User talk:Jheald/Archive 3

Jheald, we do not permit the use of fair use album covers in discography lists such as that which was found at this version of Jasmine Guy. Thus, the rationale in this case is invalid. I've removed the image from the discography and tagged the image as an orphaned fair use. Thanks, --Durin 14:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jheald. This note is just to say thanks for creating the list at User:Jheald/BCbot/dfu_by_tem. I've been using it to find bookcovers, and its very useful.--Bláthnaid 14:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on the talk page. Thanks for the information. --Bláthnaid 15:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please join in at WT:FAIR and WP:AN/I if you want to join in the discussion of this template. As those discussions specifically relate to the template as it was being applied yesterday, and specifically instance such uses, please don't modify the template while those discussions are running.

On the question of permissible use of cover art, see WP:FAIR on acceptable uses. "Cover art: Cover art for items, when used to identify the items in question in articles or major article sections about the items." Note: "about the items", not "about the cover art". This has been longstanding consensus, based on US law and the Foundation guideline, discussed extensively at WT:FAIR in the last several months, and recently explicitly re-affirmed to be correct in talk there. Jheald 09:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I finally found where that was changed, in this edit buried amongst a swathe of others just three days ago. I cannot find where there is any consensus for this and I cannot believe that it has attracted a consensus. Using an image only for identification has never been acceptable, even for album covers. The widest understanding of the acceptable standard has always been to accompany critical commentary.

Aside from that, this is not a template to assist in the crafting of a rationale (like {{Non-free media rationale}}, which I think is very useful) but a template which seeks to provide a boilerplate rationale, which is not acceptable. --bainer (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. The amount of disruption around this whole fair-use thing keeps surprising me. Jogers (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take offense at you using the term "stalking" to describe my review of the then all usages of Template:album cover fur [1]. I didn't stalk you. I didn't care who used the template. I cared how it was used. I look at "what links here" [2] and went through each use of it at the time. That it happened to include a number of usages by you was entirely coincidental. It is perfectly acceptable and proper to evaluate how a new template is applying fair use rationales. That is precisely what I did. Please, enough with the rhetoric that I am stalking you. Thank you, --Durin 13:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I wasn't meaning it in a negative sense, just as picturesque language. I've removed the word at WP:AN and changed it to 'reviewed'. Is there anywhere else? Jheald 13:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll try to fix it. Λυδαcιτγ 18:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that Use would only be one of those five categories, and that Purpose would be used to explain if the use was non-standard. Let me play around with it and get back to you. Λυδαcιτγ 19:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was what I was trying to fix. Your version is fine; sorry for the misunderstanding. Λυδαcιτγ 19:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jheald, thanks for the encouraging comments on my sandbox. :) The reason i think the two Murray images should be deleted is because they seem to have been just found on the net and uploaded to Wikipedia. I thought they had weaselled their way in by being listed as logos. Also, neither seem to be photos, they both look digital to me. And now after seeing the website that is likely the source, it seems that it is made up of clip art gathered from around the net. I don't understand how it can be assumed the images are in the public domain.

I believe both images readily failed WP:NFCC #8 and their sources were from other web sites and not necessarily press kits as required for publicity images. Please request a deletion review if you think there is an error. -Regards Nv8200p talk 00:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why Betacommand didn't tag the images for deletion is because I instructed him not to. I will deal with the deletions myself, so that is why I had the notice say to see me if there is any questions/concerns/comments/help/etc. I wish El C could have read the rest of the message before running to AN/I (or at least spoke to me first). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In your last edit you cited "consensus" when really, this is a disagreement between me and you, although one might reasonably believe that User:BScar23625 supports your position. I don't think you can consider this a "consensus". However, I'll leave the image in for now so that reviewers from RFC and FUR can get a better understanding of the situation without having to look in the history. howcheng {chat} 19:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Chain Barnstar of Recognition
		For making a difference! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 3-5 others with 500+ edits but no barnstar. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Chain Barnstar of Merit
		For your hard work! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 4 others with 1500+ edits but no barnstar or has few barnstars. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Chain Barnstar of Diligence
		For shaping Wikipedia! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 3 others with 2500+ edits but no barnstar or has few barnstars. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Wikipedian's Chain Barnstar of Honour
		For building Wikipedia! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 2 others with 5000+ edits but no barnstar or has few barnstars. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain your reversion of this article? I made several small changes and you addressed none of them. SteakNotShake 08:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jheald, it is true that SteakNotShake is clueless, but he is also a newbie. Don't bite him! --Art Carlson 08:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing original about classifying an object for which there will never be any direct evidence as hypothetical. Perhaps if you look up the definition of "hypothetical" and examine the black hole article you will see that calling black hole "hypothetical" does not "go against the grain" of the article, it dovetails precisely. If you disagree, perhaps you can explain on the black hole talk page how something can be anything other than hypothetical if it has never been observed. SteakNotShake 20:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

