Glenn L

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions to the coolest online encyclopedia I know of =). I sure hope you stick around; we're always in need of more people to create new articles and improve the ones we already have. You'll probably find it easiest to start with a tutorial of how the wikipedia works, and you can test stuff for yourself in the sandbox. When you're contributing, you'll probably find the manual of style to be helpful, and you'll also want to remember a couple important guidelines. First, write from a neutral point of view, second, be bold in editing pages, and third, use wikiquette. Those are probably the most important ones, and you can take a look at some others at the policies and guidelines page. You might also be interested in how to write a great article and possibly adding some images to your articles.

Be sure to get involved in the community – you can contact me at my talk page if you have any questions, and you can check out the village pump, where lots of wikipedians hang out and discuss things. If you're looking for something to do, check out the community portal. And whenever you ask a question or post something on a talk page, be sure to sign your name by typing ~~~~.

Again, welcome! It's great to have you. Happy editing! --Spangineer (háblame) 11:42, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Style notes

Hi. I have just a few notes on math and style formatting. First, math notation should be (in most cases) italic, so instead of plain

m=x

one should write either

''m''=''x'' (html italic)

or

<math>m=x </math> (math tags).

Second, one should not use capitals in section names. So,

==Continued Fractions==

should be

==Continued fractions==

These are small things, but I thought I'd let you know. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

2008 Watchtower Library

Although I am baptized Witnesses of Jehovah, I can't get it since 2005. My first Watchtower Library is 1997 and 2001. Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank You Brother. Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi. I've fullfilled your request. Please review WP:RBK or ask me if you need any help. Pedro :  Chat  11:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Article Alexander Thomson nominated for deletion

If you're familiar with the range of Wikipedia articles about Jehovah's Witnesses, you've likely come across the name Alexander Thomson a few times. He wasn't a Witness, but he (very) occasionally had favorable things to write about Watch Tower publications. By no means was he a shill.

Someone (see diff) has moved to delete the article about Thomson, claiming that he is not notable (is not worthy of even a brief encyclopedic article). That seems odd to me, because Thomson is listed among only twelve persons having "played a significant role in the work of the Concordant Publishing Concern", publishers of the Concordant Literal Version of the Bible. He edited and wrote much Bible commentary under his own bylines, some of which is still in print. He contributed and edited articles in Unsearchable Riches[1] (now in its 100th year). Primarily because of having had his scholarship so substantially influence a notable Bible, Thomson is himself notable.

I have no sentimental attachment to Thomson, but I believe he is notable enough to keep from deletion. Feel free to add references to improve the article, or chime at the article's Talk regarding whether or not you'd prefer Wikipedia delete its article about this Alexander Thomson.--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Singular and plural possessive

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Powerpuff_Girls_Z&diff=310137539&oldid=310118804 Glenn L: "series" is singular, so the possessive would be "series's" WhisperToMe (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• In that case perhaps one should ensure it is standardized. Is there a regional variation (such as, is one form more common in one country than another?) - As per WP:ENGVAR the English used in the subject's country is to be used in the subject's article. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Element 112: Ununbium or Copernicium in Russian

You are more than welcome to discuss this issue at russian, czech and other relevant wikis, but otherwise we may not interfere in their business. If they decide to name it copernicus, our BOTs (which are just automatic programs) merely fix present redirects to there. That interwiki link is invisible, i.e. you don't see the name until you click it or put mouse over. There is no use fighting BOTs (equivalent to Don Quixote fighting windmills). Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I was worried by such issues in the past, but not anymore - there are so many errors, mistakes and typos in the names of people, articles, etc. on interwikis that if I started fixing that I would be lost for English WP forever :-) Materialscientist (talk) 05:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent MIDI uploads.

No, I appear to have uploaded the wrong file. Thanks! Hyacinth (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

All Fifths

Hello. Please be more careful when you edit articles in Wikipedia. Your recent edit to the All fifths article was not only wrong, but misunderstandings like that can be very easily avoided when people actually read the sentences they are editing, even if they don't know anything about the subject. Firstly, the sentence links to the New Standard Tuning article which explains the tuning in the first paragraph. Secondly, the sentence itself clearly explains that the New Standard Tuning is not an all-fifth tuning, but a predominantly fifth-based alternative, addressing the practical difficulties of a pure fifth-based tuning. Also, please don't mark such edits as minor edits. It only makes human errors like this more difficult to spot. It is always a good idea to double-check and reread things when you see something that apparently does not make sense in a Wikipedia article. It may not always be wrong. Thanks—J. M. (talk) 08:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Eclipses

Hi Glenn, Perhaps you'd like to join my eclipse wikiproject? There have been others who have worked on eclipses, but none actively now.

