User talk:68.148.164.166

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Re: iPod timelines 2 Admin 3 Stroke order 4 Simplest character 5 March 2008 6 Tabs at the top 7 Warning 8 Improperly formatted warning 9 Your second "warning" on my user talk page 10 A puzzle 11 Jacques-Yves Cousteau 12 April 2008 13 Thread moving 14 Gingivitis 15 NPOV 16 May 2008 17 What about phthalate? 18 June 2008 19 Discovery (Daft Punk album) 20 Ref Desk Moves 21 Your question on the Reference Desk about Chinese 22 Atonality 23 Spaces in category sort keys 24 Edit summaries 25 Impressive, for an IP address. 26 Your questions on the Language reference desk 27 Headings 28 Mauritian Creole 29 Generative music 30 Section headers in band articles 31 Bumping at the Refdesk 32 Got your query 68.148 33 Wikipedia links 34 Reposting on the Science Desk 35 here's somthing to remeber 36 July 2008 37 Pubic hairs 38 Pubic Hairs 39 Music grammars 40 You have been blocked 41 goju ryu kata information 42 Friendly note about talk page messages 43 Can this guy do this? 44 RE: Weirdness 45 Cantonese opera question 46 Pro 47 Late but... 48 August 2008

[edit] Re: iPod timelines

What is your justification that YOURS is better? You didn't provide any reasoning for changing the templates. Here's my reason for keeping it the way it is. When you see the timeline on the iPod pages, it provides an integrate appearance. Not only that, but the main iPod timeline (and most Apple-related timelines) were formatted that way, and therefore the spin-off timelines (compact and full-size iPods) are in the same format. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Admin

No, I'm not an admin. Why do you ask? -- Zsero (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I didn't. Removing false accusations from a user's talk page is not subject to 3RR, particularly when uninvolved WP:DICKs started re-adding them just to make a WP:POINT. Even if there was some rule violated, it was clearly a case for IAR. Anyway, what's your sudden interest in it, and why would you think I was an admin? -- Zsero (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stroke order

Stroke orders start from top to bottom and left to right. At the same time, the other rule is that they go in this order: "horizontal, vertical, left diagonal, right diagnoal, dot." --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Simplest character

As far as I know, "一" would still be the simplest character in Chinese, Korean, or Japanese. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the old Zhuang script. However, I think it's hard to get much simpler than a single stroke. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Sturm 08:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Playing card (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tabs at the top

First, please do NOT post the same question to multiple village pump pages. I have removed your postings at VPP and VPM; as it is, your posting is still on two other pages. Please consider that other editors have better things to do than answer the same question multiple times.

Second, you were told (but I'll restate this, in case it wasn't clear) that when it comes to changing tabs, there are two options:

• (a) One editor (that would be you) doing some personal tailoring of what he/she sees, using Javascript
• (b) Changing what ALL editors at Wikipedia see

I hope it's obvious that option (a) is much more likely to happen - since it's entirely up to the editor (you) to make it happen). Option (b) is only going to happen if there is general agreement among editors who express an opinion (that's consensus) that a change is good. Since editors at Wikipedia seem generally satisfied with what they have (if that wasn't true, things would have changed), it's very unlikely that such a consensus will occur in favor of the tabs the way that you prefer.

Getting back to your situation - if you really want the tabs to be changed, you need to (1) become a registered editor (because anonymous IP editors can't tailor what they see in Wikipedia), (2) learn a bit about user scripts in general (take a look at the index for editors to find the relevant pages) - at least enough to ask intelligent questions; and then (3) ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User scripts for help in finding or creating a user script that does exactly what you want; and (4) ask at the help desk if you have any problems installing and using that user script. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improperly formatted warning

If you should have an occasion to actually post a valid warning - as opposed to your false warning on my user talk page, please note that warning templates are supposed to be substituted - see Template:Uw-vandalism2 for the proper formatting. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your second "warning" on my user talk page

I'm not quite sure how to deal with you. If you were just doing vandalism (including posting false warnings on my user talk page, as you just did again), I'd simply escalate warnings and then get this IP address blocked. But you're doing useful work at Wikipedia with your other edits. So I'm going to simply delete your warning (please note that you again failed to do a subst:; you don't seem to be that quick a learner) and let you continue to do the constructive editing that you're now doing. But you might want to glance at Wikipedia:Harassment#User space harassment. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: the posting above was in error in using the term "vandalism" - I got this IP address and another I was dealing with (which was in fact vandalizing pages) mixed up. The review I just did of the edits by this IP address found no edits that I would label "vandalism". I apologize for the use of that term. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A puzzle

(1) You're clearly an experienced editor, since you know how to do wikitables, as in this edit.

