User talk:Zaereth

"There are no bad dogs ... only bad owners." Captain Max von Stephanitz

Hello, and welcome! Thanks for coming. I am not always near a computer, so I may not respond to questions immediately, but keep looking.

Note: If you leave a question or comment on my talk page, I will leave my response here. If I have left a question or comment on your talk page, please respond there. It just makes easier reading.

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 Talk:Sarah Palin, did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what Erik is talking about here. I only made one comment, which directly pertained to the discussion at hand, and it's still there.Zaereth (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for giving your opinion on the "bridge controversy" discussion in Sarah Palin. Dave Collect (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for the further input! I am an eeensy bit upset with the game-playing I have found in WP ... Collect (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I really appreciate it. I have to admit sometimes my paience wears thin, and seversal editors have criticized my acts and approach. But I am convinced that if people are simply committed to WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, there is just no reason why our respective political beliefs should get in the way of a fruitful collaboration. I am reallly trying hard to support this kind of editing environment. I do not have a problem with people who disaree with my edits as long as they do so in the spirit of the policies I just menioned ... it just seems to me that some people there start from an antagonistic stance that just cannot help. So I am really thnkful for your encouraging words and as I think I noted in the talk page at least one of your recent edits, perhaps working together we can maintain an environment where even editors who disagree profoundly can collaborate. I'm glad you are part of that, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please post at talk, thanks. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In agreement, Palin got roughly treated my the American media. In politics, one never gets a second chance to make a first impression. Quayle could attest to that. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't go too far, Zaereth! Definitely appreciated your honest insight on SP, and you probably don't even realize how your occasional sincere and informed perspective put a stop to a seemingly endless argument now and then. Thanks! Fcreid (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you don't know how much I appreciate it. I can't say I'll never go back there, but this article recently must have my blood pressure up to 180/150. I think I have to take a break and cool down. Thank you Fcreid for all you have done, (or at least attempted). Your willingness to stand in the face of blind opposition has not gone unnoticed. And GoodDay, your presence has not only been a calming voice of reason amongst the fray, but also a comforting reminder that not everybody here is out to push their own agenda. I may not be exactly correct about a descending order of reliable sources, but in English lists are often given in an order of importance. ie: My house, my Rolls, my Cadillac, my Hummer, My Chevette, and my Gremlin. (None of which I own, but you get my point.) I think once again that the point of my statement in SP talk was overlooked in the interest of correcting my view of policy, (a very frustrating, yet oh so common, experience here). Apparently some feel because newspapers are in fact not at the bottom of the list they should be used with no amount of caution or restraint.

Thanks again.Zaereth (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pleasure has been mine, my friend. While I can't honestly say I feel strongly about Sarah Palin as a politician (or really about any politics or politicians in general), she's certainly one of the more interesting political figures I can recall in my life (and she has the horrendous media attention and battle scars now to prove it!) My initial visit to WP in August was no different than a gazillion others who'd never heard of her at that time. Coincidentally that same week, a couple of my "customers" asked me to evaluate if/how they might integrate Mediawiki into an underlying "vertical" environment I support for them (and which pays the bills around here). Given that not much was known about her back then, and that I needed to understand the underlying mechanics of a wiki anyway, I stuck around to see how things flowed using talk and edit histories and the like.

Ironically, despite that I didn't feel particularly strongly about her initially, it enraged me to see the low blows being dealt against her by 24/7 bloggers, media hounds and even some media outlets that I had previously considered "reliable". What followed was my natural (and quite probably chauvinistic) reaction to defend her against those attacks. Now that I know her a lot better, I'm actually very supportive of her political goals. Some of the things others paint as her negatives are actually quite positive to me.

Unfortunately, the Republican campaign completely porked the pooch on showcasing her strengths. What RNC moron lavished her with a Sak's wardrobe and a coiffeuse instead of shopping at Sears and running the family through a Super Cuts? Instead of letting her be herself, they thought they needed to coach her before speaking to the press to become someone she's not. Palin didn't lose public favor because of who she is, but rather who she isn't, and the McCain campaign is entirely at fault for that! Fortunately, America remains in desperate need of a person like her, and not phony elitist academics, lawyers and career politicians. If she eschews similarly misguided advice in the future, I'm quite sure she's destined for far bigger things. Fcreid (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I have great memories of my two years in Alaska when I lived there (on Adak in the Aleutians, but I retreated every few months to Anchorage for sanity reasons!) I've never counted, but I suspect I've seen most of the 50 U.S. states and a good part of the world, and Alaska is definitely among the most beautiful and wondrous places there is! Fcreid (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You asked on Talk:dye laser how to cite references. I'm not sure what you meant, but WP:CITE explains all the technical details as well as general editorial guidelines. The important information is right at the top, under "Quick summary". When I include references myself with <ref>...</ref> I'm usually lazy and won't spend a lot of time on formatting it exactly according to match the Chicago/Harvard/etc style of other citations, a long as author name, title (and/or journal name/volume/page) and year are there. It is relatively rare that another editor will re-format them.

I see that you've never been properly welcomed, so see below for the standard message. That should give you an idea of what is expected from a contributor.

Welcome!

Hello, Zaereth, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Han-Kwang (t) 09:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information, Han-Kwang. This will be a big help. One question I have which I do not seem to find a clear answer to is: Can I use a catalog as a reference source? The catalog in question, which I have provided a link to on the Xenon Flash Lamp talk page under "Operation section is a bit confusing", provides probably the most concise source of information on the subject I have ever seen, and is backed up by its own list of references. I think it would be nice to provide as an online source people can look up, rather than just the books I could cite, but I don't want to seem like I'm advertizing for them either. (Besides, its not a company that will sell to the general public.)Zaereth (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A catalog can certainly be used as a reference if nothing better is available. Just make sure that the information in the catalog is generally applicable (not just to products of that manufacturer) and reasonably neutral (not hyping the manufacturer's solutions). Han-Kwang (t) 09:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the catalog is extremely neutral, and completely covers all aspects of flashlamps. In fact, it reads like any technical article, with no hype at all. (I don't think they advertize at all. Unless you're Xerox, or the US Government, they won't even talk to you.) Information on flashlamps is hard to come by. This catalog provides it all in one on line source. Zaereth (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished doing some major editing to my first artcle, and I think it looks pretty good. I'll add some information to the dye laser article soon. Thanks for your assistance, Han Kwang! :-b Zaereth (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it is indeed major editing on xenon flash lamp with a lot of new valuable information. I wonder though whether a lot of what's in that article doesn't apply to flash lamps in general. Your intro mentions "usually xenon", which is strange in an article about xenon lamps. You could consider whether it is appropriate to create a new 'flash lamp' article with the general information, and separate 'krypton' and 'xenon' articles for specific details, or move the whole article to 'flash lamp'.

Another point is that you spread out your effort over quite a lot of edits. It is easier for other edits to review your edits if you bundle them a bit more (use the preview button rather than the save button) and explain in the summary what you did. I usually use brief summaries myself, such as "expand section" for substantial new content; "typo", "grammar", "sp" (spelling), "fmt" (formatting/layout) for small edits. When I change incorrect or misleading facts I do explain in more detail in the summary what I changed and why. Maybe this is something you can think of next time you edit. Once you start watching articles that you contributed to you will probably understand how valuable edit summaries can be. Han-Kwang (t) 09:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was kind of thinking the same thing. While I have constructed flashlamps of my own, using argon, and I even tried neon once, I have never seen anything on the market other than xenon and krypton. Other than having different impedence characteristics, flashlamps all are constructed and operate pretty much the same way. Perhaps the article should be renamed "Flash Lamp", and a search for krypton flash lamp could be redirected there. (I'm not sure how to do that. I'm actually not very computer savvy, but trying to learn.)

Thanks for the info. I guess I wasn't thinking about other editors, but in the future I'll keep that in mind. I tried not to make too many changes to correct information that was already there. For some reason, if I don't save every 20 minutes or so, I lose everything and have to start all over. Perhaps it would be easier to paste the text onto a Word file, and work ot the changes there.Zaereth (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For info on renaming pages, see WP:MOVE and WP:RPM. In this case, you will need administrator assistance because Flash lamp already exists as a redirect with an edit history. I would suggest to request it as a controversial move on WP:RPM. If there are no objections or alternative proposals from other editors, the move will be carried out by an administrator. You can then proceed to change the text to become less xenon-specific. I created krypton flash lamp as a redirect; once the xfl page is renamed, you can change the redirect as well. Han-Kwang (t) 12:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wait long before saving a page, you might get an error message about "lost sesion data". However, you can click preview first, and then save. If you use Internet Explorer, you won't be able to use the Back button to return from the error message to the edit screen, but with better browsers such as Firefox or Opera that is possible. You could also consider working on an article in your user space, for example User:Zaereth/Flash lamp, and copy it from there once you're satisfied.

Han-Kwang (t) 12:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure I understand the problem, as flash lamp redirects to xenon flash lamp, but I'll read further on the policies and take it up with WP:RPM. Perhaps "Rare Gas Flash Lamp" would be a better description, but its not very common usage.

