User talk:Beefman - Knowledge

1214:

Orangemarlin, who apparently sees himself as the underdog defender of truth on this topic, replied. I initially deleted these comments, which in my view were flames and at minimum violated the 'talk page is not a discussion forum' concept. After Orangemarlin complained, I reinstated the comments in a new section of the talk page. Orangemarlin apparently has me confused with his perceived foes on this topic, and went nuts. Upon checking wikipedia today, I found this administrivia stuff, and the original two offtopic comments (since grown into a flame war) back in the inappropriate section of the talk page. I've moved them once again and hopefully that will be the end of it.

1384:'s page, that currently has been under censorship from User SherryNugil that does not want to include the current status of the Lisi's theory and that wants to keep all the articles and interviews and tv appearances and blog entries and forum discussions about Lisi. Not even for Nobel Prize Laureates there is such a complete list. I am also reporting that user for several reasons and it would be good if you could participate to the discussion giving your opinion, given that in the past you contributed to that page. Look at the discussion page for the last happenings. 501:, and Charles is well known in tuning theory circles as a vigorous self-promoter. That said, LucyTuning may be notable, in that several musicians have recorded music using it. 88-ET is, theoretically speaking, a much more general concept, but it may not be as notable as LucyTuning (it seems silly to have an entry for every equal temperament through, say, 200, but if we tried to discuss all important ETs on the equal temperaments page, it would no doubt be attacked for being too long... sigh). In this case I would suggest deleting the redirect only. 392:? If so, and you feel that its already unbounded by copyright protection, please tell the copyright holder to send permission to the following e-mail address: "permissions-en at wikimedia dot org (permission-en@wikipedia.org)". If the copyright holder does send a message stating for a public release, the image will then be a public domain, if not, the image is still copyrighted and there is a corresponding tag for non-free image. You can choose from this 204: 1236: 766: 1529: 2228: 2153: 2080: 1802: 1737: 1873: 1599: 687:

authors. I believe LucyTune is Charles Lucy, who has on another forum expressed his belief that I nominated the page for deletion (I did not). Thanks, by the way, for reverting many of these edits. In fact the one case you did not revert, the Haken Continuum entry, where the external link LucyTune deleted was also a citation... I strongly doubt LucyTune was aware of the redundancy.

652: 2024: 1548:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 1360:

administrivia had been generated on your behalf, and the two comments in question become a veritable flame war, which I have again moved to their own section. I think it's great you're interested in science, but I think your behavior only enables the intelligent designers you fear. In any case, I hope you'll leave me out of it.

881:. You can write educative material and have more control over them than wikipedia articles. You can ask other people not to edit your material, you have academic freedom to make original research, you can enter into as much detail as you want, you can explain how the field has been mistreated, etc. You could start a page at 576:

I didn't take them as a personal affront. There should perhaps be a better mechanism to track down the author of a particular piece of content. But the best action must have been to look for a source yourself and/or make a note on the article's talk page. In this case, the best source I'm aware of

121:

absolutely correct. i just wondered, why beefman erased my distinction between the cent deviation of 7/4 in 31 equal and in 1/4 comma meantone. - as to the two and more augmented sixths: the problem may be this: if we read "1/4 comma meantone", we may first think of this tuning consisting of 12 tones

686:

Thanks Gwalla. I would like it to be known that the user LucyTune is apparently retaliating for the page deletion by removing references to my domain from wikipedia. There is no commercial activity of any kind (including ads) anywhere on my domain -- I host scholarly materials on behalf of several

475:

criteria. It may be that LucyTuning does not meet those criteria as well, although reading the page suggests that there may be more reliable sources documenting LucyTuning than 88-ET. If we can't find reliable sources, rather than merging LucyTuning into 88-ET, I think we would need to delete both

470:

Thanks for raising the concerns about LucyTuning...I did not realize that there were concerns about LucyTuning page being original research. If your comments are true, it would be a serious issue and would justify either deleting the page or some of the material on it. I proposed the merge because

369:

of the image. This makes it as easy as possible for readers, Wikipedians, and creators of derivative works to know what they can and can't do with the images in our encyclopedia. So that means you will need to provide the source of the image (i.e. where/what site you got it form.) At the moment, the

1359:

nor have I contributed even a single character to that page. The page in question was its Talk page, and the "edit war" consisted of 2 or 3 edits: me initially deleting your conversational material from the page, and then, after you complained, moving it to its own section. Today I found a bunch of

1213:

Thanks for letting me know, but I'm afraid I can't understand those proceedings. I can tell you what happened: An anonymous user added a comment to the end of a long-standing (well, not long-standing, but stable) thread on the Abiogenic Petroleum talk page. The comment was unrelated to that thread.

