User talk:Keenan Pepper/Archive 3

Note: If I have started a conversation on your talk page, please reply there instead of here, to keep the discussion in one place. It will be on my watchlist.

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2

Hi Keenan,I just looking for an article about Sorin Cerin

Because Sorin Cerin is the author of "The Cerin Theory of Universal Genesis" What I find about this philosopher and writer is insert on discussion ,date of born ,books etc.I wish to write an article but I don't know exactly where and how. Sorin Cerin is the author of "Destiny" and "The Origin of God" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.104.189.107 (talk • contribs) .

I moved your question to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#SORIN CERIN BIOGRAPHY, and hopefully someone there will answer it soon. If you want to write an article, see Wikipedia:Your first article. —Keenan Pepper 19:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

SORIN CERIN BIOGRAPHY

SORIN CERIN ,american writer and philosopher,born in Baia Mare,Romania,in November 25,1963,graduated from the Institute for Italian Language and Culture,specializing in philosophy and psychology . He was an editor of daily newspaper as well as working as a TV Journalist,producer and international correspondent. Books: "DESTINY" ,February -2004,publisher:iUniverse,280 pages. "THE ORIGIN OF GOD" ,July -2006,publisher:Virtualbookworm.com Publishing,736 pages. Sorin Cerin is the author of "The Cerin Theory of Universal Genesis" related links: xthost.info/sorincerin xthost.info/originofgod

Alicia

Why are you telling me this? I personally am not interested in Sorin Cerin, although I might read your article if you write one. This is my user talk page, for having conversations with me personally. —Keenan Pepper 19:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You cannot write an article about Cerin?

I give you all information what I know about this subject.I need more.Is a very important philosopher.You cannot write an article about Cerin? Alicia

Oh, for a moment I forgot that anonymous users aren't allowed to create new articles. Here, I've started a stub for you: Sorin Cerin. Edit away to your heart's content. —Keenan Pepper 20:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the Wines...

... appears a bit too list-heavy to be included in DYK. Do you think you can produce a fix? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Poisonous Metals template

Is the TfD for Template:Poisonmetal closed yet? I left a comment a minute ago and noticed that it was nominated on July 9. --Evan Robidoux 06:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Emordnilap

Wonder if you'd reconsider your delete commetn in light of later developments: Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion#Emordnilap → Palindrome. Thanks/wangi 17:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On July 16, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Carbon subnitride, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 16:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I like to eat...

Hi, I stumbled across your name on the Drei Chinesen mit dem Kontrabass talk page and then discovered a pretty interesting user page. Being the author of the "original" German article about the children's song, I'm rather curious to see how other folks approach similar pieces of music. As a matter of fact, the article was somehow deliberately experimental (in terms of the de-WP, at least) in that it picked a subject that sort of epitomizes banality, something so obvious that nobody ever cares to think about it, let alone collect whatever information is available. Surprisingly enough, the idea met with great success and it turned out that dozens of people were able to contribute valuable ideas. Anyway, in case you get started with the article about that English song, please keep me informed. Thx, --Rainer Lewalter 16:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Category deletion

Hi Keenan,

I saw you put a cfd on the category 'Identified chemical substances'.. I created this category for the next reason, there is currently no category that contains only chemical substances (which makes finding only chemical compounds impossible, with all other categories you get a lot of other pages). I can concur with the category being too broad, but at least it is clean. If you know any other method of finding only pages about defined chemical substances, or another solution, please let me know. For now I object against deletion. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Gadolinium

What are your plans for gadolinium chelates? There are a number of excellent PhD theses published on the subject, albeit, most focus on their application as contrast agents... --HappyCamper 21:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Do they have any other use? I planned to use this as my main reference: Caravan, Peter (1999). "Gadolinium(III) Chelates as MRI Contrast Agents: Structure, Dynamics, and Applications". Chemical Review. 99 (9): 2293–2352. doi:10.1021/cr980440x. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) —Keenan Pepper 21:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Not that I can think of at the moment. I might get back to you on this though. I would just write the article and let process sort itself later. It seems to take away the fun from the Wiki when we become overly concerned with process over content. User:Keenan Pepper/Gadolinium goodness would be a good place, I suppose :-) --HappyCamper 22:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

YOU DELETED MY IMAGE!!!!!!

Hey! I see that you've deleted my image (on DTPA). That's OK, I don't mind, but to be clear, MY IMAGE IS NOT WRONG. By the way, if you really are 19, you're three years older than I am. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chiu frederick (talk • contribs) .