I'm not sure if the use of xenon as the prime example is unwarranted, although technical information on krypton flashlamps could certainly be included. A web search on krypton flashlamps has not yet yeilded me any great information, other than some spectral output data. It would seem, from my own OR, that krypton is almost always used as a continuous wave arc lamp. Krypton has rather low impedence, which leads to its lower efficiency, but would make it more suitable for arc lamp operation. Krypton arc lamp construction is the same, but the geometries and pressures are very different. Except for very small camera flashtubes, xenon pressures are high, but almost always in the vacuum range, (usually around 400 to 760 Torr), where as, krypton lamps I find are used as positive pressure lamps, (from 760 to 3000 Torr, [or as high as 60 PSI, which does not work well in a flashlamp. (I know. A friendly manufacturer once gave me three of them to play with. Now I have 2.) That doesn't mean they don't exist, but I'll have to go search the liabrary to see if I can come up with some hard facts. Flashlamps are an OEM type product, not usually available at your local hardware store. It would seem at least 99.9% of flashlamps out there are xenon, but give me time to find out more.

There is an interesting looking study out there called: A Comparison of Rare-Gas Flashlamps – J. R. Oliver and F. S. Barnes I.E.E.E. Journal of Quantum Electronics, which I would love to read, but haven't been able to locate a copy yet. Still working on it. (By the way, I just noticed that Wikipedia's definition of Torr is opposite of the way lamp manufacturers use it. Torr as I've used it above is "absolute", or in other words, 0 Torr is total vacuum. I've seen both definition used, however, so I'll see if I can open a discussion there to help clear up the confusion.)Zaereth (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be interesting to note, as stated here: http://www.rp-photonics.com/lamp_pumped_lasers.html , that krypton is a good match for other neodymium doped lasers too, although YAG apparently has a narrower absorption profile that very closely matches krypton's spectral output.Zaereth (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did locate an interesting study on xenon radiation and photographic response, here: https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/5654/1/V71N06_343.pdf . It gives some useful information from the study I mentioned above, to quote "The spectral distribution curves of xenon-lamp radiation at lower current densities usually show a considerable amount of energy in the near-infrared region (Oliver and Barnes, 1969). An increase in the current density may favor the visible and the ultraviolet regions at the expense of the near-infrared radiation (Goncz and Newell, 1966) and predominant spectral bands in the near-infrared may become less distinct." This may be useful information, but I'll wait to gather further data before inserting it into the artcle. I'm still trying to locate the flashlamp comparison study, as it is suppose to contain detailed information on krypton, argon, helium, and neon, as well as xenon flashlamps. Zaereth (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you've peaked my interest. I might have to read up on ultra-fast pulses, now. I constructed my laser using wide band mirrors, so that it could be tunable between 500 to 600 nanometers without changing them. But I used Brewsters Angle windows on the dye cell, which has a prism effect on the light, allowing me to tune the laser by adjusting the mirrors' angle, so I doubt I would be able to get any type of ultra-fast pulse with it. Plus, I have no doubt from my previous experience with dye lasers, (everything I have learned, I learned the hard way), its probably far more complex than that. I'll look into it. Zaereth (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised to hear that you can tune the wavelength that way with parallel-face Brewster windows. A Ti:sapphire laser usually has 2 cm of Brewster-angle crystal in it and that doesn't restrict the wavelength range where it will lase. For 100 fs ultra-short pulses you probably only need 10 nm bandwidth anyway.

Ultrashort-pulse mode-locked dye lasers can be constructed, but it isn't trivial. You need an element in the cavity that causes more gain at high intensities than at low intensities, thus favoring short pulses, and some form of dispersion compensation in the cavity (prism compressor). I think for a dye laser you need colliding-pulse modelocking which is extremely tough to align, from what I've heard. Nowadays people go for Ti-sapphire lasers both for tunability and modelocking because there's no messy, degrading dye involved. If you already have a few watts of green pump light available your only extra investment is a Ti:sapphire crystal. Unfortunately, the wavelength range is NIR, 700-900 nm, so it's less spectacular to look at. Han-Kwang (t) 09:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, lets just say that performance has yet not met up to expectations. Turns out, Brewsters Angle at an air to glass interface is different from the liquid to glass interface, and I probably should have chosen the latter. Using plane/plane mirrors helps with the tuning, and the windows have a three degree wedge, but the amount of money I saved on extra internal optics is not worth the hassle. The dye laser was my first attempt, and there were many failures before I eventually achieved some measure of operation. I learned a lot, especially about short duration flashlamps, but my interest in high energy has since moved me on to YAG and Ruby lasers. On hindsight, I wouldn't recommend making a dye laser your first, but I thought I could help pass on some of what I learned to other readers. (Do you know how many books I had to read just to find out what was meant by "singlet" and "triplet" state"?) What a wonderful source Wikipedia is! Where else could a hobbiest collaborate with a physicist?Zaereth (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that setting the Brewster angle for the air-glass interface was correct. The potential reflection losses for a 1:1.5 (air/glass: 4% at normal incidence) refractive index ratio are much larger than for a 1.33:1.5 (water/glass: 0.36% at normal incidence) ratio, so it's best to optimize for the glass-air interface. Han-Kwang (t) 11:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I hadn't thought of it like that. My idea was to keep stray reflections out of the dye. I'd have to go back through my notes, but as I recall, when I set the 1:1.5 Brewster's angle, I had to mount the windows at something like 39 degrees, to compensate for refraction, so that light can pass straight through the dye cell tube, which is within 10 degrees of BA at 1.33:1.5, (methanol), and the wedge of the windows brings it a little closer, but I had never taken into account the normal interface losses being different. Thanks.Zaereth (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added some information to a couple more articles. The preview button is a fantastic tool. Thanks, Han-Kwang, for showing that to me! :-D Zaereth (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for explaining the factors involved in the explosion of xenon flash lamps. I was actually doing "destructive testing" of a flash lamp, as I had a few of the same kind and wanted to find out how much energy they could safely take. I was using a 330 volt ~1700µF capacitor bank (I made a mistake on the calculations earlier, it was around 92 joules, not 75), with which I tested two flash lamps. One cracked after a single flash, the second split cleanly along one end with a loud bang, and shot both ends in opposite directions across the room (it was connected with alligator clips, which fell off as the tube exploded). Needless to say, I think that I was able to find out what their operating limits were. Ilikefood (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Isn't destructive testing fun! I just hope you're wearing your safety glasses and ear protection, and keep well away from the blast zone.

Thanks, I always wear protective gear, and I had the tube under a plastic shield, and triggered it from a safe distance. Ilikefood (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was mistaken. High current would equal high heat. Voltage tends to produce the sonic concussive force, so that would explain the cracking of the glass, and the relatively low force of the explosion.

It might be helpful to add a full paragraph in the article on the circuit you're describing there. The circuit is often called a "Variable Pulse Width Control" circuit, as is described in the Perkin Elmer catalog which I referenced. There are many ways to put one together, and can even be designed to produce square-wave pulses. Perhaps if we start out with the name, then a small paragraph to describe the circuit that would fit better with the style of the rest of the article. What do you think?Zaereth (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that sounds like a great idea. Would it be legally permissible under Fair Use to illustrate the concept with one of the schematics from the document that I used as a reference in the article, or a schematic based on one of those (possibly simplified, for clarity?)? Ilikefood (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather new to Wikipedia, so I don't know the answer to that question. Personally, I think a paragraph that gives a basic overall view is sufficient, as an encyclopedia should not be an instruction manual. Those who are interested, I think, should have no problem checking out the reference. Zaereth (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Ilikefood (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I'll move the above discussion to Xenon Flash:talk so others can add their opinions. I've done quite a lot of destructive testing myself, trying to learn about them. Always with the same energy and almost no inductance, (the only real variable being pressure and gas type), I've had them explode, leaving me with a little pile of glass to sweep up; explode, leaving me picking glass out of the walls; and explode, leaving me with no glass to be found, (just some small amount of sand blasted about the room). I eventually figured out that learning the math was the only real way to properly power a tube. Check out Don's Xenon Flash and Strobe website, which I referenced in the article, for som of Perkin Elmer's equations ... simplified. Zaereth (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you again!  :) Fcreid (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Happy New Year to you too! Its nice to see that things in Talk:Sarah Palin have slowed down a little. After having taken some time to edit, (or completely rewrite), some other articles, I now have a better understanding of how Wikipedia works. (But still learning, I'm afraid.) Anyway, feeling a bit more calm and centered, I've decided to come back and weigh in my opinion where I believe I can help. Thanks for the welcome! Zaereth (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got that modern-day picture you wanted. I had to request that the author change its license, but the article is much better off with it! --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that looks good! Its nice to have a little color on the page. Zaereth (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll bite... volcano?  :) Fcreid (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was meant to be funny. I have a lot of work going on right now, mostly due to ash fall from Mt. Redoubt plugging up equipment. Been at it pretty much the last 48 hours straight. Zaereth (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I move away from the two bridges that have haunted me all winter (why I may never know) I would like to say it was a pleasure to work with/against you. I always felt your input was considered and for the best of the article. I wish I could say the same for your mates but at least you showed what Wikipedia should be. Good luck!--Buster7 (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Buster. And I appreciate your thoughtfulness and good humor. There have been many times when your cheerful wit has brought a smile to my face. I envy that, for its a tactic that almost always backfires when I try it. You have definitely shown that a disagreement doesn't have to break down into petty accusations and name calling, and the pleasure of collaborating with you has definitely been mine. I really hate to see you go, because its nice to have some one with whom I can have a rational agreement/disagreement, but perhaps we'll have a chance to collaborate again if our paths cross out there in Wikiland. Until next time, good luck to you too. Zaereth (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this is moved beyond KAB and people seem to want to throw out the Road to Nowhere and most all that Palin has ever been criticized for, I see no hope in this continuing. Do you? You yourself said you're less inclined to compromise. And yet you supported mentioning the KAB to begin with. I don't get it. I don't want a separate KAB section. That was Fcried's suggestion. I'm happy to have KAB in one brief disambiguation sentence. Perhaps you can explain to me outside the glare of the Talk Page what points you feel I was not addressing. I understand that you hate the verified source -- the Wasilla Mayor, the Associated Press, and the Anchorage Daily News that says the KAB helps Wasilla. But the source is the source. And wikirules are quite clear that own research can't trump verified sources. So I don't get it. Why not just put both sides of the POV in and be done with it? Do you see how formal arbitration is the only answer here?

