| Revision as of 05:06, 13 September 2006 editPaul August (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators205,003 edits →Return of WAREL: thanks← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:43, 17 September 2006 edit undoPaul August (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators205,003 edits Paul August has left the buildingNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| =I'm leaving Misplaced Pages for a while in protest= | |||
| :''I'm sorry, you have reached an ]. If you require a ] please rotate your telephone by 90° and try again.'' | |||
| ], one of our best editors has finally been driven away from Misplaced Pages, and I've decided to stop editing for a month to protest the poor treatment he has received, and the editorial climate that has allowed this. You could say I am on strike, ''à la mode'' (and no that ]): | |||
| <!-- | |||
| {{User:Paul August/Vacation}} | |||
| --> | |||
| * '' … I simply can't imagine the amount of disrespect, unilateralism, and pettiness that has been par in the last week or two being tolerated. I have no other way, since I believe in achieving consensus, respecting the minority voices, and never trying to force my will on others, to show my displeasure aside from this. It isn't a storming away. It is a strike.'' ], | |||
| Some things that have bothered me: | |||
| *] most ] and ]. | |||
| {| class="infobox" width="150px" | |||
| |- | |||
| !align="center"|]<br/>] | |||
| ---- | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| : | |||
| *] | |||
| Individual archives: | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| |}<!--Template:Archivebox--> | |||
| *] block of ] for his "defiant response" . | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| *]. | |||
| ==Mr.T== | |||
| *Tony Sidaway's . | |||
| I dont care if you hate him, just show some respect for him. {{unsigned2|20:28, April 3, 2006|72.49.190.161}} | |||
| ] expresses my thoughts well: | |||
| :I don't hate him. What is your source that he is dead? In any case, I'm sorry but your "Rest in peace" message, is inappropriate — it is not encyclopedic. ] ] 20:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * ''… marked decrease in tolerance … I am no longer sure I know what consensus is, nor that I can trust the ArbCom and the bureaucrats to do the "right" thing. … it now seems to be a blockable offence to fully and frankly (but civilly) exchange views, or to disagree with certain admins, particularly if that disagreement is expressed in forceful (but civil) terms, and that the rules seem to change when it suits the people making the rules.'' , | |||
| Can you block this user or 24 hours, or semi-protect the article? The Mr. T thing was an April Fools, just like this character. ] 20:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I encourage everyone to use my page for a constructive conversation concerning the above, and the current state of affairs on our 'pedia. I'll check back in a month. Regards all. ] ] 17:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Good Job, thanks. ] 17:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You're welcome. ] ] 19:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Logical Fallacy Edit == | |||
| Hi Paul, | |||
| I was wondering why you have removed the link to ], from the ] entry, when this weblog specifically deals with logical fallacies? | |||
| Including a fallacy list section, all with actual examples of: | |||
| * Appeal to Authority | |||
| * Argument by Artifice | |||
| * Argument by Slogan | |||
| * Argument to Consequences | |||
| * Begging the Question | |||
| * Browbeating | |||
| * Burden of Proof | |||
| * Burden of Solution | |||
| * Cultural Origins | |||
| * Exaggerated Conflict | |||
| * Factoid Propagation | |||
| * False Analogy | |||
| * False Attribution | |||
| * False Cause; Correlation Error | |||
| * False Compromise | |||
| * False Dichotomy | |||
| * False Dilemma | |||
| * False Positioning | |||
| * Gibberish | |||
| * Impugning Motives | |||
| * LAME claim | |||
| * Misuse of Information | |||
| * Moral Equivalence | |||
| * Moving the Goalposts | |||
| * Naturalistic Fallacy | |||
| * Non Sequitur | |||
| * Observational Selection | |||
| * Personal Abuse | |||
| * Poisoning the Well | |||
| * Popular Opinion | |||
| * Reductio Ad Absurdum | |||
| * Sanctimony | |||
| * Self Defeating Argument | |||
| * Simple-Minded Certitude | |||
| * Single Cause | |||
| * Slippery Slope | |||
| * Special Pleading | |||
| * Stacking the Deck | |||
| * Unfounded Generalization | |||
| * Weasel Words | |||
| There is little difference between this site and Fallacy Files. It is an excellent resource, specifically designed to remove the esoteric language used to describe fallacies and put them in lay terms. | |||
| Also, if you will allow me, I'll add links to: http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/categories/37-Fallacy-of-the-Week and http://thenonsequitur.com/, and http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/fallacies_alpha.htm, which have a similar purpose - dealing with fallacies. | |||
| Regards - Theo Clark (Humbug! Online). | |||
| {{unsigned2|05:05, April 6, 2006|Theo Clark}} | |||
| :Hello, Mr Clark. In my opinion the link to your web site does not seem particularly useful. For obvious reasons, we try to limit links to web sites with commercial interests. For example we don't want people adding links as a way of advertising or promoting some product, or trying to generate hits for their web sites, to increase their ad revenue. I'm sure you understand. ] ] 16:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Paul, | |||
| You say, "In my opinion…". Could you please elaborate on that somewhat? (Given you are clearly interested in fallacies, I'm sure you'd agree opinions without justification lack merit.) I see no significant difference between Humbug Online and The Fallacy Files, or the other sites I've added. They are all useful sites apropos to deepening one's understanding of informal fallacies and using an understanding of fallacious reasoning in everyday situations. | |||
| Yes, a website about fallacies, linked to from the wikipedia entry on fallacies will get a few hits from it… I'm not too sure as to your point here? That is the point isn't it? Surely this means wikipedia is a useful research tool - it's point? | |||
| As far as the commercial interests goes, the link to the book leads offsite, and more importantly, there is substantially more content on the blog (now, as it keeps being added to) than in the book. And surely wikipedia users are entitled to make up their own minds? (I am aware of spam issues, and blatant attempts of commercialisation, but I'd assume you, having had a good look at the blog so you were able to make an informed decision, would realise my genuine interest in fallacious thinking given the frequency and the detail of posts.) | |||
| I've added some of the above to a discussion about this , so I would appreciate it if a few editors made this decision, not just one - otherwise it seems somewhat arbitrary. | |||
| Regards, | |||
| ] 17:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi Theo. I think taking this issue to the talk page is the right thing to do. As you say it is not just my decision ;-) ] ] 17:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks Paul, and I am genuinely motivated by the need for more "critical thinkers" out there (I'm a Science Teacher), which is what got me into fallacies in the 1st place. ] 17:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You're welcome. Your desire to improve critical thinking is a noble one. There are lots of opportunities for that here ;-) I wish you all the best. ] ] 17:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Leonardo da Vinci == | |||
