User talk:Dysprosia/Archive(20)

Quote Of The Decade

All who have accomplished great things have had a great aim, have fixed their gaze on a goal which was high, one which sometimes seemed impossible. Orison Swett Marden.

-- fm Anthere

I, Reene, hereby award dysprosia the Wiki Wiffle Bat for her general awesomeness and a great attitude.

For crosswords above and beyond the call of duty, I hereby award you this ____star (4 letters, often raised by the Amish). —CXI

In recognition of commendable deeds of musical heroism on Goldberg variations-- fm Rama

Is this where one writes comments? I feel like I am defacing something. Anyway, I think your recent edit to Homosexuality is a mistake arising out of a misunderstanding. The "arguments" sections was not "NPOV" "desperately needing revision" but a compendium of arguments historically used in the debate pro and con same-sex love. You have replaced that with a wordy paragraph including many of the arguments but embedding them in (forgive me) verbiage, which obscures the simple clarity of the original presentation. May I suggest that if you have new material to contribute to that section you place it in the leading paragraph and leave the list as it was? Better yet, in what is a crowded page, keep those additions to a minimum and place any non-essential material in the main article, linked to as the head of the section. Thanks, Haiduc 12:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes.

No, I don't believe so. I do understand that the arguments there are supposed to represent arguments by others, but even so, the way they were written was not clearly qualified in an NPOV manner (the points were merely stated without clear attribution, in my opinion).

Regardless and secondly, a simplistic outlining of bullet points is absolutely inferior to a proper discussion of the arguments. The section as it stood did not even attempt to explain the points listed even briefly. I'd like to think discussion of topics and ideas on Wikipedia consist of substantial treatment (even though it may be a mere lead section for a greater article), and not consist of bullet points and inelegant divisions into "pro" and "con".

Dysprosia 12:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite irritated and disappointed that in this edit you chose to revert what I had done, and you hadn't discussed this at all on Talk, or responded to my reasoning for doing so. What was the point of me responding to you, or editing further, for that matter, if you weren't going to discuss it and just go and revert anyway? Dysprosia 23:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you feel that way. As I see it, I did not revert but re-wrote the section to accommodate your critique, which I thought reasonable. Your main argument seemed to be that the points were merely stated without clear attribution, and so this time I dug up what attributions I had ready at hand (more can be added as time allows) and eliminated those arguments I could not back up as per your advice. As for your disagreement with bulleted lists, if they are to be replaced they should be replaced with real substance. As far as the text that I removed, I hope you will admit that a lot of it was simply verbal filler, replete with vague generalizations like It is a perception by some that. . . and Homosexuality has been associated with hedonism and promiscuity by some, and many refute the argument of . . . with nary a word about who these "some" or "many" may be. Like this at least we know who the material is attributed to.

As for your suggestion that presenting examples of biased arguments is in itself biased, I respectfully disagree. In the proper context they are historical information. As you saw for yourself, an anonym reverted you before I had a chance to do any work, accusing your edits of being far more NPOV than my original rendition. His revert was itself instantly reverted by some experienced user who flew in for the purpose, never having contributed a jot to the article before or since, and without any explanation. I was shocked by the authoritarian nature of that action, but did not challenge it as it seemed to me upon cursory investigation that both you and him belong to groups of long-time users who are busy awarding each other medals and who may be acting in concert, and I did not want to cross any power group. I am not here to fight, but to write. Finally, if we are to air out our annoyances, I thought you original edit (some desperately needed NPOV, and replace the "he said/she said" points with a bit more cogent paragraph outlining some of the) was anything but considerate. I thought it hubristic and demeaning, and the sad crowning irony was that the paragraph you contributed was certainly not "cogent" by everyone's lights. But despite having started on that less-than-collegial note, perhaps we can now work together to resolve any outstanding issues. Haiduc 01:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Let us discuss this in detail.

My main initial concerns were that

1. the points were not attributed (which you have taken care of -- thank you)

2. that a simple outlining of the issue in bullet points and division into pro and con is inferior to that of a descriptive paragraph.

You have stated that you indeed have taken care of 1., but you not addressed my second concern, 2. Perhaps I had not made it clear enough but in actuality my main concern was in fact this second concern.

To address "As far as the text that I removed, I hope you will admit that a lot of it was simply verbal filler..." -- would you then agree that most of an article discussing controversial issues is just "verbal filler" and it would serve an article's purposes to have a PowerPoint-esque discussion of just the main points? I'm sorry, but to use point form for an article attempting to be an encyclopedic text, for anything but a list is just anathema to me.

"As for your suggestion that presenting examples of biased arguments is in itself biased" -- I am unaware that I made such a suggestion. Perhaps I may have said something to suggest this, based on an earlier version where the points were not attributed (which, you must admit, is POV), and even the purpose of having the bullet points was not clear, but I do not hold this belief.

