User talk:KarlFrei

7 September 2006

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For updating all those references in the table at National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Bravo! Szu (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Publisher and accessdate are helpful and should be added, but I chose not to let that concern me too much in terms of a review. I have reviewed and passed this article as a GA. All of the issues from the first GAN have been addressed, and I can find only very minor issues to bring up - which I did on the talk page. Congrats, and keep up the good work! Resolute 19:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello KarlFrei! Thanks for your contributions to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact page. I'm involved with a group NPVgrassroots.org, which is working to encourage the passage of the Pact, and we have found your page very useful. I'm interested in tracking key opponents of the bill in states where it's in play, and the NPVIC page is very helpful. Atmur01 (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! But it is hardly "my" page of course :-) KarlFrei (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You provided a fractional argument as an explicit counterexample to the Mertens conjecture (which the article previously said was unknown). What does such an argument mean? --Tardis (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean. What did I do? All that I had planned to do was to update the best known upper bound on M(n)/m^(1/2)... KarlFrei (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You added an explicit value for m(233029271 5134531215 0140181996 7723401020 4456785091 6681557518 6743434036 9240230890 8933261706 9029233958 2730162362.807965). Since M is a number-theoretical function (Mertens function explicitly describes it as a function of a positive integer), what does it mean to apply it to such a non-integer? --Tardis (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely right, I misread the paper. What the authors actually use is a function h(y,T) which is guaranteed to be in the range of m(n) (to be precise, within lim inf m(n) and lim sup m(n)). Moreover, any value h(y,T) is known to be approximated arbitrarily closely and infinitely often by m(n). The argument I gave above for m is actually the argument y for h(y,T), and there is no explicit relationship to any specific n. I rewrote the article. Thanks! KarlFrei (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the text file, but one easier way would be to group all the squares that make up each state. They were grouped at one point, and I ungrouped them so I could rearrange everything to make the whole thing more geographically accurate. Tweaking the shape of a discrete cartogram is actually a very addicting game... » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 04:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi.

so, you removed "scale per group" from the body of the documentation, as a piss-ant way to hide a bug. TBH, i don't like it - did you verify that this mode is never used? what happens with all the "dead code" that handles scale-per-group? i did not see this removed from the code itself.

true, this "scale-per-group" mode is not widely used, and not all other graphing tools support it (some do - i did not invent it on a complete whim).

but regardless of me not liking it, the more important thing is that you left scale-per-group in the documentation: you did remove the section with the example, but this parameter still exists in the table at the top of the doc, so at best, your change is only half baked. Module:Chart/doc#Scale per group is confusing and misleading - there is a sentence about this being removed, immediately followed by an example that has nothing to do with scale per group, with strange phrasing.

Also: currently, there are small number of articles that use chart with "scale per group": Economy of Iran, Pennsylvanian (train), and Empire Builder. something should be done for those articles - the last change to Module:Chart borked the charts in all three.

so, IMO, "someone" should do one of the following:

• fix the new code such that it supports "scale per group"
• revert to the old code
• cleanly remove "scale per group": this include cleaning the documentation, and fixing the collateral damage to the articles that were hit.

  bonus points: clean the code itself, and remove the dead/superfluous code that handled scale per group.

it would also be nice to leave some explanation in the talkpage: this module has some 45 interwikis, and since i wrote the initial version on enwiki, it's a fair assumption that some of them may update the code from enwiki - it's important to notify those other maintainers when a breaking change happens.

peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dutch Senate elections has been nominated for merging with Template:Dutch elections. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Julio974◆ (Talk-Contribs) 18:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm not going to argue I would have a reason to disagree with your last edit summary, it does too much reflect my own opinion about the sequence in the statements yourself added regarding Jefferson learning the rules of management in situ. Neither I will expand about the discrepancies between an idealistic "what would I've done" and the reality of needs, not at all necessarily only materialistic, as it happens was the case, or, rather in a naively unexpectable way instead. The article talk page will tell you a lot more about that than I would able to summarize without a lead into the unabridged correspondence of the subject. Thus I'll remain at my own initial edit summary https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Jefferson&diff=prev&oldid=1253304615. For I just found a little bit below to the yesterday little bit contentious passage of ours: "his view of the U.S. as a continental republic and an "empire of liberty" grew more upbeat." What do you think? Your input very welcome. --Askedonty (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the Smithsonian Magazine article that I cited from, I cannot respond to Jefferson's claims about an empire of liberty without becoming vulgar. The passage on Kosciuszko's bequest is very revealing. KarlFrei (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article has more detail and is fully exonerating Jefferson to that regard. Would he have had success in acting more hastily is doubtful, an alleged frailness in old age can not seriously be denied looking at the 1821 late image of him in Thomas Jefferson. The case has to be more complicated. --Askedonty (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the bequest was legally complicated, and I see that the will was eventually declared invalid. Overall however, I think that the current version of the Jefferson article is fair to him, although probably still too positive in some places. I will try to refrain from editing this article for a while now and see how things develop. KarlFrei (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the feedback by the way. It helped me thinking about the subject so, I'm at "only a things are what they are" mood can entirely exonerate him given the freedom he had after his tenure as President. I'll be enjoying the next period too! --Askedonty (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]