(2) In fact, one editor thinks you're a banned user.

(3) You're doing a lot of minor, but constructive edits; so you do care about improving Wikipedia.

(4) But rather than doing this as a new, registered editor, you're doing it from an IP address, so you're not building yourself a new reputation. (In general, Wikipedia has a live and let live philosophy; there are no checkusers run on new accounts, or even matches of email addresses on new accounts. As long as a editor doesn't cause problems, no one is going to notice that a banned user is back.)

(5) In addition to constructive edits, you also do things like:

(a) Revert an edit of an established editor, bringing attention to an edit mentioning the belief that you're a banned user.

(b) Respond with an an obscenity on a user talk page when you think that you've been attacked.

I'll admit that learn a bit about user scripts in general (take a look at the index for editors to find the relevant pages) - at least enough to ask intelligent questions can be taken as an attack. I'll say in my defense that the multiple postings to village pump pages (wrong) and the question you asked on my talk page - How couldn't I get consensus? - indicated to me that you should do more background reading, and take things a bit slower, than you were/do. I'll also point you to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Forgive and forget, Wikipedia:No angry mastodons, and Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down.

(c) Act like you're unaware of the fairly well known essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars.

(d) Get into a back-and-forth with a very experienced editor (that's me), making it much more likely that someone is going to analyze this account. (I'm assuming that this posting on your user talk page was because another editor became interested.)

(e) Either not use a spell checker in your web browser, or ignore words it flags (there a misspelling in your last posting on my user talk page, in addition to a misused adjective).

So I suggest we cal this a draw - I'll leave your warning up on my page (it's kind of amusing at this point, and one could make an argument that there is some validity), and you'll do more of the constructive edits you've been doing and at least consider following some of the advice in the essays and guideline listed above. Deal? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jacques-Yves Cousteau

Hi, any reason you're removing the more descriptive section headers in this article? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm taking out the pov. I'll try to explain in my edit summary.68.148.164.166 (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

How are: Invention of modern deep-sea diving (1943), GERS and Élie Monnier (1946-1949), The Calypso and French oceanographical campaigns (1950) POVish? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, checked back on the article; in fact, the year info did nothing to infomationalize the section headings.68.148.164.166 (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks very much. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 02:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

The recent edit you made to Samaria constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Creamy!^Talk 02:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Dispensationalism. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Creamy!^Talk 02:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thread moving

If you continue to move the thread at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Cantonese Writing to the bottom of the page every time you add to it, your further contributions will be considered vandalism and reverted accordingly. Thank you. Deor (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gingivitis

The story was about people regrowing their fingertips. Refdesk pages get moved to the archive after a while. It has a link to a SciAm article. (Haven't read that one yet.) I've done a fair amount of source research for bone and cartilage growth. All that indicated that once the growth plate closes, the mesemychal cells switch to "replace" instead of "build". No idea what is going on with the finger tips. Grafting and autologous cell transplants are hot research topics. They are already doing a lot in connection with implants, but I'm afraid we are still some time away from knowing how to stop or reverse gingivitis. Remember that the cure to the common cold has been justs around the corner for centuries. Oral hygiene is only part of the picture for developing gingivitis. Our pages, once you follow all the links are quite extensive. Maybe also google a couple of key words. The Oral microbiology is influenced by many individual factors and one can actually grow nasty species by knocking out the lame ones through some oral hygiene measures. Another thing to look at is mechanical stress. It sounded as though you have a good dentist. If you want to try something tedious you might try a rotation diet with leaving out selected foods for 2 weeks in a row. It's a headache to stick to it and pretty impossible if you can't cook at least a little bit. Leave out foods from the same group e.g. 9carbonated sodas -phoshorus; wheat, oat, corn -grass) If you notice any change you might want to discuss the results with your doc or just stay away from whatever caused the change. If the change is persistent - congratulations. If it comes back, well, back to square 1. (This is no medical advice, just a couple of pointers.) Good luck. Lisa4edit (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to aspartame controversy. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, you are correct. The NPOV stuff was already there, it just looked new because you shifted things around a bit. My apologies. Article needs some cleanup, for sure. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Bill Nye the Science Guy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. ——Ryan | t • c 00:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What about phthalate?