| While I agree with the intention behind your moving section Relationships to after Da Vinci's achievements, this has introduced a small problem, namely that Melzi and Salai(no) appear in the text without having been introduced; in particular the significance of "Salai was not forgotten" is unclear. Perhaps you can think of a way of addressing this. By the way, I don't understand the sudden shift from "Salaino" to "Salai". Articles in other languages that mention the character at all appear to only use "Salai", without mention that this is a nickname. The online Italian dictionaries that I consulted don't have an entry for "salai(no)". ]] 12:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi Lambian. Yes I see the problem. My edit was simply to revert the . Looking back in the edit history, I now see that ] had just the day before — which is a good idea — but can't be accomplished as easily as just moving the sections, as you point out. We will have to fix that. I haven't got time to try to fix things myself at moment (perhaps you could ask Haiduc to help?) Also I have no immediate answer to the Salai/Salaino question you raise, but I will have a look later. You could also ask ] he is Italian and an Italian History scholar, he might know the answer to this, or of course raise the question on the talk page. Regards ] ] 17:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Paul, nice to hear you :-) It's all okay here, and I'm happy to hear you're returning to Monterosso. As for the help I gave to Lambiam, that was a pleasure. ''Ciao''! --] 14:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Image copyright problem with Image:Rabid_xmas_dog.jpg== | |||
| Thanks for uploading ]. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate ], it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well. | |||
| For more information on using images, see the following pages: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| This is an automated notice by ]. For assistance on the image use policy, see ]. 13:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Categories in userspace == | |||
| Hi! I noticed that in your sandbox ] you have the categories still activated, so it's showing up in ] and ]. Could I suggest that you deactivate them (by putting a colon before 'Category' in the link) until such time as the article is in the mainspace rather than the userspace? (As per ], "If you copy an article to your user namespace (for example, as a temporary draft or in response to an edit war) you should decategorize it.".) Cheers, ] 23:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've now fixed this, thanks. ] ] 02:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == The Blessed Event == | |||
| So, it appears that ] is going to be on the main page. She's walking down the aisle at last. (April 25, 2006.) Congratulations. ] 14:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks. Having become resigned to being ever the bridesmaid, she is again nervous. She now expects someone will point out that, in fact, she is no lady for the altar, but rather an old whore deserving to be FARCed. I suppose I must now stand vigil the night before seeking expiation for our sins? ] ] 15:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| In true ancient fashion, I suspect that the sheets will be a gory display for all after all the visitors to the featured article on the main page decide to ''alter'' things here and there. (More and my metaphor would be unDonne.) ] 03:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :While my beloved was losing her maidenhead, I was in an ancient ]n hill town (senza internet) so I missed the live proceedings. But I've since seen the videotape and it ''was'' most gory. ] ] 14:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Whore or not, she was very moved by the attention. —''] 14:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)'' | |||
| :Yes she was moved ... to ] and back again! ] ] 14:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Old Skool Esperanzial note == | |||
| Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that ] are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on ]. Please vote ]. Thanks. --]<font color="green">]</font>] <sup>]</sup> 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Congrats == | |||
| Hey Paul, it was such a pleasure seeing ] on the main page. It's deserved a spot forever. Here's to more of your contribs being mainpaged.:-) Cheers —''] 13:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)'' | |||
| :Thanks! ] ] 14:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Your revertion... Gödel Incompleteness Theorem == | |||
| :''The following has been copied to ], if you wish to add to this discussion please do so there. Thanks. ] ] 12:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)'' | |||
| The proof which I reproduced and referenced on the page is published in print as well as online at many, many websites so I doubt there would be a copyright violation if the proof were published here. I just have not had time to see if it is already published in the Misplaced Pages but may have time later. The purpose for including the text of the proof in the body of the article is simply to make it easier for the reader to follow the refutation. Although not as easy to follow I have included a link to an external website where the proof is published and I will not revert your deletion of the proof on the body of the article unless or until a Misplaced Pages reproduction is found. | |||
| The refutation however is not copyrighted and is submitted in accordance with the ] -- PCE | |||
| :Hello. The proof outline you inserted is copied verbatim from ''Infinity and the Mind'' by Rudy Rucker, which is copyrighted text, publishing it in Misplaced Pages could be a copyright violation. Your "refutation" is an apparent violation of ]. ] ] 13:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Original Message | |||
| From: "Rudy Rucker" <rudy@rudyrucker.com> | |||
| To: "Honesty is the BEST policy." <pce3@ij.net> | |||
| Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 10:20 AM | |||
| Subject: Re: Permission to reproduce Godel Incompleteness Theorem proof | |||
| I don't mind if you quote this page; I think it's | |||
| all over the web anyway. Do look at a printed | |||
| copy of the book and make sure you've quoted it | |||
| accurately, as typos may have crept in. | |||
| I also notice you say you want to "refute" the | |||
| theorem. I am absolutely certain that your | |||
| refutation will be fallacious. You have no idea | |||
| how many people have written me over the years | |||
| with incorrect refutations! One thing to keep | |||
| in mind is that my passage is only a suggestive | |||
| summary of the argument, which is a bit more | |||
| refined. When you have the entry up, send me a | |||
| link, so I can add a comment defending myself and | |||
| Godel, should I have the inclination and the time. | |||
| Thanks for your interest in my work, | |||
| Rudy R. | |||
| At 02:34 AM 5/3/2006, you wrote: | |||
| >Hi Rudy, | |||
| > | |||
| >I would like to ask your permission to reproduce | |||
| >the following excerpt from your book: Infinity | |||
| >and the Mind. under the GNU license at the | |||
| >Misplaced Pages site: | |||
| >http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_L | |||
| icense | |||
| >so that it will be easier for readers to follow | |||
| >a discussion of the proof's refutation. If this | |||
| >is okay please reply and if not then I will | |||
| >simply rely upon an external link to a site where it can be found. | |||
| > | |||
| >Thanks, | |||
| -- PCE 02:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :see ] and ] for other places this discussion is taking place (might be nice if all three discussions were moved to the ]). -] <sup>] </sup> 02:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Misplaced Pages is not a place for you to carry out a conversation about your refutations of an author's work. Your refutation is original research, and so is not allowed. If you want to get comments on why your refutation is wrong, we'd be happy to help you at ]. -] <sup>] </sup> 02:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *In regard to the ] it appears that in terms of items 1,2,4,5 you may very well be right so I will exclude my refutation until such time as I can meet items 7 using a "reputable" publication or item 5 using something other than the validity of the refutation itself. -- PCE 03:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Good. ] ] 12:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Reminders + Suggestion... == | |||
