User talk:Tamfang/Archive 2020
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Tamfang. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
My question
Hi,
I have now responded to your comment here:
Please check it out whenever you are able to. Futurist110 (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Like-Minded Persons' Club
Hello, Tamfang. After all this time, our paths haven't really crossed very much. After you posted that bit about p = momentum, I checked out your user page and realised I'd never visited it before (not that I can remember, anyway). What I saw there about good writing inspired me to award you this:
 |
The Like-Minded Persons' Club | |
| For displaying here common sense and uncommon good taste by agreeing with me or saying something I would have said if only I'd had the presence of mind, I hereby bestow upon you Provisional Membership of the Like-Minded Persons' Club. To qualify for Full Membership, simply continue to agree with me in all matters for at least the next 12 months. (Disagreements are so vulgar, don't you think? And, as Bruce Chatwin said, Arguments are fatal. One always forgets what they are about) |
Congratulaitons, and carry on the good work. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Obviously I am flattered, else I'd disqualify myself. —Tamfang (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
(cryonauts)
Hi Tamfang You mentioned that I might know something about early cryonics patients. I don't, but I do know who at Alcor would know, so will ask. Keith Henson (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Language ref. desk
See User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive024#Ref desks edits... -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Bad news
These templates is all broken! Can you try to fix Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chebbycraft34 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have no skill to fix Wikipedia. (Why ask me?) Which templates? —Tamfang (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks!
|
The Reference Desk Barnstar | |
| Thanks for answering my font size question on the Mathematics Reference desk! --Aabicus (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC) |
Numeric theory issues
Hi again Tamfang, I've recently returned to Wikipedia, and would appreciate your point of view on a numeric issue, if this is of interest? Thanks Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Number theory is a weak area of mine, but tell me more … —Tamfang (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
On my User page, I have created two interpretations of a list of 22 numbers. Each number was assigned to an individual. The formatting of the numbered people is known to be in reference to a re-formed political structure. This numeric list is presumably not horizontal (no logical purpose?) A vertical list in such circumstances seems logical. RE: I assume no 1 was the first to sign, and no 24 was the last, (as in Statute of independence document), for which official seals would be added &c. A general register would also be signed in the same way (from where the list of numbers and individuals came from.)
The top table-image seems self explanatory. My formatting of the known numbered images seems to suggest that this numeric system was not accidental, and known of in 1925. Theory? Fact?
Could you help me create an opening explanation for its article? Thanks Steve.Stephen2nd (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- I do not get what you mean by horizontal.
- What is the difference between 'number' and 'rank'? Why do they run exactly in opposite senses?
- In the first chart, do you mean to suggest that they are sitting around a table, so that Number One is between the two next-highest? But then the numbering (either way) conflicts with the rank implied by seating. —Tamfang (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- 22 independent authors published stories about 22 people, each person was allotted a number between 1 and 24. In the first chart, I have listed these from left to right. These are the authors allotted numbers. The rank digits, (for lack of a better word/s), are listed from right to left.
- I do consider my depicted (first chart) formatting represents a pre-defined seating order, numerically L to R, from author number one, to two, to three... 1. Party manifesto author, 2. Party manifesto publisher, 3. Business manager... (Party lines?).
- The rank digits represent those sitting R to L. Obviously digits 24, 23, 22... represent individuals who were significantly more powerful, digit 22 & 23 are still thought of as being ranked after number 1, as number 2, and 3! Most certainly historically higher ranked than their publisher and business manager?!
- I formatted these images, numbers and digits, in the first chart, symmetrically (by accident, when creating a compact image block). The implied seating order makes sense, the missing no 7, & 19, that no-one would sit at either head of the table where the leader sat? likewise anyone sitting opposite the leader would be regarded as unlucky; 13 & 13?? Likewise, in emphasis of the strength of the leader position at no 1. the most powerful potential challengers were given much higher numbers - far away from him. The weakest challengers given the lowest numbers??
- Thanks for your thoughts on the matter, Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- If 7 and 19 are missing because they would be the ends of a table, where (and when) was this table?
- Your last paragraph comes nearest to giving a hint that the numbers might be noteworthy, but it's still only speculation.
- How exactly did you find these numbers? —Tamfang (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- There is generally a table at all party political meetings. I don't know where this specific or other meetings were held, probably in Prussia? Berlin?? The when was on 27 February 1925, (listed in several of the Authors refs).
- The collective image of the numbers, people, dates and references are noteworthy. The original list of the members were released circa 1989. On the English Wikipedia they were, and still are, only listed alphabetically. These members/numbers in Feb 1925, were the re-founded (Cabinet??) of the 22 "official founders of NSDAP 1925-1945".
- de:Liste von NSDAP Parteimitgliedsnummern or de:List of NSDAP Party members or de:NSDAP 1925.
- NB, I have been given permission to upload the German Buttmann image & their Prince Wilhelm profile image, directly into the chart, (but not into En:Commons!) (@Stephen2nd: Both are perfectly fine to upload on enWP under the fair-use rules. Just not on Commons please.@Stephen2nd: You need to save them on your own computer and upload them on enWP. en:Wikipedia:Upload/old and there click on "It is a historically significant fair use image" which is the sixth option. Follow the instructions. Unfortunately, this procedure is beyond my capabilities &/or computer. (See also: "Schwarz was responsible for the central assignment of NSDAP unique membership numbers." Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- If you're unable to upload the images, how are they on your page?
- What do you want of me? An opinion on whether it's proper to show the numbers? Advice on how to present a list?? —Tamfang (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- I can and have uploaded the German Buttmann image & their Prince Wilhelm profile image, onto my German user page but it will not upload onto any en:Wiki page, without going through re-upload procedures, which I cannot do.
- I thought my numbered/image chart may be worthy of its own article. At the moment, it is just a sub-subsection of my Former German nobility in the Nazi Party article. I may just upload it onto their named members Wiki pages.
- May I have your opinion on my last speculative theory? The two 13s - eagle claws???
- Please accept my apologies for involving you in such vile subject matters, in pretence of number theories, it was most unfair of me, sorry. I have several other major WP chart/articles in mind, mostly heraldic, may I ask your opinion or advice then, if you would be interested? Thanks and sorry again. Steve.Stephen2nd (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
The coat of arms of John, Lord of Carency
I don't want you to upload anything onto Wikipedia yet because you said that you are busy with a move, but I was nevertheless wondering: Does that book of French royal coats-of-arms that you have also contain the coat-of-arms for John, Lord of Carency? Futurist110 (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I found the relevant coat-of-arms in the Capetian Armorial article, but it would still be nice if someone could double-check whether there are no errors in them. Futurist110 (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Rietstap's Armorial says three léopards (lions passant guardant) where our illo has lions rampant. —Tamfang (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
In Neubecker, the lions as borne by various members of the Marche branch are shown as either rampant erect, i.e. aligned to the shield rather than to the bend, or passant along the bend (and not guardant); the difference could be simply due to different artists. Apart from that uncertainty, the table is consistent with our article. —Tamfang (talk) 08:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! Futurist110 (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Thamud
tell about Thakur nation they were giant in body especialities? 2401:4900:51F4:15AE:38E0:2225:7AFC:A90E (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have no idea. —Tamfang (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)