Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:14, 21 January 2008

User:Amaltheus/Citations reference

"F off I own this article" section

If I step on your toes by editing your article, please just link it here and I will stop. No comments or reasons, you don't even have to sign-I prefer you don't discuss or sign. Just post your declaration of ownership below.

• Mammuthus sungari I added the article name in your F list, STAY AWAY!
• Vacuum pump
• Black-and-white colobus
• Transmission electron microscope
• Mantled Guereza‎
• Howler monkey
• primates <---stay away!
• Introduction to evolution narrowly written article that intends to stay that way
• Jonathan Sarfati Don't forget this one!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.176.152 (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC) I won't be editing any creationist articles, so no need to post them. I do appreciate the forewaring, though. Thanks. --Amaltheus (talk) 07:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the matter? That is not a creationist article. It is a nice article about a chess player, isn't it? Say, telling people to F off is not very nice, is it? For a nice fair dinkum lad...82.41.72.22 (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• <--- add your article here to keep it to yourself

The real strategy to avoiding side-ways motions

1. When someone offers a suggestion respond to the suggestion, don't attack the individual personally who made the suggestion.
2. When you fail number 1 don't deny it and assault and attack and threaten and blame the person for getting upset with you. Don't hound them to pieces. Don't search their edit history for every imperfection, they're new, they discussed the article on the talk page, whatever you can find to list as a fault.
3. When you fail number 1 apologize for real. A real apology consists of saying you're sorry for what you did. Not of saying you're sorry if someone was offended by your behavior. It doesn't consist of any comments on your part about another's behavior-that's an excuse not an apology. Don't expect an apology in return. Just take responsibility for what you did. Just say you're sorry and then move back to the issue, the article, and discussing it.

But, the most important suggestion is to be so interested in your topic that you could not consider discussing a stranger instead. The worst thing about this is that it was boring compared to a discussion on the role of sex in eukaryotic biodiversity. --Amaltheus (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Valerian Onitiu

I believe that FIDE did not begin awarding titles for composition until 1959. Valerian Onitiu died in 1948, and to my knowledge FIDE does not award titles posthumously. Quale (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, you're right, and he's an earlier problemist. I still think the best thing, if you think he's notable, would be to look up information off-line about the major problem. Still, I wonder about the notability comparative with other problemist, particularly without information about a spectacular single problem if his overall FIDE score isn't real high. Amaltheus (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in chess problems in general, so I'm not a goood judge of what is a spectacular single problem. What about the problem used as an example in the article? It's also found in the grasshopper article and was added about 5 months before the Onitiu article was created. One of the co-authors of the problem was the inventor of the grasshopper. To be fair, the creator of the grasshopper article is also the creator of the Onitiu article, but he has expertise in the field of chess composition that I lack. Quale (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the best judge, either. I think the one problem may be good enough to confer notability, which is why I encouraged the authors to review that off line and add information to the article. Chess is tricky, though, notability in it. I've researched players for family members, and deciding their notability required multiple sources. But there are many print sources available for that purpose: to debate the notability (or, in the case of what I was doing: playability) of another player. There's a robust on-line community, but it's nothing like what's available off-line for chess players, and not all sources are in English. The author might be better served to include the problem in a grasshopper article, research it off line, then add the article about Onitiu. I don't think the lack of notability is so easily proclaimed with a chess problemist, though. There are players with almost no declared notability that, I swear, everyone who played would bow down to if given the opportunity. --Amaltheus (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

PS I did read the notability guidelines on Misplaced Pages, but Misplaced Pages policies aren't easily interpreted. They're not what is practiced in the community, for instance, so it's not easy to go by that. What would be most useful, imo, is to declare he is notable in chess and let the cards fall where they may.

Introduction to evolution

Hi - please excuse me for being a bit thick - but I really have lost sight of what in your view the problem with the article is! Would it be worth restating? It would certainly help me! Thanks. Snalwibma (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply on my talk page. It's not that I don't understand what you said. The problem, rather, is that there are so many twists and turns in the "discussion" that it is hard to see what the core of it is from your point of view. You refer me to yuor "original proposal" - but I'm afraid I can't even see where that is, let alone what it consists of. I see a suggestion that sex should be explicitly mentioned in the summary box. I see a comment that the article is focused (too much?) on eukaryotes. But what is the key issue? What, in essence, is wrong with the article? That's what I meant when I said you seemed to be basing your objection more on "the editors don't respond appropriately" than on the actual flaws in the article. It so quickly got so heated, and the "discussion" became about what people said, and who offended whom, that I thought (and still think) that it would be useful to have a cool restatement of what you think the problem is. If you are interested in seeing the article improve, I would strongly recommend such a course of action. Snalwibma (talk) 08:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

list of materials analysis methods

Hi!

Thanks for your edits on that page! I put some comments on the proposal page about it. I think it is a wonderful way of addressing a real need for us in the physical sciences: most of us are pretty lost in the forest of ever proliferating techniques. Any easier and more transparent the entry into it can be is imho a blessing for science, including for our students and their teachers.

Jcwf (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I had put something here but that may not be the proper place. I dont usually contribute on en: I have been a nl: user mostly (since 2002) and am now mostly on nl:wiktionary. However, I am also in Physical and Solid State chemistry and I ma even conspiring to use the the techniqes page as basis for a cumulative exam I am putting together for our grad students. I'd love to get some critical mass together to make this a good portal or so and I appreciate any input from your side Jcwf (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

A portal is something like this: Portal:Chemistry which is a sub-portal of Portal:Science. Jcwf (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention on my behalf. Kkmurray does have a point: my cat stinks but then not having any cat on a lot of those pages does too, and one has to start somewhere. One thing that needs to be done imho is to find a good system of cats and subcats. Beste stuurlui staan aan wal (Dutch proverb: the best captains can always be found on shore..)

While I sympathize with your suggestion to limit it to material char. technique I actually think that should be one of the subcats and would love to see an overall structure for all the physical (or even other..) sciences. Obviously that would require input from other people than just you and me, so starting with the mat-char stuff is not a bad idea. I did notice that the bio people have a pretty extensive category system of their 'methods'. I;d rather call them techniques though.

Another idea I had is to develop a standard template for techniques that summarizes a number of characteristics: What do you hit the sample with? (e.g. neutrons) What do you measure? (e.g. characteristic X-rays) What info do you get (e.g. atomic composition). What requirements? (e.g. high vac.) Is it a surface technique? What area of science is it used in? etc. Maybe it is hard to come up with something applicable in all cases. Id appreciate your thoughts

Jcwf (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

04:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro to evo

Don't post here about the Introduction to evolution article. I've put up with all the shit I'm going to. --Amaltheus (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)