Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:25, 21 December 2008

Archive

Old discussion is archived at:

2005 thru May 4, 2007 archive

May 11, 2007 thru April 18, 2008 archive

April 19, 2008 thru October 5, 2008 archive

Computer logic

I would think your interests in risk assessment and computers would make you a little more concerned about what you can do to to convince a computer within the limitations of it's boolean logic, binomial math thinking processes. I like computers and I'm sure you do too. And if you'll stick with their logic you will run into find the essential problems in human ideas much faster than by the human rationalization concept effort process. Maybe what we need is more programs to tell the PC how to properly evaluate the risk/gain relationship of decisions that are not boolean logic perfect. That's done in reliability analysis programs. But I dont know how it would satisfy your demand for corroborating references in order to have an idea considered. And I wish that somebody would develop a program that would give a PC a personality to go along with it's capabilities. (Say like that of DR. Isaac Asimov) So that we could continue to benefit from certain unique circumstances of skill in analysis and discussion. WFPMWFPM (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Artificial intelligence is a serious business with applications like voice recognition, and I've experimented with it a little when I was younger. Also, my stock program includes a technique borrowed from artificial intelligence. Someday perhaps we will let something like Data (Star Trek) decide if there was really a Big Bang. But for now, we depend on humans. I am personally less convinced about the Big Bang than the article is (although I don't pretend to understand it in so much detail), but Misplaced Pages has chosen to report the opinions of leading scientists, not me. That is, the article should say something like "Stephen Hawking thinks ... " rather than "Art LaPella (who's he?) thinks ... " Art LaPella (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

==I agree. But lets face the problem as the computer does. We've got a Tautology here. So where shouled we go. Well, something exists, so what is it. We say it is mass, which is partially collected form of energy. Well how can it exist in the first place? We dont have to deal with that. The question is as to what is going on now and in the future. And the logic of the chronological processes with masses in a gravitationally powered system is that you stsrt with mass and potential energy of accumulation, (which implies an initial stasis of cohering forces) and then a movement in the direction of any concentration. If you have a diffuse mass you can say with confidence that sooner or later it will concentrate. And the question only whether or not all of it will concentrate due to irregularities in distribution. But we're getting lost in the details without even bothering to define the problem.WFPMWFPM (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I defined the problem as writing the article according to Misplaced Pages policy, which is to report the opinions of scientists, not ourselves. I think your previous paragraph agrees with that goal, but then proceeds to ignore it by arguing what we should think – which I guess is OK as long as it doesn't determine how we write the Big Bang article, the purpose of Talk:Big Bang. I think you're arguing that if there was a Big Bang, then should matter be as concentrated as it is today into stars, planets, galaxies and galaxy clusters, or should Big Bang theory predict a higher or a lower concentration? I don't know, but you know what my broken record answer is going to be: do leading scientists think the concentration is too high or too low? Art LaPella (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

==No my problem is that you're restricting my ability to deal with the fundamental question by assuming and piling on the pro assumptions and not respecting my arguments and/or opinions which I am supposed to do in the talk section. Thus I have to spend all my time finding faults in something rather than improving an alternative (plus additional corrobarating requirements). That's why I like computer logic, because it wouldn't allow you to do that. We'd stop at the Tautology. And as Plato said, it's better to know that you dont know because then you have a possibility of finding the real answer. WFPMWFPM (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC) ==And my answer to the concentration problem is "Who Cares!" If Nature is capable of creating a universe and then decides to reaccumulate it, I have absolutely no doubt that it has the capability to do that. WFPMWFPM (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC) ==The way I understand it is that Stephen Hawkins thinks that the matter of the universe will be accumulated into island black holes, who then slowly evaporate. So then where are we? WFPMWFPM (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean that I'm restricting you with the Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:No original research policies. If so, those rules enjoy a solid consensus at Misplaced Pages, whether I'm here to tell you or not. Is that what you mean? "improving an alternative (plus additional corroborating requirements)" sounds almost OK – a more precise statement would be that the alternative IS the corroboration – we present leading scientific opinions, including the alternative opinions, but not our own opinions. Alternative opinions in the article are few but they do exist, theoretically because leading scientists seldom share the alternative opinions. If the Big Bang could be computed on a computer, or better yet on a calculator, then we wouldn't need expert opinions; we would use our own calculators. But Misplaced Pages has few articles that can be so calculated. Even the factorial article isn't all calculation; there's plenty of room to argue what facts to include, although I didn't notice any controversial claims in the article. Knowing that you don't know is indeed desirable; isn't that why Misplaced Pages relies on experts instead of us?

