User talk:AxelBoldt/Archive December 2004 - December 2006

Please add new comments at the bottom. I will reply on this page. If I wrote something on your talk page, please reply there. The idea is to make quoting easy and keep conversations in their logical order.

Older talk can be found in User_talk:AxelBoldt/Archive.

Dear Axel,

I think your revisions of the hyperventilation article have improved it generally. Thank you. I do have one reservation though. I would like to somehow restore the information that breathing is the primary pH regulation mechanism both because it gives some perspective on how hyperventilation can get pH out of whack, and because this important fact is not easy to find. What do you think?

--AJim 01:26, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes certainly, I didn't really mean to cut that. Please restore. (Perhaps one could also mention this function of breathing in the respiration article.) Maybe you have also something to say regarding my question on Talk:Hyperventilation. Cheers, AxelBoldt 18:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please make this mental ill flooding my page

Hello dear. You are a wiki admin and I need your help. Can you explain about this changes to my page? [Insulting, abusing and vandaling language!] He is flooding page Kourosh ziabari with under-18 langauge all time and I don't know what to do 70.52.6.147 He uses many IPs and Wiki IDs and I don't know what to do. 70.52.6.147 is his last IP. and also visit this comparation page that shows the changes of main page to the insulting content [1]

Barnstar

Hello Axel. I don't know what you think about the barnstars that are often awarded for outstanding contributions to Wikipedia, but I have taken the liberty of placing one on your user page after being amazed that there weren't a whole string of them there already. Feel free to move it to a more convenient location, change the caption, or remove it altogether as you wish. And keep up the good work! — Trilobite (Talk) 03:13, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I'm flattered! AxelBoldt 06:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Santorum

You deleted useful information about the neologism usage, replacing it with a wikilink to a nonexistent article. Are you creating or planning to create such an article? If not, the Santorum page should go back to its previous state. JamesMLane 06:56, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the information was useful, but it was a duplication of the material at Savage Love. Since duplication is bad and disambiguation pages aren't supposed to contain much information anyway, I directed the reader to that article. Then I realized that an article santorum (word) already exists which currently redirects to Savage Love. So pointing to santorum (word) seemed the most logical: if we ever decide to take the material out of Savage Love and place it in its own article (which I'm currently not planning to do), then the disambiguation page at santorum will still point to the right place. Cheers, AxelBoldt 07:10, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think duplication is bad if it makes the information more accessible to the reader. (If it creates too much clutter, of course, then duplication makes the information less accessible.) In this instance, I think the setup that's most useful to readers is that someone who enters "Santorum" in the search box gets a listing of the different meanings and can find elaboration on either without getting bogged down in the Savage Love stuff, which may well be irrelevant to this reader. That could be done with a separate article at Santorum (word), but, like you, I'm not planning to create it. It's borderline whether it merits a separate article. Absent such an article, I think giving the information in the dab page is the way to go.

Meanwhile, I see that someone else reverted, unaware of the discussion here. I guess I should have put my comment on the article talk page instead of here, but I thought you might be doing a separate article, so I wanted to be sure you saw my question. JamesMLane 17:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I continued on Talk:Santorum. AxelBoldt 19:19, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gyrocompass

Hi Axel,

I came across your article on the gyrocompass.
I'm curious: do you agree that the physics involved in how a gyrocompass works corroborates a hardly known aspect of general relativity? Many books on general relativity, especially books that popularize science, claim that all acceleration is as relative as the relativity between inertial velocities. If that would be true, the gyrocompass would violate general relativity. So a proper interpretation of general relativity must contain that angular velocity can be measured locally, without reference to other local matter.
An observer can measure an anisotropy in the Cosmic Background Radiation, presumebly that is the closest he can come to measuring his velocity with respect to the part of the universe visible to him. But it appears to me that a gyrocompass measures its own rotation with respect to the universe by comparing itself with local space-time.
I noticed the link to Reflections on Relativity, at mathpages.com, that's where I get most of my information on relativity. Cleon Teunissen 19:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it appears to me that one can locally determine angular velocity with a gyroscope, and I don't think that contradicts any statements of general relativity (except maybe the simplified accounts you mention). However, I shouldn't be trusted on any of this; it has been too long that I studied GR. Cheers, AxelBoldt 18:47, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ah, you know, I think this is very ironical. I get the impression that some people take personal pride the idea that they have absorbed the highly counter-intuitive idea that all reference frames are indistinguishable, including rotating reference frames. Lately I have been involved in discussions with someone about these matters, and I wonder whether he may decide to take the stance that gyroscopes contradict general relativity. Cheers, Cleon Teunissen 19:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New Mathematics Wikiportal

I noticed you've done some work on Mathematics articles. I wanted to point out to you the new Mathematics Wikiportal- more specifically, to the Mathematics Collaboration of the Week page. I'm looking for any math-related stubs or non-existant articles that you would like to see on Wikipedia. Additionally, I wondered if you'd be willing to help out on some of the Collaboration of the Week pages.