Wikipedia:WikiProject_eclipses#Signed_up

If so, you can add this to your user page: {{Boxboxtop}} {{User:SockPuppetForTomruen/Userboxes/WikiProject solar eclipses}} {{Boxboxbottom}}

SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

periodic table

Hope i didnt muck up - the vandalism was such I wasnt sure if I had gone back far enough - at least if see your moniker there I know to revert that far if they are ips with fun on their mind :( SatuSuro 06:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Long and short scales

Glenn, That was a huge upgrade to the above article that you reverted - with each step summarised in the edit log. It would have been helpful if you had expressed a reason / any reason for the reversion. Was there one piece you didn't like or more? Ian Cairns (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:Natural logarithm

Well, I gave them an only warning on March 5th, when they'd been vandalizing Hotel Rwanda for a while. They've had no warnings in the 20 days since then, so I think it's easy to assume they've forgotten about it (if it's even the same person using the IP). I did give them a level 2 warning for the recent stuff, and if they continue to vandalize now we can work our way up and eventually report them. ALI ^{nom nom} 14:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

apropos history section [Logarithm]

Please re-read the section which you re-inserted - it talks about the etymology of the term "algorithm" and also has justification being placed in an article about the history of algebra. It does not fit here.
The term "logarithm" has different etymological roots.
217.236.174.10 (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Newton-Raphson

Hi Glenn, FYI I have reverted your edit to Square root#Computation, added some information and a very nice ref. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have marked you as a reviewer

I have added the "reviewers" property to your user account. This property is related to the Pending changes system that is currently being tried. This system loosens page protection by allowing anonymous users to make "pending" changes which don't become "live" until they're "reviewed". However, logged-in users always see the very latest version of each page with no delay. A good explanation of the system is given in this image. The system is only being used for pages that would otherwise be protected from editing.

If there are "pending" (unreviewed) edits for a page, they will be apparent in a page's history screen; you do not have to go looking for them. There is, however, a list of all articles with changes awaiting review at Special:OldReviewedPages. Because there are so few pages in the trial so far, the latter list is almost always empty. The list of all pages in the pending review system is at Special:StablePages.

To use the system, you can simply edit the page as you normally would, but you should also mark the latest revision as "reviewed" if you have looked at it to ensure it isn't problematic. Edits should generally be accepted if you wouldn't undo them in normal editing: they don't have obvious vandalism, personal attacks, etc. If an edit is problematic, you can fix it by editing or undoing it, just like normal. You are permitted to mark your own changes as reviewed.

The "reviewers" property does not obligate you to do any additional work, and if you like you can simply ignore it. The expectation is that many users will have this property, so that they can review pending revisions in the course of normal editing. However, if you explicitly want to decline the "reviewer" property, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC) — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

List of meantone intervals - Sandbox

I'm working on updating the List of meantone intervals but wish to test my edits here first before proposing the changes to its Talk page.

The following is a list of intervals of extended meantone temperament. These intervals constitute the standard vocabulary of intervals for the Western common practice era. Here 12-EDO refers to the size of the interval in 12 equal divisions of the octave temperament, which is the most common meantone temperament of the modern era, 19-EDO to 19 equal temperament, 31-EDO to 31 equal temperament, and 50-EDO to 50 equal temperament. Note that several of the intervals for 31-EDO and 50-EDO are absent from the table.

In How Equal Temperament Ruined Harmony (and Why You Should Care), pp. 91-92, Ross W. Duffin states: "specifying that the major semitone should be 3/2 the minor semitone [a 3:2 ratio] creates a 31-note division of the octave, which, in turn, closely corresponds to extended-quarter-comma meantone... the 5:4 ratio [whose] extended-sixth-comma meantone corresponds to the 55-division... extended-fifth-comma meantone [corresponds to] the 43-division of the octave [in which the] ratio of the major to minor semitone is 4:3." The other meantone correspondencies: a 1:1 ratio producing a 12-division (1/11-comma meantone)... "2:1 [which] results in a 19-division (1/3-comma meantone)... 5:3, which results in a 50-division" (2/7-comma meantone) are derived from these statements. [Brackets added for readability.]

The column of ratios gives a ratio or ratios approximated by the interval in septimal meantone temperament. An augmented interval is increased by a chromatic semitone, and a diminished interval decreased.