The answer to "where are we" may be at Ultimate fate of the universe#Life in a mortal universe. Art LaPella (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

==Yes I appreciate your editing and subject matter control problems. But we're not here to generate content for a periodic newspaper, but rather a dynamic and hopefully up to date information source for considered important subject matters. And that involves exploring fundamentals and related data. In the Big Bang I dont have much of a concept. But I have pictures and information related to the Whirlpool Galaxy that has to fit into the concept framework, and there I see Mass being accumulated and radiation energy and presumably kinetic energy containing mass coming out as the result of an energy conversion process. And behind that I see a "singularity" just waiting to gobble up practically "the whole thing". So I have a concept of a 3 phase reaccumulation process, which I'm sure you'd call very ad hoc and unscientific and wouldn't want to put into Wiki because I haven't spent But a lot of effort trying to get it adequately accepted to meet your standards of notability. But you are the people trying to generate and "disambigulate" ideas about everything, Including the parceling of it out into multitudes of articles before you actually get it figured out. And in doing so you must know that you're just adding to the confusion in areas of uncertancy. And particularly if you're not really interested in the subject matter. WFPMWFPM (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC) But then maybe your method is a successfull idea. Then we can hope that instead of having some pretty reasonable ideas about a limited group of subject matters that we have rigorously examined to the best of our ability we will wind up being in a stste of confusion about everything. And now I Must apologize for being silly and say I appreciate your efforts to work with and accomodate me.WFPMWFPM (talk) 01:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If phrases like "dynamic and hopefully up to date information source for considered important subject matters" are intended to debate against WP:V and WP:OR (abbreviations of the 2 policies I cited before), then I assure you Misplaced Pages considers those policies non-negotiable. If you really want to try to change those policies, the right place is on those policies' talk pages, Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages talk:No original research. But no way can I imagine one new person walking in and overturning something that basic. An article like Big Bang has a continuous parade of people who want us to announce their theories, and we have long since overcome any hope that one of them has the Answer to Everything. Maybe they do, but organized science is much better equipped to investigate that than we are. Yes, ignoring uncited opinions could possibly "add to confusion in areas of uncertainty", but printing them all like a blog would give us a lot more confusion. So even if I rewrote the article to say that WFPM has discovered the Truth in the Whirlpool Galaxy and the rest of this article is wrong, I assure you it would be reverted, and if we didn't back off we would both be shown the door. Unless of course, it says "According to Journal of Astronomy volume 6 page 653 ... " Art LaPella (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

==Gee I cant even imagine how I came up with that phrase. Desparation I guess. But I didn't say that we dont have a universe to think about and that relative information isnt important. After all, as you say, information about the Physical properties of things is serious business. But sometimes people do get inspired and have good ideas. In Richard Rhodes' book "The making of the Atomic bomb" he describes how Neils Bohr suddenly understood the difference between the nuclear instability properties of Uranium as compared to those of Thorium (page 284), which then got them started on the successful right track. And I'm on your side in this hardly understandable knowledge proliferation business. So keep up the good work. Regards. WFPMWFPM (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that means we understand each other as well as we're going to. Art LaPella (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

= Sorry about putting my input into wrong page and appreciate your moving it. I just cant seem to keep my pages straight. But I think it explains the "space expansion" discussion in the article. .WFPMWFPM (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I just explained my objections at Talk:Big Bang#Moved from article. Art LaPella (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine But the figure also shows, and thus implies that the real physical universe started at T=zero. It just took a while before it (the expansion rate curve) started to tilt up. And the article in EB is almost 30 years old. In my Cosmology bible, the 1989 "Pictorial Atlas of the Universe" by Kevin Krisciunas and Bill Yenne, (Mallard Press), The diameter of the universe is estimated at less than 5000MPC. Now were at 30,000MPC. So it's hard to keep track of these things. WFPMWFPM (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC). WFPMWFPM (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't explain why the universe is said to be 30,000MPC not 5000MPC, but Talk:Big Bang is full of cosmologists who specialize in such questions. Are you proposing a change to the article, and do you have Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources for that change? Art LaPella (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

=I can see your point. So how do I get the discussion in the referenced book into the article. I'm not used to being a source of information or reference material. That's for "scientists" and not Engineers, and I can see it's a job for a higher "calling" than I have. But you've let me contribute the information in the talk section and I thank you for that. WFPMWFPM (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a scientist either. When I try to research citations on the Internet, I usually run into a website that wants my non-existent institution to pay big bucks for a subscription before I can read enough to find out if it's relevant. I think you're supposed to find citations at an academic library, like the one 25 miles north of my home here. Your referenced book itself is a source, but the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources article says: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, superseded by more recent research, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field." Your source would clearly qualify as "outdated". To get around that obstacle, I would have to understand what point you're making. The universe was once thought to be 5000 MPC across, but the current opinion has changed. So? Are you just documenting a detail of the history of the theory? Art LaPella (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