Clearly I'm frustrated. I'm hoping arbitration causes people to focus less on personality and more on proper wiki-arguments. I find it extremely ironic that you don't feel I'm addressing your points. What point have I not addressed? I've written for pages just to try to get people to address my arguments, but people just respond with silly stuff that they know I already agree with (Yes, I know "thanks but not thanks" refers to GIB. All my versions clearly say so. Why are people repeating themselves saying things we all agree with?) Anyway, I know I'm talking to a brick wall when Fcried and Collect agree with me and then suddenly, without giving a reason, reject the compromise.

See why we need arbitration? Maybe with arbitration, our arguments will be addressed. I'm looking forward to, one day, seeing someone respond to mine. All I get is "We can mention KAB in the Palin bio ONLY if we show it has having no connection to Palin," which I find Orwellian. Palin supports an expensive bridge. Why is this verboten in her biography?GreekParadise (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GP, I do believe your intentions are good and have no desire to see you leave the article, as you do provide us with an alternate view point. My contention with the KAB has always been its portrayal as nothing but a road to Palin's house. I have on numerous occasions shown sources that show its true purpose, including a study from the University of Alaska Anchorage, (to my experience anyway, University studies are always more accurate than books, which are far more accurate than periodicals. I couldn't have written the dye laser or flashtube articles properly without them). To have the article claim that some critics somehow psychicly know that she wants bridge for only selfish purposes can not possibly be verified, unless she has said so herself, and is the purist form of speculation. What I see here is the adding of two and two to get three. (The facts: Palin supports a bridge. The road on the other side comes out near her home town. The conclusion, Palin wants a road only because it serves Wasilla.) That is synthesis. Obviously no one can say what anothers thoughts are.

To make the point, your paragraph says "some critics", which to my understanding are weasle words. (Example: "They say the biggest diamond in the world was nearly 5 feet across." Well who are they, and where did they get this information. I find it dubious.) The same applies to the statement, "Supporters say it will help Anchorage." (Who are these supporters, and why isn't Palin now one of them?) I think it may actually benefit you to write your material from actual sources, instead of trying to back it up with sources later.

Then comes the issue of weight. In the grand scope of Palin's career, I don't think her involvement with these bridges is sufficient to merit a longer section than all the others. Then fact is that her speech was a total flub, and merits mention of the GIB in some sufficient detail. I lean toward Paul's paragraph because he simply wrote down all the points about the GIB that we had agreed are actually salient to the subject in past discussions. I don't like the KAB being lumped in with the Bridge to Nowhere, as her speech indicate there was only one bridge on her mind, but had resigned myself in the past to allow short reference as a compromise, but the same weasly information keeps showing up with it, which has led to mine and many other's frustration.

I've really never had much to say about the GIB. Once again, I kind of like Paul's paragraph because simplicity and readability, it simply cuts right to the heart of the matter. In my own writing experience, people in general grow disinterested in a subject if there are too many cumbersome details. That's why I prefer a shorter version, so that people actually will read it, and those who are interested, I can guarantee you, will click on the relevant links to find out more. If the goal however is to bury the relevant facts in all the detail, so that a good majority of people will skim through it, lose interest and move on, then I have to question who are the real Palin supporters.

I hope there are no hard feelings, for I really do value your presense in the article, and really, too much agreement makes for boring conversation. With everything eles I've said aside, my biggest problem is the insinuation, (that's obviously what it is, an insinuation), that we are somehow privy to her thoughts is neither neutral nor encyclopedic, nor verifiable. The rest I could probably get around. (See, there's my whole arguement summed up in two sentences. Much easier reading that way.)

On a small note of constructive critisism, one problem I see is that you try to tackle every point at once, which breaks the conversation into a thousand different tangents and makes it nearly impossible to resolve any single point. Perhaps if you presented your ideas one at a time it might be easier to stay focused. Just a suggestion, however. Zaereth (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Zaereth, in wikipedia, I've always believed that you show both sides of every issue, even when you think one side is not fair. I've never wanted to portray KAB solely as a road to Palin's house. I've always wanted to show the "alternate commuting route to Wasilla" as one of the uses of the bridge among many. It is in fact an alternate commuting route to Wasilla -- as the Mayor of Wasilla has undisputedly pointed out in various reliable sources -- but I recognize the bridge could also help the other side of Knik Arm become a suburb of Anchorage, even though there are currently no towns on the other side of the bridge of any size until you get to Wasilla and Houston and other points north. (This surprised me in my own research. Not a single named town on the local google maps. And yes I realize that my own research is improper for wikipedia.) Critics criticize people all the time for what are presumed motivations. President Obama is daily called a socialist(!), although the charge is absurd, far more absurd than the idea that Palin may have tried to help her hometown. While I of course think it's fair to criticize Obama's policies, I think it is ridiculous to call him socialist. But if I were editing his wikipedia entry, I would have no problem with saying "Pundits on FOX News have called Obama's policies socialist while economists have pointed out the differences between Obama's plans and true socialism......" Some criticism is fair, even when we presume to do a bit of mind reading. Did Don Young favor Don Young's Way to help his family's development interests in land on the other side of Knik Arm? Who knows? But I think it's a fair critique and would belong in any article on Don Young, along with his stated rationale for supporting the bridge. I've shown you my sources. And I don't mind naming names of critics to avoid "weasel words." I've never been wedded to any particular wording. But there's no point in trying to make an article better if no one is willing to compromise in the first place. If we can't agree on content, we will never agree on language.

Paul's paragraph is not so much wrong as unfortunately incomplete. So incomplete that in a sense, it is false. It gives a false portrayal of the subject as being just a campaign slip of the tongue rather than a coordinated and repeated lie, which of course is what it was. Palin's choice of phrase is at least as misleading as Bill Clinton's use of the word "is" and this single intentional misstatement has done almost as much harm to Palin as Clinton's deposition did to his. Of course, Palin's choice was even more calculated. So I think it is far more important than you think. And the idea that some think her high school track status is more important than her public policy choices is baffling to me, if we assume the editors are striving for biography rather than hagiography.

I can't say there are no hard feelings. There are. But few are directed at you. Most are directed at the impossibility of the entire enterprise. Writegeist wrote some beautiful words on my talk page: words that give me peace. Words that will allow me to quit this article and let it descend into the depths of a Sarah Palin press release without feeling shame or failure. As he notes, most educated people realize that Sarah Palin and her wiki bio are one big joke anyway. At any rate, it's clear that absent arbitration we will get nowhere. So absent arbitration, I won't waste time further here.