12-EDO (≈1/11c)		Quarter comma	19-EDO (≈1/3c)		31-EDO (≈1/4c)		50-EDO (≈2/7c)		Note (from C)	Roman No.	Name	Classic ratios	Septimal ratios
Steps	Cents	Cents	Steps	Cents	Steps	Cents	Steps	Cents
0	0	0.0	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0	C	I	Unison	1:1
			1	63.16	1	38.71	2	48	D	II	Diminished second	128:125	36:35
1	100	76.0			2	77.42	3	72	C♯	♯I	Chromatic semitone	25:24	21:20
			2	126.32	3	116.13	5	120	D♭	♭II	Diatonic semitone	16:15, 27:25	15:14
2	200	193.2	3	189.47	5	193.55	8	192	D	II	Major second	9:8, 10:9
			4	252.63	6	232.26	10	240	E	III	Diminished third	144:125	8:7
3	300	310.3			7	270.97	11	264	D♯	♯II	Augmented second	75:64, 125:108	7:6
			5	315.79	8	309.68	13	312	E♭	♭III	Minor third	6:5, 32:27
4	400	386.3	6	378.95	10	387.10	16	384	E	III	Major third	5:4
			7	442.11	11	425.81	18	432	F♭	♭IV	Diminished fourth	32:25	9:7
5	500	503.4			12	464.52	19	456	E♯	♯III	Augmented third	125:96	21:16
			8	505.26	13	503.23	21	504	F	IV	Perfect fourth	4:3, 27:20
6	600	579.5	9	568.42	15	580.65	24	576	F♯	♯IV	Augmented fourth	25:18, 45:32	7:5
			10	631.58	16	619.35	26	624	G♭	♭V	Diminished fifth	36:25, 64:45	10:7
7	700	696.6	11	694.74	18	696.77	29	696	G	V	Perfect fifth	3:2, 40:27
			12	757.89	19	735.48	31	744	A	VI	Diminished sixth	192:125	32:21
8	800	772.6			20	774.19	32	768	G♯	♯V	Augmented fifth	25:16	14:9
			13	821.05	21	812.90	34	816	A♭	♭VI	Minor sixth	8:5
9	900	889.7	14	884.21	23	890.32	37	888	A	VI	Major sixth	5:3, 27:16
			15	947.37	24	929.03	39	936	B	VII	Diminished seventh	128:75, 216:125	12:7
10	1000	1006.8			25	967.74	40	960	A♯	♯VI	Augmented sixth	125:72	7:4
			16	1010.53	26	1006.45	42	1008	B♭	♭VII	Minor seventh	9:5, 16:9
11	1100	1082.9	17	1073.68	28	1083.87	45	1080	B	VII	Major seventh	15:8, 50:27	28:15
			18	1136.84	29	1122.58	47	1128	C♭	♭VIII	Diminished octave	48:25	40:21
12	1200	1200.0			30	1161.29	48	1152	B♯	♯VII	Augmented seventh	125:64	35:18
			19	1200.00	31	1200.00	50	1200	C	VIII	Octave	2:1

— Glenn L (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Deceased Governing Body members

Thanks for supply a source confirming T. Jaracz's death. In the absence of any other reliable source, it's better than nothing, however it would be preferable to cite a brief obituary appearing in a reliable source such as a newspaper instead of a 1.4MB PDF file. I therefore might delete this reference if I locate another one.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, I've identified www.ultimatebiblereferencelibrary.com as an unofficial JW-centric personal website, with a domain name registered from homestead.com. In general, that posits it as not a reliable source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Two similar drawings, one of which apparently pointless

Hi Glenn, have you read my latest comment in Talk:Just intonation? Don't you think it would be wiser to show only one of the two pictures about 5-limit scales built by stacking blocks? The graph starting from fundamental frequency has a rationale, because the starting pitch is not arbitrary. What's the point of showing the other one, if the other one does not show the actual method used for computing the pitches? (in which some notes are built by going first up then down, and others by going first down then up). Paolo.dL (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've made minor improvements on your edited notes (Thanks for the suggestions!), but I'll leave both for now until Woodstone decides whether to keep one or both of them. − Glenn L (talk) 04:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Read this only today. Now I'm truly surprised. I made the "pointless" version as response to the remark of Paolo " I cannot understand why, in your hystogram, you represented factor 3 and 5, rather than the ratios 3:2 and 4/3." Furthermore there is no such thing as "first up" then "down". Multiplication by a factor is commutative: the order makes no difference. −Woodstone (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Woodstone, creating a new diagram with a new arbitrary starting point was your idea, not mine, and totally indipendent from my remark. I never implied that the order of factors makes a difference in the final outcome! First up (e.g. by a fifth), then down (e.g. by a third) is implied by the method shown in the construction table, for some intervals. Anyway, this discussion belongs in Talk:Just intonation, where I posted a message for you 10 days ago. My posting in this section was addressed to Glenn L, who decided to publish your diagram in the article. Paolo.dL (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Approximated ratio in Pythagorean tuning

Great edit in Pythagorean tuning. How did you find out that the ratio 236/221 was approximated? This is a problem due to the Excel format I used to express ratios as fractions. I did not realize it approximated fractions. I used the personalized format "???/???", and got a fraction 1024/769 for TT, so I thought it was not restricted to integers with 3 figures. Did you compute the correct ratio? I can do it in Excel, but it would require two tables, one for the exponents of 2 and the other for the exponents of 3, computed separately as integer numbers, then a complex function to create the fractions as text. This would require an IF statement to decide whether to use the power in the denominator or nominator of the fraction, based on the sign of the corresponding exponent. As far as you know, is there a simpler way in Excel? --Paolo.dL (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