I encourage you to vote on the current Collaboration of the Week, because I'm very interested in which articles you think need to be written or added to, and because I understand that I cannot do the enormous amount of work required on some of the Math stubs alone. I'm asking for your help, and also your critiques on the way the portal is set up.

Please direct all comments to my user-talk page, the Math Wikiportal talk page, or the Math Collaboration of the Week talk page. Thanks a lot for your support! ral315 02:54, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

|Closeup of a house fly

Hi. The Image was on the commons, and got deleted because Stock.xchng images are not 100% free. I have uploaded it again to the english wiki. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:10, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

hydrogen chloride and hydrochloric acid

Hi, Axel,

you were the original one to create the [[hydrogen chloride] wikipage, to distinct it from hydrochloric acid, which is chemically correct. As the major product, the hydrochloric acid page has been up for review for some time, and now the question is asked whether it is optimal to re-combine the two or not. Would you please be so kind as to add to the discussion? Wim van Dorst 17:18, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

Mathematics Project Participants List

Hi Axel. After some discussion here, I've converted the "WikiProject Mathematics Participants List" into a table. It is now alphabetical, includes links to the participant's talk page and contribution list, and has a field for "Areas of Interest". I'm letting you know, so you can update your entry, if you want.

Paul August ☎ 22:41, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

fictitious force

Hi Axel,

I'd like an outside opinion on my article on fictitious force. Reading through early versions of the article and conversations on talk pages, I saw that a lot of people are struggling to make sense of it. I was a struggle for me too. My current article on fictitious force is rather long, and very detailed. I did that on purpose, knowing how confused many people are about it; I strive to dispell all confusion.

Can you please check out the article, and tell me whether you feel I have reached my objective? --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 13:44, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I don't really know enough about physics to meaningfully evaluate the article, but nevertheless here are a couple of random observations:

you need a link to force
in the intro paragraph, you mention "the force he can measure" yet it is not clear which force that is or why he can measure it
in the next section, the crucial role of the observer is never mentioned again
in the car example, it's not clear which is the ficticious force: the one pressing from the seat towards my back, or the opposite one of my back pressing into the seat. This should be clearly related with the definition in the intro paragraph
it's not explained in which direction the centripetal force acts
both the sections on linear and circular acceleration have a couple of concluding sentences that are of a general nature and don't belong in those sections
the general relativity section is not intelligible. At one point, it talks about a frame that's fixed relative to "the stars". The stars of our galaxy (which rotate around the galaxy's center), or those of distant galaxies? The repeated anthropomorphization with "know" is out of place.

Cheers, AxelBoldt 00:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try and see what I can do about it. The general relativity section is only intelligable to people who are thoroughly familiar with general relativity. The only purpose of the general relativity section is to show that it is unnecessary to invoke general relativity. Earlier versions of the fictitious force article claimed erroneously that General Relativity proves that centrifugal force is just as much a force as gravity.
About the expression: relative to "the stars". I'm a physicist. To me, the rotation of our galaxy is negligably small compared to rotations that matter in daily life, so to me 'distant stars' is unambiguous. To a mathematician 'the distant stars' leaves room for ambiguity. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 08:50, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

in the next section, the crucial role of the observer is never mentioned again AxelBoldt 00:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, in terms of physics, there is no role for the observer at all. The physics remains the same, independent of the perspective (and the physics understanding) of the observer.
The only role the observer can play is in his own mind, the observer may confuse himself. So I don't mention the observer in the case of linear acceleration, as people are usually not confused about that. The section on linear acceleration is meant as preparation for the next section. I aim to address the self-confusion in the case of circular motion, so in that section there is more focus on the observers mind.
Thanks again for your recommendations, I tried to work them into the article. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 09:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28miscellaneous%29#Retrospective