I did find your "small note of constructive criticism," though laughably ironic. I have tried large. And I have tried small. The problem is that once we reached the Election-Day Consensus, Collect (and others) deleted and changed a whole bunch of things without going to the talk page. So as to avoid an edit war, I have not simply undone his changes. But that means that I have the choice of trying to deal with all of them or deal with them one at a time. I have tried both ways. Both have failed. Funny, the one "single issue" I tried to deal with first was Knik Arm Bridge. And that led to six weeks of wasted effort and countless hours of verbiage that I doubt most of you even read. I only did the other issues when Fcried suggested we skip the KAB and move on since we couldn't agree on it. I guess the one note of grace in all this is that Collect's shenanigans are finally reaching a larger audience. All of us that have suffered at his hand have finally come together. I hope he's banned, but I find it unlikely. And this feeling that you can do what you want at wikipedia without any real consequence is why I probably will leave wikipedia -- or at least the Sarah Palin article -- quite soon. I have decided to end any further discussion without formal arbitration.GreekParadise (talk) 05:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to hear that, GP, honestly I am. I myself got a little flustered when after weeks of this we seemed to get bumped back to the beginning, so in a rather rash move on my part I took a turn in the opposite direction, endorsing only Paul's paragraph. In hindsight I don't think that really helped matters any. I'm not sure I understand how putting the information in its correct article does more harm than good. I'd call it Wik-organization, a little like putting your shirts in the shirt drawer and socks in the sock drawer. I do agree with Writegeist, (and quite frankly, miss his/her presense too), on the point that the article is fairly ridiculous mainly because the focus is on rather small issues such as these. As Kelly pointed out, we're still stuck in a campaign that's long over, and if that's all this article is ... is a campaign tool, then I too must shake my head in disgust.

You know something, GP, I know absolutely nothing about politics. I never vote when I feel I'm being forced to try and choose between the lesser of two evils. Heck, the last President I voted for was Ross Perot. I think he would have been great for this country, but ultimately paid the price for being bad on camera. This last election was different, as I felt for the first time that both candidates had the best interest of the country in mind.

Now I can't speak for everybody, but I have read everything that has ever been posted on the SP:Talk page. It started out as a simple fascination with the world's sudden interest in my state. Before, when I told people I live in Alaska they would ask questions like, "What's it like living in igloos and eating penguins?" (If you don't know, nobody lives in igloos, they're temporary shelters, like tents, and penguins are from the south.) After weeks of watching this ongoing bridge discussion I finally decided to speak up, as it was painfully obvious that nobody writing it had ever been here. This is the largest state, but there are really only two roads, the Parks and the Glenn. Now imagine that the only place you can really build a house is along these roads, and you might get a better picture. It's hard to tell where Wasilla ends and Houston begins, for the 15-20 miles in between is lined with houses. Towns such as Wasilla grew up this way, and it pretty much stays that way until you get to Montana Creek, crossing over into the Denali Borough. Not to mention the vast distances which I don't think people consider.

In an effort to try again, perhaps we can rewind to the paragraph that you had suggested, and Collect and Ferrylodge seemed to be begrudgingly in agreement with. That paragraph was perfectly fine with me, except there was no sort of orientation. It briefly described where the GIB was, but mentioned the KAB only by name. My idea at the time was simply to add a location, ie: between Anch and Mat-Su. I think that would make it easier for the reader without getting into all of these contentious issues. Would that be OK, or does that mean we need to get into all of the gorey details? Zaereth (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I just read Writegeist's comment and disagree with one thing rather adamantly. You should not leave, for the article will definitely suffer without you. There is clearly a trend for the "supporters" to try and run off the "detractors", and there can be no good to come from that, and I can't say I'm completely unbiased either, as her ability to keep her campaign promises has really made an impression on me. I do, however, try to keep away from any political discussion, and if we could resolve this one point then I would be happy to support your opening paragraph, and step aside as you work to expand the GIB section. (I'm gonna cut off one of my arms and sew it on you if I have to.)Zaereth (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generosity. Great Sharing. Thank you both. BTW....SARA PALIN has been etched in stone onto my Watchlist. I may not be commenting but, as always, I will be reading!--Buster7 (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:-) is all I can say. Thanks Buster. Zaereth (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GP, I don't know if you're out there and can still hear me, but I wanted to let you in on a little secret before you go. I was utterly shocked by the attitude of of this article, and the media in general, during and after this election. The push by the extreme supporters to keep out facts that were actually interesting about the subject, (I was baffled, because some of these things seemed quite positive to me), was a huge mistake on their part. However, in the end, what helped to galvanize me, and I think so many other's, toward her was the great desperation with which the detractors tried to spin every bit of minute detail into something bad against her, (not to mention the mob mentality which the relative anonymity of this sort of environment provides, where it becomes perfectly OK to go after someone's family just to get at them), was a huge mistake as well. Why would you try to hide perfectly scathing information , (facts, such as Paul's paragraph is), in a bunch of statements that amount to, 'Some people don't like her', which anyone can see through?

On a different take of this concept, there is a simple rule that is standard in most writing environments, both fiction and non-fiction, (except for math, for some reason): Show, not tell. Readers don't like to be told what's going on, they want to see it, feel it, breathe it. Make it clear. Make it concise. And make it to the point. As a writing teacher once told me, "When you write, fill your work with every sort of detail you can imagine, the sky ... its color, the shape of the clouds, the furnishings in the room, and the railing on the stairs. Then put it away for a week ... a month ... a year. When your ready, come back and read through it all, the boring minutia, and cut, edit, and strip every thing that is not absolutely essential to the story. Then read through it again, and you will find that it is all still there. That's what makes a good writer." I think it was Fleming that said (something like), I am the world's worst writer, but the world's best editor. (Or something like that.) This was not meant as an arguement, criticism, or OR that should be presented in any article. Just trying to show you a little bit where I'm coming from. Zaereth (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with much of what you say, Zaereth and especially appreciate your generosity of spirit and your willingness to compromise again. I liked your personal reflections, and believe it or not, this 48-stater actually knows the facts on penguins and igloos (though calling a snowmobile a "snow machine" was admittedly new to me) But all this good will unfortunately doesn't change my view that, without arbitration, we'll never get anywhere. Even if you and I and Fcried could agree, Kelly and his friends would be quick to dismiss anything we came up with. And we'd get nowhere, after months of trying. So why should I waste your time? Or mine? I'm happy to walk away in the knowledge that you and I both have that this article is a skewed bio. As I said on my talk page, I hope God has granted me the courage to change what I can, the serenity to accept what I can't, and the wisdom to know the difference. Writegeist has helped me with that serenity. I accept the fact that no matter what I do, the Palin article will be badly written and biased unless and until she ever runs again and therefore "matters" to a more balanced public. At first that genuinely bothered me. But now I can accept it. Because anything in life should only bother me to the extent that I can change it. And since I can't change it, it really shouldn't bother me that much anymore.GreekParadise (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is very Tao. I will respect your decision, although I want you to know while there are those of us who may still disagree with you on certain points, you will be sorely missed. Zaereth (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zaereth, Earlier in the day, I left a msg for you on my talk page. Frania W. (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I responded on your page. Zaereth (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/07/08/sarah-barracuda-palin-and-the-piranhas-of-the-press/

This was forwarded to me last night. I'm typically loathe to read or watch political stuff, but this editorial nails my perspective on the events of the past year on the Palin page. It's undeniable that the media created our new president and destroyed Palin in that process, and this article illustrates that point graphically. Those of Palin's adversaries with a conscience still lurk around her page today in an attempt to sully the circumstances of her resignation (e.g. avoiding criminal charges, a quitter and such), but they are only hoping to appease self-guilt that it wasn't something they did with their rumor-mongering and vicious attacks that caused it. Palin's positions on social issues are, almost categorically, the polar-opposites of mine, and I'll tell you with absolute sincerity that she didn't get my vote in last year's election. That said, I admire her more today than at any point in the past year watching her story. She was (and remains) the real deal in politics, unlike so many other celebrities-come-politicians hoping to be the next Britney Spears. So, despite her now plummeting popularity in Alaska -- the artifacts of her war -- you guys were lucky to have her. For all the baseless accusations that have been leveled against her, "indecisiveness" was not among them! I hope she takes her hard-earned $10M for the book deal and has a wonderful and happy life with her family. Fcreid (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you've said, it hit the nail right on the head. (Whoa, that rhymes.) I must admit myself, I am not always in agreement with her policies either, but am very fed up with corruption as usual in politics. Here in Alaska, it's bad, and the actions of the legislature here over the last year has proved it, (such as spending so much time filing ethics complaints that they were only able to get to, something like, 6 of the 300 some odd bills thay were faced with). If for no other reason, that is why she had my vote ... that and I new almost nothing about Obama due to the media's failure to cover him in any depth. Sadly, this still seems to be the case, as I have really no idea what he's doing in office, but can follow Palin's every move to this day.

I'm not a journalist, but I have taken several journalism classes, (actually, about every sort of writing class you can think of), and the reporting that I've been seeing is not what I was taught. It's interesting that Wikipedia policy is based on those same tenants that I was taught, to such an extent that I rarely have to read policy to know what it will say. I have very little patience for the wikilawyering that takes place, which is only an attempt to intimidate, obfuscate, and confuse others into agreement by undermining the spirit of the policy with the twisting of its words.