"who are busy awarding each other medals " Excuse me? If someone wants to say something nice to me on my talk page, they are free to do so, as they are free to do so to your talk page. I have personally not awarded any "medals" to any other user, though I have often given others kind words and encouragement about the work they do here. Do you suggest I refrain from doing so? Your accusation that I and other editors are belonging to some sort of "power group" leave me lost for words. If you think other editors are having power, or that the reversion was inappropriate, why didn't you say something on Talk -- that's what it's there for! I would have been more than happy to eke out something with you and other editors. What gave you the impression that I would not? It also would have been an order of magnitude more transparent for you to air your grievances about the paragraph and to come to some resolution there.

Finally, let me address my edit comment piece by piece.

* some desperately needed NPOV - You must agree that the first version was not NPOV, or if it were, it was far from clear neutrality. My changes to the section were to clearly highlight that some people held these views, and others did not or challenged them, which I do think I did accomplish.

* and replace the "he said/she said" points - I have a personal distaste for discussions on a controversial issue which have an "Arguments for" and an "Arguments against" section, or likewise a "Pro" and "Con" issue. I believe it is far inferior to a section where each issue is addressed in turn and the positive/for and negative/against issues are analyzed extensively. I have likened personally the "Arguments for"/"Arguments against" to the kind of sophistication of "he said/she said" argument. In hindsight this may have been harsh, for which I do apologise.

* with a bit more cogent paragraph outlining... Again, brief bullet points cannot fulfill a lengthy and lucid examination of the issues. Also, the way the points were outlined did not make it clear enough how the arguments listed on the article contributed. The paragraph was intended to elucidate this, thus it would be more cogent. In hindsight this may have also been harsh, for which I do apologise.

I think that it is good practice in a case like this to first work on things that can be more easily resolved. Rather than discuss the format, on which we hold diametrically opposed viewpoints, why do we not examine what information is missing from this section. Since you have re-opened the discussion, what would you like to see included there? Haiduc 04:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS We should probably continue this on the Homosexuality talk page, so that others can participate. Haiduc 04:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the content as long as it is properly attributed and NPOV. I have stated my main wishes for the article in my reply to you above. Would you care to discuss the use of bullet points on Talk there? I have no real interest in fiddling with the article further otherwise, I don't really want to make a gigantic deal of this. Dysprosia 09:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind, I do think the issue should be opened to others working on the article, a kind of mini-RfC, if you will. Haiduc 01:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. Dysprosia 01:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty-printing

I removed the section on text formatting (a.k.a. word processing) from the prettyprint article and explained my reasoning on the Talk page. Text formatting is an important and wonderful thing, but in my experience, the term "prettyprinting" is not used for text formatting as done in WYSIWYG word processors or off-line formatters like WikiMedia or TeX. You reverted my deletion. I'd appreciate it if you'd explain your reasoning in the Talk page, not just in a short edit comment. Thanks. --Macrakis 13:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You did not make it clear that you made a comment on talk, otherwise I would have not reverted that change (Usually it's customary to comment reasoning for large changes/removal either in the edit comment or mention that you made comment on talk in the edit summary). I'm sorry, however. I'll revert back, and we'll discuss this on talk. Dysprosia 13:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response... see the Talk page. --Macrakis 15:10, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you mean "it's customary to explain deletions in Talk except for me, I'm above that sort of thing. Good grief. Why does anyone bother with editors like you around? --Steven Fisher 13:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Boys are stupid etc.

Thanks for all the work cleaning up the Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them article. I started fairly recently so I thought I'd take the opportunity to ask some questions regarding your edit. You put a lot of the external links in the article (which is fine with me). I was pretty sure though, that in one of the instructions to write good/great/perfect articles, it said to put external links a the end and reduce the ones inside an article to a minimum. Could you explain? Also, could you explain why calling NOW feminist is POV? I don't really care whether it says "some" or "feminists", but writing the article I felt that the feminist perspective on the issue would be especially interesting. And just because Glenn Sacks things feminist is a bad word that doesn't make it one, hopefully?bastel 13:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments go at the bottom of talk pages, for future reference.

I put a lot of the external links in the article because it provides the dual purpose of having a direct attribution to the people's comments, and releases the burden on the External links section from being loaded one way or another POV-wise with specific links (don't forget Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Ignore all rules ;).

It wasn't quite appropriate to say "Feminists, including..." because there may inevitably be persons who may not identify as feminist but still hold a certain view on the products.

