it. K1Bond007 05:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear fission

You deleted the sentence about David Hahn's pile, pointing out that "no-one thought he had produced nuclear reactions" -- but I understand differently. In particular, the Harper's article (c. 2000) on him said that the radioactivity level from his pile was increasing steadily, a sign that he was indeed inducing fissions, if at too low a level to achieve criticality. I wasn't there so I don't know -- do you have another source? Cheers, zowie 14:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The only person who thought the radioactivity was increasing steadily, was Hahn. No official agency, and certainly not the NRC, ever measured such a bizarre thing. Hearsay comments in popular magazines are not science reports. The Radioactive Boy Scout does have some pointed comments from experts why it is very unlikely that Hahn ever created any new radiation activity, but of course they are not prominent because somebody is trying to sell a book. It's not very interesting if the synopsis is "The story of some dumb kid who stuck together amounts of all the commercial radioisotopes he could think of and locate, hoping to get some kind of reaction. But didn't." So, if you think otherwise for the WP, getting a good verified source for this idea, is up to YOU. It's a far-out claim and it requires something other than rumor-driven technologically naive journalism. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence Sbharris 15:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoah, there, Tex! No worries -- I'm not spoiling for a fight on this one -- just curious what your sources were. We know from the article that he only had a few 1-inch cubes of U-238, plus an Am/Be neutron source. Now that I think about it, even if he managed to moderate his Am/Be neutrons, the U-238 (n,fission) cross section is only a few tens of millibarns, compared to a few hundred barns for U-235, so it's reasonable that his pile didn't work (if I read the article right, it couldn't have been more than a few hundred cubic inches total, yes?) -- on the other hand, it would be useful to see the actual calculation through. (Of course, he could also have been simply neutron-activating the rest of the shed...) zowie 17:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy pages

Hi; please stop adding nonsense and commentary to the policy pages. These are important pages and I will apply a very stringent definition of disruption to non-productive edits there. Tom Harrison 19:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do stop using policy pages as a soapbox. Jkelly 19:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The policy page on verifiable sources contains no verifiable sources (by its own definition). The policy page on reliable sources contains no reliable sources (by it's own definition). Please explain why pointing this out is disruptive. Is what I have said not true? Sbharris 19:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"The policy page on reliable sources contains no reliable sources..." Can you point me to a reliable source that supports your assertion? Tom Harrison 19:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Your comment is more clever than useful. It is obvious by inspection, and the burden is on the editor to provide reliable sources for citation, not the revising editor who removes material because such sources don't exist. Do you need a citation for that? It is WP:RS. Why do you fail to see the problem here?Sbharris 20:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Obvious by inspection? It sounds like you want to be released from the very requirement you demand we adhere to, in order to make your case that we should adhere to it. Appropriately enough for something that will ultimately approach solipsism, you can have the last word. Tom Harrison 20:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• "Mainspace" refers to the encyclopedia articles themselves. The different spaces within Misplaced Pages are denoted by their prefixes (i.e., Misplaced Pages:, User:, Talk:, Image:, etc.), with the exception of mainspace, which doesn't have a prefix. Most content-related guidelines and policies are designed specifically for mainspace. –Abe Dashiell 21:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but as I said, if it walks and quacks like a duck, it should be treated as a duck. Policy and guideline articles are informational wikis which need RS and V just as much as any other main Wiki. The relaxation of these was probably intended for User: and Talk: sections. However, there's no way to know that, since these have no reliable sources and no verifiability.Sbharris 01:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that you find this stuff immensely entertaining, but Misplaced Pages isn't the place for engaging in extended epistemological debates.

And who are YOU to say what Misplaced Pages is or isn't the place for? Your ego must be immense.

My opinion is that Misplaced Pages is the place for extended epidemiological discussions of topics which are intrinsically epidemiological, and WP:RS and WP:V qualify for that, if any topics do. Further, the archives of many pages of such discussion there in the past, supports the idea that many other people agree with me on that issue. I'm sorry you do not. Your problem.

These policies work because we behave as if they worked (much as paper money works because we behave as if it had value).