Sure also a hydrocarbon. Anything is possible, but crude oil is a mixture of them. If you could get, by the merest of coincidences the conditions to reformulate any hydrocarbon substance into another, that is what you'll get, but what is one molecule of a certain substance going to show. It would end up in a cloud of other molecules, get burned, disbursed, attacked by UV rays, reactants or enzymes. If you should be worried about effects on humans, they'd suffer from all sorts of effects after being in the vicinity of a volcano erupting under an oilfield, like, e.g. extreme heat, volcanic dust in their lungs; before they'd get any effect from one molecule of phtalate or bisphenole. What if they did, though, they'd suffer from some disease like cancer, liver failure, or some such. Who'd know and who'd care. Lisa4edit (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Brita, well, your best bet will be to email the manufacturer. They're usually quite efficient with user inquiries. Imagine Reason (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Civil society, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ~Meldshal42 21:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2008 June 3, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. --Justpassin (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discovery (Daft Punk album)

Regarding your recent contribution to the article, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums for the standard formatting used for album articles. Just64helpin (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ref Desk Moves

Please do not move whole sections of the reference desk pages. Your questions will receive replies where they are, by those interested and/or qualified. --LarryMac | Talk

[edit] Your question on the Reference Desk about Chinese

I'm certain that both Cantonese and Taiwanese have a history of finding ways to write down constructions specific to those dialects, even sometimes inventing new characters not used in written Mandarin. I strongly suspect this is also the case for all the other major Chinese dialects, including Shanghainese, Hunanese, etc., though perhaps their written forms are less well-known outside of China due to them not being spoken in areas like Hong Kong and Taiwan that have a history of being at least de facto politically separate from mainland China. —Lowellian (reply) 00:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suspect this is also the case for all the other major Chinese dialects, including Shanghainese, Hunanese, etc.....

– Lowellian (reply) 00:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.148.164.166#Your_question_on_the_Reference_Desk_about_Chinese

What are the other major Chinese dialects? Is there any way to get all those characters?68.148.164.166 (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You can look at the articles Spoken Chinese and list of Chinese dialects for information and lists about the major Chinese dialects. As for getting those characters, I can't really help you there. For the dialects less well-known outside of China, you would probably only be able to find them on Chinese-language websites. Even for the dialects like Cantonese and Taiwanese more well-known outside China, it would be difficult to find them, because almost everything on the Internet written in Chinese is written as it would be in Mandarin. —Lowellian (reply) 01:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I know probably the greatest standardized source of Cantonese characters are in the scripts of Cantonese operatists. Are there any other corpora for for any dialects? Thanks.68.148.164.166 (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably, but I don't know where you would find them. —Lowellian (reply) 01:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Atonality

I answered as best I could with the time I have on the ref desk.Pfly (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spaces in category sort keys

I have posted a different answer at Wikipedia:Help desk#Difference?. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! PrimeHunter (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

Hyacinth (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

For example, in regards to many of your recent edits, such as to Transposition (music), you could have summarized "Avoid restating topic per Wikipedia:Headings#Section headings". Thanks again. Hyacinth (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Impressive, for an IP address.

http://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=68.148.164.166&site=en.wikipedia.org -- Scarpy (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your questions on the Language reference desk

It seems you are looking for a comprehensive overview of musical theory. Please have a look at the following articles. The first one should hopefully include links off to our articles on whatever subjects you require.