== No1 No! I'm just trying to "define the problem" By understanding what the proposed concept is, and the EB chart explains it pretty well. It's a Cartesian coordinate plot ot an absolute time value t versus the "expansion rate" of the universe. The t is continuous, and starts at zerozero and then goes up and then flattens out and then starts an increasing curve going upward. Then at some present time P the expansion value and the tangent (slope) value is determined and the tangent line is extrapolated back to the abcissa line which is proposed as the point on t where the real universe began. Thus the age of the universe (T) is less than the absolute time value t It and the present expansion rate can be increasing or decreasing or whatever. But ai least I understand the concept. The chart is called the "Lemaitre model" chart, and there is also 2 other charts on the SR model and another model. It says that this concept was developedv as part of an effort to get the conceived age of the universe to be older than the 5x E9 year age of the earth and they got it to 10-20x E9 years. WFPMWFPM (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't "understand the concept". If "EB" means "Encyclopedia Britannica", I have a 1963 version that doesn't even have a Big Bang article. "age of the universe (T)" sounds the same as "absolute time value t", but since you're talking about tangent lines, I assume you're trying to correct the age of the universe by making assumptions about different expansion rates in the past. I assume Newton's laws aren't enough to determine expansion rate change (otherwise the expansion couldn't be accelerating), so I have no idea what expansion rate assumptions should be used.

You summarized this as defining the problem. Does that mean defining the problem with the Big Bang theory, and does that mean I should therefore reject the Big Bang? The ideal Wikipedian would write the same Big Bang article whether he personally believes the Big Bang or not. So that sounds as if you need explanation number kazillion and one of the No Original Research policy. Do you? If not, then defining the problem only makes sense if you are defining what a modern consensus of leading scientists (or at least a significant minority) considers to be a problem, and if you can quote leading scientists to prove it.

If you do need explanation number kazillion and one, here comes another major speech again: It doesn't matter if you can define the problem you have with the Big Bang. The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to report the opinions of leading scientists, not ours. And even if you found just the right words to make me drop my fishing nets and come, follow you, it wouldn't matter because I'm just the messenger. You may think of me as the enforcer after removing your edit from Big Bang, but that was atypical for me (for one thing, the signature, equals sign etc. was very unusual). As you meet other Wikipedians, they won't reexplain the same policy umpteen times. They will ignore you on the talk page, revert you in the article without explanation, and block you when they get tired of it. There are other Misplaced Pages:POV pushers, but the ones who survive here (including Misplaced Pages's usual 15-25 age range) usually do a better job of at least pretending to cooperate with Misplaced Pages's basic policies. Art LaPella (talk) 04:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC) I am of course sorry for disturbing you, but I'm an old Geezer with several careers behind me, and nothing to do but survive economically and read about science. And most of science is problem solving in scientific subject matter. And the recommended procedure Number 1 for problem solving is to define the problem. And I was trying to help with the subject matter in that respect. And of course I started out with misconceptions about the Big Bang theory, as do many of your 15-25 year old readers, so I thought the thing to do was to read up on the subject and pass any clarifying information on to whoever is in charge of the information. And like Socrates, I certainly dont consider myself to be in charge of the information. More like a coordinator. But I guess that's what you do. And I'm not an expert programmer with graphics capability to draw the charts I see in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (EB) so I tried to describe them. And so when you want contributions to talk sections to be technically and graphically correct you're asking a lot from me and the 15-25 year olds, who are supposedly reading in order to learn, rather than to pontificate. And you did right in manageing the article's organization which is your responsability. Because I like to read the organized information, and the question becomes what do I do when I disagree with it or maybe even find an error. Maybe I should question the credentials of whoever said the diameter of the universe is 30,000MPC, when it's only 14x10E9years old, and doesn't have near enough galaxies to occupy that volume of space. I dont know. And I hope you get someone in authority to find out soon enough so that I can read about it. WFPMWFPM (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)PS Please note that someone has now changed the Universe article's diameter estimate to 156 billion light years. WFPMWFPM (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Would you say that contributer No. 24.26.109.88 is a responsable authority on the subject? WFPMWFPM (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, 24.26.109.88 is a good example of what I'm talking about. Here is his edit: 24.26.109.88 doesn't give us any clue who he is, but it doesn't matter because he cited a source, "space.com", and told us how to find it. That is exactly how Misplaced Pages works. I don't know who said the diameter of the universe is 30,000MPC when it's only 14x10E9 years old, but I remember reading something like that on Misplaced Pages, so until proven otherwise I assume that is the consensus. If there is only one person saying that and his credentials are questionable, then sure, you should question his credentials. Art LaPella (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and although making the EB reference graphically correct might help me understand it, that isn't the point. For talk page purposes it would be easier to explain in words, and in the article you can't copy it because of its copyright, and anyway it's old enough to be relevant only for historical purposes. And I don't manage the article's organization. I correct spelling and grammar, and re-explaining basic policy is a similar detail – original research wouldn't survive in the article anyway with or without me. Art LaPella (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

