Kenwarren

Leave me a message. I will normally answer here, to keep the conversation together, but I will also leave a note on your talk page so you'll know I did so.

Talk archives

• Archive 1 (through 31 July, 2005)
• Archive 2 (through 31 August, 2005)

Thanks for double checking

the web page as Lithuanian (I cannot claim knowledge of Lithuanian, but cross checking various words on the page it was obvious it could be nothing else).

Speaking of, I could not help myself the other day, so I added this comment to a talk page.

You mentioned http://users.skynet.be/sky60754/genealbe/hulpwetgewicht.htm#Kasselrij%20Brugse%20Vrije which seems to be nothing controversial or anything. (I don't speak Dutch, but its pretty straight forward to read, assuming you know German, English and Scandinavian languages). It simply shows the value of various measures as used in the Free Brugge, of the West Flanders in Belgium. el is an elle, voet is a foot, roede is rod, and there are also units for measuring cereals, milk, butter etc. The one thing I don't understand is the elle divided in 16 taillen, which in the Dutch I know means 16 waists, which does not make much sense (and duim is thumb/inch, vinger is finger). It may even be some word only used in the Flanders - I can ask around if you think it is important. -- Egil 16:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

IVC

since you seem to be on top of metrology, could you maybe look at Indus_Valley_Civilization#Science? Some unsourced claims there smell a bit kooky, esp.

They were among the first to develop a system of uniform weights and measures. Their measurements were extremely precise. Their smallest division, which is marked on an ivory scale found in Lothal, was approximately 1.704mm

(note the implicit claim that this Bronze Age society could measure stuff to the accuracy of a micrometer!) thanks, dab (ᛏ) 19:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I looked at the article. I can find the same figure elsewhere online, and similar figures as well. I'm pretty sure it's been reported in the literature just on that basis. I don't have any familiarity with the source material, though. So I would probably try to find out who originally added that fact, and get a cite from him or her.

I think the stated measurement is overly precise, but given a material as easy to work as ivory, it's not too hard to produce a scale with a high degree of accuracy. The trick isn't to produce one scale, it's to produce identical scales over a long period of time, of course...

Ken ^{talk|contribs} 23:04, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

that's my point. I can believe they had one notch of 'approximately 1.704mm', but for the final digit to be significant, they would have to repeatedly produce notches between 1.7035 and 1.7045 mm. That's impossible; nobody could do that before the 20th century. I imagine that "approximately 1.7 mm" would be more correct, and astonishing enough for the Bronze Age. dab (ᛏ) 06:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I still think that the original figure of 1.704 mm was probably reported in the literature, though I haven't seen the source of the figure. It's probably a case of someone averaging several markings, then not thinking about whether three decimals is reasonable in the measurement they report.

As for the Bronze Age capability to produce repeatable markings, I'll mention that woodworkers have worked reliably to the thousandth of an inch for hundreds of years. It's easier with modern tools, but there are common joints that go from too tight to assemble to too loose to stay together in a few thousandths. And a thousandth of an inch is about 25 thousandths of a millimeter. I don't see anything challenging, conceptually, to turning out a scale with markings that vary by less than a thousandth of an inch using the tools that might be available in the time period.

Ken ^{talk|contribs} 22:38, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Mile

I understand the unprotecting of this article, but the lack of discussion on the article talk page is because the whole issue progressed with regrettable speed to arbitration. Discussion hasn't been working on any of the articles involved, as far as I can see. The primary parties are still in opposition on the various pages they have been editing, and I'm somewhat afraid that unprotecting this article will only add fuel to the fire, as it was a major point of contention until protected.

Once the ArbCom has accepted or declined the arbitration, and (assuming acceptance) issued any temporary restraints they see fit, I woul think that unprotecting would be workable.

Ken ^{talk|contribs} 13:20, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Based on my experience I adopt an approach to article protection that can appear suicidal to some. I've found that unprotecting an article usually doesn't have the bad effects predicted, and if it does it only takes a few seconds to restore protection. As a result of your advice I'll be watching this article especially closely, but I won't reprotect unless I see sterile edit warring. I won't stand in the way of another sysop who thinks protection is best, though, so please do ask someone else if you really think it should be protected pending a decision from the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 13:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

There has been lots of disscussion on the talk pages. What I would like to see, and have not as yet, is anyone removing the disputed tags that have been slapped up all over the place. Correct me if I'm wrong but a dispute should state on the discussion page specifically what is disputed and not simply "You said this and I don't believe it" but some reason why it is disputed. That allows a dispute to be ended simply by providing a reference. Speaking of references, I sent you a link to where you can get a used copy of Klein for $3. Rktect 18:50, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Rktect arbitration

Since you left a statement, you may be interested to know that there is now a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rktect/Evidence. -- Egil 13:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia Pennsylvania

Hello there!

I'm writing to inform you that we are now forming the first local Wikimedia Chapter in the United States: Wikimedia Pennsylvania. Our goals are to perform outreach and fundraising activities on behalf of the various Wikimedia projects. If you're interested in being a part of the chapter, or just want to know more, you can:

• Contact us on IRC at #wikimedia-pa
• Join our mailing list
• Visit our blog at http://wmfpa.blogspot.com

Thanks and I hope you join up! Cbrown1023 talk 03:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Olivia De Berardinis for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Olivia De Berardinis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olivia De Berardinis until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

BuySomeApples (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)