• music theory
  • piano pedals#Knee levers
  • intonation (music)
  • sympathetic vibration
  • triad (music)
  • harmonic / harmony

--_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 08:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Headings

In regards to Meter (music). "song" is not an appropriate heading. "Song" would be. Thanks. Hyacinth (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you knew that was a mistake...... Thanks for catching it.68.148.164.166 (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mauritian Creole

Please do not vandalise pages, as you did with Mauritian Creole. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing --Maurice45 (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Second warning --Maurice45 (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Generative music

Thanks for the message on my user talk page, but let's keep the discussion on the reference desk. No offence, but I've deleted your message. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section headers in band articles

Why don't you express your opinions to other editors who edit the articles you changed? While I can't comment on Wikipedia science articles, the idea that "Section headers should not be descriptive" is very strange to me (although the Isaac Newton featured article disagrees with you). Further WP:NPOV does not mean NO point of view; it means neutral point of view. Hence, to call a band "successful" due to good chart positions and/or high critical acclaim would not violating our policy of neutral POV. indopug (talk) 07:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed "success" from the section header actually. Its "Formation and early years" now. indopug (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bumping at the Refdesk

Hi. Have a look at the Refdesk talk page to convince yourself that consensus deems that bumping your threads to the bottom of the page is not cool. Please stop doing this. In this case you bumped your question because you missed a reply that was made to it which makes no sense. Why would you want the question to receive more attention from others when you were the one who missed it? You should consider this a gentle warning but if you continue to bump threads you may be blocked. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I copied your reply to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2008 June 20#Pubews and reverted your bump. I suggest you leave a note on the user's talk page. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Zain Ebrahim111: I have things to do, I can't watch everything. That time, I didn't bump the thread, and it is totally alright to get a second opinion.68.148.164.166 (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You did bump the thread. Have a look at the Refdesk talk page, in particular: Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Thread bumping and Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Moving threads about. If you ask a question, you really should watch it and don't bump threads just because you have other things to do. This isn't just my opinion - this is consensus. If you have a problem, reply at those discussions I linked. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not move the thread. I copied it. The original was unchanged.68.148.164.166 (talk) 11:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That's even worse IMHO because it would mess up the archives. I've reverted you again. Please stop this. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for not turning this into an edit war (I expected you to do so - sorry). Please don't bear any sort of grudge here - surely, you understand that if everyone bumped their questions to the bottom things would get out of hand pretty quickly. We're currently in the middle of a L-O-N-G debate at the Refdesk talk page regarding what to do when OPs are unsatisfied with the answers they receive and you may like to contribute to that discussion there. Anyway, thanks again for being mature about this. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I've been reading the discussions you first linked above. I've taken a lot of time, haha. No worries, I'm an experienced editor and have gotten awards before. And you are very welcome.68.148.164.166 (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

WTF is bumping anyway?

Moving your questions to the bottom of the desk in an attempt to get more attention. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, lemme get this straight. You read the talk page and you know that you're going against consensus and then you explained why you bumped and you were informed that you're still going against consensus. Why did you bump again? I reverted you. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not bump. That was not a bump.68.148.164.166 (talk) 07:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You took your question out of the archives and put into today's section of the desk. That is a bump. The only reason you did this is because you missed a post and you wanted to reply to that post. Like I said, you could take your reply to the talk page of the user who posted the answer. This is besides the fact that your question was labelled a medical question. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't only expect a reply from that person, I expect a reply from anyone who has the knowledge, that once reading that person's reply, may possibly anwser in a different way.68.148.164.166 (talk) 07:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, I know that you asked a question and you're upset about not getting the answer you wanted. You need to understand that there are several questions and your's is only one of them. It is absolutely unfair for you to keep putting your questions ahead of other questions. Everyone should have an even chance of their questions getting attention from the experts who know the answers. People have told you this on many occasions and you seem to think that the rules don't apply to you or that your questions are somehow worthy of more attention then others. If you didn't think this way then I'm sure you wouldn't behave the way you're bahaving.

Your refusal to obey the rules has now given you a certain "notoriety" in the minds of the regulars so your questions are likely to get even less attention now. PLEASE reconsider bumping that question again. You have now been reverted by three people and no one is on your side here. IMHO your question isn't even a very good question and borders on a request for diagnosis. If you continue with this behaviour, you will be blocked and nobody (me, in particular) wants that.

Regarding the "ideas" business, my comments at the RD talk page apply. If your question was written clearly in first place, there would be no need for the answer from one person to give an idea to the next person. IMHO, you should have been watching your question during its week-long tenor at the desk and pointed out immediately if someone misunderstood what you were asking for - this should have been done in the original thread. Personally, since the question has been archived without the correct interpretation (this is YOUR fault btw), *I* think it's okay to start a new question with a link to the original and this time state clearly what you're looking for. But you should know that others have expressed objection to this type of practice on the RD talk page so don't blame me if that type of thing gets reverted too. But please dont copy the entire thread from the archives onto the desk - you WILL be reverted if you do so.