And I read the space com article, and it seems that while the world and visible parts of the universe have been piddling around and doing nothing much for 13 billion years, the space volume of the universe has, on average expanded at 6 times the speed of light (6x 13 billion= 78 billion). And of course we must be near the center so the diameter is 156 billion years. And there wasn't any energy differential involved in that process, because space inflation values dont count in physics. In the meantime the other references are stuck in the range of diameters of 30 t0 90 billion light years, and haven't caught up with the up to date concepts and reports in Misplaced Pages. WFPMWFPM (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If other references say 30 to 90 billion light years and space.com and Universe now say 156 billion, then that contradiction should be resolved. If it isn't resolved then Template:Contradict-other should be used. I usually let the scientists decide what is an adequate citation, and perhaps an edit summary (rather than a footnote) mentioning a popularized website isn't ideal. But in the context of overturning the scientific consensus altogether because you and an outdated encyclopedia say so (if that is indeed your objective), then space.com is a wonderful reference by comparison. Art LaPella (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that what I think has absolutely no significance as regarding the subject matter. And I dont know what significance the referred space com article has. But when it crops up in wikipedia as an authoritative statement it impacts on the credibility of wikipedia and editors are told to try to report the facts, and, of course, reputable opinions. All I have ever done, when it comes to science, is do build a set of real physical entities (models) that have some relationship to an important set of real physical entities (Atoms) and tried to bring that to science's attention. And I dont know how I got into this subject about the Big Bang and Universe inflation theories. Just trying to learn and understand, I Guess. WFPMWFPM (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If 156 billion is that bad, then you might produce the references saying 30 to 90 billion (I couldn't find them here) and change Universe linking to those references. But we really do need the references. Without them we could be arguing with 4th graders insisting the size of the universe is about 1000 miles. Art LaPella (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the Logarithmic Map of the Universe link leads to a Map of the Universe article where it is explained that the Hubble radius for redshift purposes is 4400 MPC And that the inflated universe's present status is presently 3.38 times that or 14,000+ MPC (with the future ultimate possible size being 250,000 MPC). It's called the Friedman Model. And I can only organize my contributing capabilities to be able to get in one set of ideas per session. WFPMWFPM (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I reported it here. Art LaPella (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

re: Did You Know Problem

Hi Art LaPella, I I have responded to your comment. I have never been involved in DYK before and you have educated me on how it works. I will be back there soon.--intraining 05:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank You!

		The TomStar81 Spelling Award
		Be it known to all members of Misplaced Pages that Art LaPella has corrected my god-awful spelling on the page USS New Jersey (BB-62), and in doing so has made an important and very significant contribution to the Misplaced Pages community, thereby earning this TomStar81 Spelling Award and my deepest thanks. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll copy it to my user page. Art LaPella (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

re: Did You Know problem

Hello I believe I have fixed the problem and I have responded to your comment regarding my DYK submission for the article List of Mortal Kombat media. Thank you. Silver Sonic Shadow (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Johnes

Hi Art. Hope all is well for you in the beautiful PNW. Thanks for your help with Thomas Johnes! Take care, ∞☼Geaugagrrl/_(C) 03:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Art LaPella (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

tin(IV) fluoride

I was surprised when someone nominated this article for DYK- as I had never heard of DYK before! --Axiosaurus (talk) 08:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

My msitake -you are quite right- I have corrected the typos in the equations--Axiosaurus (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Did You Know question

Hi! Thank you for the prompt review of the DYK submission of Lars Andreas Oftedahl! I have substituted "reputated" with "renowned", both in the hook and in the article. Think "renowned" is slightly more close to the cited source than your suggested "well-known". PS. I have noticed your continuous and helpful work at the DYK pages. Keep up the good work! Cheers. Oceanh (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC).

Thank You

May I please thank for helping me out with Mirage of astronomical objects?--Mbz1 (talk) 03:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Art LaPella (talk) 04:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Did You Know question

Hey, thanks for the help with the hook for Jupiter and Thetis (Ingres); appreciated, its a skill that takes practice, and I'm not very practicised with DYK. Frankly, I'm not trilled with the hook for The Ghost of a Flea. If you could tighten, it would be very much appreciated. Best. Ceoil 20:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I went with your suggested hook. Ceoil 05:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Todays Featured Article

Hi,

The current image of Delhi is foggy and unclear and does not show much. Can you please change the image of Delhi on the main page to one of the following:

. These are icons of Delhi and a symbol of the city. Thanks Nikkul (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have much experience with images, copyrights and cascading protection, but I forwarded your request to WP:ERRORS. Art LaPella (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Blue Moon Rising DYK

Cheers for letting me know you'd had a look at my DYK. I've fixed the problem you commented.