Anthere 06:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

small groups

Hi - I wanted to construct a cycle diagram for one of the order 12 groups listed in the "list of small groups" article. Its the one with the following description:

the semidirect product of C3 and C4, where C4 acts on C3 by inversion

Can you give me a product table for this group? Thanks - PAR 15:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather not write down the whole table with its 144 entries, but you should be able to construct it from the following information: take as elements the pairs (x,y) with x in {0,1,2} and y in {0,1,2,3} and define the group operation * by

(x₁,y₁) * (x₂,y₂) = ((x₁+ φ(y₁)x₂) mod 3, (y₁+y_{2_{) mod 4)}}

where φ(y) is defined to be +1 if y is even and -1 if y is odd. The neutral element is (0,0). Cheers, AxelBoldt 23:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good, that worked - Thanks PAR 01:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi again- I wanted to construct cycle graphs for all 16-element groups, but I don't have an exhaustive list or their product tables. I can figure out the ones that are composed of lower order groups, but I will have a hard time with the others. Do you have a least a list of all 16-element groups, and at best, an algorithm or table for the difficult ones? Thanks - PAR 23:17, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a list -- most lists in text books stop at 15, since there are so many groups of order 16. I believe the software GAP includes a complete list though, and it can produce product tables, but I don't know the details of how to do it. AxelBoldt 00:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Retina article - perception of red blood cells

Would you happen to have a citation handy regarding the cause of tiny moving dots in the field of vision? See my question at Talk:Retina. Thanks - mjb 08:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

IfD

Hi Axel,

Just to let you know that I have nominated for deletion the image Image:Death of Marat.jpg that you uploaded. It seems to have largely been obsoleted by Image:Death of Marat by David.jpg now. -- Solipsist 20:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! I'm not opposed to the deletion, but when comparing the two images I just noticed that they differ substantially in their color and in the inscriptions on the wood block and on the paper. Interesting! Cheers, AxelBoldt 18:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Antibody

Are you sure antibodies are not glycoproteins? JFW | T@lk 08:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oops, you are right, they are. I'm reverting. Thanks, AxelBoldt 17:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ladder paradox

I noticed you contributed to the twin paradox in special relativity. I wonder if you would comment on the arguements going on on the ladder paradox page. We could really use your help. PAR 05:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know you may be busy and its a pain to go thru the arguments on this thing, but we are going around in circles and really need a third (fourth or fifth) party in the discussion. If you could participate, that would be good, if not, do you know anyone who understands special relativity enough to add something here? Thanks - PAR 28 June 2005 15:40 (UTC)

Carl Friedrich Gauss

The Gauss article which you started is having a FAC here and looks likely to pass. Would you mind having a look at it, seeing if it needs any imoprovement, and hopefully support? Thanks Borisblue 3 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)

IP doesn't exist, eh?

I suggest you read "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal" by Ayn Rand et. al. It will set you straight. Kurt Weber 5 July 2005 02:01 (UTC)

Vasco da Gama

An article that you've edited before (Vasco da Gama) is nominated for Article Improvement Drive. If you want go there and vote. Thanks. Gameiro 02:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Venter image

You can change the tag if you would like. I only did that project for a few days when I realized I wasn't doing it correctly, so I stopped working on it. --Woohookitty 04:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why the "certain sexual conduct"?

Is there a point you have in mind for the WWeM lead, or are you just trying to be over-literal about Miller (but still not really literal). To my mind, the sexual conduct bit is not the chief interest in a "quasi-Miller" analysis. Or course we're not actually lawyers arguing Miller before a court, so literalness is irrelevant. I would like editors/members to think also about other offensive material, such as violent or scatological, that is not necessarily sexual. In judging the WP-merit of such content, keeping in mind a quasi-Miller SLAPS framework could be useful. But if the lead insists we only care about "certain sexual conduct", it excludes the WikiProject from thinking about that other content. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:40, 2005 September 8 (UTC)

I'm not really involved in your WikiProject, and you are certainly free to consider both sexual and non-sexual materials, formulate the lead section to properly capture your intentions, and use whatever definition of "obscene" you prefer. I just don't like it if you try to pretend that the Supreme Court agrees with your definition. For the Supreme Court, only patently offensive depictions of specified sexual conduct can be obscene, nothing else. This is not being "over-literal"; the Miller test has three prongs and you cannot simply leave one of them out because you don't like it. You can of course say something like "SLAPS is part of the Miller test...".