942:

So, to you sir. One might find they can trivially ref any one of these statements with a bit of Google-fu. For instance, much noise will return if they Google up "S-N", but narrowing the search ever so slightly with a bit of context, and *poof*! The second part will not be so easy, but by no means

1399:

Thanks for your efforts. It seems the petty tyrant wikipedia deletionists are at it again. As you probably saw, I already engaged them on the Exceptionally Simple Theory talk page. Unfortunately there's not much I can do, since editing such articles requires expertise in high-energy physics. The

992:

I guess the "problem" is that the bureaucracy is difficult to move. So it moves only when something embarrassing happens and then never re-considers the changes -- "we already talked about that". The ref mania started when the press started writing articles about whether or not you can trust the

564:

Requiring material to be sourced externalizes any debate about the truth but doesn't make Knowledge any more factual. It's a cheap way out of the truth problem and the tacit solution enacted by the Knowledge ecosystem was to present original research and unsourced material anyway. Tons of it.

570:

I apologise if you took the tags as a personal affront: they were meant as nothing of the sort. However, I must say that I find your (sarcastic?) remarks to be somewhat standoffish. I'm not suggesting a removal of any information with a fact tag, I'm simply advertising for confirmation, in an

525:

552:

If I was a "true wikipedian" and removed all the unsourced material, I would, in fact, be quite counter-wikipedian. I add fact tags to warn people of dubious or unsourced statements that should not necessarily be taken as fact. I make no assertion as to the factuality of embalming chemicals'

521:

558:

Because I see them as a form of vandalism. Flitting by and adding a few meaningless characters to a page. Editors show good intention by adding relevant information to an article, demonstrating expertise in its subject matter, demonstrating that they've taken any time at all to research the

388:, such as having a fair use rationale, in order for their use to be permitted (this is why the image has been repeatedly tagged for deletion). You say that you were given permission to post the image on Knowledge. Does this mean that the copyright holder explicitly released the image into the 2092:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

958:

I hope I gave ample clues to the extreme sarcasm being used (except for the part about thanking you for the content). I was more looking for a shoulder to cry on (I started editing in 2003 and used to inhabit the c2 wiki). You can read some of my thoughts on the, uh, culture changes

2165:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

565:

Almost all of it. And despite pretending to be impartial, it turned out to be the best truth system ever. And now all editors have a responsibility to that information. Inconsistently applying irrelevant rules in a fraction of cases does nothing to make good on it.

325:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on 1400:

deletionists of course have no such self-restraint, so they always win. They also have no lives outside of wikipedia, so they can also win by brute force of time spent here. Most folks like me have long ago given up. I just hang around for the dark humor.

1030:

Some discussion of its role as a power station prototype, perhaps in Criticisms. It's often sold to the public this way, despite extreme dubiosity. Also, some mention of the LIFE project, which is slightly more plausible in this dept. (but not much).

1814:

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

1749:

841:

Look, I think it's great that young people have taken such an interest in fighting things like homeopathy. But please, stick to easy targets like that and stay away from subjects that actually are technical. And please, keep the lolcats on 4chan.

935:.. it was written in 2006, long before the current infatuation with style over substance, when a lack of in-linking was not assumed to be evidence of an evildoer. Ahh, the good old days, when we came to write articles, not waste oh so much time 1929:

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to

1655:

1116:

Seriously? You have permission to move comments? Can you provide that diff for me to study? Thanks very much. I think you can reply here while you're blocked for disrupting the talk page with deletions for which you had no permission.

591:

Wait, your main shtick is Warhammer / anime / fictional universe content? Get out of town! That's so unlikely. Though it probably is all just as true and unique as the math and hard sciences content I had in mind when I made that

1966:

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in

1692:

496:

I often find Original Research issues to be hard to unravel. The LucyTuning entry is being heavily edited by Charles Lucy, usually from an anonymous account (we've had private correspondence about this). I'm a member of

1076:

the article. You are not the world's leading expert on it; furthermore, we all have edits to make. Your insulting comments to editors is getting out of hand. Your ownership of the article is getting out of hand.

1487:. 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 506:

Lucy's concept of ScaleCoding, on the other hand, is clearly original research (and also not notable). We're currently looking at a possible edit war over whether it should be mentioned on the LucyTuning page.

2271: 2193: 2120: 1842: 1777: 321:

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

111:

Yes, this is correct. The article does NOT state otherwise. The problem with your edit was that it assumed 1/4-comma meantone has only 12 tones. The article contradicts that in at least two places.