| () | |||
| When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to ] by adding '''subst:''' to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. <!-- Template:Subst --> | |||
| As a courtesy for other editors on Misplaced Pages, please sign your talk page and user talk page posts. By adding four tildes (~) at the end of your comments, your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added. | |||
| This talk page is becoming ''very long''. Please consider ]. — ] <small>]</small> 21:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I should really floss more often as well. ] ] 02:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thank you for reverting vandalism on ]== ==Vandal tags== | |||
| Thank you for reverting vandalism on Misplaced Pages! <br><br> Be sure to put warning tags on the vandal's user talk page (such as <code>{{]}}</code>, <code>{{]}}</code>, <code>{{]}}</code>, <code>{{]}}</code>). Add each of these tags on the vandal's talk page, in sequential order, after each instance of vandalism. Adding warnings to the talk page assists administrators in determining whether or not the user should be blocked. If the user continues to vandalize pages after you add the <code>{{]}}</code> tag, request administrator assistance at ]. Again, thank you for helping to make Misplaced Pages better. ] ] 03:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You are welcome. I am quite familiar with the various warning templates, and their usage. But I often don't add them to the editors talk page. It depends on how much time I want to devote to such activities. ] ] 03:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == eventology == | |||
| Hi, you are correct that there are sources for this article, which on its face suggests that it is not OR. However, note that all of the references are by the editor who created the page. This is what struck me as being OR about it, although technically you are correct. Well, I guess this thing will find its way to AfD and I suspect I know what its fate will be...:) -- ] (]) 19:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Could you please talk something in the below link?? == | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Exclusive_disjunction#How_did_this_get_called_.22Exclusive_Disjunction.22.3F | |||
| Let's discuss which term is better!!] 16:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi QQ, thanks for the invitation to talk I've replied on ]. ] ] 16:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Could you raise the vote of moving Sheffer Stroke to Logical NAND?? == | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sheffer_stroke#Name_Change_:_Sheffer_Stroke_.E2.86.92_Logical_NAND | |||
| if you think "Sheffer Stroke" is less common than "Logical NAND"??] 16:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi QQ, I'll take a look when I get a change. ] ] 17:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I think moving Sheffer Stroke to Logical NAND is not possible, by wikipedia's ''historical'' reason...] 18:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == I don't think moving Negation to Logical negation is wrong == | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Negation | |||
| Could you please talk about it in the above link?? | |||
| In my opinion, if you think moving article EACH TIME requires discussion, you should talk to the committee of wikipedia. | |||
| {{unsigned2|17:52, May 28, 2006|QQ}} | |||
| :I've given my thoughts on the merits of the move on ]. | |||
| :As for whether moving a page requires discussion or not, the simple answer is no not always, moving pages which are likely to be non-controversial, like simple misspellings etc. usually don't require any discussion. However for other moves (like the move of ]), it is always best to start a discussion on the talk page first. | |||
| :] ] 18:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Suslin== | |||
| Hi Paul, | |||
| The transliterations "Suslin" and "Souslin" are both frequently seen, though I think I see "Suslin" a bit more often. We don't seem to have a bio on him; that would be a nice addition (can't find too much on Google). --] 04:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :OK. I believe it is prononced something like "Soosleen" which favors the spelling "Souslin". But I think "Suslin" is much more common, on Misplaced Pages at least, and yes a Suslin article would be good. ] ] 05:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Your revert on ]. == | |||
| Hi, Paul. I have to say something about article. Before about 2 or 3days ago, I saw that my edit was reverted by you. I mean I tell about this . That means you reverted my edits. I just changed ''Understand and describing change'' into ''Understand and Describing Change''. I don't know why you reverted back to last version. You considered this is vandalism. But, I didn't attempt to vandalize the article. Anyways. Leave me message on my discussion's page No.64. Ok? ], 04:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi Daniel. Yes I reverted to ]. I didn't necessarily consider your edit to be vandalism, but I did consider the capitalization of "Describing Change" as inappropriate. It would have been better if I had written an edit summary explaining this, I don't actually recall my revert, but I'm afraid I was probably just being lazy. I'm sorry and I apologize if you felt you were wrongly being accused of vandalism. ] ] 05:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's ok. I accept your apology. But It is key concept. Because someone already mentioned that. Basically, it is key concept like Understand and describing into ''Understand and Describing''. Anyways, Thanks for providing the evidence that you reverted back to last version. Reply on my talk page. ], 05:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Reply from Bernard Haisch== | |||
| I am ready to present justifications for each of those changes, but sincerely hope you and Hillman might simply accept them as reasonable so that I don't need to waste more hours on this. There is one additional change that I think is fair: to substitute "non-mainstream" for the pejorative, value laden term "fringe." | |||
| Otherwise I think we have come to an entry that is accurate and fair. {{unsigned2|16:47, June 11, 2006|Haisch}} | |||
| :Hi Bernard. I will reply at ]. By the way, as a courtesy to other editors, can you please "sign" your talk page posts by typing four tilde's <nowiki>"~~~~"</nowiki>? The software (under the default settings) will replace the four tildes with your username, together with a time and date stamp (like the one following my post here). Regards — ] ] 17:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi, Paul, could you please use for your comparision? Presently your section in ] makes it look like I simply reverted the version by Haisch, which is not true. You might also see my ], since I think that if you look into this, I have in fact been highly responsive to Haisch's concerns, I just don't think he should be allowed to write his own profile here. Therefore, ''I think the version I cited above should be the basis for your revised revision''. Also, could you explain in ] what you did after your new revision? TIA ---] 20:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hi Chris. The link you provided above for "this version" points to a previous version of ], so I'm not sure what you mean by "use" it for comparison. The two versions of ] I compared were: , which was the version created by your most recent edit, and , which was the version created by my most recent edit (with ] making in between). My intent was to compare the differences between your last version (which I assumed corresponded to a version with which you were reasonably content) and the current version (with which Haisch seems reasonably content) to try to produce a version we can all live with. If there is some better version to compare, please prode the link, or the date and time stamp. Thanks. | |||