But if I were you, I would stay away from Miller, because Miller considers the work as a whole, which in our case is Wikipedia, and there can be no doubt that Wikipedia passes SLAPS with flying colors, no matter what image we present on Clitoris. What's more, pretty much every porn site on the internet passes Miller. Cheers, AxelBoldt 22:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still cannot figure out what point you have in mind here. Of course the Supreme Court does not agree, nor disagree, with my "definition". For one thing, I am not suggesting any definition of anything. For another, I'm not a lawyer, and a WikiProject is not a court case. For yet another matter, the page is not concerned with "obscenity" per se. I am the editor who inserted the reference to Miller, but as it states, it's to Miller as an indirect inpiration for how we might want to think about the Wikiproject issues. Specifically, thinking about SLAPS is kinda a useful conceptual framework. That's why the description explicitly says "quasi-Miller".

FWIW, I opined on the WikiProject talk page, that Miller would most likely apply more at the article level than the "WP as a whole" level. The only apparent lawyer in the discussion seems to endorse my analysis. But again, a WikiProject is not a court case, so whatever might hypothetically apply in a hypothetical court case is very distant.

Btw. I may be wrong, but I kinda get the impression you understand Miller just from the WP article, or similar popular summary. If you are genuinely interested in it, I recommend reading the whole opinion (and even the dissents), it's pretty interesting stuff. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:14, 2005 September 9 (UTC)

My only point, as concise as I can put it: if you say "the Miller test defines obscene material as..." then you have to provide a honest summary of the three-prong Miller test and cannot leave out one prong because if doesn't fit into the goals of your WikiProject. AxelBoldt 16:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still not much closer

I'm still failing to see any point in your change. I really want to think you're not simply being dissiumulative, but it's harder to find another explanation now.

I had quoted a brief extract from the Miller test. You insert a slightly longer extract from the Miller test. Neither one of them is anything close to the full Miller description. In my opinion, the extra part you insert is not relevant to the Wikiproject in question, which is why I wish to omit it. If your edit comments had stated "the certain sexual conduct" part should be the core of this Wikiproject, I would understand your edits; I wouldn't necessarily agree with the goal, but it would make sense conceptually.

The actual Miller test includes (take a look at the opinion at [2]):

Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion);

AND

Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, would find that the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct (i.e.: ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated; masturbation; excretory functions; lewd exhibition of the genitals; or sado-masochistic sexual abuse);

AND

Whether a reasonable person would find that the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

In other words, there are numerous aspects of Miller that your slightly expanded excerpt still omits, e.g.:

Average person
applying contemporary adult community standards
appeals to the prurient interest
parenthetical definition of prurient interest
depicts or describes
in patently offensive way
"sexual conduct" includes "excretory functions", "lewd exhibition of the genitals", "sado-masochistic sexual abuse. (none, IMO, normally considered as "specified sexual conduct).
A reasonable person would find [lack of SLAPS]

So clearly what you characterize is not Miller itself, but a slightly larger quasi-Miller.

But, of course, as I have tried so many times to state, this Wikiproject is not a court case, and we are not lawyers. And it is not Miller that is being presented, but "those aspects of Miller that may be illustrative."

Is it honestly just that you like to stick in the phrase "sexual conduct"?! It obviously has nothing to do with your edit comment that "mischaracterization of Miller is not acceptable", since your characterization is probably slightly farther from a good characterization of Miller than is the shorter version. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:55, 2005 September 9 (UTC)

You cannot write "Miller defines obscenity as..." if you then go on to provide only a shortened quasi-Miller that leaves out features that don't fit your purposes. It is false and unacceptable. Why don't you simply openly state the SLAP standard you'd like to use, and say that it is inspired by part of the Miller test? AxelBoldt 17:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... what you describe is exactly what the section did before you edited it! Is this some kind of schoolyard semantic game or something? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:59, 2005 September 9 (UTC)

I guess that depends on how liberally you use the word "exactly". Before I edited it, the page said: "The Miller test is illustrative in defining obscene material as that which taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. (SLAPS)." This statement, as written, is false and misleading, as this is not how the Miller test defines obscene material, and it is not even an honest summary of it. You are still of course welcome to use that SLAPS criterion for your project; just don't claim that your criterion is equivalent to Miller. But I think I'm repeating myself. AxelBoldt 18:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess in some hypertechnical way you can pull a falsehood out of that... maybe. The version you present is certainly closer to being literally false, since it comes closer to insinuating that it presents the exact Miller test. If you think the recently added "in part" doesn't clarify enough, maybe you can propose some other modifier that clarifies that we're excerpting/paraphrasing Miller rather blindly copying it in full and verbatim. (I'd think common sense, plus a wikilink, would have sufficed, but...). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:30, 2005 September 9 (UTC)