I really try to avoid any political discussion as well, but, amazingly, that was never a problem during this election. Thanks very much, my friend, for I think this article you sent me was a wonderful depiction of the media today, placed in the context of history. I'll be sending it to people I know. Zaereth (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New sheriff in town on talk, eh?  :) Fcreid (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Pears so. ('Scuse my accent. :-) ) Brand new crowd but the same old arguments. Have a good night, Fcreid. See ya here tomorrow. Zaereth (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with your point that exposing these "complaints" to the light-of-day does nothing more than bolster Palin's argument that she was hounded incessantly by political enemies bent on frivolous attacks. Those who argue her resignation demonstrated she was too "thin-skinned" for the politic stage simply ignore her much more compelling argument that these incessant attacks were damaging her state for more than her. Maybe someday people will see the philanthropy of her decision, but somehow I doubt it! Fcreid (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost to the point where if one gets in I'm going to insist that all go in, for as far as I can tell, all have recieved media coverage. Here in Alaska, I can tell you, many of us taxpayers are hopping mad at having to pay for these obviously frivolous complaints. One lady, who has issued four complaints so far, (three dismissed, one pending), says she intends to issue more complaints in the future! I find this to be unbelievable, and many here think that these complaints should be deemed "frivolous" by the convening authority, and that the complainer should have to pay for the cost of their complaint, (should it be deemed frivolous). I'm sad to see her go, because she had been an excellent governor before the presidential election, and still is in my opinion. But the government around her has bogged down to nothing since the election, an I can only hope that voters remember that when the next round of state legislature elections happen. Zaereth (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that the American Yoga Association can't even agree on how to pronounce "Oooommm"?Jarhed (talk) 05:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You raised a lot of interesting points on the talk page - I made comments, responding where I could. i hope you'll continue to participate in the project space. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Slrubenstein, I'll follow up on those helpful suggestions. I'll try to provide useful suggestions where I think I can help, but, unfortunately, with summer coming to a close, both work and winter preparations, (and even play), are taking precedence. Thanks very much for your advice. Zaereth (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks! Slrubenstein | Talk 22:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"5000 russian aircraft destroyed until oktober" thats too low. until the end of oktober there were 17.000 aircraft destroyed. -- HROThomas (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on your talk page. Zaereth (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link, Zaereth. I'll definitely take a look. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dormancy can be a survival trait. A well-informed landscape gardener will plant many varied grass seeds in the same plot of earth, each one for different conditions. Some seeds lay dormant, for quite awhile, waiting for their opportunity in the sun. Some thrive everywhere, no matter what conditions are. I think you have misinterpreted Editor:Slrs' comment. But, even if you got it right, don't let what ever is goin' on for you in Wikiworld kill your spirit. The loss of quality editors like you is a danger to what we have created.

Simplify---Re-invigorate your enthusiasm---Spend WP time doing relaxing things---Pitch a tent, at Random articles lets say, and just be a WP consumer for awhile. Everythings gonna be all right!--Buster7 (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Buster, I can always count on you for some good advice. My problems with Wikipedia have been stewing since the first day. I preferred to do some in depth research into WP, giving it a good year before making any assessment. I am extremely disturbed by the passing of opinion as fact, and visa versa. I feel that WP favors quantity at the expense of quality, and naturally this causes the loss of quality editors. I am not a quantity editor, and need an environment that supports quality.

My problems with Slrubenstein are not the cause of my problems, although it may have contributed to bringing it to a head. As you know, I have seen far worse on Talk:SP. I found it somewhat upsetting that discussions were invoked about improving Wikipedia, as long as no one suggested a change to fix the underlying problems. I have no patience for one man committees, and wish others could have been given a chance to respond to my comments, but that is all past now.

The philosophy of Tao says that to struggle against death is to hasten one's own demise, so I will leave the policy pages to the wikilawyers, for they are obviously doing a good enough job of hastening WP's demise. I think, however, that it is a good example of the main problem with America, that is, lawyers making laws.

The philosophy of Tao says instead one should struggle to live, for in that struggle is found life.

I'll probably continue to serve as sort of a conscious on articles such as Sarah Palin, but doubt I will ever try to give input at a policy page again. I may yet decide to contribute to articles in the future, as some people on Pattern welding are still waiting for me to complete my research, but be warned, these will be quality contribution which may exceed Wikipedia standards. :-)

Thanks again Buster! Zaereth (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The old version has been restored for editing. Watch the superlatives and promotional tone which killed the first version. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I left my response on User:Srleffler's talk page. Zaereth (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...for your kind words at Talk:Sarah Palin. They are appreciated. Horologium (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome, and from what I've seen, very deserving of them. Zaereth (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best to you and yours. --Buster7 (talk) 12:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Buster! Zaereth (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, quiet on the watchlist of late, Zaereth! :) Merry Christmas to you too. We're still digging out here in DC from nearly two feet of snow, so it's sure to be a white Christmas. Wishing the best for you and yours this holiday season. Fcreid (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - have a happy holiday! Slrubenstein | Talk 09:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Nightscream (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure he uncorked in the wrong direction there and didn't actually read your post!  :) Fcreid (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. I get that pretty much everywhere I go around here, except from Mr. Wales himself. Apparently, expalining something about ethics is taboo around here. No worries though, as I'm not really very interested in the specifics of that discussion; just the technical aspects. I'm not going to comment that particular discussion anymore, but will contribute to further discussions if I feel I can help. Zaereth (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are still two-foot mounds of snow from the big storm the week before Christmas! I can't remember the last time in Maryland when we've had such a long stretch of freezing temperatures. It crept near 40 today, but the wind chill still makes it barely above freezing. We're being promised we might hit 50 before the end of the week. Ugh! Time to move to Florida! :) Fcreid (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I NEED YOUR HELP to upload song and/or single covers. Go the page This Is My Time (Raven-Symone's third studio album) and go the section Backflip. In the part where the single cover is, there is a reference. Please go to the reference and turn it into the single's song cover. And Go to the page The Party's Just Begun (the lead single from the soundtrack to The Cheetah Girls 2 and do the same thing (using the reference in the the song cover section like Raven's Backflip). From Dbunkley6-talk

The first thing I would do is verify that the copyright allows us to use it. It is against the law to upload pictures unless the owner has given us permission. User:Moonriddengirl is an expert on copyright, and can probably help you with that.

If you have permission to use it, simply go to the reference and right-click on the picture. Choose the option, "Save picture as" and save the photo on your own computer as a JPEG file. Once you have it on your own computer, uplaod it to Wikipedia, following the instructions. Be sure to fill out the copyright information, or it will get deleted. Once that is taken care of, you can go to the article and type [[Image:Insert image name here|thumb|insert size here|Insert caption here]]. Fow more information on how to format this, see Help:Wiki markup. Zaereth (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're talking about another 8-12" tomorrow on top of the two feet that's still on the ground here!  :( Fcreid (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have a Happy Day, Zareath, :D Malke2010 23:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ay, Beannachtam na Femle Padraig agat! (Happy St. Patrick's Day to you!) Zaereth (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice. Are ya one o'the clan?Malke2010 01:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A little on my mum's side, Welsh on my dad's. Maybe some Norse in there some where from the looks of me. I guess I'm a mutt. Born and raised Alaskan though, so maybe the Raven or Eagle clans will have me? :-D Zaereth (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "color" of quarks and gluons is completely unrelated to visual perception of color. Color charge -- 64.52.60.226 (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, but my question would be, do you have proof? Do so-called quarks and gluons even exist? Perhaps they're strings, vibrating like a guitar string at certain frequencies. Maybe they're something else that science has yet to theorize. Zaereth (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, color is just a made-up term in this situation. From the article - The term color was chosen because the abstract property to which it refers has three aspects, which are analogized to the three primary colors of red, green, and blue. They could have called it toppings with the three aspects pepperoni, mushrooms and jalapeno - but it's easier to understand with the term colors. Quarks and gluons could be like strings vibrating at certain frequencies - but again that would mean all particles are like that and so it wouldn't be something connected to color, which only applies to quarks and gluons. Oh and in case you didn't catch it, I was referring to this from your user page - "This could just be a construct of the human psyche, but science often tells us that color is something that is basic to the very nature of the universe, right down to the subatomic particles, and I'm inclined to believe the latter." And as for proof, I guess you could read related articles and look at the citations - they say QCD has been verified to a few parts per million. Just trying to help you clarify your philosophy :) -- 64.52.60.226 (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Perhaps I should revise my statement. I do understand that words such as "color" and "flavor" are rather arbitrary in the field of particle physics, (a field in which I'm intersested, but not experienced). I do believe that any wave resonant with 132 cm to be red. I got the idea when a music instructor, who had perfect-pitch hearing, was trying to explain to me how he could tell any note just buy the sound. He said, "Just listen to it naturally, and you'll notice that "C" is the same as red." Well, my hearing is not as good as my eyesight, but sure enough if the math doesn't agree with him.

Photons, as far as I know, are also considered subatomic, but to which color is definitely a visual attribute. I noticed with my ND:YAG laser that the beam has little effect on most plastics, passing right through. However, if the plastic is red, it will absorb more of the beam than any other color.