| :::I didn't think I wrote anything that implied that you had revereted, and upon rereading it, I can't see what you are refering to, can you point me to any language that seems to imply that? Anyway I didn't intend that and I apologise if I somehow left that impression. Nor was that section meant to be any sort of criticism of you (or anyone for that matter). I would be happy to rephrase anything I wrote there to make it more clear. | |||
| :::As for your request for me to explain what I did. Do you mean what edits I made? Here is a diff of all my edits following Haisch's edit: As you can see they were all minor copyedits. If you want me to explain any of them (or anything else) I'd be happy to ;-) | |||
| :::About the article itself, I have no strong feelings about any of the differences between your version and Haisch's version. I just think it would be helpful to discuss the differences on the talk page and see if we can't come up with something which is acceptable to all of us. I have been following this discussion for awhile, and I though I see if I could help out. I hope I can ;-) | |||
| :::] ] 23:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I would greatly appreciate your continued involvement in getting this article to be factual and unbiased. Christine keeps letting her bias show through and does not even see it (see the latest on the Bernard Haisch article talk page). | |||
| ] 16:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I plan to stay involved for awhile at least. I think I understand your concerns and I'm prepared to try to address them on the talk page of that article. For now I would prefer if we all could discuss any substantive changes on the talk page first before editing the article. To that end I have reverted your last edit for now, I hope you don't mind. Please join the point-by-point discussion on ]. By the way if you have any wiki-related questions I'd be happy to try and answer them. ] ] 17:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| How do we do this? Would you mind terribly making an updated list of the differences so that we have a current point of reference. I feel really lost and overwhelmed by this discussion scattered across many pages. Actually, Paul, I really do think the kind and ethical thing would be to work backwards from my version. It is my reputation that has been attacked and here I am fighting an uphill battle. I am really beginning to see the dark side of Misplaced Pages. Please do consider re-reverting to mine to work down from that... please. | |||
| ] 17:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I was working on an updated list of differences when I saw your post above. As for starting with your version and working from there, I've already proposed that but without much success, but I will see what I can do. I'm hopeful we can work things out on the talk page there. ] ] 17:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Again, thanks for your intervention. But what gives Christine Hillman the right to set the terms? You have as much right as she does. And what about my rights? Now that I see this process up close, I can begin to appreciate those who were tainted as "commies" by McCarthy. That's how I see her fixation on the obviously biased term "fringe." Have you seen "Good Night and Good Luck?" | |||
| ] 17:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Well Chris doesn't get to "set the terms", we all (including you) set the terms by consensus, so I have to consider Chris's concerns as well as yours. As I said I will see what I can do. If you feel strongly enough you can revert back to "your version", I won't revert again, but someone else might, in which case you could revert again … ''but'' see ] and ]. However I strongly urge you to please give the discussion on the talk page a chance for at least a day or so, to see if any progress can be made there. The article has already changed significantly based upon the points you have raised so far. I am confident that that process can continue. | |||
| :By the way, I know in a case like this, when you think your reputation is being attacked, it can be difficult to remain civil (which by the way I think you have done for the most part). In particular though, please try not to make this about the individual editors involved (see ] and ]), whether accurate or not, negative characterizations of fellow editors or assumptions concerning their motives are unproductive. | |||
| :] ] 18:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Okay, I will await your updated list of differences on the talk page of the article, and then give my reasons for each one. Thanks for your efforts. It is genuinely appreciated. | |||
| ] 18:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Your welcome. ] ] 19:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Do you have any objection to my putting up a "disputed notice" on the article page until these issues are resolved?] 20:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thought I was logged in but I wasn't.] 20:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I have no objection to that. That is probably a good idea. ] ] 20:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| Thank you, and welcome to you too! -Dan 20:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ]-]== | |||
| Hi, Paul, I don't think anyone can discuss anything with Haisch until he calms down and agrees to play by our rules ]-]. I think I have bent over backwards to be helpful to him as a newbie but his childish insults are beginning to grow tiresome. Please note that I have urged him several times to review our policies for talk page behavior. | |||
| I made a good regarding the version of ] I cited in my previous message. This would be too confusing to try to explain, so let's start again. | |||
| I have reverted to my most recent version and am willing to discuss line by line, but only after Haisch has taken a few days to calm down. I don't think the differences between my version and his are really that huge, but I resist the idea that he should be given license to rewrite his own wikibiography in his own words, since I think this compromises ]. | |||
| In the service of our readers, I think it is important that our articles should strive to be ''readable'' as well as fair and factually accurate, and that is why I think it is best that I implement any changes the WP community feels are neccessary in ]: comparing his versions and mine I think it is obvious that I am the better writer, at least on this subject, and since I wrote the original version I also can more easily see where to fit in new material in a way which respects the flow of ideas. | |||
| Just to be clear: do you disagree with the principle that the subject of a wikibiography should be discouraged from himself writing or rewriting his own wikibiography? Please note that everyone appears to agree that the subject can contribute on the talk page to express concerns, suggest factual corrections, or describe changes he desires. However, as I say, I think it is best if more neutral editors make any changes to the article itself. ---] 18:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi Chris. I have no major disagreements with the guidelines set down in ]. But I don't think we should prohibit an editor from making ''any'' edits at all. At any rate I have some concerns of my own about the ] article, as expressed on ]. Can you please respond to my talk page posts there? Thanks. ] ] 19:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Huh? I specifically said that I don't deny Haisch the right to suggest changes in the talk page. And of course he has the right to make edits to articles on topics which are not controversial ''or'' in which he is not ''directly invovled''. I am saying that it would be best if he confine his participation regarding his own wikibio to the talk page, however. Hope this is clear now.---] 19:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I meant any edits at all to ]. Anyway I don't think we really disagree about this. I'm perfectly happy to ask and encourage Haisch to refrain from editing that article, and as you suggest, instead make suggestions for changes on the talk page. However at the moment I'm really more concerned about the changes that ''I'' want to make to the article. Can you tell me why you have reverted the changes that I made to the article? Did you read my comments posted on the talk page first? ] ] 19:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Paul, please help. Hillman has taken down the Disputation banner. That should certainly be my right to display. This is inappropriate behaviour on Hillman's part.] 19:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Well it's back now, and Chris has also added your postdoc info, so let's see what developes. ] ] 19:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I have responed to the latest version. I think we are converging at last. Thanks. | |||
