Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:33, 22 December 2008

Welcome!

Hello, Vanished user fijtji34toksdcknqrjn54yoimascj! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions to this 💕. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Ryan Delaney 17:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Getting started Misplaced Pages tutorial • The five pillars of Misplaced Pages • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Talk:Mathematics

Dear Ben: Well, someone got a spiffy "Welcome" above. Concerning Talk:Mathematics#Disambiguation text at top of article: Edit conflict, you raise points there that I believe have been worth further discussion. And the Talk p. is the place to discuss them. Despite the apparent un-resolution of the Math(s) section that leads into "Mathematics#Disambiguation text...", the Disambig question is distinct, though not necessarily dichotomous from it. I wrote a similar note to the other discussant. (Personal aside: This has not been a pleasant experience for me. C'est la vie.) Looking ahead, if there is no agreement, WP:RfC might be one way to proceed. I welcome your thoughts. If you'd wish ro post this or your own separate response on Talk:Mathematics, that would be fine too. Otherwise, I'll watch for your response wherever. My thanks. --Thomasmeeks 13:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC) (Typo Edit. Thomasmeeks 14:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC))

Introduction to Evolution

Hi, Thanks for the suggestion on the Introduction to Evolution Entry. I have attempted to incorporate them into the article as best my skills can manage. There may be some confusion on one of your concerns. The article does not mention creationism. That series of commentaries by myself and Wassupwestcoast followed a rather irritating criticism that it should be more balanced by Kaypoh who opposed on those grounds. Needless to say, we will not be writing in a creationist section as per his request. If there are other concerns or suggestions please continue to share. Thanks --Random Replicator (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No problems ... I wasn't sure if it was communication breakdown or not. The page is very messy --- I'm not very skilled on the formating end and just discovered the cool green checks that others are using to remain organized (somewhat too late). I'm not even sure if I am suppose to address the concerns or remain silent! Probably just making a mess of the whole process. Thanks for the productive criticism and guidance. Either way it ends, the article has improved as a result of the process; especially in regards to citation formats. Amazing how valuable the template was --- wish I had known before the process; it would of have made for a more positive presentation. I am a little upset with the accusation of misinformation over LaMarck; not really fair for that individual to make such a allegation when in fact that section was spot-on. It has been very challenging to keep it at an intro level and meet the demands of accuracy required for the FA status. It may not be possible. Again ... thanks for the encouragement ... cheers. --Random Replicator (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hatnotes

Hi,

Regards this edit, the judicious use of Redirect6, {{redirect6}}, could allow for both. WLU (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing redirects

Not a good idea for various reasons. —Viriditas | Talk 13:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see the talk page for Formation and evolution of the solar system Andycjp (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Concerning edit warring

Re:: not exactly. The three-revert rule is not an entitlement to three reverts per day, but rather an electric fence to stop edit warring. Reverting three times per day usually means it's time to take a step back and head for the talk page or dispute resolution, and repeatedly reverting three times per day is likely to lead to blocks. You may want to read our policy on edit warring, which is more general than the three-revert rule. Hope this helps. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Now you have in fact violated 3RR: Resotring original, as you observe in the summary, Reverting Saythetruth, Reverting again, Undoing again. Do you have some explanation for this? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Origin myth

I'm simply using the terminology of the reliable source used and not trying to bend it to fit a convention that wikipedia has used. The context strongly suggests to me that it means the origin of the peoples, rather than the creation of the world. cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

PS, I've removed the linking, which redirects to "creation myth". Perhaps that is a good fix. --Merbabu (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Creationism2

Template:Creationism2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Neelix (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Highest heaven

If you wish to create an article on this topic please feel free to do so.Andycjp (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Emmy Noether pic

Thanks for the note about the EN picture. Since the one currently in the article is more representative of the sort of images usually used to illustrate articles and bios about her, however – and because I think I'm reaching maximum brain capacity for that particular project, heh – I'm happy to leave it alone for now. Thanks again, though; perhaps it's something we can pursue in the future. – Scartol • Tok 11:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I've never pursued that sort of permission-to-use strategy for pictures, because the process appears to be rather lengthy and intricate – presumably for legal purposes. (More here.) You can try to track it down if you like, but I daresay the Fair Use image we've got at present will probably be fine. Thanks again! – Scartol • Tok 13:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

I just want you to know that when I saw the word "myth" associated with the Christian creation account, an immediate revert and NPOV warning was a knee-jerk reaction on my part, because (1) the article has been vandalized countless times by people gratuitously adding the word "myth" to it in places where it is irrelevant regardless of one's convictions, and (2) while the vast majority of Christians do not regard the Genesis creation account as literally true, they would not call it a myth either. But upon review, I felt that the original version of the article was not much better, and the warning unwarranted either way. That's why I removed it from your page.

Your latest edit to the article has been modified by someone else before I even knew it was there. While I disagree with part of his edit summary ("Torah" is just a name, and is just as valid as "Pentateuch"), I believe the use of the term "account" instead of "myth" is more neutral.