Kânik

Hey Keenan, Oharion here. I wrote the Kânik article. I was told by Sango that you put the fiction tab on my article, and that i should check with you to take it off. Anyway I cleared up the fact and fiction (and added a few more things) and you can remove it anytime you like. Oh, and tell other people about it.

Thanks! Oharion 01:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Smoking (food) -> Smoked food

Are you sure about that move? Seems to me it would be like changing Baking to Baked food or Frying to Fried food. It's a food preparation technique, first and foremost. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You think it should be Smoking food? WP:NC does recommend gerunds, but smoking food could also be interpreted as a progressive participle, i.e. food so badly burned it's emitting smoke. Not a serious ambiguity, though, so I could go either way. —Keenan Pepper 19:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it wants to be Smoking, which is of course too ambiguous to use, so it should be Smoking (cooking technique) or, if that's too long, Smoking (food). —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Keenan,re-Sof Omar

I have lots of photographs of Sof Omar. I have nearly finished the description of the cave. I will add a summary of the speleogensis (as agreed by the 72 Expedition). Given time I will try and create a map of the cave. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dave Catlin (talk • contribs) .

The problem with the ref format?

What was the problem with the usual ref /ref format in Sandwich compound? Simplified reference formatting encourages citations, one of the shortcomings in WE, it seems IMHO. Cumbersome, syntax-intensive formats discourage such referencing. This ref /ref format was sanctioned by Martin Walker in the Chem discussion - he has some sort of administrative role in the chemistry project. I am sure that this is the kind of topic that gets lots of discussion.--Smokefoot 04:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. There were two references in the new style and one in the old, so I just converted the odd one to match. What's the problem? —Keenan Pepper 04:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that I am not very perceptive. Thank you.--Smokefoot 22:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Page move

I did that because a user just created an account to do a page move and named it very long. I thought it was unnecessary so I moved it to a shorter title. I have no past edit history with that article nor do I watch that article. I was not trying to enforce a preference over what the title should be. I just didn't want that user to rename the page without further discussion. User moved the page without discussion in the first place. I was unable to move it back to the original name because that user had made a second edit on the redirect page. —RJN 05:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Theory of knowledge/epistemology moves and redirects

Hello Keenan Pepper: Re the comment you wrote in Theory of knowledge (disambiguation): (moved Theory of knowledge (disambiguation) to Theory of knowledge: What's the use of a disambiguation page that isn't linked to?).

I had just finished cleaning up all the confused links between "Theory of knowledge" and "Theory of knowledge (IB course)" and was about to plug in the disambiguation page when you jumped in and shifted things. I see what you're doing in all the philosophy pages (getting rid of "theory of knowledge" and just leaving an "epistemology" link) and it will clean things up right now. But future philosophically-literate editors are bound to continue to use "theory of knowledge" links when they write about philosophy, and it would have been more straightforward just to have left the "Theory of knowledge (disambiguation)" page in place and allowed all the "Theory of knowledge" links to redirect straight to "epistemology". -TheRepairMan 06:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you could make a case that epistemology has been around a lot longer than IB, so Theory of knowledge should redirect to Epistemology, and Epistemology should have a dablink at the top. Then again, the IB course is the first Google hit, so it's more helpful to leave Theory of knowledge as a dab page. —Keenan Pepper 06:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello KP: Wikipedia should be designed first for Wikipedia users, not Google users. Besides, who clicks on those cheesy sponsored links at the top of Google searches? Anyway, the Wikipedia entry is almost always somewhere on the first page of a Google search result and people tend to look for Wikipedia. -TheRepairMan 06:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Temperament (music)

I wrote this article today, I thought you might have some input to it. (Also, nothing links to it yet; something I will have to rectify.) - Rainwarrior 00:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool! I'm going to go through Special:Whatlinkshere/Musical tuning and change all the links that should go to temperament instead. But first, can I move it to Musical temperament? Unnecessary parentheses irk me. —Keenan Pepper 00:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah the move is fine, if you like. I don't have an aesthetic preference either way. About the links though, I probably have just made about 10 edits that you won't like, as I just plopped a links into the the existing articles without modifying their text, which in several cases meant that I put it directly into the bold name of the temperament. Sorry. - Rainwarrior 00:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's even an official policy: WP:MOS#Article titles. No biggie though. —Keenan Pepper 00:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've got to leave the house right now, but I can fix those changes when I get back. (P.S. It was kind of a shock though, when I was adding links, and I clicked a link and ended up at Musical temperament. I had to do a double take... "What? Was there already an article about this???" Haha.) - Rainwarrior 00:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The current DYK template