| ] 19:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, and you are welcome. ] ] 21:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Just to let you know that I have again replied.] 00:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hey, Paul, long time. Noticing your copyedit to ], I got worried that I might have somehow overwritten your changes, when I saved my Footnote Frenzy edit, because in fact there isn't anything different between (mine) and (yours) (bar only a shortened paragraph space or something). I didn't get an edit conflict, but sometimes one mysteriously fails to, and the server was altogether blowing hot and cold yesterday. Alternatively, I suppose you might have been working in a text editor and inadvertently saved The Wrong Version or something. Anyway, I just thought you might want to check it out. Best, ] | ] 09:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC). | |||
| :Hey yourself Bish. No you didn't overwrite my edits. They were just so tiny that you couldn't see them! I removed an extraneous period following <nowiki>"<ref>Nicolson, 148.</ref>"</nowiki> (note number 1), and an extra space before <nowiki><ref>Nicolson, 148.</ref>"</nowiki> (note number 5). Just the kind of edits I'm good at. Mostly I just wanted to applaud ''your'' edit, since I think it is bad practice to mix notes with references. I'm afraid the <nowiki>"<ref>"</nowiki> tag is misnamed. Double best, ] ] 14:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. I got an email from Fil, he seems to be much improved health wise. | |||
| ::Fil's better? That's so great! :-) ] | ] 14:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC). | |||
| == Meetups, events, local chapters == | |||
| Hiya Paul, | |||
| There's currently some renewed discussion about whether and how to set up US wikimedia chapter. Among other things this could help better organize meetups, gatherings at large events and cons, and local outreach. I'm notifying people who have been actively involved in local meetups; if you are interested, there is a quiet and a ] on the topic... both of which could use input and ideas. ]] 17:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Reply from Haisch== | |||
| Once again, thank you for your intervention. | |||
| Could you clarify the issue regarding Hillman's proper name. I believe I am using her correct name. | |||
| All necessary biographical information on me is available at . With regard to your suggestion that "as much as you think Chris' behaviour has been inappropriate, I think saying so is probably unhelpful" that is part of the problem. No one should be expected to sit back and be passive when one's carrer is being inappropriately misconstrued. I have tried and will continue to be civil, and indeed appreciative for assistance from you. But I maintain that Hillman has shown enough bias to warrant ceasing further involvement with my entry. But once again, thank you.] 18:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| By the way, have a look at the Discussion page of the Journal of Scientific Exploration by others than me and you will see further evidence of NPOV violation by Hillman.] 19:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :And again you are welcome. As far as I know ] is , and is a "he". In any case Hilman goes by "Chris". ] ] 21:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can confirm that I am , and that I generally go by "Chris" :-/ ---] 02:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I think my good friend Larry Sanger created a Frankenstein when he set up this anonymous editing. You see, my career is totally out in the open and it would be really nice if Wikipedians were not allowed to be so shadowy (note that I did not say shady, a different connotation). I would prefer to deal with people whose identity I actually know, as all of you know mine. There is an unfair asymmetry here. As for the Hillman nomenclature, Chris apparently made the same transition one of my best friends made, but my friend did everything in the open and managed to continue a highly successful career in astrophysics in her new persona, which I greatly admired. There was no attempt to become "this mysterious entity." | |||
| ] 05:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Humphrey Bogart == | |||
| I don't want to edit ], but the nickname for Humphrey Bogart is "]", not "]". Makes a difference! :-) --]<sup>]</sup> 13:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes quite! ;-) ] ] 15:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == A short Esperanzial update == | |||
| As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on ] as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. . Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter. | |||
| As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace ] and ] and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on ] and last until ]. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before ]. For more details, see ]. | |||
| Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —]<font color="green">]</font>] <sup>]</sup> 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Short and criptic. ;-) ] ] 16:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah, sorry. ;-p Fixed now. I'll deal with the bot later... ]] <sup><u>'''] ]'''</u></sup> 16:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've had some experience with unruly bots. It's tragic: ''When Bots Go Bad''. — ] ] 16:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Signing == | |||
| I see that I typed an extra ~ at ]. Thanks for fixing it for me. ] (]) 14:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You're welcome, we all do it ;-) ] ] 15:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Hay == | |||
| Stop vandalising over on wikiquote. ] 03:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hard to stop when I've never started ;-) You must have me confused with someone else ;-) I've never edited on wikiquote. ] ] 03:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, someone must have stole your account, have a look. ] 03:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes I saw, Thanks for blocking that account. Makes me think I should open a dummy account on all our "sister" projects. ] ] 04:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : The above messages were made by an impersonator who has created a user name using an uppercase "I" to appear like the lowercase "L" in my username. This vandal seems intent on being a pathetic nuisance here and on other projects, is to some extent associated with the IP ], and seems to take an infantile delight in devising childish hoaxes: vandalizing pages under various usernames and deceiving people with feigned sincerity about problems being caused under others. ~ ] 05:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ah, more convoluted than I thought ;-) ] ] 05:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have blocked ]. -] <sup>] </sup> 05:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks Lethe, and thanks for signing for me (twice!) over at ] ;-) ] ] 05:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == World Cup == | |||
| Thanks for the message - It was a thrilling time, something to remember forever. ] | ] 19:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit War? == | |||