I probably also should point out that merely linking to the orignal question and saying something like:

Please see this old question. User:So-and-so answered and I just want to know if anyone has a comment on that response

would also be unacceptable. It has to be a new question or a clarification of the old question. But in this case, I would say that no one misunderstood the question. You are looking for a discussion which the Refdesk doesn't tolerate. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Got your query 68.148

Re: IFE -- don't know, sorry. Can you tell me where you saw it or did you mean to ask someone else? Julia Rossi (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Ah, thanks for the link, IFE = InFictExpert, dear interactive fiction expert. Didn't connect this ip with that after 24 hours. I was being theatrical about all that because the desk/thread chaos was bugging me at the time. Best, Julia Rossi (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia links

If you want to link to another Wikipedia article, you don't have to copy and paste the entire URL. Just type the name of the article itself, enclosed within two sets of square brackets, like this: [[name of article here]]. It looks better and is the accepted style for linking to another article. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reposting on the Science Desk

Please cease and desist from reposting threads on the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Continuation to do so will lead to a block on your IP address. Jdrewitt (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] here's somthing to remeber

see Wikipedia:Headings#Section headings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.131.91 (talk) 05:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] July 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Gōjū-ryū has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Leonard^(Bloom) 00:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pubic hairs

You have been repeatedly asked to stop reposting the same question, which has already been answered to the best of our ability, to the reference desk. If you have further concerns, please see a doctor. I suspect you're likely to be blocked but if not, please consider this your FINAL WARNING Nil Einne (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That is to YOUR preceived, asked and anwsered. "Our"? Yes, just a few editors that have accounts. This is so biased, so totally biased to favor your own intrests, and your other editor villains.68.148.164.166 (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus against your behaviour, including from an anonymous user. You are welcome to try and change the consensus if you want, but I doubt you will have much success particularly given your unacceptable actions in continually posting the question without first trying to change the consensus which is hardly in the spirit of wikipedia Nil Einne (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pubic Hairs

Why do you keep asking the same question - are you mentally handicapped or something - what exactly is it you want to know. You've already asked this question? Are you senile or suffer from memory loss.?87.102.86.73 (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

For example you have a lot of responses here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=222077230&oldid=222077191 , if you reask you need to clarify what you need further information. Otherwise it makes you look dumb, and eventually leads to a block. You can see that reasking the same question over and over again with out clarification is in error right? 87.102.86.73 (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

By the someone should have told you that you could respond at Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Pubic_hairs_posters - if you've got a legitamite (sic) reason for re-asking or didn't know 'the rules' I'd suggest you go and say something there.87.102.86.73 (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Just FYI, I am monitoring the situation and the next time 68.148.164.166 disrupts the reference desk the IP will be blocked. Please let me know on my talk page if they do. 68.148.164.166, you may consider this your (second) final warning. –xenocidic (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you got a good answer on 'is it common/normal...', but maybe not such a good answer on 'was this common before 1901'.. so why ask the whole question. You seem to have some sense in other places ie a brief scan of your talk page makes me think you are normal, so why the 'stupids' in this case?87.102.86.73 (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I did shorten my full response to just 2 questions, made it succinct.:

I have hairs that come out of my/the areolae and they look like my pubes, not terminal hair. Hair around my areolae further from it is shorter, and close to the nipple is longer (the longest one being about 6.3 cm long), but none on my nipple or coming out of my nipple(s). Is this normal?

Before 1901 C.E., did males have this?