Either way, please accept my apology for my initial reaction. --Blanchardb--timed 23:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Genesis

Well, I just do not see any need to make the link more obvious. The sentence refers to the Genesis account of creation, and there is a link. I imagine anyone clicking on the link would expect to find out more about the Genesis account of creation. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you. People eclicking on the link to Joseph will expect to be taken to an article on the Hebrew Biblical Joseph, not to a generic article on the name Joseph or a disambiguation page on different Josephs or an article on the husband of Mary. People are not so stupid as to think that in a sentence all about the Genesis account of creation, the creation link will go to an article on the topic of the genesis account of creation. It is what the sentence is about. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Astrology

I see the subject interests you. I don't know if this is from an observers POV or as a practitioner, but in 1976 when I held a vigil at the Liberty Memorial Mall in Kansas City after the Republican National Convention (Ref: Kathleen Patterson, 'Prophet Chooses Park for Vigil', The Kansas City Times, 13 September, 1976, pg 3A and Robert W. Butler, 'Prophet Plans Appeal of Conviction', The Kansas City Times, 2 November, 1976) I enjoyed frequent access to drop into the studio of a local night radio talk show. One time an astrologist by the name of Gars Austin was on the line from Texas giving brief chart readings based only on the birth date of callers. Coming up to a news break and not knowing me, from the studio I asked if he could do a more in depth reading based on my birth at 8am Sunday morning in Montreal May 21, 1944. The talk show host, the listeners and I were amazed with what he came back with. I asked if the charts showed anything significant around February 1, 1975 the date of my Spiritual resurrection. He didn't know anything about that. We were all surprised when he said, "According to my chart, on that date you had a very powerful Spiritual experience." From that time I had to give more credence to what is written in the stars. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

pFTP

Hi, just saw your old pFTP screenshot (Image:Pftp-99.png). Have you considered creating an article about it? 203.211.71.146 (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really. There aren't many reliable sources out there that could be used to build the article up. At least, not that I'm aware of. Cheers, Ben (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

blahtex

It seems blahtex.org has gone done since last I checked it. I've since found out someone else has taken over development (http://gva.noekeon.org/blahtexml/index.html), but I'm wondering if you still have anything left from your mediawiki implementation. Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the late reaction. The last version I have is dated 19 May 2006 and is against MediaWiki r14294 (version 1.7alpha). You can download it from http://developer.berlios.de/cvs/?group_id=4518 . Is there anything specific you would like to know? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Apéry's constant

Thanks for fixing the other i's; I only looked at the bottom of the Σ notation. My bad! Mouse is back 21:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Aired

Until season 20 airs, its still season 19. 20 episodes may be planned, but until they actually do, they are not part of the episode count. For example, no one knows whether there will actually be 20 episodes next season: the show might be cancelled mid-season or they might produce more episodes. Its nothing but speculation until each episode actually airs. I personally don't think "No. of episodes" is ambiguous. "Of" implies that they exist ie. have aired. If you think it isn't clear, then perhaps you should suggest that at the TV infobox page. I apologise if you found my edit summary curt. Gran 15:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The official site updates the official episode list after each episode airs, so that isn't a problem. This is a US show, so the number is updated after the original airing there. If an episode is leaked then that doesn't matter, the number would be updated after the official airing. If a movie is leaked, does that makes it its official release date? Again, regardless of what any source says (and there hasn't be any official season 20 press release yet) that doesn't mean there will be 20 episodes. Season 19 was supposed to be 23 episodes, but only 20 aired because of the writers. Dealing with future as certainties is against policy. By all means, future episodes can be mentioned on the season page, but the count is the main article should only be updated after the original airdate of each episode. Updating the count only after an episode's airing is what has always been done, on nearly every show's article, so, again, if you think this should be changed, or made clearer, then please suggest something at the TV infobox talk page. Gran 16:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

E8 (mathematics) -> E8_E8-2008-09-07T22:05:00.000Z">

Can you please do the same with E7 (mathematics), E6 (mathematics), F4 (mathematics) and G2 (mathematics)? One for all and all for one!! Nilradical (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)_E8"> _E8">

Hey thanks for that! I appreciate the thorough job you did. Nilradical (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

our talk on Talk:Creation myth

Ben, you are right, the word theory would not work. That's not what this article is about. I am not claiming to know what the proper title to this page is, but if you have to explain TWICE in the beginning of the article why it is not biased.... then it likely is biased. It's like saying "I am calling you a Wetback in the nicest possible way." It's crap. This article touches, as it should, on many different creation theories from many different orgins, but the title, Creation myth, is singular, meaning it only talks about one.... and the one most will assume is Christianity, which is covered in a seperate article. Again, I don't know the answer, but if it looks like a rat.... How about Creation mythologies? That would not be too specific. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 00:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

attempting to solve creation word fight problem

Sorry about the confusion here. Looks like we are having a little disagreement or something on the wording of of a few words. I am new at this, so that is most probobly the major reason for any problems.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand. It appears that you disagree with my desiring to change the wording of "creation myth" to "creation teaching". I thought that I gave a pretty solid argument to back up the last word change. I don't know how to redirect the page, but thought that it would be appropriately redirected to "creation disambiguous" or whatever that page is.