| Hi, Paul, unfortunately I missed until just now your comment on my user talk page about the "lame edit war". I am very sorry that apparently you took offense. I guess I failed to explain that (1) my reference to a "lame edit war" was tongue in cheek (and in any case, it takes two to edit war, so I was laughing at myself too) (2) the "edit war" derived from differing assumptions: you believe that the section title describes the first comment in that section, while I felt it should describe the tensor/content of the discussion. In any case, I am not so wedded to the latter belief that I would wish to truly offend you (or anyone) over such a trivial issue, nor do I want to forego your continued commentary in the ongoing discussion there. So, sorry, and please come back whenever you like! Even if you want to express disagreement with something I said, since I probably benefit more from that type of comment, which can help me hone my arguments or clarify my thinking. BTW, if it helps, I reverted the section title and will stop toying with it.---] 04:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi, Chris. Thanks for changing the section title back to the way I originally wrote it, I appreciate that very much. | |||
| :Yes I was offended by your claim that I was "edit warring", both in your "lame edit war" comment, and your edit summary of "hope Paul August ready to stop edit warring over question mark in section title". I accept that you are sorry, and given your statement above, I don't think you were trying very seriously to offend, instead I think you were taking something lightly which you should not. Please try to see things from my point of view. I think that '''edit warring is a very bad thing'''. It is something I take very seriously. It is something which I don't want to engage in, or be accused of. You write that you were only joking, well it didn't seem like it to me, and I think that it might not have seemed so to other readers of your page. And I would suppose that given your reputation as a serious and reliable editor, that many readers would simply take your word for it, and assume that I ''had in fact'' been "edit warring". So joking or not, you have probably done some slight damage to my reputation on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :As for the issue that provoked this so-called "edit war", I added the following comment to your page, which I titled ''Misplaced Pages is not so bad'': | |||
| ::"I'm sorry that Chris seems to have lost confidence in the encyclopedia. Chris has made extraordinary contributions to WP and as I said above I would be very disappointed if Chris leaves for good. I would also be disappointed if any of the intelligent voices commiserating here decided to follow. | |||
| ::"From where I stand, things are not so bad. In my two years, and 24,000 edits, in the areas I have some familiarity with — mathematics, classical history, English literature — WP's content has steadily gotten better. I have also seen ''many'' editors come and go. Perhaps that indicates a problem with WP's culture or methods, or perhaps it's just human nature. However, WP will continue to evolve and transform in ways we cannot predict, but it will not die, or at least its ''content'' won't. It is already the best online mathematics encyclopedia, and I'm sure the same is true for other areas of WP (e.g. popular culture). It is easy to consult therefore it ''will'' be consulted. The more it becomes ''the'' source of information, the more important it will be for that information to be ''correct'', and the more motivated people will be to insure that that information ''is'' correct. | |||
| ::"Anyway, I could "go on" but I won't ;-) I don't wish to presume that people are particularly interested in my views, nor do I expect to change anyone else's views, so I will just wish Chris, and everyone else, the best of luck in whatever they choose to do. | |||
| :You then decided to re-title my comments "Is wikipedia really doomed?". I restored my original title, then you, after toying with a section title containing "It's worse than bad, it is the deadliest enemy of everything I most believe in", changed it to "The title of this section is disputed" (which I found amusing, but provocative). I then told you on your talk page that I though it was "a bit rude" to change the words that I had written, you responded that you were only "joking", but that you preferred "a more neutral section title". I replied that the "title I chose for my comments accurately describes the opinion my comments expressed. I know you disagree but please don't change my words? OK?" And for the second time I restored my original title. After a couple more days of seemingly respectful discussion, you decided to change my title by adding a question mark at the end. I restored my title for the third time, and you again appended a question mark. | |||
| :You have argued that a section title should express "the views of all contributors to that section". I think this is a novel position, and in the many hundreds of discussions I've been involved in, I don't think I've ever seen anybody espouse this view, or change anyone else's title. Nevertheless I tried to accommodate your concern about the section title not expressing your views, by again restoring my title, and moving the replies to my comments to their own section, titled "Misplaced Pages is not so bad? (or whatever anybody else wants to call this section)". Which you let stand for awhile before recombining the section under the title "Misplaced Pages is not so bad?". | |||
| :I had told you that I thought it was rude to change the words that I had written, and asked you not to, yet you continued to insist on re-titling my comments. Simple politeness might have restrained you, but didn't. At this point I decided you were simply trying to poke a finger in my eye, so I decided to wish you "good bye and good luck" and end this silly farce. | |||
| :Let me be clear. I think that '''repeatedly changing the title of that section was very inappropriate'''. Regardless of your intention, don't you see that any reader of your page would naturally assume that I had titled my comments with whatever title they saw? I did not title my comments ""Is wikipedia really doomed?", although any number of readers might rightfully suppose that I had. I did not title my comments to include "It's worse than bad, it is the deadliest enemy of everything I most believe in", though some readers might think so. Finally, I did not title my comments with the equivocal "Misplaced Pages is not so bad?". This last is the worst, since it is the more plausible. It misrepresents my opinions and, in a nicely subtle way, by making them seem more tentative than they are. Who knows which readers were misled?. | |||
| :Yes I was offended by you accusing me of "edit warring", but I was also offended, especially in the face of my asking you not to, by your insistence on misrepresenting my position. | |||
| :As for continuing our discussions, to what purpose? I'm certainly not interested in simply helping you, as you suggest above, "hone arguments" against Misplaced Pages. But If you want to discuss how Misplaced Pages might be improved then I might have some interest in that. | |||
| :] ] 23:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Someone who arrived in the middle of the "title war" might have been a little puzzled, but to me everyone's position on the issues was always clear enough. In my naivete I assume that anyone with their head on straight loathes edit wars and finds them one of the least attractive (and least helpful) parts of dealing with Misplaced Pages. Since neither side here hails from the lunatic fringe, I saw Chris' comments as wry humor, and not at all damaging to any reputation. | |||
| :: Social/political/editorial interactions at Misplaced Pages are challenging. We're all volunteers. We enjoy what we do and feel satisfied or we leave. And long-term success requires good relations with a diverse and mysterious group of "peers". In my face-to-face contact I find humor irresistible. It breaks tension, it teaches, it bonds. Misplaced Pages is full of tension, the stresses of dealing with all the backgrounds, attitudes, intentions, personalities, and behaviors. Making fun of these facts of life is not only inevitable, it is essential. (Finding ] on your user page, Paul, I suspect you agree.) And just as inevitably, sometimes the joke will be misconstrued. In fact, the greater the stress, the greater the likelihood a joke either will contain, or will be seen to contain, a barb. Much classic comedy makes the clown the target, not the audience. The clown slips on the banana peel or gets the pie in the face — and the audience laughs! I think Chris was ''trying'' to make fun of himself for what he had been doing. | |||