I didn't get a chance to ask this question. How is this a question that has already been asked.68.148.164.166 (talk) 05:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)68.148.164.166 (talk) 05:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me to be mostly identical - what part of the new question hasn't been answered in previous responses? eg the one I linked to above. Is there some unanswered part?87.102.86.73 (talk) 11:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The people who replied to my question thought that my hair was terminal hair. But they actually look like pubes, from around my penile region. Please see Wirbelwind's (or whatever his name is) response in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=222077230&oldid=22207719168.148.164.166 (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

So you got an answer to that part then?87.102.86.73 (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not.68.148.164.166 (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You've just referenced the place and person where/who gave a reply. What was wrong with wwirbelwind's answer?87.102.86.73 (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No nevermind. That was my paraphrasing. Here's the original link:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2008 June 20#Pubews.68.148.164.166 (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's responses I thought were good answers for your records:

..“I think some of you people might have misunderstood. I think the OP meant rogue hairs that develop sometimes during puberty, such as ones coming out of the areolae. I had one like this, and there was a point where it was growing to almost full length every day, because I would cut it and it'd be back the next day. Then eventually puberty ended and it started slowing down, and then it finally stopped showing its head. It also looks like "pubes" because it's abnormally thick, thicker than typical chest hair. I'm pretty sure this is what the OP is referring to. As for if it's dangerous, from when I researched it on the internet before, it's not anything to be concerned about at all, but if you're worried, consult a physician … .”

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.86.73 (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If you see above (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.148.164.166#Bumping_at_the_Refdesk) I didn't actually get to ask:

I have hairs that come out of my/the areolae and they look like my pubes, not terminal hair. Hair around my areolae further from it is shorter, and close to the nipple is longer (the longest one being about 6.3 cm long), but none on my nipple or coming out of my nipple(s). Is this normal?

Before 1901 C.E., did males have this? because

I copied your reply to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2008 June 20#Pubews and reverted your bump. I suggest you leave a note on the user's talk page.

—Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

So yes, it looks like a response, but I really didn't get to ask it.68.148.164.166 (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I also note that it looks like some users where not taking your question seriously for which I can only apologise, (I doubt they will), however please follow the "rules" on "bumping" (whatever that is) and don't repost questions to which you have got a reply to, if the response was not specific enough then it is perfectly ok to ask another question, but you really must clarify what you ask and not simply reword the original question (I can't emphasise this enough), nobody wan't to see the same qusetion coming back again and again with no explanation of why the original answers where not sufficient.87.102.86.73 (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Which goes back to my original question, why couldn't ask my last 2 question post?68.148.164.166 (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Music grammars

What does "music grammars" mean? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2008_June_25#http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FGenerative_music.23Noatikl?

I don't really know. I read about them in the book Computer Music Tutorial (which is online in limited preview form at Google Books: Computer Music Tutorial). The book has a short section about music grammars but does not explain in detail (the section is on pages 890-894, you might be able to view those pages at Google Books). I think music theory people borrowed the ideas of generative grammar from linguistics and tried to apply them to music theory. The generative grammar page lists a number of different approaches, with names like transformational grammar and tree-adjoining grammar. Different approaches were adopted by music theory people, so there are multiple music grammars. But I can't explain them very well because I do not know much about them. The section about music grammars in the Computer Music Tutorial book was just a brief overview.

I think the word "grammar" in being used in the technical sense of a formal grammar. That page about formal grammar describes the basic idea, but might be hard to read and understand. It says that formal grammars describe formal languages, which could be anything that involves "building blocks" and rules about stringing the blocks together into larger structures. If music is thought of as a formal language, then music grammars would be ways of describing the formal language of music. So, a music grammar is, I think, a set of musical building blocks and a set of rules about how those building blocks can be put together. Both the building blocks and the rules are arbitrary, meaning they can be whatever you define them to be. That's what makes this hard for me to understand. It is very abstract. One example: I think someone created a music grammars that tries to formally describe the "language" of Bach's chorales. If it worked, this music grammar could be used to say whether a given piece of music was a "grammatically correct" Bach-style chorale or not. And it could be used to generate "grammatically correct" chorales in the style of Bach. In theory a music grammar could be made to do this kind of thing with any "style" of music. But actually making a useful grammar is probably extremely hard.

Sorry if that doesn't really answer the question. I don't know much more about the topic. Pfly (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You have been blocked

LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

To edit, please log in. Editing by anonymous users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled. Registered users, however, are still able to edit. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, you may email us using an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. In your email, please tell us your preferred username and an account will be created for you. Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience. Comments: 55 hour block.