These policies work, but perhaps not as efficiently as they could. One of the ways to improve efficiency is to make it clear where each given "policy" originates (something that doesn't happen now)Sbharris 17:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed a lot of these debates as, basically, trolls. --Tony Sidaway 09:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

And whereever I find you have, I will restore them, as worthwhile discussions. I am not a troll, but a serious contributor to Wiki on a wide variety of medical, scientific, historical, and cultural topics. If we eventually find ourselves in front of arbitration, I don't think your position will be strong. But feel free to push it to that if you feel it's that important. I will tell you it's that important to me. Sbharris 17:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: WP:RS and its parent, WP:V

Could we discuss the relationship of WP:RS to WP:V a bit? I see you are attempting to introduce the idea that WP:RS is not a reasonable and logical build from policy. It is the first guideline, the first step of "how to do it", the first step up from policy which is only a broad, general statement of intent. Terryeo 23:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I have less problem with guidelines than policies. Guidelines can't be used to bludgeon other people with. And I think the RS guidelines contain much wisdom, as I said. My main problem is with the V policy, which gives far too much power to often ignorant newspaper journalists, as does its NOR cousin. I have the feeling that RS is meant to try to fix the damage done by NOR and V, but it really doesn't help much. I would fix this by making V merely a guideline. Let Jimbo keep his NPOV as the only policy; it's one of the few WP really requires.

Lastly, as you see, I think that the articles on RS and V should be treated as standard WP articles, just as their redirects imply. They both need V, and they both need RS. Though I wouldn't require it. I'm asking merely to be allowed to point it out, with the appropriate header. Sbharris 01:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to discuss with you. I see WP:NOR as an essential statement which rests on Jimbo's statement of NPOV. And then I see WP:V as an essential statement to clarify how Jimbo's vision of neutral can be achived. My understanding of V is that "widely published" be presented as having been widely published. Therefore a single publication of high quality (say the AMA makes publishes a statement) can be presented alongside a dozen newspaper sources which contradict them, yet such an article will be well sourced, be neutral and be useful to readers of the article. WP:RS takes the broad, general statements of WP:V and specifies things such as "newsgroups aren't useable as secondary sources", etc. Specifies things which are not intutive to every editor, things which are slightly argueable, etc. My discussing is not an attempt to curtail what you wish to do. But I am thinking the logical inter-consistancy of policies and guidelines could use some improvement. Terryeo 19:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with you Sbharris. Incidentally, there is a banned user who is attempting to redefine the word "publish" for wikipedia usage and attempting to make RS a policy. I hope this person does not harass you for your views or bait you and accuse you of a personal attack. --Fahrenheit451 01:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Fahrenheit451, I appreciate the attention you laude on me by following me around by looking at my contributions and posting immediately after my post about my status. However, you have been spoken to about this sort of action and I hope you will cease. What I am actually doing is none of those things you state, but engaging in discussion, and that only at the pleasure Sbharris, whose page this is. Terryeo 19:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Er, I hate to find myself involved in what is apparently an old conflict between two users, neither of which I know in the slightest. Please know that I wish both of you the best. I'm sure you're both great guys with good intentions and hearts of gold. But why continue any conflict with each other on MY talk page?? You each have talk pages. Be nice and use them, and don't erase.Sbharris 19:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Right you are Sbharris, and sorry about that. In any event and getting back to the discussion, if you are willing, I see a logical development of the policies and guidelines sprouting from the single stable datum, "Misplaced Pages will reflect a neutral point of view". I'll spell it out more fully if you wish? Terryeo 03:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales' talk page

I asked a legitimate question on User talk:Jimbo Wales. Why did you remove it? - Slow Graffiti 22:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

My sincere apologies if I did (I can't get the compare versions to work right, or I could go back and check). I was attempting to re-add something which somebody else had removed of MINE. I thought I had left everybody else's stuff (which would include yours) intact. Again, sorry, if I didn't. I had absolutely no intention to do anything but re-add MY stuff.Sbharris 00:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. No harm done! - Slow Graffiti 00:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What's missing?

You've repeatedly mentioned on the WP:V talk page that you can't find various historical records of relating to the policy. As far as I know, all the records you could want are available. 1) (Nearly) every edit made to the Talk pages for WP:V is recorded in the page history, and publically available. 2) Copies of the content on the talk pages are copied to /Archive subpages so they can be searched by google, et all....4) (Nearly) every edit made to the policy pages themselves is recorded in the page history, and publically available.

Okay, let's start here. Would you please tell me the google command to retrieve the WP:V Talk archives? I would like to see what was being said 1 and 2 years ago there. Thanks. Sbharris 00:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As you wish: 1 year ago, and 2 years ago. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks, but those are pretty fancy switches. Where did you get them? Now that I have them, I can simply paste in any Wiki and Talk I like. Is all of this somehow available from the mainspace or talk article current pages? Once you are in the historical sections it seems you can browse history all the way back. Getting there is the problem.

I hate to repeate what you said below, but - are you joking? The history page is available on every page by clicking on "history" right next to "edit this page". Once there, at the top of the page is a line that says: "(Latest | Earliest) View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)." clicking on the respective words gets you where you would expect.

Except you can't go past 500 that way, and that's 8 months for the page in question!

I should have been more clear, but if you read the help page, you'll see that the 20 | 50 etc. numbers select more less per page; it's the (prev 50) (next 50) links that move you through the history. So the 500 limit is less of a problem. Another thing that ought to be on the help page, but isn't, is that 500 isn't the max per page, 2,000 is. If you edit the URL, you can put 2,000 on the same page, which is helpful sometimes. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The only "trick" I used was realizing that when you click on "next 50" it puts the time of the revision at the top of the list in the URL. I just adjusted that part of the URL to refect the times you wanted. I hope that this is explained in the page Misplaced Pages:Page_history (which is linked from every history page) if it's not, please do add it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

IT isn't, and I will. Clever of you. Unhelpful of Wiki.

Great, thanks! Wiki (by which I assume you mean Misplaced Pages) is written by volunteers just like you - the reason it wasn't in the documentation yet is because no-one had gotten around to writing it. If/when you add it, someone will have (namely you) - that's the only way things get done around here, sadly enough. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, misread your request - you wanted a google URL, like this one: site:en.wikipedia.org inurl:Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability 2005, or this one: site:en.wikipedia.org inurl:Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability 2004. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Pretty non-obvious search terms, but again, thanks.Sbharris 01:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Obvious is in the eye of the beholder. The documentation on searching Misplaced Pages with google is not as good as it ought to be (last I checked) but google's Help pages make the site and inurl options pretty clear, if I remember correctly. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Er, might want to try it again and pretend you don't have any inside information. But you obviously succeed, and my hat's off to you.

What do you mean by "inside information". I have expierence (both on Misplaced Pages, and on the net in general), is that what you mean? Are you saying that Google's help pages arn't clear enough? If so, that's the best reason in the world to write better ones for Misplaced Pages. I'd be glad to help (although I don't want to do it all by myself). JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

3) The wikipedia mailings lists (wikien-l, wikipedia-l, foundation-l, wikitech-l, etc.) are all fully and publically archived, and searchable through Gmane.

As to searching archived mailing lists on a third party server like Gmane, you're joking, right?

Er, no, I wasn't joking. You asked where the archives were. I told you. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You expect me to read it ALL? That's not a reference or a citation-- that's a point in the direction of a library.

The complaint I was responding to was that you said the information wasn't available. I pointed to where it was available, now you say that wasn't what you meant? JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Key words? What key words do I want for a policy change which I many not know what the policy changers called it when they did it? Why don't you illustrate it for me. I'd like to know the history of the Jimbo's page lock policy. Ready set go.

Ok. First, Jimbo's page lock "policy" isn't a policy. It's a technical change.

Well, potato, potahto. A technical change, like deciding to (say) start Proxy blocking (something entirely different of course) in March 2005 with no previous discussion or concensus, affects the way people use the service. It is an effective policy of the organization.