All these additions you have been posting and editing to the entry Masoretic Text, where do they come from? Is this the result of your own research, or are importing it from other sources? What would these sources be? I intend to re-read the entire entry soon, to try and learn a bit from the new information, and I believe the additions are also being nicely supported by references/citations. I was just curious about the source of all this work. Thanks, regards, warshy 19:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me like a lot of work. A REAL lot of work. But I think it improves a lot on what was there. So first of all, congratulations. In this type of work and in the scope you're working, I don't think one can rewrite a whole article such a this one, compiling together pieces from different and varied sources, without introducing some new ideas and syntheses. I think coming up with new syntheses is really in the nature of the type of work you're doing. But that should not deter anyone from doing the work, I believe. So again, I think what you're doing is very good and I am impressed by the level of scholarship involved. I had not read the entry at a very deep level, at least not all of it, before. I will try to look at it much more carefully when I get some time, after you're done with all your work. I assume you must be Jewish? I guess you really don't want to share any personal information on your page, right? Well, keep up the good work, or as they say in Hebrew, yishar coach. Best regards, warshy 12:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my explaination of edits on Talk:Liberal Judaism. BTW, it is generally poor form to revert the addition of {{citations}} unless you have solved the problem with appropriate footnotes. I'm sure you did not do that intentionally when you pounded the revert button. Please be more careful next time. Egfrank 20:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a great holiday. Egfrank 08:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Early editions of the Hebrew Bible, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Andrew c ^[talk] 17:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you participate in WP:FUR debates. I would like to call your attention to an expedited evaluation request at Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#October_5.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just read your thoughts on trivia and I was wondering if you would be interested in this.

Here is a wikiproject proposal for trivia and a fresh look at trivia policy by the admins. Support the wikiproject proposal. Add your name to the list here: [wiki project proposal for wikitrivia]

Please send this link to other users that you feel would be interested. Thanks Ozmaweezer 19:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jheald, just wish to let you know two things. Firstly, the map of Iran that you are adding to various entries, is very nice. Secondly, it seems to me that the aspect ratio of this map may not be quite right; the map appears to me to be somewhat deformed: it appears to need to be slightly stretched along the vertical direction. Kind regards, --BF 13:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I should clarify - I didn't make the map, I just found that it existed, and the {{Location map Iran}} template was all set up to go, but hardly being used. So I thought I'd add it to a few articles, mostly through the {{Infobox Settlement}} template.

Re the aspect ratio: because of the projection that {{Location map}} needs, distances in the North of the country will appear bigger than the same distance further South. There's nothing can be done about that. But I'm not sure how substantial a difference it is making. If you're saying there is a problem in the South as well as the North, then that could be fixed by stretching the image. I'm not particularly concerned to do this, but if anybody wants to, it should be fairly easy. Best results would be by working on the SVG-format version of the image, then making a new PNG. So long as the corners of the image are still the same latitude and longitude, {{Location map Iran}} should still work.

The other thing people might want to look at is whether maybe to make a more attractive Infobox than the standard {{Infobox Settlement}}. I noticed that the infoboxes on French wikipedia for Iranian cities have some rather nice tweaks to the basic design, but don't include so much possible data. So people would need to think what design tweaks they like, and what data is useful to try to standardise. Again, it's not something I particularly want to get into, but maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran would be somewhere it might be worth discussing it.