Hope this helps, and welcome. Dysprosia 13:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo 8

I saw your comment for the International Writing Contest about the acronyms not being explained until a couple of sentences after first being used. Could you show me where this is? It is hard for me to see as I'm an Apollo nerd so so what TLI, CSM, LM, AGC, S-IC all mean :-). Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:29, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Sure. "Planning" section: CSM, LM. "Launch and trans-lunar injection" section: S-IC and S-IVB. I think there was another instance but was repaired from the version I saw. Thanks Dysprosia 00:32, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mel Etitis

Yes, saw it thanks, Dysprosia. It's fixed. Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:09, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

why so negative?

Who stole your milk? The reason I removed the Goldberg variations reference was that this was by no means the only or most significant improv that J.L. has made. But anyway... Dewet 16:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

GLB vs GLBT

elements cross-posted

Please do not add the gay, lesbian and bisexual category to transpeople who do not identify as such, for example, Georgina Beyer and Kamikawa Aya. GLB does not include the T. Thanks Dysprosia 22:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was just repopulating the category, as per the CfD; if the information is wrong...

James F. (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? I don't quite understand. I'm saying that applying the GLB cat is wrong. Dysprosia 23:24, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "applying" it, just making it more obvious that it already has been applied - I'm having my bot do the boring maintenance task of reparenting articles assigned to the LGBT sub-categories up to the main one. Specifically, all of the articles in:

... are being moved to the common parent category of all of these, which is Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people.

As you have noted, and I had already spotted, the LGBT super-cat does not infact mention the "T" part of this, so it will have to be moved. Do you wish to do the honours, or should I?

James F. (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Have now put in the CfD.

James F. (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spam filter

I was attempting to create links to each of the nations in: Particracy_(web_game)#The_World, however to my despair, I found no-ip.info on the block list. Regards, Cerceole|(talk) 06:10, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have left a note on the talk page of the spam filter and so soon I'll probably see what they can do. Cerceole|(talk) 06:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My protected user and talk pages

I thought I had removed that - sorry. I was being harassed by the impostor vandal: for reasons that I cannot explain, he seems to have an odd fascination with me. – Clockwork Soul 14:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chess

Talk to your opponent, who I believe is User:H Padleckas and decide with him. I only care who wins :P Gkhan 00:11, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

In order to get going on the game, I made the first move.
Your turn: Wikipedia:Chess championship/Tournament 1/Game 4
H Padleckas 06:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2. Nc3 ... Your turn. H Padleckas 12:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3. Nf3 ... Your turn. H Padleckas 00:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for Deletion

Hi; I'm sorry to be bothering you concerning this, but Wikipedia:Chess championship is up for a VfD. Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Chess_championship Please vote to keep this thing alive... this is so lame that I need to ask people to help out here. Linuxbeak | Desk 03:45, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Chess - Your 24 hours is up. Are you moving?

It's been 24 hours since I made my last move in our Chess Tournament game. Are you going to respond? There is a 24-hour limit on time beteween moves. Awaiting your response.
H Padleckas 19:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chess - Game 4 - your turn

If you play 30. ... RxR on d8, I play RxR on d8 check

If you play 30. ... QxR on d8, I play RxQ on d8 check

If you play 30. ... move king, I play RxR on a8

H Padleckas 07:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but there's no need to do this -- or have I missed something? Dysprosia 07:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking for an explanation why I would want to make a conditional move, please see Wikipedia talk:Chess championship#Conditional moves. It could expedite the game along. H Padleckas 07:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

Thank you, for the welcome Dysprosia, I've used Wiki a lot but this is my first time signing up, and creating a page.

--Marc 02:33, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) sithlord

gaymap

Ok, could you clarify which colours you want for each state and territory? -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Australia has been fixed. --

Earl Andrew - talk 00:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is the problem now? -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-)

Happy to be around! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Letterman

When does the show actually screen on US TV? Dysprosia 05:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Weeknights at 11:35 PM EST on CBS. --Gus 08:05, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

"Please do not double tag images where a derivation is made unless you are sure that you know what license the deriver is using. [...]"

Fair enough, see you around. Zeimusu | (Talk page)

Chess Tournament

Congratulations on your 21-move win in DE Game 2, Dysprosia. H Padleckas 05:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you H Padleckas :) Dysprosia 06:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arrau

Please always check the EB article when making a redirect, Arrau is a kind of turtle, not a pianist. Its only 1 click to check (see [1])! thanks Bluemoose 08:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Its cool, done same thing myself. thanks for getting involved with project. Bluemoose 09:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lagrange interpolation

Hi. Thanks for your message. I'm still a bit annoyed at the layout my picture has caused... If you have any idea to fix it, well go ahead. Happy edits, Julien Tuerlinckx 13:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why do you want to redirect Lagrange interpolation to Lagrange polynomial? I think that Lagrange interpolation refers to polynomial interpolation, and that the Lagrange form is just one way to write the result. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 3 July 2005 12:13 (UTC)