Rosicrucian article

Dear AxelBoldt, as I having seen your edition at the article Rosicrucian and a related article, I come to request your support to this article that I have just purposed for nomination at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Rosicrucian. May you may give a look into it? And, if you consider it acceptable, then may you support it? Thank you! :) --GalaazV 02:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minneapolis meetup

Hello Axel. I'm contacting you since you are listed at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Minnesota. I'm going to be at a conference in Minneapolis and am planning a Wikipedia meetup for October 8. If you are near Minneapolis at that time, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Minneapolis. Angela . 20:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote on list of lists, a featured article candidate

Please vote at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of lists of mathematical topics. Michael Hardy 20:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

request service

Thank you, my first crack was quite unrefined. lots of issues | leave me a message 02:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Typos, Cleanup

Hi! I just wanted to tell you that you're doing a good job fixing up those typos- It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it :), and for doing some nice cleanup on Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare, which has been on my to-do list for some time. All these horror movie articles are a pretty weak, and I'm glad that they're slowly, but surely, improving. Thanks again, and keep up the good work!--Sean|Bla ck 03:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Miss Saigon

Thanks for your message. You are right. I just corrected my previous edit on [Patpong]. Cheers. --Anagnorisis 22:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Birthday paradox#Klamkin (1967)

Could you take a look at the question? Thanks. Superm401 | Talk 04:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proquest

According to someone I emailed an article to -- he was prompted with a login page when he tried to open the pdf link. lots of issues | leave me a message 16:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes lots_of_issues at hotmail lots of issues | leave me a message 16:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...it was a pdf attachment, worked. Don't know what happened with the other person.

lots of issues | leave me a message 17:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

male prostitution

I had moved that text, as I said in the comments, from the Cherry Patch Ranch since it was not right there either. Not sure where it should go, so I have no problem with what you did. 06:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Soi

Read your request and fullfilled it. Rewritten it a bit. Soi Cowboy was a bad example, is a special case. Given better examples. Greetings from Bangkok Thanon Pracharat Bamphen soi 7 ;) Waerth 22:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About the plural Thais wouldn't use it no. But in the talk between us farangs ;iving here we use it. How to write it ... I am not sure whether it is soi's or sois. Waerth 05:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhumvit

I see that you asked about the meaning of Sukhumvit. According to th:ถนนสุขุมวิท it was named after the fifth chief of Department of Highways, Phra Pisan Sukhumvit. -- Lerdsuwa 12:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! AxelBoldt 17:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked and there is no Thai pages for the peoples you mentioned. -- Lerdsuwa 15:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Soi

"Soi Sukhumvit 4", "Sukhumvit Soi 4", or "Sukhumvit 4" are all equally popular way of saying. The most formal way of the three, for writing address on letter, road signs, etc., is "Soi Sukhumvit 4".

"25 Soi Sukhumvit 4": here 25 is the house number, where houses on one side of the road are all odd-numbered (1, 3, 5, ...) the other side are all even.

If the plot of land are splitted, for example number 28, its becomes 28/1, 28/2, ....
If the plot of land are merged, Ex: buying lots of small house to build a big office building, only one of the address is used (the number is no longer consecutive and contain holes).

Most Soi doesn't start its own number (except big ones) and use the number system of its street. Ex: you may see number 848 for a house on the main road next to a soi, number 850 to 928 used in the soi, number 930 next house on the main road. -- Lerdsuwa 10:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Artemis

(copied from my user page) Hi! Thanks for starting the Artemis (brothel) article, that was indeed missing. I hope you don't mind that I changed it a bit and added some information. Cheers, AxelBoldt 17:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Mind? Are you kidding? I love it when people add to subjects I have added to. As for changing, well I'll take a look and get back to you.(I notice from your user page that we share a lot of interests and I want to say something about that, too). WAS 4.250 19:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm back. I have no problem with the changes. Some of the data varied from one report to the next (number of people it holds and cost of services). But that is variable by its nature (one might be with tax and another not; one might be people allowed by law due to fire codes and the other number might represent number of people it was designed to comfortably fit). Bottom line, I see no reason to change anything there.