| :: Look at the bigger context. In the middle of a page where Chris is airing his angst over the self-destructive patterns within Misplaced Pages that are driving him away, you introduce a section title that says it ain't so. I'm sure that expresses your heartfelt opinion. It also represents much of what Chris has found so frustrating. You wanted a title that represented your views; he wanted one that represented his. | |||
| :: What really troubles me is the even larger implication. This was an issue of a title on a user talk page, far removed from encyclopedia content. Both parties are genuine in their wish for a better encyclopedia, reasonably mature, and articulate. Yet look at the number of edits and level of emotions engendered! If we extrapolate to articles, it's hard to be optimistic. Not impossible, but ''hard''. Because we have editors who are driven towards disruption or greed or self-importance, who are immature, and who can clearly express neither factual content nor their own thoughts and feelings. Even if Chris is completely wrong and present policies are perfect, the challenge is immense. | |||
| :: And now for something completely different. I suggest picking up ]'s '']'' and having a little listen to ]'s ''Galaxy Song'' (lyrics available ). Somehow, I find the perspective soothing. :-) --]<sup>]</sup> 07:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::As I near sixty, I truly love the thought that I am only "reasonably mature" ;-) It fits in nicely with another But, just so ya know, I reserve the right to be "from the lunatic fringe" (or at least the lunatic part). So the finger Chris was poking in my eye had a "barb" on it? No wonder I found it so annoying. | |||
| :::Thanks K (may I call you K?) for trying to give this issue a wider perspective. I really don't think I misconstrued anything Chris wrote, but who knows? I agree that technically at least, for example in his use of the word "lame", Chris was also making fun of himself, but the "fun" was mostly pointed in my direction, don't you think? I did see the humor in "The title of this section is disputed", but no humor in his subtly changing my title by adding the question mark, after I asked him not to. But I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. | |||
| :::As for "the bigger context", yes I can now see how my adding that comment and title on Chris's page would have been "frustrating" for Chris, and for that I'm truly sorry. I didn't intend my remarks to be in any way hurtful, I only wanted to register a mild dissenting opinion. Many times after leaving that comment, I've wished I'd hadn't. | |||
| :::With one thing you say at least, I must take exception. You characterized the title dispute as: "You wanted a title that represented your views; he wanted one that represented his". What I wanted was for my title, good, bad or purple, to be unchanged. I expect changes to the words I write in the encyclopedia. I don't expect changes to the words I write on a talk page. | |||
| :::Anyway I accept a certain amount of lameyness in my actions, and much of the implied criticism, (gently delivered) in your remarks. Although you cast me as mature, I rather like to think I've progressed directly from childlike to crotchety. Yes Misplaced Pages presents a difficult challenge on many levels, but, given the industry of so many committed, and talented folks, I remain confident that those challenges can be met. | |||
| :::"The Galaxy Song" is one of my favorites ;-) | |||
| :::] ] 16:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Happy First Edit Day!== | |||
| {{First Edit Day}} | |||
| ] 02:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hey hey hey. Thanks alot! Feels good to enter the terrible twos, I've always wanted to be an ]. ] ] | |||
| {{First Edit Day}} ] 03:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Now I have two cakes, one for each year ;-) ] ] 03:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, that's good, then. :) ] 04:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'll eat one now save the other one for later ;-) ] ] 04:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{First Edit Day}} | |||
| (have a third - you can share it with your friends :) ) -] 06:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Congrats on your first edit day! Enjoy your many cakes. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Thanks all, going to get fat (er fatter). ] ] 18:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Interactive Brokers== | |||
| Why did you revert this article? I removed a bunch of comments which amounted to a little more than an unjustified gripe from what appears to be a dissatisfied customer who seems to be unable to read the fine print on the IB website. If you care to make a contribution to the page, please do so, but let the ] page be your guide. | |||
| Misplaced Pages would be absolute chaos if every dissatisfied customer of every corporate entity was allowed to air all of their gripes at length. The editor was literally arguing about pocket change to most IB users, arguments that really foreshadow the massive cost savings that IB represents for most of its customers compared to other brokerage firms. | |||
| ] 03:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry, I was on "vandalism patrol" reviewing hundreds of IP edits. Your edit, via a quick glance, looked like valdalism, since you deleted a large amount of content with no edit summary. If you want to make it again, I won't revert it again. However I would suggest an appropriate edit summary this time. ] ] 03:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| No prob. Thnkx. | |||
| ] 03:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==First edit day (more!)== | |||
| <!--START:Custom First Edit Day Template by EvocativeIntrigue--> | |||
| {| class="messagebox standard-talk" | |||
| |- | |||
| ! rowspan="3" valign="top" | | |||
| ! align="left" | HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY! | |||
| | align="right" | <small>from the <font color="black">]</font><sup>]</sup></small> | |||
| |- | |||
| | colspan="2" valign="top" align="left" style="background:#99CC00; padding:5px; margin: 5px; border: 1px dotted black;" | | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| Wishing '''{{PAGENAME}}''' a very Happy First Edit Day! | |||
| Have a fantastic day! | |||
| From the '''<font color="black">]</font>''' | |||
| |} | |||
| <!--END: Custom First Edit Day Template by EvocativeIntrigue--> | |||
| :Have a great day! ] <small>] | ] | ]</small> 12:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I wish you all the best on the ocasion of your wiki-birthday. Have a nice and creative time. --] 12:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Happy first edit day, and more great edits to come! :) - ] 17:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks MD, and thanks also to EvocativeIntrigue, and Bhadani, my day's been very good so far! ;-) ] ] 17:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{First Edit Day 2}}] 03:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Absolute Value == | |||
| In the article on ] you recently removed the notations for real and imaginary part I had placed in the section on complex numbers. In your edit summary, you said they were "undefined." I am confused, as these notations used in the articles on ] and ] parts. On the other hand, I am pleased that when reverting it, you added the condition that x and y must be real numbers, ensuring that they are in fact the real and imaginary parts of z. Although both definitions are eaqually true, I merely believe that when the dfinition explicitly specifies the real and imaginary parts, it is easier for a reader to follow to the next conclusion that ties it the pythagorean theorem and states that it represents the distance from the origin. -- ]<sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 00:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi He (may I call you He?), When I wrote that the notation <math> \Re z </math> and was <math> \Im z </math> was "undefined", I meant that it was undefined in that article. But I don't see how using that notation makes things clearer, especially given the attending diagram. Anyway, if you feel strongly about it, you should probably raise that issue on the article's talk page and see what other editors think. ] ] 04:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thank you== | |||