Hi Keenan. I assume you're a person with the power to do something about this, or at least that you might know someone who can. The final entry in today's DYK template (on Gamoja) has a link to miniature, which is just a disambiguation page. Might it be possible to pipe that same link so that it actually links to Collectible miniatures game, which is the sense of "miniature" that the article's about? BigHaz 01:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Next time try Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, it'll be faster. —Keenan Pepper 02:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Northern Mockingbird

copied from the talk page

It is a songbird, but the agreed system for categorising birds is to list only the lowest relevant taxon, since, eg Mimidae would be a subcat of songbird (or preferably passerine) anyway. jimfbleak 08:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've now emptied the category (only 5 listed anyway) and deleted it. jimfbleak 08:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, songbird does have a technical meaning (see the article) - many American passerines are not songbirds (eg the antbirds and tyrant flycatchers. jimfbleak 08:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Taniwharau

I see you have placed a split proposal onto the article Taniwharau. Can you tell us something about who proposed, and what they proposed? (IMHO, btw, its a nonsensical article as I hint on the talk page.) Kahuroa 19:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Gallium(III) oxide

Hi Keenan, for my information ( related to your last [edit] to this). The substance is referred to in the webreference as a chemical intermediate which in wikipedia redirects to Reactive intermediate. Is this redirection perhaps not covering all cases ? ( I was the anon editor before you forgetting to log in ) - Peripitus (Talk) 02:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I don't think I'll be creating Chemical intermediate as my texts ( and chemistry knowledge ) stopped far short of this - I strayed into Physics and Computers - so I'll leave this to those more knowledgable. Thanks again for the information - Peripitus (Talk) 04:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

re categorizing organic reactions

Hi, keenan. Has there been a discussion over re categorizing the organic reactions that I missed? I think it is not a good idea. It makes it more difficult to track down a reaction or to track down recent changes in articles. I prefer just one directory. It would be a good idea to have this discussion even after the fact. V8rik 15:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a discussion would have been useful beforehand. As I see it, the real problem is that the 'organic reactions' category was becoming huge. Making subcategories may be the best solution, but how it's implemented is very important.

The problem with assigning categories to reactions is that typically more than one category is applicable. For example, the Barton-McCombie deoxygenation is currently incorrectly classified as a 'substitution reaction'. It should be a 'redox reaction', but could also be classified as a 'free-radical reaction', a 'decomposition reaction', and a 'name reaction'. (Heck, why not a 'deoxygenation reaction'.)

Additionally, how one chooses the categories makes a tremendous difference in how useful the new categories are. 'Substitution reaction' is not as helpful as 'Nucleophilic substitution reaction' and 'Electrophilic substitution reaction'.

I'm interested in both of your opinions. ~K 02:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking it's a substitution reaction because the net result is to replace one group with another, but those other categories are good too (except that the vast majority of them are named after people anyway, so an "eponymous reactions" category wouldn't be that helpful). —Keenan Pepper 02:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

category discussion

Please give your two bits over at Category talk:Organic reactions. Thanks, ~K 01:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

semimetal

I uploaded a PNG version as requested. (Now what?)

-)

nl:Gebruiker:Sokpopje

Octopi

Why is "octopi" wrong? - I have checked this in a number of dictionaries, and they seem to assert that both "octopi" and "octopuses" are correct. --HappyCamper 00:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Octopi is a hypercorrection based on the mistaken assumption that octopus is a masculine Latin noun of the first declension. It is really a Greek noun of the third declension, with stem octopod-, so the classical plural is octopodes. Nobody understatands octopodes though, so we use the English plural octopuses. —Keenan Pepper 01:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this hypercorrection documented somewhere? I've found a number of dictionaries in print which provide both plural forms as plausible. --HappyCamper 01:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's in our own article Hypercorrection#Plurals. Octopus#Terminology also has a good quote from Fowler. —Keenan Pepper 01:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Blimey! I don't know if I trust Wikipedia though...lol --HappyCamper 03:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The Compact Oxford English Dictionary doesn't like octopi either. --Michael Geary 06:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