Cabe6403 07:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The ABC of Communism and DYK

I've changed the hook a bit. I hope it works now. Thanks for informing me, btw! Bsimmons666 (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you one more time

Hi, Art. I guess by now you rather tiered of correcting my errors. Thank you one more tome for helping me out with the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really, my main contribution to Misplaced Pages is correcting errors like that. Art LaPella (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Template for DYK notifications

Hi, I noticed that you've been active at T:TDYK, and I just wanted to let you know that I've been working on making a template for notifying users when there are issues that need to be addressed with their hooks (ie, when you've had to mark it with ). The template is at {{DYKquestions}} if you want to take a look or try using it, and RyanCross started a discussion here to request comments about it. —Politizer /_contribs 14:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I responded there. Art LaPella (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Richard Tylman COI notice

Greetings, You may recall participating in a Conflict of Interest notice concerning Richard Tylman earlier this year. I have presented evidence from this COI at a current Request for Arbitration. In doing so, I notified Gordonofcartoon whose name was mentioned in the evidence. It has been suggested by Poeticbent that I should have notified all participants… hence this notice. Kind regards, Victoriagirl (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, what a long page! I think anything I could add would just make the page longer. Art LaPella (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I changed my mind, and I did make a short comment there. Art LaPella (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I won't add to the confusion by commenting there, but West or not, there are national cabals full stop. Try deleting one of these nonentities from Australian colonial history and see how rapidly a pro-keep posse turns up via Australian Wikipedians' notice board. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That link is dead, but I'll take your word for the pro-keep posse; it sounds plausible (although there probably should be an article for something mentioned in 30 other articles). But nobody's really equal. Art LaPella (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, should've explained better. It's the title of a book used as source for the whole walled garden. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the articles I checked are linked only from talk pages, each other, lists, and this wrong link. You're a deletionist and I'm a copyeditor. Art LaPella (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

List of people deported from the United States

So if I expand the main body text to over 1,500 chars, can I resubmit at some point for reconsideration at T:DYK? Cirt (talk) 07:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I don't usually check citations etc. (see the FAQ at the top of this page), but the objection was about length. 1500 bytes of main body text (that is, not part of the list) would satisfy that objection. It would have to be done within the so-called 5 day limit (as modified by "Unwritten" Rule D7). Art LaPella (talk) 07:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will get on that. Cirt (talk) 07:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Congregation Beth Elohim

Thanks for doing that. How do you figure out that the longitude is in the street, not the building? Jayjg 03:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

First, find the coordinates (latitude and longitude), in the upper right corner and also in the infobox. Next, go back to my uncorrected version if you want to see that it used to point to the street. Then, click the coordinates. Then, find the words "Google Maps" (other choices will work too). To the right of Google Maps, click "Labeled satellite". In the upper left corner of the picture are several symbols. Click the plus sign 3 times to zoom in. The arrow should now be pointing at the middle of the street by the temple (if "temple" is the right word). Similarly, my location is moved due east onto the building, so there can be no question which building is the temple. Art LaPella (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you do from there, trial and error to find the exact spot? Jayjg 05:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If you mean what do you do to correct the location for this temple, I believe I already fixed it, although we could use the process described below if you want the location centered on the dome or something.

If you mean how can you correct other latitudes and longitudes on other articles, yes, trial and error is part of the process. The process can be speeded up with arithmetic. A degree of latitude is about 25,000 miles/360 degrees or about 70 miles. A degree of longitude is less by a factor of about 0.7 depending on the latitude (actually the cosine of the latitude, but trial and error is easier than too much precision.) In this case I was moving about 100 feet, so that's about .7x100/(70x5280) degrees or about .0002 100/(0.7x(70x5280)) degrees or about .0004 degrees east. Some other locations are measured in minutes (1/60 of a degree) and seconds (1/60 of a minute).

This assumes you know which building on a satellite view matches the building in a Misplaced Pages article. To tell which building is which, use Google's "Street View" or Live Search's "Bird's Eye" if you're in the right neighborhood (this article provided an address, and Street View and Bird's Eye only work in dense urban areas). If you're more seriously lost, Wikimapia can be helpful. Wikimapia can also be used to determine a visible landmark's coordinates without trial and error. Art LaPella (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Current DYKs

No editors have been notified that they have DYKs for those currently on main page. Mjroots (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I reported it at Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know#Current DYK's, although they aren't so current any more (10:09 is 2:09 AM in my time zone). Art LaPella (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: O'Neill y O'Kelly

Hi there, in answer to your question is that both Julio and Arturo used both their father's and mother's surnames as is custom in Hispanic culture. It is common in Hispanic culture to use both parents surnames and since they were Spanish subjects that is what they did. A good example is Ramon Power y Giralt. His father was Joaquín Power y Morgan who married Maria Josefa Giralt. When Ramon was born, he was inscribed as Ramon Power y Giralt. It is a little confusing, but that is the custom. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. Art LaPella (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ovid

Can you please check if comma is used appropriately in the current lead hook? --BorgQueen (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the first comma and not the second, although I couldn't cite a rule for it. The adverbial phrase doesn't fit any of the categories that always require commas. Art LaPella (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Fata Morgana (mirage)