While Excel is great for decimal approximations of up to fifteen significant digits, the format "???/???" is perhaps the Weakest Link in its system. That fraction "1024/769" should be 1024/729 = (32/27)^2 and suggests that you can go up to 2^10 or 1024 for either numerator of denominator. I basically converted the ratio of the Pythagorean apotome, 2187/2048 = 3^7 / 2^11, into the simple continued fraction [1;14,1,2,1,3,9], which has as convergents 1/1, 15/14, 16/15, 47/44, 63/59, 236/221, 2187/2048. You can clearly see that 236/221 is the next to the last convergent, which converts to ≈113.6886 cents, whereas 2187/2048 ≈113.6850 cents. That's why I moved the smaller fraction to the end as I did. may wish to get this calculator for better fraction handling. − Glenn L (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, there would be several methods for better fraction handling, including computational software such as Matlab. But unfortunately none of them would allow me to easily produce graphs with conditional formatting... I think I will simply use double (for Pythagorean tuning) or triple (for 5-limit) calculation tables in Excel. Thank you for the explanations. I am impressed by your knowledge of both music and mathematics (I did not know about the apotome).

I had already noticed that you put the approximate ratio at the end of the equation, rather than in the middle, and the reason was clear to me after I converted it in cents. That's one of the reasons why I wrote "great edit". Thank you again, also for spotting my errors in sign, in the same section. --Paolo.dL (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I did it! It works, but I discovered that most of the ratios in Pythagorean tuning were approximated by Excel, and the problem is that the integers in the nominator and denominator of many fractions are HUGE. Did you know that the Wolf fifth in Pythagorean tuning was 262144/177147? :-D. It's impossible to fit all these numbers in a single table. I am forced to express the largest numbers (probably >999) using powers of 2 or 3. Take a look at this mess:

1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1
256/243 2187/2048 256/243 2187/2048 256/243 2187/2048 256/243 256/243 2187/2048 256/243 2187/2048 256/243 256/243
9/8 9/8 9/8 9/8 9/8 9/8 65536/59049 9/8 9/8 9/8 9/8 65536/59049 9/8
32/27 19683/16384 32/27 19683/16384 32/27 32/27 32/27 32/27 19683/16384 32/27 32/27 32/27 32/27
81/64 81/64 81/64 81/64 8192/6561 81/64 8192/6561 81/64 81/64 8192/6561 81/64 8192/6561 81/64
4/3 177147/131072 4/3 4/3 4/3 4/3 4/3 4/3 4/3 4/3 4/3 4/3 4/3
729/512 729/512 1024/729 729/512 1024/729 729/512 1024/729 1024/729 729/512 1024/729 729/512 1024/729 729/512
3/2 3/2 3/2 3/2 3/2 3/2 262144/177147 3/2 3/2 3/2 3/2 3/2 3/2
128/81 6561/4096 128/81 6561/4096 128/81 128/81 128/81 128/81 6561/4096 128/81 6561/4096 128/81 128/81
27/16 27/16 27/16 27/16 32768/19683 27/16 32768/19683 27/16 27/16 27/16 27/16 32768/19683 27/16
16/9 59049/32768 16/9 16/9 16/9 16/9 16/9 16/9 59049/32768 16/9 16/9 16/9 16/9
243/128 243/128 4096/2187 243/128 4096/2187 243/128 4096/2187 243/128 243/128 4096/2187 243/128 4096/2187 243/128
2/1 2/1 2/1 2/1 2/1 2/1 2/1 2/1 2/1 2/1 2/1 2/1 2/1

− Paolo.dL (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I just discovered that Excel can do it automatically if I choose this format: "??????/??????". And it seems to give the same result with larger formats like "????????/????????". However, I wouldn't have trusted Excel, without checking the correct values with exponent additions/subtractions. − Paolo.dL (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Selection of base note for quarter comma meantone

Hi Glenn, I was wondering if you could give us your advice in Talk:Quarter-comma meantone. In this subsection of the talk page, you can find a summary which was appreciated by Woodstone, and can be useful for you to understand the main topic of this discussion. You can also read our (still incomplete) conclusion. We decided to use a symmetric stack, but we still need to decide whether to use a D-based or C-based symmetric stack of fifths in the article. --Paolo.dL (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinion. I am glad you agree with us. It's great to reach such a clear agreement. Paolo.dL (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry!

My apologies for this. I had too many browser tabs open and confused myself. Just to reassure you, I did actually block the right person, it was only the accompanying message that went astray.

The reason I had your talk page up was to let you know that I've declined your AIV report purely because it was stale; the IP hasn't edited in a few hours and it's a shared IP. However, I wanted to reassure you that we don't block editors for reverting vandalism even if they go over 3RR; vandalism reverts are an exception to the rule. All the best (and feel free to send a WP:TROUT my way if you wish!) EyeSerene^talk 08:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"Canceled" is correct

When the first syllable of a word is the accented one, the final consonant is not doubled. CANCELED is the correct spelling. I was taught this in grammar school. 71.115.6.34 (talk) 07:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

...unless you're in the UK and using British English - then it's cancelled. 91.85.33.161 (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Be careful

Hi Glenn, would you mind to pay attention to the logic structure of the paragraphs you edit? Your latest edit to quarter-comma meantone started as an interesting idea, but was not carried out to its end.

When you edit a text such as that, carefully edited, with a clean logical structure, with short and focused sentences, using expressions such as "By definition" and "In short" to avoid tedious repetitions which would distract the reader, you should not edit unless you have time to produce another "perfect" version.

Your first sentence was out of focus, clogged with unnecessary text, referring to the main definition of the article, already given in the previous section. And you even deleted, in that sentence, the main concept: the wolf is 11epsilon sharper than 700 cents, because the other 11 fifths are 1 epsilon flatter, and 700 MUST be the average. This is the logical foundation for everything else the axiom from which interesting conclusions are reached. I also explained this in the talk page. If you want to say something else, at least say it in another sentence, preferably after the conclusion is reached, if possible.

I did my best to fix your edit, which (I want to repeat it) contained very interesting information, so you can see the difference between a finished job (or something very close to it) and your edit, between a clean logical structure, and a bunch of tangled concepts. This happened already other times in the past. So, please, do not edit when you are in a hurry, especially when the text already has a clear focus and a clean logical structure. You know me. So, please excuse me for my bluntness, and remember I still have a high esteem for you. But I prefer to be sincere.

− Paolo.dL (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. That's why my last edit I accepted all your previous edits except your semitone location (using the "11-10-9-8-7" pattern instead) and your linking "minor second" and "augmented unison", which redirect to semitone. − Glenn L (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. I will make Pythagorean tuning consistent. By the way, another inconsistency of yours, in the same paragraphs, was using a space before and after the minus sign. You did not notice that in the same paragraphs, before your edit, both the plus and the minus sign were used without spaces. But you should have. I don't care if you want to use spaces. It a matter of personal preference. But please be consistent. I will edit Pythagorean tuning with spaces, according to your personal preference. If you don't mind, please make Quarter-comma meantone consistent. − Paolo.dL (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just made those edits to Quarter-comma meantone. Thanks again. Will check Pythagorean tuning when you finish editing it. − Glenn L (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again. I will use minus and plus without spaces. I agree with you (it makes the bulleted sentences shorter, which is good). I will not add the minor second. Please do it if you like. (Let me first finish my edits). Paolo.dL (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Factorial

Hello, Glenn. Recently you reverted my edit to the Factorial article, with the following comment: When you add or change content, as you did to the article Factorial, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability.

I don't think I violated the policy of verifiability. The main point in that page states "This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation."

The article is about mathematical facts. There's no way a simple mathematical fact like this one can be "likely to be challenged". In particular, this fact can easily be verified by any mathematician without the need to check additional sources. (Also, it was already included in some ~ 2 years old versions of the page.) Additionally, the rationale for this edit was also explained in the discussion page before the edit was made, along with a sketch of the proof. If necessary, I can provide the proof in more detail the discussion page (it is indeed a trivial consequence of the content already included on the page).

Please restore the content you removed.

Thanks, Misof (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I restored it. But please make it more professional (as in the rest of the article) so someone else won't revert it later. — Glenn L (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Generalized continued fractions

The proper definition of a "Continued Fraction"

Thank you for properly incorporating the "Generalized continued fraction" heading into the Continued fraction article.

Would you be able to have a look at Sine#Continued fraction? I wanted to write it using quotients or in the notation of Pringsheim, but I think I've made a mess of it. I'm sure there's a better way to do it, but I'm not that familiar with the notation. —Pengo 00:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank You! For Improving an Article I Fleshed Out 10 Years Ago.

Hi, Glenn L. Years ago I put a lot of time and effort into providing a solid basic introduction to the Analytic Theory of Continued Fractions, a subject of which both of us are clearly very fond. For a variety of reasons, none of which have anything to do with you, I have been absent from Wikipedia for quite a while. Now I'm back.

When I took a fresh look at the lovely old girl on which I had lavished so much time & attention ten or eleven years ago I was gratified to see that somebody -- you! -- had added to her beauty and depth so that she is now three times as pretty and at least five times as useful as the mere skeleton I left behind when my extended absence began.

Thank you! DavidCBryant 08:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Grouped Barnstars

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I, Mikhailov Kusserow, hereby award Glenn L with The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for outstanding achievement in countering vandalism. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for your helpfulness in the subject of Jehovah’s Witnesses. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Awarded Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I, Mikhailov Kusserow, hereby award Glenn L with The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for reverting vandalism to my talk page. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 07:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	Awarded to Glenn L for his tireless and endless work on the laborious task of reverting the vandalism of Wikipedia articles. — Bryan Anderson (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Awarded Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for your tireless efforts and your integrity. — Bryan Anderson (talk) 02:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So many colors

I was just looking at the problem with the cadet colors, trying to track down the error, and then refreshed the page and it was fine. I see you fixed it, thanks.