One thing I've always admired about the OED is that it seeks to give a historical picture of the English language, not deem something "incorrect" or "correct". The Compact OED dosn't appear to share the same philosophy. The regular OED gives as plurals, "octopuses, octopi, (rare) octopodes...". [1] It also notes (in other words) that octopi is a hypercorrection as mentioned above, but does not pass judgment. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 06:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Musical Acoustics

Hi Keenan, Despite our differences regarding Carrillo, etc., I thought you might have some fun with the Musical Acoustics page! I found it severely lacking in references, particularly section 7. This section refers to the "50,000-year-old" Neandertal bone flute". (No references.) (Funny, I've read from most sources it's between 40,000 and 80,000 years old, and whether it actually is or ever was a flute is still a matter of debate amongst archeologists. Forgive the pun, but since you like to "pick bones", I thought you'd like to look at this one! -Prof.rick

Image request for 2-Aminoisobutyric acid

Hi Keenan. I noticed you added an image request for 2-Aminoisobutyric acid. Would the required image be like this? If so, I could make an SVG version and upload it. Icey 09:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and for A23187, would an SVG version of the image on this page be correct? Icey 09:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I decided to be bold, create the pictures and upload them. You're welcome to let me know if I got them completely wrong though! :) Icey 11:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Safety thing

Hi Keenan, please contribute to the micro-discussion about excess safety info crowding out content in chem articles. At User_talk:Beetstra.--Smokefoot 21:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Semitones!

Hello Keenan,

I regret the personal disputes which entered our discussions re Semitones. Fortunately, I have found other administrators who have been both helpful and supportive, and, specifically avoid "personal attacks". (If you don't like the quotation marks, oh well, that's life...you made the first personal attacks!)

Again, I am suggesting a fresh start. I recognize and acknowledge your expertise in the related fields of Music, Physics, and Maths. I ask only that you recognize mine. We are human, and make mistakes. (For example, I presented a mathematical error; you presented a reference which disproved your claims, re Hammond organs.)

Isn't it time we started working together, for the common good of the encyclopedia? (This is not a matter of "friendship", as you inferred, but of a common goal.)

You are no doubt aware of the "redirect" from "Semitones" to "Minor Seconds". First, I am happy to see that much of my content has been included. Second, I am sorry that you 196/185 ratio was not included in expressions of the semitone. (Although it is of no historic significance, it is indeed an elegant rationalization of the semitone.) Thankfully, it has been included further into the section, as one of two rational expressions of the semitone. I can settle for this, and hope you can, too.

Keenan, we both have outrageously active brains! Let us direct them in the sincere interests of the advancement of the encyclopedia, rather than in futile combats of ego.

MOST sincerely, Prof.rick 00:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Keenan, Rashad Aziz referred me to you for help on dispute resolution

I've been writing on an article called indeterminacy in philosophy lately and it is in need of attention, but Wikipedians seem generally to be ignoring it. Rashad suggested that I speak to you about this.

My article references numerous sources, and, although it is incomplete, I don't think it deserves the "original research" and "unverified claims" tags that currently defile it. The concept is highly related both to Nietzscheanistic criticism of the Kantian noumenon and to deconstructionism; I wrote the article because Nietzsche's work relates to quantum indeterminacy, memetics, and other very modern concepts that emerged after, say, Walter Kaufmann's day; the user who flagged it, user:aey, suggests that I cite authors like Kauffman but this is clearly an absurd suggestion. Since his flagging of the article, I have related the concepts explained therein to many others in philosophy, as you'll see. Please contribute to the discussion page if you can find the time. Rashad said you might be able to remove some of those tags-- if you agree with my reasons for requesting their removal, it would be greatly appreciated.

Tastyummy 19:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Taurine

Hi Keenan, thanks for the edit to taurine, I guess this should solve all the problems. The remark that started the 'dispute' was quite silly, indeed, and purely semantic. Article looks great now! Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Yeah, I'm just a robot when it comes to doing it but I'll fix my edit summaries accordingly. Thanks! Jarfingle 14:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

196/185 and Hammond

Keenan: Check the page on Hammond organs which you used as a reference. On that page, I find no reference to the 196/185 ratio, which is accurate within less than 1/100 cent. The figures presented testify that Hammond organs were tuned within a tolerance of about 0.9 cents...not "less than 1/100 cent", as you claimed (by use of the 196/185 ratio). Study the "cents error" for "C", and you will quickly see the tolerance is within 1 cent, not 1/100 cent. [2] If I have missed something, let me know, I will readily admit my error. If you have missed something, why not admit your error? Nobody expects you to be perfect. Prof.rick 15:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Truces/Semitones