2255:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 2177:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 2104:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1826:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1761:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 396:. Unfortunately, permission for use on Knowledge alone is insufficient. The copyright owner must be willing to allow commercial, non-educational use and derivative works. I hope that helps. -- 791:

states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the

272:

is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Knowledge policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

2241: 1098:

Pardon? I've hardly touched the article. I have not deleted or vandalized comments, and I do have permission to move them. I would however suggest ignoring trolls from 189.32.132.90.

498: 236:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any 232:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

864:

use your personal expertise here to justify edits in wikipedia. Three editors (including myself) have already explained why they think that those sources are not good enough.

989:

article - I got tired of the wikilawers complaining so I went ref crazy. I was sent materials from the lab to help out in this quest. I'm reasonably happy with the results.

2044:

to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

1027:

Some reference to the fact that its maximum firing rate is on the order of several hours. And a reference to the recent work on high-power DPSS that could change this.

886: 1885:. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license. 1611:. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license. 1195: 1174: 2039: 526:

effort to better wikipedia. If I were to propose a removal of all unsourced information, many of the articles I contribute to would be gone, particularly those in

101:

sorry, dear beefman, 1/4 comma meantone is NOT identical with 31 equal, it only comes CLOSE. strictly speaking: it uses the interval 5/4, which 31 equal does NOT!

749:

Please provide better sources instead of reverting the edit again. I already explained on the talk page why those sources are not enough to remove that claim. --

225:

if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see

530:. I don't understand what was witty about my tags, and I'll have you know that I don't actually have any barnstars yet, nor do I know what "shaq-fu" is. 221:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 1897: 1623: 666: 1956: 1682: 315: 264:. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at 885:

and explain the theory in a level of detail that wouldn't be allowed here. It's a bit difficult to explain, it's better explained at this rough guide

476:

pages. My concern is that I cannot find any good sources for 88-ET. I will begin discussion by posting on LucyTuning's talk page...please join in.

993:

wiki. This is worrying, because it seems the only forward thinking part of the system is on the tech side, and the policy side is entirely reactive.

911:

What are you talking about? I provided sources before you even wrote on this page. Meanwihle you will find your threats will not alter my behavior.

1021:

In the ICF background, a sentence explaining that NIF is essentially a Teller-Ulam bomb where the fission primary has been replaced with a laser.

1888:

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

1614:

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

1976: 1702: 1560: 583: 527: 326: 276: 269: 241: 960: 157:

then my suggestion: NO repeated comparison 31 equal - 1/4 comma meantone in this huygens context. we have to eliminate redundancies anyway.

2293: 2207: 2134: 1856: 1512: 268:

carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at

1984: 1911:, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter 1710: 1637:, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter 1283: 330: 280: 866:

Next time you revert without giving a better source, I will simply report you to the edit warring noticeboard, and you might be blocked

582:

If I were to propose a removal of all unsourced information, many of the articles I contribute to would be gone, particularly those in

393: 1385: 1426:

An outside opinion would be useful. In particular, an outside opinion advising the ArbCom to accept the case would be helpful.

443:

images). Therefore if you do manage to obtain permission, all the better. And if you need any more help, just give me a shout. --

429: 354: 310:

but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Knowledge constitutes fair use. Please go to

275:

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our

2289: 2203: 2130: 1852: 1508: 1423:

I thought that it had gone on too long. As I said, the conduct issues are making resolution of the content issues impossible.

1259: 731: 597:

If you have some references, or some leads, please let me know, and I'll add them if I can, but I'd rather encourage you to be

533:

If you have some references, or some leads, please let me know, and I'll add them if I can, but I'd rather encourage you to be

2035: 1302: 792: 1960: 1952: 1686: 1678: 553:

confusion with PCP, one way or the other. I desire one particular answer, though: why did you call the tags "vandalism"?

522:

confusion with PCP, one way or the other. I desire one particular answer, though: why did you call the tags "vandalism"?

374: 322: 233: 2264: 2186: 2113: 1835: 1770: 1310: 808: 358: 1499:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

2276: 2198: 2125: 1847: 1782: 1544:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 1504: 1267: 812: 1015:

That's a great article, thank you! If every admin worked like you I would have no problem with the policies as such.

139:

Cents deviation of different meantones is too much detail for an overview article about microtonal music in general.

491:

Thanks for your reply. BTW, should I reply here, or on your talk page? I'm relatively new to the messaging system.

1980: 1945: 1938: 1706: 1671: 1664: 1549: 1356: 1327: 1065: 986: 776: 265: 226: 1433: 1314: 1243: 998: 948: 818: 662: 826:

For the last time, stop reverting that edit unless you can provide sources that actually support the removal. --

936: 610:

a concept! I already explained I think this is original information, though that may have changed since 2006.

213:. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 353:

Hello and thanks for your message. No worries, Knowledge's image copyright policy can get confusing. Firstly,

707:

np, see you need help on the progrom article too. Galassi is giving us both a hard time lately it seems...--

1540: 1263: 1255: 1181: 882: 804: 788: 771: 311: 302: 294: 260: 209: 74:), I ended up with the nickname "Papi". I had once accused (behind his back) a fellow classmate of being 2252: 2174: 2101: 2031: 2016: 1919: 1881: 1823: 1758: 1645: 1607: 1389: 1072:, and if you can convince me that ANY of the reasons to delete comments apply, convince me. You do not 894: 831: 784: 754: 739: 450: 403: 340: 2063: 2006: 1429: 994: 978:

Indeed, this is why I responded in kind. I do hope the post above comes across jokey and not serious!

944: 472: 1583: 1579: 1564: 1500: 1381: 1306: 796: 665:. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at 515: 284: 245: 57:, though on an unfamiliar topic: a more familiar topic (though still somewhat distant) is given by 444: 397: 334: 1893: 1619: 658: 644: 630: 542: 307: 58: 2235: 2161: 2088: 2055: 1998: 1997:-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the 1912: 1810: 1792: 1745: 1727: 1638: 1476: 1467: 1335: 1292: 1178: 1118: 1078: 780: 715: 53:. But in primary school I was mostly called "Pieres", which, surprisingly, turns out to be a 2054:-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the 2283: 2248: 2170: 2097: 1819: 1754: 1496: 1480: 1444: 1273: 1203: 890: 827: 750: 735: 677: 481: 218: 203: 2263:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2185:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2112:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1834:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1769:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1495:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2059: 2002: 1973:

Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged

1699:

Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged

1578:

without giving a reason in your edit summary. Please discuss the issue on the talk page

1173:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at

439:, so it won't be deleted. Knowledge does, however, prefer free images to non-free ones ( 78: 2260: 2182: 2109: 2051: 1994: 1831: 1766: 1575: 1492: 1484: 1054: 598: 534: 436: 422: 385: 222: 1018:

Here are some suggestions I am too lazy to do anything about myself (I know, I suck):

2256: 2178: 2105: 1827: 1762: 1488: 1331: 1073: 1069: 640: 626: 538: 389: 381: 71: 1545: 1452: 1401: 1361: 1287: 1215: 1150: 1099: 1060:

You do not have my permission to delete, fix, change, move, or otherwise vandalize

1032: 964: 912: 843: 709: 688: 611: 508: 214: 183: 140: 112: 24: 2227: 2152: 2079: 1801: 1736: 1447:

so I'm hesitant to edit there. The best summary I've written so far is probably

1380:

I would like to mention that I'm trying to get a reasonable and NPOV version of

1199: 878: 673: 477: 158: 123: 102: 1959:

justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See

1685:

justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See

651: 1714: 1349: 795:

to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains

62: 42: 122:

per octave, since very rare readers can imagine keyboards with split keys.

1907:

Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to

1633:

Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to

85:". That comment backfired, and soon everyone in the class was calling me 440: 38: 2267:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2189:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2116:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2023: 1838:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1773:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1177:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

2245:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

306:. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under 182:

I believe I've already fixed this paragraph. I just retouched it now.

90: 672:

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —

559:

subject, study the article's revision history, or read its talk page.

54: 45:) before I moved to the U.S. Actually, I was called by my nickname, 2297: 2211: 2138: 2067: 2010: 1860: 1721: 1587: 1568: 1516: 1460: 1437: 1409: 1393: 1369: 1297: 1223: 1207: 1184: 1158: 1132: 1107: 1092: 1040: 1002: 952: 920: 898: 851: 835: 758: 743: 720: 696: 680: 634: 619: 546: 485: 455: 435:, most likely the one you were talking about). It now satisfies the 408: 345: 287: 248: 161: 126: 105: 65: 50: 1443:

Where should I add it? I'm not listed as an involved party on the

46: 1483:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge

2280:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 732:

Talk:Abiogenic_petroleum_origin#Why_is_Glasby_source_outdated.3F

34: 2270:

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review

2192:

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review

2119:

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review

1841:

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review

1776:

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review

1574:

You have reverted the replacement of this image in the article

943:

impossible (hint: the math was from a well known Torontonian).

787:

with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the

887:

wikiversity:Help:Creating_educational_content_at_Wikiversity/2

86: 89:. To ameliorate the situation, I tried to rename myself as " 2022: 1871: 1597: 1527: 1234: 625:

If it is original research, it probably should be removed.

1925:

to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

1651:

to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

811:. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary 1309:. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek 2239:

is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All

2251: