User talk: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) 18:49, 24 July 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)

August 2010

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 48 hours, for repeated disruptive editing despite advice and warnings from other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. EyeSerene^talk 08:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)