Keenan: I proposed a truce. I was simply following the "dispute mechanism" provide to me by another Administrator. Wanting only resolution and peace, my wording, in good faith: "I therefore propose a "truce", in order to avoid more radical processes. Can I have have your agreement on this?" (Prof.rick, Aug. 2, 2006) Your response: "Depends what you mean. If it means being lax about core Wikipedia policies, such as verifiability and no original research, then I heartily disagree." (Keenan Pepper, 06:27, 8 Aug. 2006). My immediately response was that you were rejecting the call for a truce. It seems you assumed only the worst. There was not one positive word in your response. Could you not have said just one positive word to a newbie? Wishing you goodwill and success, Prof.rick 16:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hammond?

Keenan: I'm not really sure how Hammond organs came into the discussion! Anyway, it is a relavitely minor matter. (Let's be realistic...after a piano is freshly tuned, probably every string is at least 10% of one cent out of tune, within days...I don't have a verifiable reference for this (but this is just a talk page) it only a guesstimate, reflecting on the tuning of my own pianos (which are tuned by perhaps the best Canadian tuner). So why argue about imperceptible differences in tuning? We have disagreed over virtually pointless trivialities. But I understand, you must be exceptionally particular, as a Wikipedia Editor).

As much as I love 12-edo, I am very open-minded about other tuning systems, whether or not they relate to harmonics (such as the gamelan)! I tend to prefer "off the wall" tunings in my own composition. I have written some works based on the orbital and rotational periods of the planets and their moons, which rarely have coherent harmonic relationships, but nonetheless can produce very moving music. (If we can get past this nonsense of "who is right, who is wrong" on minor technical issues, I am sure we can establish a worthwhile communication.)

Incidentally, are you familiar with the modern composer, Elliot Sharp? His works are certainly "on the fringe". (Woops! Excuse the quotation marks!) His work is a hair-raising! But just as much, I enjoy early composition, such as organum. Still, I wish we could rationalize ET to the extent that it might be more widely-excepted by JI devotees.

I have no further plans for editing. (Sure, if I spot a typo, spelling or grammar error, I will quietly fix it.) But there is obviously no further needed for disputes. I hope we can get to know each other as music-lovers, and benefit from our mutual knowledge and experience.

All the best in your studies, your musical endeavors, and your future.

Regards, Prof.rick 00:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

MDHP spamindexing

re: Million Dollar Home Page External reference to Wikimedia articles are generally discouraged (since this requires an unnecessary IP resolve via external rootservers) - is this some kind of trap for the linkspamers? - Leonard G. 01:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

My edit was mostly for the benefit of mirrors and other external users of Wikipedia content. Think about an answers.com article about the MDHP based on the corresponding Wikipedia article. The sentence about people editing "this article" won't make sense in that context, because answers.com articles aren't editable. That's also the reason for the external link: internal links in answers.com articles point to other answers.com articles. Some of this reasoning also applies to print versions and other unforseen uses of Wikipedia content. —Keenan Pepper 02:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, but do we realy want to point people to the article for editing? (no need to respond) - Leonard G. 02:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Since you're the expert on Florida history...

...is there anything you'd change about Cascades Park (Tallahassee)? —Keenan Pepper 05:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a good article. I added two images a postcard and a drawing for interest OK?... surely there needs to be an image for the upcoming rebirth. I also added one single line saying: "The Florida State Capital now stands where this waterfall and pond once were." As for being an expert? I'm really only interested in Leon Co. and surounding counties and towns. I just get curious about things and then look for photos at the Florida Photographic Collection then Google that subject or information within the description to see if I can get more. There's so much more to do. What else have you seen that I've created? I'd be interested. File:FSU Helmet.png -Chuck, Noles1984 14:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

On 29 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cascades Park (Tallahassee), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Mgm|^(talk) 22:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Invite for a userbox

This user integrates Wikipedia.

I thank you for your help with CatDiffuse, and hope you will find this to be of some use. Cwolfsheep 01:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Elliot Sharp

Hi Keenan,

It appears our little feuds are over, for the moment, at least! So why not take a moment for a few friendlier comments? Can we "shake" on this? (Woops! Sorry for the quotation marks!)

I hope you will look into the compositions of Elliot Sharp, particularly his String Quartets, 1986 - 1996. They are usually based upon mathematical formulae, akin to the works of Iannus Xenakis, but the approach is quite unique. His works frequently lack a fixed tempo or pitch-system (both tempo and pitch are subject to bend and slide; the result is a virtually unrestricted exploration of sound). Like Cage, he makes non-conventional use of conventional instruments.