I mainly wrote that as an example of synthesis. While I could provide dozens of sources to back up my theory, none of them come to the same conclusion which I have. Synthesis is a serious problem in Wikipedia. Anyhow, you obviously have a better understanding of the subject than I do. Thanks for the clarification, for I am always open to exploring every alternative. Your advice is most welcome. Zaereth (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now we're talking! The color for photons has to do with frequency, not with color charge, so the concept of something fundamental in the universe that corresponds to certain frequencies comes to mind. Very interesting, I've had vague thoughts of lower frequencies being connected to more powerful energies, but nothing like the octave-based ideas you're talking about. I prefer to think of it as frequencies rather than colors - seems more fundamental to me - but as I said, that's merely a matter of preference.

Peace.

-- 64.52.60.226 (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Interesting. I suppose it would be just as correct to refer to it as tone. Different terms for the same concept, I believe. Anyhow, thanks for your input. I never know if anyone actually reads that stuff. Peace to you as well. Zaereth (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments regarding the Petrolsoft Corporation article. I have taken some of your advice into account in my last edit. If you have the chance, see what you think. Thanks.Mathteacher69 (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll be happy to assist. I'm rather busy in real life, but I'll try to stop in at the article's talk page before the end of the day to make some comments. See you there. Zaereth (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zaereth, Thanks for the cool personal page. I had no idea Bruce Lee was a philosopher! Now about your belief that Wikipedia writing should never be used to "teach", I believe that all writing is teaching, and whenever I write, the first student is me. Scott P. (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Yes, Bruce Lee believed in using what was valuable from all froms of martial arts and philosophies alike, and discarding what was not useful.

Anyhow, back to the point. Not all forms of writing are teaching. Encyclopedias use journalistic writing, which has been carefully crafted over the last few hundred years in order to present information in an unbiased manner. There is nothing unbiased about teaching, and that includes both science and religion. Encyclopedias merely report, and there is a difference.

We trust that our general audience are not idiots, and will be able to draw whatever conclusion they like from the evidence we present. That evidence includes the opinions of the subjects, whether they are Mother Teresa or Aleister Crowley. There is no need to refute a subject's own opinions. The reader's can make up their own minds.

To leave off, I'll let Mr. Lee summ it up. Zaereth (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am learning to understand rather than immediately judge or to be judged. I cannot blindly follow the crowd and accept their approach. I will not allow myself to indulge in the usual manipulating game of role creation. Fortunately for me, my self-knowledge has transcended that and I have come to understand that life is best to be lived and not to be conceptualized. I am happy because I am growing daily and I am honestly not knowing where the limit lies. To be certain, every day there can be a revelation or a new discovery. I treasure the memory of the past misfortunes. It has added more to my bank of fortitude.

All fixed set patterns are incapable of adaptability or pliability. The truth is outside of all fixed patterns.... If you always put limit on everything you do, physical or anything else. It will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them. --Bruce Lee

Hi Zaereth, this is a great comment [1]. Maybe you should work in mediation. :D Malke2010 17:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Malke, and thanks for the comment. I've actually done quite a bit of mediation, on articles like liquid or physics of glass. Unfortunately, real life prevents me from getting into long conversation that are moving quickly. That can make mediation difficult, so I usually just drop off an opinion or some advice and go about my day. Thanks again for the compliment. Zaereth (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zaereth,

I've used your photograph of the dielectric mirror (the one with a yellow reflection) for a presentation on photonic crystals (a dielectric mirror is essentially a one-dimensional photonic crystal), so I wanted to say thanks for releasing it into the public domain. I'd like to give a source for the picture and possibly some more detail, so if you'd like more reference than the link to the Wikimedia Commons image, please tell me. Also, I'd really be interested in more information on the mirror, do you know what materials were used (I'm guessing Si and SiO2) and how thick the layers are?

Thanks again for the picture :) --MacJones (talk) 07:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MacJones!

I'm glad you were able to make use of my photo. I'm no photographer, and many of my pictures are not the highest quality. Still, it's nice to have visual references, and maybe some color on the pages. I see no reason to copyright my images. I'm just happy knowing that they are of use to somebody. Anything to promote the interest of science. (If you've placed it on a website or something, please let me know, for I'd like to see.)

I'll give you what information I can about it. That particular mirror came from a Coherent Inc. model 740 dye laser, which I purchased off of e-bay to scavenge parts from. I can pretty much guarantee that the substrate is quartz, but could not tell you if the coating is Si, SiO2, MgF2, or a multi-layer combination of these ... or something else. I called Coherent several years ago to try and get some information about laser mirrors, but was told that such information is proprietary, and could not be released to the general public. Some other companies, like CVI, Exciton, or Advanced Radiation, were much more helpful.

I can tell you that the mirror is a broadband reflector for use in tunable lasers, similar to the mirrors found here. These generally use multi-layer coatings to provide the broadband reflectivity, which usually have a usable bandwidth range of 25 to 50 nanometers, (although my home-made dye laser uses some CVI TLM2 mirrors, with a very wide bandwidth of 100 nm).

That photo was taken under normal fluorescent lighting, with no flash, to demonstrate the reflection of mostly yellow light. What I couldn't show, at the same time, was the transmission characteristics. If held up to the light, the view through the mirror appears purple, from the high transmission of blue and red. I tried to demonstrate that selective nature in my other picture, by photographing the reflections from two different colors of construction paper.

I know that this does not really answer your question, but that's the best I can provide. I really hope that helps. Thanks for letting me know that you got some use from one of my pictures. Zaereth (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I do know that thickness of the coatings has a lot to do with the center wavelength of the light, the refractive index of both the coating and the substrate, and the desired angle of incidence. Constructive and destructive interference seems to play a big role, but beyond that, I don't know much else about how these coatings operate. Another good source on refection and anti-reflection coatings is actually the Edmund Industrial Optics catalog. (You can actually get some wonderful information from the right catalog.) Zaereth (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your quick reply,

I've linked the source to the picture and cited your user name. It's already pretty helpful to be able to give information where the mirror is from and that it is a multi-layer design, so yes, your information was already helpful :) The document that the picture is in, is sadly not a real publication, just a term paper I needed to do in the course of my studies. It will not be published on the university's website, it'll just be available to everyone attending the course, protected by login. I can send it to you when it's done, but it's written in German - just send a mail to jonesey[at]alpha-aurigae.net

The thickness of the coatings has indeed a lot to do with the center wavelength of the reflection, so does the dielectric constant of the materials used, and interference is the reason for the reflection, yes. The presentation I'm doing is about the mechanisms leading to the reflection and an alternate way to describe the behavior of such sructures, borrowed from solid state physics (dispersion relations, bloch waves etc.) - since doing it with ray or wave optics alone would be too tedious, especially for structures that have a two- or three-dimensional periodicity, in contrast to the one-dimensional periodicity of the dielectric mirror. Actually, it is possible to design dielectric mirrors that have a reflectivity that isn't angle- or polarization-dependent anymore, those were discovered using this new theoretical approach (google for omnidirectional dielectric reflector). If you want to read a good book about photonic crystals my main reference is available for free as a PDF here

MacJones (talk) 03:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thanks for the information. I'll check those out when I can muster up the time. I love the theoretical stuff, even though I may not always understand it. My main interests are usually, how can I do or build something, what are my or its limitations, and how can I perform or make it perform better? This is typical mechanical thinking, which often leaves me baffled at non-mechanical explanations. I like to try though.

Sorry, I don't know a word of German, aside from what I can make out from the etymons. (Actually, the Germanic languages, ancient English in particular, has some very peculier etymology.)

Thanks again for your comments. Zaereth (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comment on Jimbo's talk page, it caught exactly how I feel about what we're doing here. Less happily, condolences to all concerned about the C-17 crash, very sad news which I'd not noticed on the news here. Had to check up which plane it was, as I was rather fortunate in seeing a C-47 flying over Glasgow recently on a commemoration day. It's awful when things go wrong in connection with an air show. Thanks again, dave souza, talk 20:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I rarely speak-up on his page, but am usually watching the drama as it gives me an interesting look into parts of Wikipedia I usually never visit. Thanks for your comments too, and I appreciate your concern for the aircrew, as I'm sure their friends and families probably do as well. Zaereth (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.
I would like to use this picture on my article about aerial combat in Hebrew wiki. Could you upload it onto Wikimedia commons please?
many thanks.Lirdon (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lirdon,

I'll try to figure out exactly how to do that. I don't know much about computers, and don't have much spare time, but I'll try to get that picture moved over there within the next few days. Zaereth (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The picture has been moved. Zaereth (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You very much.Lirdon (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		To Zaereth in appreciation of your efforts in working with others to build not only good articles, but in helping to make Wikipedia a collegial community. Especially on Sarah Palin. Well done. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, my first barnstar. I've seen these before but never really knew much about them. Thanks very much Malke, I'm touched. Also, thanks for your efforts in helping to improve the writing here on Wikipedia. I hope you have a happy Thanksgiving day and a safe and wonderful weekend. Zaereth (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome very much. And have a Happy Thanksgiving, too!Malke 2010 (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yet another flare-up on SP, the Lightning Rod! I tried to steer it towards something worth discussing, but in the end it didn't seem worth it. I suspect the underlying motive was all along only the "she's as dumb as a box of rocks" POV. Whether you like her politics or not, it baffles me that people don't consider her career accomplishments before they jump to absurd conclusions on her intelligence or breadth of knowledge. People also don't seem to recognize that Olbermann, Maddow, Beck, Limbaugh and their ilk are not (or, at least, are no longer) journalists... they are just entertainers who serve up selective bits of reality taken out of context and seasoned with their exaggerated self-opinions and overblown egos. I don't know why anyone listens to them, but you can predict stormy weather at SP by what their throngs are fed.  :(

Things are good here. We got our first snow yesterday... just a dusting of an inch or two, but more may be coming this weekend. I usually like the snow. Dru shovels while I stay toasty inside, and it's cathartic to watch the surrounding woods turn white! It will be a quiet Christmas this year. My son made his final move to Vancouver with his Canadian bride a few months ago (after his residency was approved), so they're spending this year with her family there. My oldest is spending her holidays mainly with her boyfriend's family in North Carolina. So, we still have the tree and decorations out, but not the noise and excitement of years past.