Next subject similar interests: Evolution needs a few words on molecular biology. Multiverse needs something (maybe something from User:WAS 4.250/1 and maybe not). And Mass, Relativistic mass, and E=mc² (with regard to relativistic mass versus rest mass; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics). Do nothing ... do something ... just thought I'd mention a few things you might care to look into. Thanks again for helping on Artemis (brothel). Cheers. WAS 4.250 20:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of brothel?

Yes, it would be nice to get a few. I'm not usually out where they are so that makes it difficult to get a picture. I'll see if I can find someone who has some to upload. I suspect that there are a few pictures for Sherry's out there and I don't think it has an article yet. Vegaswikian 01:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forer effect: Variables influencing the effect

Hi, I noticed your addition to Forer effect of additional variables influencing the effect. While I found the information interesting and totally reasonable, I noticed that there were no references to the specific studies where these conclusions came from. It would be greatly appreciated if you could cite the studies that derived these conclusions. P.S. I know that unsourced stuff is all over Wikipedia, and that it's unreasonable to try to track it all down, but you seem to be a fine contributor and the addition could be isolated to edits by you, so I figured it would be a fairly easy task for you to find your original sources. Alas, I don't have access to databases with abstracts for these psychological studies, so I can't do it. Thanks for reading this message! — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 20:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got if from the web somewhere at the time, I don't really remember. But this article seems to be the right one:

Dickson, D.H. and I.W. Kelly. "The 'Barnum Effect' in Personality Assessment: A Review of the Literature," Psychological Reports, 1985, 57, 367-382.

I'll check later. Thanks! AxelBoldt 22:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fungu'lu and other hoaxes

Hi, Axel! I don't know enough Swahili to say with much certainty, but fungu'lu and unguru (span (unit)) do appear to be hoaxes. I guess you also saw this edit and Oliver Bayley, which are equally suspicious. (There's also a poet by the same name mentioned here, but he's probably genuine.) Even _if_ they are true (very unlikely), none of these contributions seem to be able to be substantiated. I would delete the lot. (But if you do want to check for certain if these words are Swahili or not, you could ask sw:User:Ndesanjo or sw:User:Marcos.) --Chamdarae 02:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AxelBoldt, I've deleted Oliver Bayley as a hoax after seeing your post at Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board. I never heard of him despite living in Uganda for a bit. Despite the general dubiousness, I'm also unsure how a Ugandan living in England would know enough Swahili to sing it as it is strictly a trade language there. There are a couple Ugandans who have moved to Nairobi and had moderately successful singing careers, but it's rare and I'm not sure how it would be possible if you are coming from England. To top it off, "Jambo" is the Swahili greeting, so the title of the rap "Jambo Kitty" would translate as Hello Kitty. If this is indicative of the edits you're looking at, I think a speedy is in order. Cheers, Banyan Tree 19:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance

Hi Axel. I'm in the midst of a debate with an anonymous user at Talk:Rat who claims that a source[3] states that Black Rats are listed as an endangered species (local listing, not IUCN) in Germany and other parts of Europe. The source is in German and really requires splitting hairs over the wording. If the animals are "in decline" or "becoming scarce", then that does not translate to legal protection. I thought if it's not too much trouble you might be able to help. Thanks. --Aranae 11:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the translation and arbitration. --Aranae 07:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

I just want to say you rock!. Peace out Funkyj 07:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you. Cheers, AxelBoldt 19:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sultana (steamboat)

Thanks for your help with info. If my "E-mail this user" button is not working, please send info to: lessogg att gmail.com. Thanks, mervyn 10:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Persondata project

Hi Axel, just wanted to let you know that I'm attempting to start a metadata project on the English Wikipedia similar to the German Personendaten project. I would love to get feedback from people experienced with the German project. Do you know much about it? Kaldari 16:55, 24. Dez 2005 (CET)

Not really, but the German Wikipedians are usually ok with English, so you could contact the author (jakob.voss at nichtich.de) of the Personendaten article for Wikimania, or leave a message (in English), on the talk page of the project. Cheers, AxelBoldt 16:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, Boldt

I like your work. Very logical. Why no "beauty of these girls is legendary" in De Wallen? It's a very basic fact. -MPD 09:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]