As an experiment, I had my graduate students listen to some of Sharp's works, then decide, "is this music"? What surprised me was the lack of indecision! Virtually every student felt very strongly, that "this IS music", or "this is NOT music". Yet always, it is an awakening experience! (These compositions may make you feel like a fly caught in a spider's web. You may seek an escape route, but it does not exist.)

If you have the opportunity to listen to some Sharp, I would be very interested in hearing your views, which I highly respect.

Are we in a tough situation, necessarily respecting, appreciating, enjoying and upholding the practices of European musical tradition, yet simultaneously remaining open-minded towards the most recent avenues of musical exploration, which so often defy such traditional values?

I don't think so! Prof.rick 03:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Elliott Sharp, 2

To save your Talk space, see my Talk page for response. Prof.rick 03:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Elliott Sharp

No. It is not hard to type the brackets! (I hadn't realized he was listed in Wikipedia.) But isn't it harder for you to avoid sarcasm? It has almost become your signature! Prof.rick 05:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've responded on my Talk page to your comment

Keenan, Thanks for your comments about jpg artifacts and please read my response on my Talk page. - mbeychok 01:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Keenan, thanks for your help with creating the categories for the Patagonian Province... sometimes it's quite annoying to try to create something, and it doesn't work. Guess I am not quite into it (yet). --RapaNui 02:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Slendro.ogg

Thanks for uploading Image:Slendro.ogg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ~MDD4696 02:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a source of a recording in slendro (my own group playing Gamelan Joged Bumbung). I will post it soon. -- Samuel Wantman 22:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope you haven't changed your mind

Keenan, I hpe you haven't changed your mind about removing the artifacts from the two jpg images in Vapor-compression refrigeration. If the gray fan blades in one of those images is a great problem, feel free to make the blades black. Regards, - mbeychok 21:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. Last time I did it with this stupid hack that edited the image in XPM format as a text file, but now I decided to do it the right way, so I learned about the python-imaging module. Here's the program that did it:

i = Image.open(sys.argv[1])
i.load() # workaround for some bug in my version of python-imaging
o = i.point(lambda x: (x > 200 and 255) or (x > 100 and 128) or 0)
o.save(sys.argv[1] + '.bw.png')

I just tweaked the 200 and 100 until it looked good. —Keenan Pepper 02:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Keenan, you are a genius!

Keenan, thanks a million for cleaning up the two images. Is there any reason why I could not make the T-S diagram smaller (so the two images are the same size) by specifying the number of pixels in the image syntax? Or will I screw it up again? Thanks, - mbeychok 03:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia's image scaling algorithm is good, but it can't get around the fundamentals. Raster graphics are made of pixels, which must be interpolated to change the size. Image:RefrigerationTS.png is 387 pixels wide, so if you make a 386 pixel thumbnail, the pixels in the middle are 180 degrees out of phase, so a 1-pixel-wide black line becomes a 2-pixel-wide gray line. In a 385 pixel thumbnail, you can see two distinct bands of blurriness and a clear stripe down the center where the pixels are in phase. It's interesting stuff, but it doesn't help people see the diagram clearly. So, if it's really too big, we can use a thumbnail, but it's much better to have exactly the right size than a little bit smaller.

This is why there's such a big push to move to vector graphics formats like SVG. —Keenan Pepper 15:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Keenan:I'll take your word for it and leave the images alone. Thanks again. -mbeychok 16:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Signing edit summaries

Psst! Thanks for the tip! Prof.rick 01:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Indents?

Shame on you, Keenan! You used the SAME indents as the previous writer (Mark) on the Semitone talk page! This could easily lead to confusion, as to "who added what?" I would suggest either a full left, or a double indent. This would clarify follow-ups. (Please, don't take me too seriously!) Prof.rick 03:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I was replying to you, not Mark, and I indented accordingly. I don't understand how it could lead to confusion, because my post had a signature and Mark's had a pseudo-signature because he was editing anonymously. —Keenan Pepper 14:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey!!

One of my friends, Yannik Pitcan, showed me one of his stats for Mu Alpha Theta. He came in 10th place for USA Mathematical Olympiad. Guess what name I saw right above that? He said he knew you, and you two were in competitions together, sometimes on the same team. Well, that's great! See you around! ;) — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)