Congrats on the Knik Arm Bridge! That should ease congestion and allow a bit of welcome commuter expansion. I actually caught an episode of Palin's new show, which caught my eye in a rare moment in front of the TV. It was an episode on halibut fishing, and it brought back memories of reeling in those 100-150lb beasts, although it took me an hour or so with rod-and-reel and not commercial winches! I'm actually surprised SP hasn't seen attempts to introduce "halibut brutality" to her bio! I guess too many of her detractors eat fish and would see the irony in that. :)

Anyway, hope all is well for you and yours in the great white north! Have a great Christmas!

Fcreid (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warm welcome and holiday cheer. Let me take this opportunity to thank you and (the gentleman above) for not just seeing things in the "black and white" of partisan politics. You both always leave room for compromise and the productive discussion of potential solutions. The article would suffer the loss of your guidance. Please be careful when pulling those hundred horses in the sleigh. You could pull a muscle!Buster Seven Talk 05:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zaereth, Thanks for your New Year message, I wish you a very happy and successful 2011 too!

The Logger9 situation is unfortunate. I always try and keep out of such situations but in this case Marie Poise is telling the truth and many others do share the same thoughts on Logger9's contributions so I felt it best to speak up. I haven't got anything against Logger9 personally and think it is a shame that things have come to this. Anyway, best regards Polyamorph (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A friend recently shared a book with me. I often reflect on Bruce Lee while reading it. Which "dominoes" to thinking of you. See Jon Kabat-Zinn#Teachings. Turning away from anger is a gift you provide to those that are listening. Thanks for that. 216.80.88.177 (talk)Buster Seven Talk 17:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Buster, I'm flattered. Like Bruce Lee, I often have a very short temper. I think that Mr Lee, and even Siddhartha Gautama himself, would tell you that turning away from anger is not the answer. The key is to embrace it, reflect it inward, study it, and make it your own. Anger itself is a very vital emotion. The important part is how and where we channel it.

I have seen some pretty interesting studies lately regarding meditation. At that point when the conscious mind becomes silent, and the mind is seemingly quiet, the brain goes into overdrive. The trick here, which I think is at the core of Mr. Lee's teachings, is to learn to do this during everyday activity. This is especially useful when in combat, like during sparring, fencing, or kenjitsu. (Or even debating on Wikipedia.) When I reach that meditative state, which Bruce would call "focusing your chi," suddenly my vision becomes less important. My focus is no longer on a narrow point, but, instead, everything within my view becomes clear. My opponents often tell me that it's rather disconcerting to fight someone who appears to be staring off into the distance rather than looking at them directly. However, when I enter that state I become very hard to beat, even when faced with two or three opponents, because I am no longer acting, but reacting. Zaereth (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You remind me to reflect on a mentor from years ago. He often said that Fear and Anger reside close to each other. The slide from one to the other is discernable and worthy of observation...as an insight into what may be happening...and to resolve (and embrace) the Fear rather than the Anger. I will share your observations with my daughter, the BlackBelt in the family. I find it pleasing that she has 4 older brothers and yet SHE is the knight. Buster Seven Talk 19:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, fear. The great enemy. The consciousness of self in action. It's interesting how these common themes arise time and again in mythology, from the Illiad to Star Wars. I usually don't think of fear as being an emotion, but rather a fight or flight instinct, directly tied to emotions like anger, envy or despair. On a basic survival level, a good thing, but on a much higher level, it causes people to lose both focus and rationality. My favorite line from Mr. Lee is, "The consciousness of self is the greatest hinderance to the proper execution of all physical action."

It's always nice to hear from you Buster. I hope your year is going well so far. With four older brothers, (if they are anything like my brothers), your daughter probably had to be tough. For her, most of what I said above can be summed up like this:

Into a soul absolutely free of thoughts and emotions, even the tiger finds no room to insert its fierce claws.... No thinking, no reflecting. Perfect emptiness; yet therein something moves, following its own course.... Victory is for the one, even before the combat, who has no fear or thought of himself, abiding in the no-mindness of Great Origin. --A Taoist Priest, circa ? - Quote taken from from the Tao of Jeet Kune Do, by Bruce Lee

Zaereth (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Buster! Zaereth (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The physical properties section in the Honey article is excellent, nice work! Polyamorph (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Considering your knowledge of such subjects, I consider this high praise indeed. Zaereth (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		Cents for Sense
		Sometimes two cents is worth alot more than it seems. Consider this pre-payment for visiting Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Welcome new users and sharing your view. Also, please check out the message behind the current banner at the top of all the WikiPages. Your insight and consciousness are valuable as WE (Wikipedia Editors) consider and create our credo(s) for the future. At Wikipedia all we really have are conversations and some are more important than others. Buster Seven Talk 22:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for how-to guides so please move User:Zaereth/Writing tips for the non-writer to a different website - see if Wikibooks will take it. And then request its deletion from here because Wikipedia is not a free host. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then what about pages like User:Tony1/How to improve your writing, which inspired me. I thought giving some simple advice on user space was allowed. Am I mistaken? I will gladly delete that, and any other thing I have written on Wikipedia, but I would ask for a better explanation. Zaereth (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1's article is OK because it uses a photo of mine! But seriously, there is little to chose between the two articles. Both should be transferred to Wikibooks or Wikiversity might accept them. Isn't Wikipedia is not for how-to guides sufficient explanation? If you want more how about no original research? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My confusion comes from the fact that you have directed me to a policy that covers mainspace and not userspace. According to WP:Userspace, since my goal is to help Wikipedians succeed in improving the encyclopedia, and it is not written like an article, this should be perfectly acceptable. Zaereth (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you find that telluric iron presents Widmanstatten structures? -- Basilicofresco (msg) 08:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry for the delay in my reply. It's been a long weekend.

There are numerous sources that mention Widmanstatten structures in telluric iron. For instance, in Meteoritic Iron, Telluric Iron and Wrought Iron in Greenland, on page 20, paragraph 1 (the first full paragraph), it states, "The new material from the Disko area was, however, slightly different from the few slivers of meteoritic iron reported in the Melville Bugt tools. This was not noticed in the beginning. It appeared that the two types of material had in common a significant amount of nickel content and a coarse grained Widmanstatten structure, enough similarities to pronounce all finds meteoritic." Also in paragraph 2, "He [Steenstrup] identified outcrops at Asuk at the north coast of Disko as an iron bearing basalt, and he showed that the Widmanststten pattern might occur in iron grain included in basalt from Mellemfjord."

In the "Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Bulliten, volume 80, page 65, "...the Widmanstatten structure is a normal consequence of the composition and thermal history of the material.

In History of technology: the role of metals, Volume 6 a photo is shown of a cross-section of telluric iron. The caption reads: "Microstructure of telluric iron from Ovifak, Greenland. The grains consist primarily of pearlite (dark grey) surrounded by a partial rim of iron-carbide (white) with some Widmanstatten precipitates of iron-carbide (needles) in the pearlite."

Other references include such scientific studies as Electron microprobe analysis of terrestrial and meteoritic cohenite, There is also Steenstrup's own writings, On the existence of nickel-iron with Widmanstatten"s figures in the basalt of North Greenland.

I hope that helps. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. Zaereth (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many photographers add a ruler or some length marker (coin, pen) when taking such images. An alternative (which also works after taking an image and avoids unnecessary image clutter) is to add something like "capacitor width 20 cm" or "image width 20 cm" to the image caption. Knowing the size may be important. Regards and best wishes. Materialscientist (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought about doing that, but didn't have a ruler handy. I took these when I ran home for lunch, and was a bit rushed. I can tell you that the pulse forming network is roughly 6 inches long and 3 inches wide. The mylar capacitor is almost as large as the sheet of copier paper that it's laying on, roughly 8 inches wide, and the defibrillator capacitor is about 4 inches wide. I'll measure them when I get home tonight, and add the sizes to the image captions tomorrow. Thanks for the advice, and have a good night! Zaereth (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Thanksgiving, Zaereth!
As we all sit down at the dinner table and say our thanks today, I would like to give thanks to you for your wonderful contributions and wish you a very happy Thanksgiving. May your turkey, ham or beast of choice satiate you until next year!TRA! Buster Seven Talk 17:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Done. Zaereth (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all the excess flare gas being and going to be produced in Alaska I would like to hear someone intelligent like yourself explain why no effort us being made to convert it into ammonia, which is a valuable product that has an international market. It wouldn't even be too hard to move it by pipeline to a place of export, or even to the US. Have you heard anything about such as that?. And thanks for your answer to my inquiry in Mirror.WFPM (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of it has to do with politics and economics. There is a nitrate processing plant south of me, in the town of Nikiski, but it's much more econmical to process it there than it is on the North Slope. Much of the excess gas on the slope is pumped back into the ground, because there is, of yet, no feasible way to get it to market. That's one reason that there is such a push up here to build a gas-pipeline. Politics is the main reason it wasn't built 50 years ago. However, it is still necessary to burn off certain amounts of it, to prevent pressure-spikes and other problems from causing gulf-like disasters. Zaereth (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to reinject all the possible recovered production gas in order to maintain bottom hole pressure. But in a cold climate, like northern Alaska, the idea of converting some of it to liquid ammonia and moving it through a small pipeline system sounds feasible to me. In Venezuela, we had a 50psi production gas recovery system, which was repressured to 500psi and reinjected. But a lot of low pressure production tank gas was flared, because nobody needed the gasses' heating energy capacity. But I keep thinking about the methane to ammonia conversion possibility and the low temperature ease of handling the liquid ammonia and wonder if there isn't a possibility in there somehow.WFPM (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it probably is feasible. Because there is no pipeline, though, that only leaves export by ship, and the Arctic Ocean is not a friendly place for shipping.

It's been obvious here that the oil companies are in no hurry to process this resource. Some say it's because they're trying to push for a better tax-break while other claim that they simply don't want to saturate the market. Keeping the supply low helps drive prices higher. I suspect that it's a combination of factors like that, and that our politicians somehow think that we are beholden to the oil companies. Anyhow, I'm not too knowledgeable about the oil business itself. When I was on the slope, my field of expertize was mechanics and hydraulics. Zaereth (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you say Nitrate plant, I assume you mean Ammonium nitrate plant and wonder where they get their hydrogen. Probably buy methane gas on the open market and don't worry about scavenging waste flare gas. I've got a chemistry book, Chemical Principles by William Masterson and Emil Slowinski, that brags about the ability of fuel cell technology to be able to extract the maximum chemical energy from Methane fuel Gas, (ISBN 0-7216-6172-6 W. B. Saunders Company. So it looks like there ought to be a way to recover and utilize some of that waste gas energy. I was a Pipeline Engineer, and was involved in the gas gathering pipeline system.WFPM (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How did my Identity initials get mixed up in the next Subject matter item (See below)? You must be trying to extract info from Wiki (as I do). Would be interested in your opinion as to whether my concept about the inability of a thin film to cause frequency doubling of IR radiation due to the wavelength difference has any merit. Maybe thicker would help.WFPMWFPM (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Walter Heinrich Geffcken requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That's strange. I have no idea how that could be a copyright violation. I read the book Thin-films on glass a couple of weeks ago, and then let the info stew in my subconscious and, when I had the time, rewrote it in my own words. This I do from memory, and is also combined with info on him from books like Thin-film optical filters and Applied optics and optical engineering. Unfortunately, real life called me away before I could properly add in-line citations and go back and recheck the sources. I was just about to do that now. Oh well. Not gonna worry about it. Zaereth (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Zaereth, Happy Christmas to you too and a successful 2012! Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zaereth. Merry Christmas to you too!--Srleffler (talk) 06:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas to you and yours up north, Zaereth. Sounds like you're having a blast in the snow. Be careful! A very quiet holiday here. Have a safe New Year. Fcreid (talk) 09:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Tempering, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Annealing and Ferrite (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for the heads-up. Zaereth (talk) 11:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Tempering, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Strength (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That particular link was intended to be a DAB, because the context is about how vague a term "strength" is. The more specific forms of strength are found after the link. Sometime DAB links are more useful, such as when stating that moose eat pondweed, it's easier to lead to the DAB page than list all of the various kinds of pondweed. Zaereth (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Alloy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Precipitation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I clobbered your response, but I went through and re-rendered GarbageMan's comments as quotes/responses. Please take a look and see if I missed anything and re-offer your response. Thank youHasteur (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have responded at all. I like to try to help new users, but it seems quite apparent that this particular user is only interested in conflict. Since I really have little interest in this aspect of the subject, I'll just leave well enough alone. Zaereth (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Differential heat treatment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ferrite (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Structural integrity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elasticity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"A sufficiently paranoid conspiracy theory can never be disproven" did originate with me; I started using that as an e-mail signature a little over 15 years ago. I ran across your page when I did a Google search on the phrase today. I was contemplating the ironic (or deliberate?) timing of the US government release of papers confirming a long-term government coverup of knowledge of the Katyn massacre yesterday. It could be taken as someone deliberately taunting those who believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories, just before an election... Not that I believe that's really the case, but it's still fun to speculate. scot (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scot. Thanks for the info. I'll remove the question mark and replace it with your name, since I am now certain it is your quote. I don't really follow the political stuff too much, so I'm not too familiar with the 9/11 theories. However, I have been fascinated by stories of government experimentation on the populace, such as project MKULTRA. Locally, we've always had the "experimental farms," as people called them, when I was growing up here, which I've always speculated that they were testing the effects of artificial bovine growth hormones in milk on unsuspecting Alaskans. (This is something to which I have become extremely allergic to and rarely eat milk or beef anymore. I only recently discovered milk allergy, and realized that I have no problem with milk or beef that doesn't contain RBGH.)

The reason I really like your saying is because of one of my ex-girlfrinds, who was convinced that the Moon landings never happened. No amount of evidence to the contrary could disuade her; ranging from explanations of how dust behaves in a vacuum to other countries that were also tracking the mission. Even when the Japanese did a recent fly-by, and photographed the landing site, she is always able to revise her theory to discount any evidence, like any good conspiracy theorist. (This must be the largest. most massive cover-up in history, involving millions of people and several countries, many of whom were not friendly to each other.) On a side note, Conspiracy Theory is still one of my favorite Mel Gibson movies.

Anyhow, thanks for the note. It is fun to speculate, and a good imagination is often better than book learning, at least, that is according to Einstein. Zaereth (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I keep kicking around the idea of trying to come up with some means of evaluating the likelyhood of conspiracy theories, treating them like Fermi problems -- the fake moon landing being a perfect example. The amount of effort, competence, money, cooperation, etc. required to perpetuate a coverup of a hoax this long far exceeds the abilities of our government; if the government were actually sufficiently competent to perpetuate that sort of coverup, we'd have been on the moon a couple of decades earlier. The equation applied to this situation would be something of the form:

probability(coverup) = (effort required to land on moon) / (effort required to perpetuate coverup)

Of course, since the effort to perpetuate a coverup keeps increasing over time (to a point; it drops off as interest wanes and those involved die off), while the effort to land on the moon is constant, that means that coverups become less and less likely over time. With a lot of conspiracy theories I think competence is a core consideration; if They are competent enough to perform whatever acts are necessary for said conspiracy, wouldn't that also imply that They would also have been competent enough to rig things so that said conspiracy wasn't necessary in the first place? scot (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, conspiracy entropy? I never thought of it that way, but I suppose it makes sense, because the laws of thermodynamics apply to more than just engines. It seems to me that the effort required to perpetuate a cover-up should also increase when more people are involved, which should also increase over time. I think you're onto something with your equation, although it may need a few more factors worked into it. (I don't know because I'm no mathematician.)

All this talk of They reminds me of a story I wrote back in high school. It was about two characters called Agent U and Agent I from WE, a tactical subsect of the organization for truth and justice, called US. WE were fighting the global organization bent on world domination, known only as THEM. As the story progresses, WE find out that the organization of THEM is headed by a small group of elite people, referred to as THEY. THEY control THEM, who run their own tactical subsect of agents, called THEY'RE. Then WE find out that THEY'RE coming to attack US, but U and I show THEM that WE are not going down without a fight... (I think U can see where this is going. If nothing else, it was an incredible exercise in phrasing, because the whole story was very much written like that last sentence.) Zaereth (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

for the feedback. Hope all is well in your world which. by the way, sounds very interesting. I had to look up what a "maul" was. I thought it was something my pit bull did too my neighbors cat. (Not really). WP:COI+ pretty much takes the place of my essay and is a whole $20 better. Mine was more in response to a disagreement and a way to "boil over" somewhere other than an article talk page. Always nice to here from you. Your friend, ```Buster Seven Talk 07:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid!!!!!! ```