Hi Art, May I please ask you, when and if you have a time, to correct my errors in Fata Morgana (mirage). Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's OK. I reverted everything I've done for the article to the way it used to be. I consider there no more Fata Morgana (mirage) article on Misplaced Pages, but at least grammar is correct. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that although Gunrun could have been more diplomatic, he admitted he doesn't know much about Fata Morgana. He criticized only the grammar (English obviously isn't your native language) and the informal style. Art LaPella (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Gunrun called the article " rubbish". English is not my native language, but I would not have ever used such a word about somebody else work. I removed all my changes. The article that is there now is wrong. The images do not show Fata Morgana, and the description of the phenomenon is incorrect. Well, I guess it is better than to have an article with errors in the grammar. The thing is that I know something (very little) about Fata Morgana, at least I saw the display few times. I wanted to share my knowledge with Misplaced Pages readers, but somehow I do not want to do it any more. Thank you, Art. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I commented at Talk:Fata Morgana (mirage)#Has anyone read this article recently?. Art LaPella (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Your unwritten rules are being discussed here. Your thoughts would be welcome. -- Suntag ☼ 17:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

You probably know what for :) —Politizer /_contribs 08:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Art LaPella (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Your Unwritten Rule

Your Unwritten Rule A2 goes against Misplaced Pages guideline. As per definition ON Misplaced Pages and approved by Consensus: "Specifically, for stylistic purposes, readable prose excludes: External links, Further reading, References, Footnotes, See also, and similar sections; Table of contents, tables, list-like sections, and similar content; and markup, interwiki links, URLs and similar formatting" from here. This is the agreed definition by the community. IF you wish to pursue this further, take it up with the community. However, your rules remain invalid as long as they contradict determined definitions. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It isn't just my Unwritten Rule. As G4 puts it: "These 'unwritten' rules are intended to describe the consensus, not to prescribe it." Please stop telling us what our own consensus says, until you understand us a lot better. The consensus has been (for instance) to exclude block quotes from article size, since before I wrote down the Unwritten Rules; that's why they are called Unwritten Rules. No Did You Know regular has objected to A2 in months. Gatoclass, for instance, has just made a major change to the Unwritten Rules without changing or objecting to A2.

You have quoted how the community defines "readable prose" in the "Article size" article. I have no objection to that article, and therefore I have no need to take that article up with the community. But that isn't how we define "prose only" for the Did You Know article size rule. Just because we used the same word "prose" that another article uses, doesn't mean we need to change our rule to fit that definition, any more than the existence of other people named Art proves that I'm somebody else. This dictionary definition of "prose" is less specific than either Misplaced Pages definition, but it's routine to use everyday words to have different specialized meanings in different situations. For instance, we don't need anyone's permission to use the word "mouse" to describe a computer part, even though it doesn't have fur and a tail. Art LaPella (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As Gatoclass et all have made it clear now, and many have in the past, the community doesn't accept your unwritten rules. Why do you keep making claims to the contrary? There is only one definition of what readable prose is on Misplaced Pages. There isn't your definition and Misplaced Pages's. There is one. To change that requires changing an important guideline that is connected to GA, FAC, and MoS. You cannot do that. Only the community can do that, and your persistance to the contrary is troubling. If you honestly believe that your side is correct, why have you not taken it up to Village Pump? The fact that you haven't actually had community involvement in the matter only verifies this. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I see you have objected to the plans of Gatoclass et al (including me) to merge the unwritten rules into the written rules. So you are already aware that they accept specific rules such as A2, or they would be deleting it not merging it. The Did You Know (not Article size) consensus is 1500 characters excluding things like block quotes, and you're the only one who wants to change it. If you consider my position to be arrogant, feel free to turn me in to the Village Pump, or better yet, to Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts and spare me the trouble of reporting this myself. Art LaPella (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? Gatoclass? You mean the individual who said: "I'm inclined to agree with Jay, I think the front end of DYK is probably daunting enough for noobs already without the "unwritten rules" collated by Art. Gatoclass (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)".

Sure seems like he doesn't accept your merge proposal. I'm not the one who wants to change anything. Block quotes have always counted as readable prose. Thats part of WP:SIZE. 100% of my articles contain block quotes and not once, before Politizer tried dominating DYK, has anyone ever objected. Now you are attempting to rewrite standard policies and change definitions to suit him? At least do it without misquoting admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, it clearly says "(ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, tables etc.)" which is a directly from WP:SIZE: "readable prose excludes: External links, Further reading, References, Footnotes, See also, and similar sections; Table of contents, tables, list-like sections, and similar content; and markup, interwiki links, URLs and similar formatting." It is impossible to claim otherwise, and your persistence is directly contradictory to the English language. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