Sorry if I have not been more responsive, but thanks again for the feedback. All best. Jheald 14:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jheald, thank you for your kind and prompt response. Evidently you are infinitely more technically-minded than I am, so if you would have some spare time (not immediately, but some time in the future), it would be fantastic if you would kindly effect the changes that you propose. Concerning the aspect ratio, I am almost certain that the present one is slightly incorrect; I have invariably noticed something odd in the present form of the map (the same sensation that one has on changing the strengths of one's glasses), every time that I have looked at it. Lastly, I am well aware of the technical issues related to projecting a sphere onto a flat surface, however the present projection slightly differs from the conventional one. But, as I said, there is no haste. With kind regards, --BF 14:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I don't have any more time to give this. But if you take it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran, I'm sure there are users there (or perhaps at one of the geography projects) who could look into it, and maybe take it forward. They (and you!) are probably also rather more expert at what Iran ought to look like than I am!

The same map has been used quite a lot on French and German wikipedia (and maybe others) -- but I don't know whether anyone's ever made any similar criticisms there.

Sorry again not to have been more help, but all best, Jheald 15:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jheald, thank you for your note and advice which I shall keep in mind. Thank you again for the substantial improvements that you have made thus far. Kind regards, --BF 15:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another quick look at this. I think the map is drawn using an Equidistant Cylindrical Projection, which means each degree latitude or longitude is made the same distance on the map.

Now Iran is at roughly 25° to 40° latitude; which means that in the South on the ground one degree latitude is only 90% of the distance of one degree longitude; and in the North only about 77%. Therefore you're quite right, there is a good case for making the map taller and thinner, so the aspect ratio is, say, 83% of how it appears at the moment. Does that match the level of distortedness you were feeling? Jheald 17:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jheald, thank you for your message. You have it absolutely right! (Qualitatively at least, as I have not made any effort to make a quantitative calculation --- as I said earlier, every time that I have looked at that map it has been as though I had new glasses on, the map looking slightly distorted.) I hope this answers your question. Kind regards, --BF 17:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've had my fun, but I'm getting bored. Can you take over for a while? You should be able to keep him going for the next 4-6 hours. I pity the poor admin who tries to close this one!!! -- But|seriously|folks  08:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this was unintentional. You should fix before someone's head explodes. -- But|seriously|folks  09:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James, indeed you are right. A Bayesian analysis should be much more accurate than an Average Square of the Distance method, although median-joining networks have the advantage of making the ancestral node relatively clear (and so this is a kind of "a priori hypothesis" if you will).

There is a program called BATWING that does Bayesian tMRCA estimates of STR data:

BATWING download and documentation

I'm going to try it on my dataset, but I'm going to use a generation time of 23 years instead of 30 years which has been generally used in most papers.

If you'd like to see my raw G5 data, it's available here: G5 haplotype table. (The last G5 entry, Purcell, may not be G5 at all, but shows many similarities to G5.)

I'll post the results of the BATWING analysis on the G5 page, and I'd like to hear your thoughts about it.

Thank you for pointing out the potential flaw here .

Tkandell aka Archaeogenetics 05:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course 100% right about the "CMH". It turns out that the latest unpublished data shows a preponderance of J1 among Cohanim, but a large subset of J2 as well. I personally think that the CMH was a an artifact due to wishful thinking to support the Biblical text. What we do know is that historically, the 2nd Temple High Priests were all descended from a single patrilineal line, the Zadokite family. Whether there was a Tzadok who was contemporary with David as one of his "co-priest" is questionable but possible, but anything before that IMHO is strictly legendary.

It's interesting that none of the original authors have publicly disavowed the "CMH" in the light of these new findings.

Also, what all the initial publicity conveniently neglected to mention was that Levites are almost never J1 or "CMH", in spite of the legendary common origin with the Cohanim.

It would be interesting to do a tMRCA analysis on 67 STR haplotypes of J1 Cohanim using Network 4.2 and BATWING, and compare them, and see if there are any historical correspondences.