I'm also troubled by the Value for Cambridge Blue of 193%, Ferrari Red of 120%, Olivine of 141%, Toolbox of 150% and Razzle dazzle rose 0f 204%. I think Value is a parameters whose values lie in[0,1]. Do you know?--SPhilbrickT 17:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

WPElcipses

I've been working on refactoring the project page. Would you consider adding your name here? Thanks. --TimL (talk) 07:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Done, with an improvement to the eclipse year wikilink (see the eclipse season article). -- Glenn L (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Your edit to Saros (astronomy)

Could you clarify? Without the 1/3rd day, the saros would not fall 120° apart in longitude with each successive occurrence. Why isn't the proper length 18 years 11 1/3 days? How can 6585.3213 days turn into a whole number of days? The math you've applied looks correct, so I'm a bit confused. --TimL (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The reasoning is that 18 tropical (mean solar) years is not a whole number of days when they are subtracted from 223 synodic months:

223 x 29.530589 = 6585.3213 d = 6585 d 7 h 42 m 40 s, or about 17 m less than 1/3 day;

18 x 365.242190 = 6574.3863 d = 6574 d 8 h 37 m 32 s, or about 38 m more than 1/3 day;

Thus the difference is = 10.9619 d = 10 d 23 h 5 m 8 s, or about 55 m less than 11 mean solar days.

Besides, the saros is 18 y 11 1/3 d only when there are 4 leap days. It's sometimes 18 y 10 1/3 d and even (though rarely) 18 y 12 1/3 d, as shown below.

In 22 saros cycles or 396 2/3 years (nearly four centuries), the fractional differences nearly cancel out, starting at the beginning of the 21st century:

18 y 11 1/3 d (4 leap days): early 2001-2019, 2037-2055, 2073-2091, 2091-2109 [2100 is not a leap year!], 2109-2127, 2145-2163, 2181-2199,

2199-2217 [again, 2200 is not a leap year!], 2217-2235, 2253-2271 [2289-2307 has just 3 leap days!], 2325-2343, and 2361-2379. Total = 12.

18 y 10 1/3 d (5 leap days): 2019-2037, 2055-2073, 2127-2145, 2163-2181, 2235-2253, 2271-2289, 2307-2325, 2343-2361, and 2379-2397 late. Total = 9.

18 y 12 1/3 d (3 leap days): 2289-2307 (only 2292, 2296 and 2304 are leap years). Total = 1.

Add them up: 11 1/3 x 12 = 136; 10 1/3 x 9 = 93; 12 1/3 x 1= 12 1/3. Sum = 241 1/3. Divide by 22: 10.9697 d.

If we remember that the fractional day is actually .3213 and not .3333, we subtract .0120 from the above,

getting 10.9577 d, a little closer to the 10.9619 d figure for one saros cycle.

Again, I am aware that we need the 1/3 day move 120° in longitude. But this is already taken into account when we see that 18 tropical years are just over 1/3 day past a whole number of days. So the two figures nearly cancel each other out, averaging nearly 11 d more than a whole number of tropical years in each saros cycle. — Glenn L (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow. You picked up something the authors of Totality: Eclipses of the Sun did not! They quote an exeligmos as 54 years 34 days. But the chart I created on exeligmos proves you are right -- well I think you have provided the proof in your math, but it's hard to for me to follow, the chart is easier for me to follow :). As a shortcut I looked at the next exeligmos following months with 30 days, the following eclipse was always 33 days (or very nearly so) later. Good work! --TimL (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Hello. Please be careful with dealing out warnings on vandalism. This edit you reverted was certainly not vandalism but a sourced entry that was perfectly valid. De728631 (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I took a second look after the reversion and stand corrected. I must have overlooked something when I first made the move. — Glenn L (talk) 04:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Area Code 442

Thank you for noting that area code 442 was missing from the California area code box. This has been corrected. It's people like you, who notice errors and omissions, that help improve the quality of Wikipedia. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

California Area Codes

I note your comment on my user page about the lack of additional overlays on the California area code maps. This is a problem with me because I live in Maryland and unless someone - like you - points it out to me I'm not aware of it (see earlier A/C 442 comment). One of the problems has been switching to an SVG-based editable map instead of image maps. Then each map must be edited to change the format to include the new area codes and to color code them for that area code. I am thinking one of two things. Use a single map for all of California, edit it to include the new A/C each time they add an overlay, and save that as the master map. Now here is where the choice comes in (1) use the same map for every single area code, which would then require only one change each time California adds a new area code; (2) use that map as a start, then for each map, change the one area code to make its color red.

The disadvantages are: (1) you don't get a unique map for each area code showing itself in red; (2) every time a new area code is added in California all 20 area code maps have to be updated. If A/Cs are being added like once a year or so that's not a lot of work, but it is still a bit tedious.