Explain this block.68.148.164.166 (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] goju ryu kata information

Please check:

Kata information and organization

Alfredo elejalde (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for messaging me. I"ll have to respond later. I'm blocked right now.68.148.164.166 (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

About tables: there is not one statistical piece of information in the tables you are talking about. You can see the wasted space when you compare the amount of information in each column. Some of them are crowded with information, some of them are almost empty, with just one or two words. If there were no crowded cells in some columns of the table, it may be a good format. But it is not the case. About the length of the tables: there should be no baggage, We, editors, must help the reader. Readers must have access to documents that can be printed easily, so it is not a feeling about tables or sympathy what I am asking for, but a decision to benefit the reader, not our editing likes or dislikes. Now, in what sense a table is easier to read than the traditional prose, with subtitles, bold, italic and underline texts?

I just need a good reason to change my mind. On the other hand, an editing of such importance (eliminating prose and usin tables, or viceversa) should be consulted with other editors before being done. Alfredo elejalde (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the length of the table may be too long, but we cannot cleave it just for people who print the articles. Some of the cells maybe crowded just because of that face that the information is not much. Say romanji, you really can't add more than a phrase in the cell. It's just the nature of the article. And that is statistical information. Statistics does not always mean numbers. The infomation can be categorized into variables.68.148.164.166 (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Friendly note about talk page messages

Hello. As a recent editor at User talk:Jdrewitt, I wanted to leave you a friendly reminder that as per WP:USER, editors may remove messages at will from their own talk page. While we may prefer that messages be archived, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous users- from deleting comments from their own talk pages. The only talk page messages that may not be removed (as per WP:BLANKING) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppetry notices, or shared IP header templates (for anonymous editors) ... and these exceptions are just to keep a user from gaming the system. Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can this guy do this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MaxSem&action=history68.148.164.166 (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ask this question on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI68.148.164.166 (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't you see the irony of being indignant at being accused of trolling, and then immediately thereafter trolling by adding an inappropriate warning template? –xenocidic (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

First, it was an accusation, with no explanation. Second, how was it an inappropriate warning template?68.148.164.166 (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Weirdness

The Grand Opera House got an extension a while back named the "Baby Grand" which has a bit of a poor reputation for its architecture and design, so "messes" is wordplay on "messages". "Spare change" is a play on the "last change" phrase, and links to the Wikimedia Foundation's donation page where one can do something with any spare change if desired! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 10:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I thought messes had something to do with mess halls. Thanks for the reply.68.148.164.166 (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cantonese opera question

I moved your comment on my talk page, and my response, to the relevant open reference desk discussion that the header for this section links to. -LambaJan (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pro

Hey there,

I know your very good with computer music, since you gave me such great answers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/2008_June_25#music_and_programs and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/2008_June_18#Music_Programs. I was wondering, if http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/2008_June_25#music_and_programs can do everything Max-MSP can do and more? Thanks so much; I appreciate it!68.148.164.166 (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page) Thanks! I don't understand what you are asking Max-MSP to be compared to. I mean, you are wondering if _____ can do everything Max-MSP can do and more. What is _____? The link you gave isn't clear to me. But, you can learn more about Max-MSP at http://www.cycling74.com/products/max5 . You can download it and try it out for 30 days from that site too. You can download the documentation too, which should describe it in full detail. There is online documentation here: http://www.cycling74.com/docs/max5/vignettes/intro/docintro.html . I like Max-MSP, but it is not easy to learn. It gives you a bunch of tools but you have to build things yourself, which can take a lot of work and time. It took me years to get the hang of it, and even then it takes me a long time to build something with it. Pfly (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Here, as an example, I thought my understanding was that as long as you have a program that can change a wave, you could create any sound you want, and adjusting the duration, you can create any music you want. If this was so, then wouldn't it have made Max-MSP obsolete?68.148.164.166 (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Changing a waveform by, say, using a pencil tool to redraw the shape, is a very very difficult way to create a sound. Have you tried it? It is an extremely hard way to create "any music you want". Most musical sounds, like for example a snare drum or a piano note, have very complex waveforms that change in complex ways over time. I can't imagine trying to create such a sound by drawing the waveforms by hand. Pfly (talk) 07:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Late but...

Thanks for your notes to me anyway. cheers, Julia Rossi (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] August 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Personal foul has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Prodego ^talk 05:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Template:Infobox martial art term. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Bradford44 (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

---

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. [WHOIS · RBLs · Traceroute · Geolocate · Tor check · Rangeblock finder · Global Blocks] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean]