Welcome!

Hello, Zyxwv99, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! GabrielF (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[[1]] That wasn't hard, was it? Gerardw (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it was nice to get feedback before hitting that Undo button. Thanks. Zyxwv99 (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And don't worry about it if you do something and it gets reverted because of some guideline you weren't aware of -- that happens to all of use sooner or later. Gerardw (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Avoirdupois, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sack (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem fixed. Zyxwv99 (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you had finished! --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. When I get an edit conflict warning, I just copy whatever I wrote, then "leave page" and try again. I'm just glad someone else is taking an interest in this article. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Drop (unit), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Minim (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem fixed. Zyxwv99 (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zyxwv99. You have new messages at Category_talk:Human-based_units_of_measure#Mistake_to_include_entire_systems.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Zyxwv99. You have new messages at DBigXray's talk page.
Message added 13:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just shot RnH.com an email asking if I transcribed it incorrectly from my copy of the script back in the day. Their site has the "ae" spelling as well. But "oe" is right out. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just patching gaps using Google; I see that you actually know something about the topic!--Old Moonraker (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment, but I'm no expert, just an enthusiast. Zyxwv99 (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello
Your revision to Avoirdupois, from Avoirdupois#British adaptation to Avoirdupois#Post-Elizabethan, was made by you some 73 revisions back between 2012-02-09T15:17:02‎ and 2012-02-13T20:33:48‎ You obviously would have no idea about the havoc you unintentionally created to the link within the Template:Convert/TonCwt to t. Example {{TonCwt to t|35|4|lk=on}} which gives 35 long tons 4 cwt (78,800 lb or 35.8 t). Click on the link and you will see what Imean. It took me a bit of time to track this down. Please see Template talk:Convert/TonCwt to t#Just curious. Cheers , Peter Horn User talk 00:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Left a reply on the talk page over there. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned the pound in the (obsolete) Florentine system. Could you define the former and compose an article about the latter? Peter Horn User talk 17:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I worked on the Avoirdupois article. I am not an expert on the Florentine weight system. Instead, I have read lots of books and articles on English weights and measures, mainly reliable secondary sources. They are the ones who mention Florentine weights. There is a reference in the Avoirdupois article to a paper by Skinner that explains the connection. The first time I read it, I was skeptical because the theory is so complex and convoluted, it reminded me of 19th century crackpot theories. However, I later discovered that other theories on the origins of the avoirdupois system have fallen by the wayside, and that Skinner's theory is widely accepted by contemporary scholars. I'm not even sure if the Florentine pound is directly relevant, since it was something like the Florentine woolsack that was the link.

It would be great if someone could write an article about the Florentine system, but I'm pretty busy these days, working on a wavelength to RGB/HEX convertor. The idea is that you type in a wavelength number, and you get an RGB value along with a color swatch showing what it looks like. It will be open-source and modular, with one module to pick a color space such as sRGB or Adobe RGB 98, another one for the viewing conditions of the source of the wavelength (brightness, lighting conditions), a module for physiology, including stuff like MPOD (macular pigment optical density) and genetics (ser180ala heterozygosity, etc.) The point is, it's just complicated enough to keep me pretty busy. Zyxwv99 (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Zyxwv99: what language are you using for your tool? R actually has some pretty good tools for going from single wavelength to RGB, but I've yet to find a package anywhere (for R or otherwise) to go from spectral signature to RGB. I even tried to teach myself how to use Blender[2] as I received recommendations that they had a complete color model. Unfortunately that seemed to be based on the original CIE 1931, which produces awful results. In any case, I'd be interested in collaborating with you on a GitHub-type open source project if you're interested. Pagelm (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC) (MPagel on GitHub)[reply]

I made an edit to Thanksgiving thinking that I was removing editorializing, and you removed the edit with the same motivation! To me, the language you restored makes it sound like those who enjoy the commercial aspect are the norm and those who do not are "the different people"; that is, it sounds like editorializing to me. The language I was hoping to see instead labeled, in a positive manner, the two terms and their associated supporters. Please comment further on why you reverted the edit; perhaps we can find some more optimal language.

Thank you Leegrc (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For me, this is a linguistic issue. A huge percentage of words in any language are misnomers. For example, positive and negative electrical charge were named before electrons were discovered. Then it became obvious that the names were backwards (electricity flows from negative to positive) but by then it was too late, the words positive and negative were already in common use. On the other hand, there are situations where if enough people make an effort to reform a word, the word will be changed. When I was young we had actresses, waitresses, and stewardesses, now they are actors, food servers, and flight attendants. That was because of feminists had convinced enough people that these words needed to be changed. People who make dictionaries and style guides don't care who's right or wrong because that's not their job, they just care about how people actually use words. When a new word hits critical mass, it ends up in the dictionary.

Right now Black Friday is a common term for the day after Thanksgiving, used by people who don't know or care why it's called that. What your wording suggests is propaganda for a boycott of a common term on the grounds that continuing to use the term constitutes "support" for an ideological position that you don't agree with. In effect, it's saying "you are either with us or against us." In fact, most people are neither, because it's not their issue. Another analogy is people who object to gender-specific pronouns such as him or her. The continued use of those pronouns does not constitute support for an anti-feminist agenda, but simply habit, inertia, and the convenience of using terms that are widely understood. Zyxwv99 (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clear explanation. I have tried again with an edit to Thanksgiving. The edit accomplishes two things. First it puts "Black Friday" in the same sentence as "popular shopping" so that it is clear that the name "Black Friday" doesn't come from, say, the fact that schools are closed. I hope that that part is not controversial. Second, I add Buy Nothing Day parenthetically. If you edit that second aspect, please preserve the first, assuming that it is to your liking. Thank you —Leegrc (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That looks better. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zyxwv99,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Dipnotetrapodamorph for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. ChicXulub (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zyxwv99,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Dipnotetrapodamorpha for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. ChicXulub (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It was only a redirect page but I spelled it wrong so it had to go. Zyxwv99 (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You have a nice description at the start of the peripheral vision page, and some figures that you may have created yourself. Are they published anywhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YesYes42 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No, I just created them for the article. I used Inkscape. Zyxwv99 (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you work in a field related to vision, but would it be possible to publish this somewhere so that it can be referenced in the scientific literature, or would you be interested in working jointly on a short letter or article? YesYes42 (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is a follow-up to the comments above from a couple of years ago. I included a reference to your Wikipedia figure that describes the ranges for visual angles in an article about "Far peripheral vision". This is "Mini-review: Far Peripheral Vision", in Vision Research 140 (2017) 96-105. This seems to be a visual region that has never been researched very much. The article does not include the figure, which is easily accessible online, but it lists the angles included on the figure, and essentially uses it as a source for using 60 degrees as a lower limit for "far peripheral vision". It will be interesting to see if someone follows up with a major review on the topic, and if they agree with this angle or not, but I communicated with a large number of knowledgeable people who deal with vision and this just seems to be a topic that nobody has ever really looked into very much. Your figure is nice and clear. YesYes42 (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Anatomy! We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of anatomy articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are involved in editing anatomy articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing wikipedia articles are:

• Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
• You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing anatomy articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
• We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
• We write for a general audience. Every reader should be able to understand anatomical articles, so when possible please write in a simple form—most readers do not understand anatomical jargon. See this essay for more details.

Feel free to contact us on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages! --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I had added a question to an earlier section above, about whether you would be able to publish your definitions for regions of peripheral vision in the scientific literature, or would be interested in working jointly on a short article. Just checking again. There is a level of clarity in your drawing that does not seem to be in the scientific literature, and it is readily available here on the web. If people had alternative suggestions, they would also be able to respond in a peer-reviewed publication. YesYes42 (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I have no interest in getting my diagrams into the scientific literature. That's because scientific literature is a closed system; it's for people with PhDs. Occasionally I see non-PhDs as co-authors, but only if they have special qualifications. For example, Thomas Edison had his own research laboratory with PhDs working for him. I've seen articles on astrophysics written by half a dozen PhDs plus one graduate student. Paleontologist Jenny Clack co-authored a paper with her fossil preparator Sarah Finney, but only after Finney had become one of the world's top experts on tetrapod fossils. What I do here on the Wikipedia is a hobby, and I'd like to keep it that way. Zyxwv99 (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your well-sourced and well written edits to Composition of the human body. Many thanks! Tom (LT) (talk) 08:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you so much for the hard work done on the historical uses of pink and blue as gendered colors. I am in awe and eternally grateful! Would love to credit you by name, if you don't mind. Jo Paoletti. Reply by talk or jpaol AT umd DOT edu. Jo (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. I don't care to be credited by name, just make use to your heart's content. Just be careful with the three references to pink for girls, blue for boy relating to The Netherlands (1823, 1857, and 1882). The first two are from French tourists who were just passing through, the third from an Englishman who lived in the country, wrote two books on the folklore, but the custom had become obsolete by the time he arrived. The Dutch themselves never recorded this color scheme. The three foreigners all came from countries that had it though. Also, the 1887 Imbert de Saint-Amand seems unreliable, referring to a much earlier era. Zyxwv99 (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zyxwv99. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections 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.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a citation and link to the 2016 revision to U.S. Dai;y Values. David notMD (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^[1]

Thanks! Zyxwv99 (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is a follow-up to comments from a couple of years ago. I included a reference to your peripheral vision Wikipedia figure that describes the ranges for visual angles in an article about "Far peripheral vision". This is "Mini-review: Far Peripheral Vision", in Vision Research 140 (2017) 96-105. This seems to be a visual region that has never been researched very much. The article does not include the figure, which is easily accessible online, but it lists the angles included on the figure, and essentially uses it as a source for using 60 degrees as a lower limit for "far peripheral vision". It will be interesting to see if someone follows up with a major review on the topic, and if they agree with this angle or not, but I communicated with a large number of knowledgeable people who deal with vision and this just seems to be a topic that nobody has ever really looked into very much. Your figure is nice and clear. The article is apparently available for free download until 10/31/17 from https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1ViKD9jMTp4sP .

YesYes42 (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zyxwv99. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections 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.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zyxwv99. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections 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.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]