I realize it affects the way people use the service; we are using "policy" in two different ways here - you seem to think anything that "affects the way people use the service" is a policy, but I (and most of Misplaced Pages) use the word "policy" only to refer to non-technically implemented "rules" which all editors are urged to follow. If something affects users, but isn't that, we don't call it a policy. But in any case, it is merely word choice. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

And , as for finding references documenting that change: here's one, from gmane, with a few seconds of searching; and here's another, on-wiki, from the Village Pump in Dec 2005, documenting a considerable discussion on the topic. And your problem was what, again?

The problem is the very reference you gave me could have been easily used to verifiably reference a Wiki somewhere on the topic of page creation: "Jimbo decided to do an experiment; word from on high. Just like that. Asking users to search for it the way you have, is sort of like referring them to medline when they have a medical question.

BTW, you seem to be mis-using the term Wiki - above, I think you mean "page", or more specifically, "help page", or more specifically still, "Misplaced Pages namespace page". Wiki doesn't mean any of those things, and using it the way you have been simply leads to confusion on the part of your readers. Again, AFAIK, the only reason the page about page creation doesn't mention the change from disallowing unregistered users from creating pages is because no-one has gotten around to adding it. It's not a conspiracy. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just learned a lot from you, but it's damned arcane stuff. Absolutely none of it appears in the standard introduction to WP. So why is an encyclopedia put together like this?

Because everything, including the "standard" introduction to WP, has all been written by random volunteers, and, until now, no-one has bothered to add this information to the "standard introduction". Please do so. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That's my question.

I hope the above provides something of an answer. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I now have the tools it will take me to spend the several hours figuring out just who and why put in the "professional journalist" reference as an acceptable self-publishing V and RS. But I shouldn't have to do it. The people who made the decission could easily have referenced it at the time.

Ah, yes - searching for which edit added a given phrase is a pain, I agree. Someone may have written a tool to ease this, but I haven't come across it yet. I still don't exactly understand what you mean by "referenced it at the time" though. Do you mean they could have mentioned in their edit summary: "Adding "professional journalist" to the list of acceptable forms of self-publishing", or something else? I certainly agree that bad, or incomplete, edit summaries are a constant, and deeply irriating, problem. That's one reason why I make a habit of always (well, nearly always) providing an edit summary, even for talk page conversations like this. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Here, let's see how good you are. Who put in that reference and when? It seesm to be easy for you to do these things, so let's take you as gold standard and see how easy it can be. Sbharris 06:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Howbout you look for it, and lay out the methods you use, and I'll critique them and suggest any ways I can think of to make them more effiecent for the next time. (And, btw, please don't cut off signatures, like you did right below here) JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

5) The Foundation Board publishes resolutions and minutes of their meetings, on http://wikimediafoundation.org/ . What's missing? JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

So, does the above resolve your issue with missing information, or is there something else? JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope, see above. But if you can do it in less than 10 minutes, I'll just conclude that I'm unusually slow at finding information online, and give up. How about that? Perhaps I can even write a helpful Wiki: "Hey bub, since there's google, you wouldn't need any refs if you weren't so dumb and lazy." Sbharris 06:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hah. You are talking to someone who wrote Talk:Warren Beatty/References - don't even start with the claim that "you wouldn't need any refs". But not having detailed references is different (and better) than not having the necessary archives at all. I don't dispute your claim that the links between discussions and the page changes they led to is nowhere as well specified as it could be; I just dispute your claim that any (well, nearly any) of the required information is missing, rather than merely badly linked. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Legal threat

Per your legal threat here, you have been blocked indefinitely, pending the conclusion of litigation or your withdrawal of all legal threats and assurance of future adherence to the No Legal Threats policy. You may make contact with BradPatrick, Foundation counsel and interim Execuitve Director, to discuss legal issues. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

A legal threat is where you personally threaten legal action. I have not done so, ever. Pointing out that continual violation of a law or policy will result in consequences, such as as engaging in libel is likely to result in lawsuits against you, is not a legal threat, but a mere statement of reality, like saying murder leads to prison.

Your actions amount to editorical abuse of the worst kind. Fix them. User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 07:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)