If you disagree, would you politly explain why?

Thanks! Faithfullyclever (talk) 07:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page, so you can reply here or on your own and I'll check both periodically. Alternatively, feel free to start a discussion on the Garden of Eden talk page so others might join in too. Cheers, Ben (talk) 07:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Problem of Apollonius

Thanks for dealing with some of my comments at FAC. When you're done, could you please indicate what has been done here. Randomblue (talk) 11:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks from me too. Your help at FAC was instrumental in its promotion, and you are now one of the main contributors to the article after Willow! We are celebrating the promotion here. You are most welcome! Geometry guy 21:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Human

What source? Wikkidd (talk) 05:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Your source says 130 thousand years old but the article itself says 200 thousand years. If you continue you to provide misinformation and unsourced material I will try to have you banned. Wikkidd (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Notice: AN/I

To Andycjp and others who might be interested. This notice is being sent to inform you that Andycjp’s disruptive editing has been reported at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (AN/I): .

-- Hordaland (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hatnotes again

Hello... thanks for the note. Basically, the hatnotes help to reduce instances where editors attempt to rewrite the articles to reflect religious rather than scientific perspectives. They tend to appear in the articles that receive the most attention. Hope this answers your question. --Ckatz_spy 23:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ben, FYI, I have restored the hatnotes. Despite what you've noted from WP:HATNOTE, we also have to consider the positive benefits of the note per "ignore all rules. In this case, it has been determined that the hatnote helps to reduce possibly disruptive changes to the articles. Please discuss further before removing; this should be with a wider audience, not just between the two of us. Thanks. --Ckatz_spy 00:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Creation according to Genesis

Thanks Be, I'm afraid I had an attack of unseemly anger with our new editor some days ago (I called him a jackass - improper, of course), and this approach is far more reasonable and approapriate. PiCo (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(opps, wrong user talk page :)) Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 15:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

Dear Ben,

Thankyou for helping at locally connected space; I appreciate it. By the way, the discussion about the stub template is over and I accepted the other image.

Topology Expert (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Account creation note

Just a quick note to say that I did request this. Cheers, Ben (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for applying to access the ACC tool. As a tool administrator, I have decided to give you access. You may now utilize the tool here - however, before you do so please read the tool's guide due to the nature of the tool. You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on freenode irc, and also join the mailing list Please remember that the ACC tool is powerful, and that misuse may result in your access being suspended by a Tool Administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any questions, and once again welcome to the ACC tool.

Stwalkerster 21:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Noah's Ark

Ben, you know from working with me on the Creation according to Genesis that I do not disagree with the use of the word myth. In fact, I like it. However, in Noah's Ark it just doesn't fit there in the opening sentence. This article is not about whether or not the Book of Genesis is myth, it's about describing Noah's Ark. I have studied a number of wiki-policies and given them on the talk page, and to me it is a no-brainer: adding mythology there is a breaking of several wiki-policies. Therefore I am standing on policy. NathanLee, who keeps forcing the issue, should be taking his argument up on the correct page: Book of Genesis. Can you see where I am coming from? T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 04:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Ben, you are correct that what I objected to was the original phrase: "the mythology of the book of Genesis." I saw it as either being unnecessary or redundant, depending on where you stand. The new phrase I like (it reads well). However, I do see it as being avoidable -- Til seems pretty passionate about it (and I really don't want to fight) -- and so it's not something I would like to come down on any further publicly (ie. on the talk page). But I won't object either if the newly proposed change is made. T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 23:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, let me know if I can help. Cheers, Ben (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Branch point

Dear Ben,

I responded to your comment at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mathematics (and gave the formal definition of a branch point).

Topology Expert (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Re your note

Heh, we'll see. I thought their constructive edits earned them the benefit of the doubt, but you're right that their reaction to being reverted was a cause for concern, though perhaps excusable given their unfamiliarity with how things work here. Your good-faith offer of assistance is much appreciated though ;) EyeSerene 14:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Explains a lot

I'm gob smacked also. I really don't know how someone can ethically waste people's time when they have ignored so many attempts to point someone to the relevant policy. Makes me wonder what else hasn't been read in the debate. NathanLee (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Johnnysmitthy trolling at Talk:Noah's Ark

If you haven't noticed, this user has been trolling the Noah's Ark talk page, going around leaving inflammatory comments at a debate that ended weeks ago; he is also posting comments at the beginning and middle of sections, forcing me to refactor almost every time he edits. Could someone give him a friendly message explaining that the debate is over, and asking him not to troll the talk page? I'm hoping people will just ignore his comments, but in any case it would be nice not to have him messing up the flow of a completed discussion.

I first noticed this user when he replaced the image at Portal:Creationism with an image of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and he has made it clear from messages at my talk page that his intention is to troll and to start fights. He hasn't technically vandalized yet (other than his edit at Portal:Creationism) but his behavior is clearly disruptive, so I'm not sure what course of action to take. —Politizer /_contribs 16:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Politizer