Archaeogenetics 06:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox I am reinstating was the first one established for Palestinian localities (except cities). A map will be integrated into this one soon, please be patient for the while. If you would like more information, you can contact Tewfik. Thank you. --Al Ameer son 00:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to see what other users think about keeping the older infobox in for now. However the coordinates should be kept to make it easier for the integration of a map into the new infobox. I'll reinstate them ASAP. --Al Ameer son 01:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egfrank 16:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jheald -- Your new German Reform movement (Judaism) page is a violation of Wikipedia policy. See WP:FORK and, for copying materials from one article to another, please read WP:MERGE thoroughly. I understand that you have good intentions and feel strongly about progressive Judaism, etc., but please proceed thru Discussion, not abrupt and large moves like this. This kind of editing is considered disruptive and, I believe, subject to administrative action. HG | Talk 18:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, German Reform movement (Judaism), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German Reform movement (Judaism). Thank you.

Please see Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Progressive Judaism dispute and possible POV fork. I've also set up an AfD for that page. I'm sure you mean well, but you can't force matters this way. Please self-revert immediately the major change you made at Reform Judaism. I will probably have to file an AN/I on this matter, sorry. HG | Talk 19:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit excessive for a straightforward move to summary style, wouldn't you say? Jheald 19:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, are you unaware that I don't consider it "straightforward move"? I'm glad you've responded to the AfD and I encourage you to participate with the Wikiquette alert. Maybe give your side of the story and let's help some third parties help us sort this out, ok? Meanwhile, please do not do any more major moves on Reform Judaism and related articles. Thanks very much. HG | Talk 20:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. If only for consistency's sake, I've done an AfD for Reform Judaism (North America) as well. This way we can deal with both spin-off/forks around the same time. Thanks. HG | Talk 23:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt you are correct, it just neeeds a citation. -- SECisek 16:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva is better from a certain POV, it is unacceptable from another. To say "Boyd felt it was a better translation than KJV" would be correct if it was cited. Just stating it was better is not NPOV. -- SECisek 16:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that comment isn't just a fly by. I've noticed you have a very active interest in textual criticism and I would love it if you would consider getting actively involved in improving the article.

There are some really smart and interesting people that seem to be gathering around the discussion. It should be fun. Egfrank 13:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your many small edits cleaning up my spelling and citation errors (and those of many others as well), you are hereby awarded this wikignome award

. Thanks, once again. Egfrank 11:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... and North America. The sources are Europe, but they're selected based on their influence in North America - so I guess they belong to both. Egfrank 21:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Jheald! Apparently, we both realized that a certain someone is up to no good again on the nobel image page. Although I cannot make out for certain, we might potentially be dealing with sockpuppeting by this person. I will look into it.

Although I agree with you that the image can clearly be considered a derivative work, in the discussion we were talking about the nobel medal being public domain. Therefore, there is no need to claim that this is a derivative work (yet at least,...who knows) since no copyright issues are in play. I really don't know why this issue hasn't been resolved yet. I am, all the smae, going to rvt the changes made by the anonymous IP. I hope that's alright with you. Thanks for your help in this matter and trying to secure this image! aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 09:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Since your comment, I've made a couple of other tiny tweaks to the code. In particular, I've tweaked the loop termination code, which previously had a limit of 10,000 iterations, and fell through if it overran that limit. Testing suggests that the loop actually converges very fast -- I've not been able to find a case where it took more than three passes -- so I've reduced the loop termination limit to 20, and the code now raises an exception if it exceeds this limit, rather than falling through. -- The Anome (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jheald; I would like to know your impression of the Black hole electron article: Has the article improved during the last 6 months? I have been so closely involved with this that I may not be able to evaluate it. I think you could improve the article if you would want to be involved with this.--DonJStevens (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC) The Black hole electron article states "The electron Compton wavelength is then found to be 4 pi (3 pi hG/c)exp 1/4 meters." Do you see any flaw in the logic sequence leading to this specific value? --DonJStevens (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]