For the benefit of administrators who may be reviewing this nonsense in the future: Gatoclass did say that, but he meant that he was objecting to merging the 3 sets of rules. Like all Did You Know regulars, Gatoclass takes the Unwritten Rules for granted, as you can tell from his revision to those rules. This can also be confirmed by reviewing the history of Template talk:Did you know, which has frequently mentioned the Unwritten Rules for months without questioning their authority. Art LaPella (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"did say that, but he meant " Really? So, now you can declare what people meant to say, even though they clearly contradict you? Just like you can make up your own rules without going to Village Pump and getting a consensus of more than five people? Wow. That is really scary. And mentioning the unwritten rules is completely different than accepting them as rules. There are pages connected to various guidelines that are personal philosophies and views that are not guidelines nor official because Consensus was never put together to adopt them as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and also "Unofficial criteria: LaPella's unwritten rules" from the top of Template talk:Did you know. Perhaps you haven't noticed that, but Did You Know regulars are aware of that link although "unofficial" understates the status. They are routinely quoted through the rest of the page, and nobody else says things like "Those are only unofficial". Art LaPella (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Personal essays are not policies or guidelines, nor are they enforceable in any way. There are 9 essays linked to in WP:CIVIL, but none of them are enforceable. What you seem unable to acknowledge is that your idea is not accepted by the community, and the only way for it to be accepted is for it to go to the community. Village Pump Proposals is the place for that. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I don't approve hooks or move them to Next Update anyway, so arguing with me is like shooting the messenger. If (contrary to fact) the Unwritten Rules are so unenforceable and unaccepted, (imaginary) Did You Know regulars who don't accept those Rules will approve your hook and move it to Next Update, and I don't matter. Art LaPella (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about hooks. This is about rule changes. I opposed you two times before on this issue, and consensus did not go to say that the unwritten rules were the rules. In order to change that, it seems that people are trying to merge the two together to make it impossible to deny your rules. This is against Consensus and other standards, and is a very bad practice. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked at making a brief announcement at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals), just to please you, but there seems to be no way to avoid getting a lot of official-looking attention. Did You Know regulars are the Did You Know consensus, and you are the only opponent. Art LaPella (talk) 03:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

John did not seem to agree. Neither did Gato. Plus, they are not the only regulars. There are tons of people who didn't mention a thing. Furthermore, not everyone who uses DYK knows what is being said on the talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

So report my evildoing and get it over with. Be sure to tell them that nobody but me supports the Unwritten Rules, and be sure to tell them that the same nobodies support the Unwritten Rules so much, they are nefariously including them in the written rules without your consent. Art LaPella (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"So report my evildoing and get it over with." Evil doing? You haven't done anything yet. If the rules get merge, then you can be reported, or the issue would be taken to one of the VP boards for community involvement. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure I have. I've been enforcing the unwritten rules nobody agrees with for months. No one has dared resist my iron grip until you, their champion, appeared. Even other Did You Know regulars have long cited and obeyed my decrees, and refused to approve hooks that violate them, so great is their fear of my tyranny. Well, at least my tyranny over nitpicking; I never did understand the subjective part of Did You Know very well. Art LaPella (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"I've been enforcing" You can't actually enforce them. You can not approve of things. But that doesn't mean others have. Plus, most of my hooks and pages were approved with a large amount of quoting and the rest, so they never actually qualified for anything according to your standards. Sure looks like you don't have any actual control. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK recognizes new (or substantially expanded) articles of a certain minimum size, and the content must be new. Block quotes from elsewhere are not original content, and therefore are being excluded from the count for purposes of DYK. Art LaPella is doing no more than describing consensus and common practice, and does not deserve this criticism. He is one of the folks who keeps this project going. Kablammo (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR. No content on Misplaced Pages is "original". WP:SIZE, prose is defined as textual information that is in the body, including quotations and block quotes. Adding block quotes to the encyclopedia, along with other quotes, has been accepted in thousands of DYK, especially in all of my own. None of what you have stated matches Consensus, nor does it match either the spirit or letter of DYK. Plot summaries are not "original" either, and nothing on this encyclopedia is. Its all taken from somewhere, and it doesn't matter if its direct text or not. What matters is that it falls under standard rules. This does. Art's interpretation doesn't. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

OR, I respectfully disagree. "The DYK section gives publicity to newly created or expanded Misplaced Pages articles, as a way of thanking the editors who create new content." "New content" in my view does not include block quotes from elsewhere. (It is also my view that it should not include PD text from elsewhere, nor paraphrased content, but should in fact be the editor's own prose, but that is another issue.) There may be nothing new under the sun, but there are new ways of arranging and expressing it, and that is what DYK recognizes. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"New content" New content means new to the encyclopedia and not plagarized. It is not plagarism to quote someone else and cite. Furthermore, I know from publishing that this is based on copyrighting principles - quoting someone else, putting it into a new context, and not using more than fair use IS new content and is rightfully under your copyright. PD pictures are not new, but if you position them in a certain way and add caption, then no one can take your whole item. The whole is yours. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Numbering systems and language