I want to move exclusively to SVG format maps in place of images, because SVG maps can be edited (they're just text files) whereas images have to be redrawn or material added. For example, changing the area code in an image requires erasing the old area codes then painting the new numbers in place. Changing an area code in an SVG map simply means editing the number to add the new numbers.

I am thinking, even if it is a bit more work to go with the multi-map format where each area code has its own map derived from the state map. I've also got a partially completed North America map, the intention is to have a single map for all of Canada, the US and the Caribbean countries, from which the individual state maps can be extracted. I also prefer having a state map show the area codes for the border states that touch it, e.g. showing the 775 and 702 area codes where they touch California. (Some area code maps for other states have only that state and don't show border states.)

In any case, I'll see about getting an updated California map to include the new area codes you mentioned. For the reasons I stated it will be an SVG map. I'd also like to hear any comments you have. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 05:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, the California map has been updated to reflect the changes to Oregon and the 760 area code overlay.

As per your comments about editing SVG images, the open-source Inkscape program does a marvelous job, but, you could edit an SVG image using Notepad if you wanted. Like HTML files, SVG images are actually text files. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk)

The black box problem was one I'm aware of; I could not figure out what was causing it. I reverted to the earlier image, added the Oregon and 442/760 images and it no longer has a black box. But I have a 'gotcha' You missed the 747/818 overlay! Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 07:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I also have a 'policy' in that when a page lists multiple area codes that the list be in numerical order. You can see this where I've done Texas area codes by looking at Area code 972 which has 3 area codes listed. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 07:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Black Box

Per the "Black Box" on the master map of California area codes, you need to purge the cache. Go to List of California area codes. Click on the image. It will say the file comes from the Wikimedia Commons. Click on description page there. At the top of the page, click on purge. Then reload the page and the black box should disappear. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

All Done!

All of the California area codes (including references on non-English pages) have references to SVG format images instead of the PNG ones. It was a pain but now, if it is necessary to add a new area code it will be considerably easier than having to update a new map for each one. Now it's one master map and each A/C has its color. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Everything As a subset of 'California Area Codes'

You'll get a notice your page has changed and wonder why, so I'll explain. When I posted the item about California Area Codes, I used one = to mark it. Everyone who's posted anything since then has been using == surrounding it which made everything after that a sub heading of the section on California Area Codes! So I've fixed it so the intervening entries not related to it have just 1 = surrounding them. I kind of caused the problem (even if indirectly) so I might as well fix it. :) Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

And I just moved this to the original topic to as not to be too confusing, but with no other change. — Glenn L (talk) 07:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Re:User: 70.138.99.13

Sorry I havent been on most of the day but I do see that the IP was taken care of, I am no admin myself so I couldnt do anything but re-report the IP for vandalism since the last warning given (If done). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

TNX

Hi Glenn. I must tell u: tank u 4 ur correction in Islamic calender article. We just destroy ur language. sorry 4 it. Oh, I'm not active in English wiki, i m in Persian. Tnx again. رهگذر غریب (talk) mordad ۳۱ ۱۳۹۰ a.h. = 19:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Triangular Numbers

One of my edits to triangular numbers was reverted with a note about testing. I thought that was a good edit, at least it looked good on the paNchreview. Can you tell me why, specifically, it was reverted? I had no intentions to cause any vandalism.Simicich (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Strange Brew 'Popular Culture' edit

The 'good faith' edit was on the money, I listen to that song every day, so I reinstated it with a link reference. Good shout. Hassles Your Hoff (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Tense

Please note that when a statement describes events that are ongoing (whether actual or hypothetical), it is correct to use the present tense to describe the ongoing events, regardless of whether the person who made the statement is alive or dead. For example:

Y Bill said Earth orbits the sun

Y Jane believed that people do not like new taxes

N Bill said Earth orbited the sun (the Earth doesn't stop orbiting the sun when Bill dies)

N Jane believed that people did not like new taxes (the perception that people do not like new taxes is not dependent on Jane being alive)

I have therefore partially reverted your change at Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello Glenn L! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Revision of my edit to the page for Robert Schneider

As a previous poster said, please be careful in dealing warnings about vandalism. Vandalism isn't just any incorrect edit, it is a defacement of the page. Simply correcting his origin from South Africa to Louisiana is not vandalism. Furthermore, it's not even wrong. On a page for a musician/artist, "origin" is not necessarily "birthplace." He was barely old enough to go to school when his family moved to Louisiana. It is where he grew up, and perhaps more importantly, it is where he formed his first band and began playing music. It is also the hearth of the Elephant 6 collective. 75.86.196.252 (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That's something you have to take up with Wikipedia

"Origin" is the phrase used in artists' infoboxes to refer to where they grew up and started their careers in art. Example: Bob Dylan: Born in Duluth, but origin is Hibbing. Joni Mitchell: Born in Fort MacLeod, but origin is Saskatoon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.86.196.252 (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Or you could just delete the infobox. Infoboxes usually have errors in them, and the information in them is redundant. No Wikipedia guidelines require them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Mount Gilboa