| Hi, Paul, thank you for your flattering words of support on the RFARB workshop page. They are much appreciated. ] | ] 19:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC). | |||
| :You're very welcome. What no stones thrown my way for referring to Bishzilla, as a damsel in distress? ] ] 19:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am not a Knight Errant! and any more cracks like that and it won't be Bishonen in distress! ] | ] 21:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh yeah? ] ] 22:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| <br style="clear:both" /> | |||
| ==Bishzilla== | |||
| /Bishzilla will not be drawn, stares unblinkingly at Paul. When he starts to run in circles, squealing with fear, she picks him up, holds him experimentally to her ear, is visibly displeased by the high-pitched little noises. The crowd cover their eyes in horror. ''Hic caetera desunt''. ] | ] 07:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC). | |||
| :Those damn '']e'', just when it was getting interesting too. ] ] 21:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Thank you for your supportive comments here They are appreciated. That Fred Bauder thinks I can be banned instead of Eternal Equinox has caused me to have a severe sense of humour failure. In retrospect, of course instead of making light of Eternal Equinox, I should have taken her very seriously - which is what she wanted - but frankly she and her edits on our talk pages were (at best) a joke - so one could either laugh or cry, and crying has never been my style. That Fred Bauder thinks Bishonen should be "cautioned" is, in short, disgusting. She seems to spend hours and hours trying to create harmony on the site, and takes her responsibilities as an admin 100 times more seriously then most of the others. I think the Arb-com now needs a huge kick, and to rid itself of insulting and incompetent buffoons. I expect I shall stick around Misplaced Pages, but at the moment it is at an all time low. Sorry this is a (sort of) spammed message. Thanks once again, it's nice to feel supported. ] | ] 19:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You are very welcome to, and deserving of, my support. The idea of banning you is absurd and ridiculous, while banning you and ''not'' EE, is preposterous (we Yanks have a more colorful expression: "ass backwards"). As for what you should have done, myself I think, the best way to deal with EE is to ignore her. And as for Bish, she deserves to be thanked rather than cautioned. Please hang in there, knowing that many of us hang on every single word you write ;-) ] ] 21:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. Perhaps most shocking/concerning of all is your "sense of humuor failure" — I hope my feeble attempts at humor above, below (and on the worksop page) are not out of place? | |||
| ] | |||
| ]So long as it is you in the red tights on the ground it is funny! Come to think of it the one with the dagger standing up looks half-witted - is he a member of some Misplaced Pages committee? - so I don't want to be him either but it's a nice thought! ] | ] 21:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Boxing Day == | |||
| Ok, folks, tell me what's wrong with boxes and templates. I've begun writing up my idears. ] 14:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Nice to meet you == | |||
| It was great meeting you too at the party. Too bad we didn't have a chance to talk at Wikimania again. (I had connection problems with my Nokia at this mother of all Wiki-meetups, & wasn't until I was at the airport in Chicago that I finaly figured out how I could have made it all work. But then, I was more interested in connecting with human-based protocols there, & not network-based ones.) -- ] 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes there was just not enough time to meet and talk to all the people I wanted. Also I couldn't stay away from the main session speakers, all of whom were fantastic, but which meant even less time to talk and discuss with my fellow Wikipedians. Let's keep in touch, and maybe will will have a chance to see each other again at next year's Wikimania. ] ] 17:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == NOR == | |||
| Would you be willing to comment, here: ] | ] 15:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've replied on your talk page. ] ] 01:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks Paul. A lot has already been said on the talk pages and frankly I am not sure what anyone else could add. Things have also quieted down. However, for a short time it looked like two or three recent editors were about to seriously weaken the policy, while claiming to defend it. All I can ask is that you keep it on your watchlist (the policy page). At some point it will be unblocked, and at that time it will be important that experienced knowledgable editors keep an eye on it to protect it against any edits that weaken it. Thanks,] | ] 16:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Will do. ] ] 17:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Wikilove == | |||
| I love you man. ]]] <small><sup> ] . ] . ]</sup></small> 06:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Wow an unknown admirer. You sure you don't have me confused with some other bloke? Have we met in a former life? To what do I owe the honor? Are you looking for a long term commitment or just a one night stand? ] ] 14:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :No I love you man... Can i have some money ] 06:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Jamo are you panhandling from me or Dfrg.msc? ] ] 14:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Return of WAREL== | |||
| Hi Paul, | |||
| have you noticed the activities of ]? Seems to be up to his old tricks at ] and ]. --] 03:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :OK, thanks for the heads up. ] ] 05:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:43, 17 September 2006
I'm leaving Misplaced Pages for a while in protest
Giano, one of our best editors has finally been driven away from Misplaced Pages, and I've decided to stop editing for a month to protest the poor treatment he has received, and the editorial climate that has allowed this. You could say I am on strike, à la mode (and no that doesn't mean "with ice cream"):
- … I simply can't imagine the amount of disrespect, unilateralism, and pettiness that has been par in the last week or two being tolerated. I have no other way, since I believe in achieving consensus, respecting the minority voices, and never trying to force my will on others, to show my displeasure aside from this. It isn't a storming away. It is a strike. Geogre,
Some things that have bothered me:
- Tony Sidaway's block of Ghirlandajo for his "defiant response" here.
- Tony Sidaway's block of Giano for being "hysterical".
ALoan expresses my thoughts well:
- … marked decrease in tolerance … I am no longer sure I know what consensus is, nor that I can trust the ArbCom and the bureaucrats to do the "right" thing. … it now seems to be a blockable offence to fully and frankly (but civilly) exchange views, or to disagree with certain admins, particularly if that disagreement is expressed in forceful (but civil) terms, and that the rules seem to change when it suits the people making the rules. ,
I encourage everyone to use my page for a constructive conversation concerning the above, and the current state of affairs on our 'pedia. I'll check back in a month. Regards all. Paul August ☎ 17:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)