• Scripture? In a RfA? (*You must not have visited my user page.*) I am quite pleased to hear that option B wasn’t rhetorical. Well then, since we are off-topic…

  As for scripture, I am a Pastafarian myself, and believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He created the universe with His noodley appendages. I believe He uses the base-16 numbering system (He has 16 noodley appendages, which makes base-16 imminently sensible for Him). Note that when He refers to the value 15, unless one is willing to transcribe 15 as “F” in English (or “נ” in Hebrew), any numeric value He (the Flying Spaghetti Monster) uses to communicate His thoughts, will not only convert to the language of the transcriber, but will also always seem to convert to the base-10 numbering system that is part of that language. It is just an illusion that the Flying Spaghetti Monster uses base-10 math; an artifact of converting to English. The Sumerians used the sexagesimal numbering system so His number 15 in Babylonian would appear like this to them. A splendid scientific test for what numbering system He *really* uses (setting aside the transcribed illusions of what He communicates in), is to calculate whether notable events tend to happen on nice, round numbers in various numbering systems.

  And yes, if a serpent was held for a thousand years, that too would be *evidence* for this. But “thousand” could be a generalization; it could have originated from God-talk for something like “millennia” (but not exactly). But ending the world on a nice, exquisitely precise, round number like the first day of year-2000, would indeed have signaled not only that God existed (totally bursting my belief bubble for a second or two), but also that He really and truly uses the base-10 numbering system.

  Thank you for your post; I had never pondered this numbering system issue in such depth before. A meatball is a terrible thing to waste.©™® That is Revelation 1 in my book. Greg L (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You must not have visited my user page either. When confronting a fundamentalist or any other -ist, it is rational to argue from his own assumptions (which I do not share) unless you explicitly challenge them. Similarly, it is difficult to arrive at a rational evaluation of ScienceApologist when we have to pretend he is cooperating. To comply with my own second sentence above, I would support that opinion with quotes from Pastafarian scripture (peace and blessings be upon Him), but alas, I have never attended a Pastafarian seminary. At least not at a divinely ordained seminary at which only Kraft parmesan cheese is served. Art LaPella (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Touché. I see it there: you lost your faith. That explains your familiarity with scripture. Pleased to make your acquaintance. Greg L (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

  P.S. I weep at the thought of all the cans of Beefaroni I have cut open and eaten. For they are His children. Greg L (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Italics

Could you comment here? Thanks. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Art LaPella (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Updated DYK template

Hi, I'd just like to let you know what the template {{DYKsug}} was just updated with a new feature: now, for all DYK nominations that include only one article, it auto-generates the credit templates ({{DYKmake}} and {{DYKnom}}), which the person moving the hook to Next may simply cut and past from T:TDYK directly into next. This only happens with single-article nominations; if the nomination has more than one article, there will be a message in the template saying "Credits must be done manually by the person moving this nomination to Next" or something like that. It will probably be a few days before you start seeing the auto-generated credit templates, since the template was only just updated and only the new nominations will reflect it; the first several times you see auto-generated credit templates, you may want to double-check the nom as you are promoting it, just to make sure the credits are correct.

There have been some other minor changes—mainly, now if a DYK nominator lists himself as both "creator/expander" and "nominator," the "nominator" field ends up blank (so that what gets displayed is "Created by User, self nom" rather than "Created by User, nominated by User." Also, the fields, |collaborator=, |collaborator2=, and |collaborator3= have been replaced with the more intuitive |creator2=, |creator3=, and |creator4=.

Please let me know if you experience any problems with the new template. —Politizer /_contribs 15:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't directly use the template at all, because I do proofreading, not nominating or moving to next update. But I think there are fields for comments and ALTs and perhaps I should be using those. Art LaPella (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the way you're editing now was fine; I just sent this mass message out to everyone who is very active, and I figured even if you're not going to use the template I should at least let you know about the changes so you don't get surprised if things start looking different. You don't have to worry a bout using the comment or ALT fields in the template, because those are mainly intended for the nominators, to leave comments explaining details about the nom that can't be expressed by the template (for example, if there are multiple articles and different people were involved with each article in different ways, or if the nominator wants to specify when the article was moved to mainspace) or to suggest multiple hooks at once when they nominate. For the stuff that you do, you probably don't need to ever touch the template if you don't want to. —Politizer /_contribs 18:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

9-article DKY hook

I have submitted an ALTERNATE hook for the 9-article DKY. I believe the wording now is such it closer relates to the articles involved. As long as the "200 character" rule could be a little flexible since there are so many articles involved, I believe this should be somehting closer to what might satisfy everyone. Do you think this would work? --Doug Coldwell 13:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Italics, again.

Could you comment on T:TDYK#Suanmeitang. Thanks a lot. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)