I noticed that you reverted my edit when I wikified the phrase Battle of Mount Gilboa on the Saul article. It appears that this link redirects to the King Saul article itself, but this wasn't obvious to me at the time - thanks for catching my mistake! Jarble (talk) 04:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Under the Dome recap

Thank you for the feedback regarding the recap of the Under the Dome episode "Let the Games Begin." I shall update the plot synopsis for the episode "The Fourth Hand" soon.—Therealdavo2 (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Melilla

Hello!!! I have put the reference of the Great Morocco. It is in Spanish. The text says:

Tras la obtención de la independencia en la primavera de 1956, el partido nacionalista marroquí Istiqlal impulsó la tesis reivindicativa del “Gran Marruecos”. Allal el-Fasi, el líder del Istiqlal, presentó el 3 de julio de 1956 en El Cairo un mapa en el que se identificaban los territorios norteafricanos que se consideraban expoliados a Marruecos por el colonialismo europeo y que, por tanto, se debían recuperar para conformar la extensión íntegra definitiva. Esta extensión fue denominada “Gran Marruecos” e incluía, además de los territorios entonces bajo control español (Ifni, Tarfaya, Ceuta, Melilla y Peñones), Mauritania (que había sido constituida como territorio del África Occidental Francesa en 1920), parte de lo que hoy es Argelia (las zonas de Tuat y Tinduf que habían sido ocupadas por los franceses entre 1925 y 1934, siendo Tinduf gobernado por la administración francesa del Protectorado hasta 1952), y Malí, hasta el río Senegal.

Translation:

After the obtaining of the independence in the spring of 1956, the nationalistic Moroccan party Istiqlal stimulated the protest thesis of the " Great Morocco ". Allal the-Fasi, the leader of the Istiqlal, presented on July 3, 1956 in Cairo a map in which there were identified the North African territories that were considered to be pillaged to Morocco by the European colonialism and that, therefore, had to recover to shape the complete definitive extension.

This extension was named " Great Morocco " and it was including, besides the territories low Spanish control at the time (Ifni, Tarfaya, Ceuta, Melilla and Crags), Mauritania (that had been constituted as territory of the Western French Africa in 1920), it departs what today is Algeria (the zones of Tuat and Tinduf that had been occupied by the Frenchmen between 1925 and 1934, being Tinduf governed by the French administration of the Protectorate up to 1952), and Mali, up to the river Senegal.

The source is LA FRONTERA TERRESTRE ARGELINO-MARROQUÍ: DE HERENCIA COLONIAL A INSTRUMENTO DE PRESIÓN. Author: Ana Torres García. Page number 9. [2]

Can it put? A greeting. --Tucídides (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hebrew calendar

Hello, I'm StevenJ81. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Hebrew calendar because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Using a Christian-oriented site to offer a Jewish calendar is at best disruptive on a page like this. There are plenty of NPOV calendar sites already listed at the bottom of the article. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply on User talk:StevenJ81 moved here.

I certainly did not mean to post an offensive NPOV reference to Hebrew calendar. Thanks for fixing the ref and keeping the calendar year change. -- Glenn L (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

NP. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Aly Michalka, "Brooke"?

Hi Glenn, thank you for the addition to my edit for Aly Michalka. Are you sure that the characters are intended to be the same person? I know that the show has used actresses as different characters, but the two Brooke's seem distinct. One is Jenny's potential girlfriend and the other is a soccer mom from the 2003 episode, plus they are 10 years apart. I'm happy to leave it, but it seems questionable. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

CN talk page

Hello. You recently removed an addition I made to the List of shows broadcast by Cartoon Network talk page. I put that message there because there was a conflict with the page and this was my reason for how I was editing the page. Your clean up of it was unnecessary.2601:2:5400:2E1:78DE:7421:7358:FC13 (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

List of country calling codes

The ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes 'AC' and 'TA' have been deleted, and these islands now share 'SH'. However they remain exceptionally reserved as UPU codes. Maybe this is enough to keep them in the calling codes table? Note that SH & "TA" share a calling code 290, but "AC" uses 247.

Is there a better way to remove the deleted "AC" & "TA" ISO codes?
Or just leave them?

Copyeditor42 (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Equal(ly) tempered

Hi Glenn

Sorry about this - should we take it to the article's Talk page? I see the grammatical argument but the usage ... I can't quite hear it like that. I might have a fish around for sources - but I am not up for a fist fight over it anyway! Cheers DBaK (talk) 11:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

China?

This edit seems to be unsourced, though I was even more puzzled by your edit summary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Eritrea.—Glenn L (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Glenn L (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Gotham City

Hi. Please do not add uncited material to articles, as you did with this edit to Gotham City. I know you don't edit here that often, but you've accumulated a significant amount of edits since 2005, so I'm assuming you know by now that violates Wikipedia's Verifiability policy, which requires material to be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the text in the form of an inline citation. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)