Well, I don't see how using "Lagrange" would refer to polynomial interpolation in general, unless I've missed something? Dysprosia 3 July 2005 12:18 (UTC)

The terminology is not always logical, unfortunately. However, I did a fast Google search and I discovered that the situation is not as clear cut as I thought, so I'm happy to leave it as it is now. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 3 July 2005 12:36 (UTC)

AMS Euler sample

I noticed the sample of the AMS Euler font made by you (Nice example) and I've noticed that you mix it with Computer Modern. To be honest, that's a very bad combination IMO, because the faces are quite dissimilar (The EulerVM packages explicitly discourages this combination. OTOH, this isn't that big an issue, but it would be nice if you would update the image using Palatino or Aldus perhaps. If it was made with LaTeX you can probably simply use \usepackage{pxfonts} before \usepackage{euler} or eulervm. If you prefer me to render a new image, that's fine too, just drop me a message.

DYSPROSIA HELP REQUIRED FROM VANDALISM

Dysprosia, hi, could you please take a look at:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Wellesley%2C_8th_Duke_of_Wellington, User:Proteus keeps deleting the image of the 8th Duke of Wellington from the page. I'm the archivist at the Duke's Regimental HQ and the Photo and Title on it are the official ones used by the Duke but Proteus doesn't seem to want the picture there. Could you kindly intervene, to prevent an editing battle? This sysop does appear to be rather aggressive and unhelpful, re the discussion page, which is most unusual for this website. If you take a look at the History Page User:Proteus & User:John_Kenney, whose comments are offensive and unrequired, do seem to keep reverting edits to keep their preferred version on the page.Richard Harvey 5 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)

Dysprosia, hi. Thanks for getting back to me. Actually the issue has not been resolved, yet. User:John_Kenney has taken offence at the image which had an the name rank and title of the 8th Duke as part of the photo. He has now taken the original photo and cropped it, re-uploaded it with a different name and inserted it back into the article. If you take a look at the history and discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Valerian_Wellesley%2C_8th_Duke_of_Wellington , you can follow what has gone on. User:John_Kenney appears to want to change the title of the 8th Duke to his ' The Most Noble' when it is officialy ' His Grace' (NB: I work with / for him, so I think I should know what he is called). Having the image with the title on upsets User:John_Kenney plans so he is trying to change things for his own preferred version of a page, rather than accept the NPOV and fact. In any event his alteration of the original image is a violation of the originally uploaded image, which technically is Crown Copyright. Richard Harvey 7 July 2005 09:27 (UTC)

IE:- Original uploaded image on the left, and ---------> Cropped, copied image on the right.

File:Brig Arthur Valerian Wellesley KG LVO OBE MC BA DL 8th Duke of Wellington.jpg

File:8th duke of wellington.JPG

.

With crown copyright you may not alter or amend anything, without first obtaining written authority. The original image had the text incorporated into the image, therefore cropping the image to remove text is an alteration, I suppose similar to cropping an artist's painting to remove the signature. Therefore a violation of the copyright. Richard Harvey 7 July 2005 09:41 (UTC)

I now appear to be getting personal abuse from user:John Kenny on my talk page and on the 8th Dukes discussion page IE:

You are completely disgusting, you know that? The original version of the image which you uploaded didn't have the caption on it. The version I put up was exactly the same as the image which you originally put up and said was fine to use so long as we didn't defame the Duke. You do not get to win an argument by default. Until you put back up the version of the image without the caption, I am going to keep the image out of the article. john k 7 July 2005 15:18 (UTC)

I assume that this user is a sysop and as such should not be allowed to act this way. Richard Harvey 7 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)

As this is the message placed on my talk page by [user: John Kenny]] I can only assume that he is being personally offensive and immature.

You are completely disgusting, you know that? The original version of the image which you uploaded didn't have the caption on it. The version I put up was exactly the same as the image which you originally put up and said was fine to use so long as we didn't defame the Duke. You do not get to win an argument by default. Until you put back up the version of the image without the caption, I am going to keep the image out of the article. john k 7 July 2005 15:18 (UTC)

Additional comments from user:John Kenny like this:-

I said on the description page that if you didn't like it, I would delete it, you asshole. You are a completely absurd person, fuck you. john k 7 July 2005 15:05 (UTC)

BTW, the caption is not part of the image, and you don't get to decide the caption for an image just because you upload the image. Your version of the image is not going to be in the article. john k 7 July 2005 15:11 (UTC)

Also from the page history list:-

(cur) (last) 15:07, 7 July 2005 John Kenney (Wow, that Richard Harvey sure is a prick, huh?)

This sort of personal attack from a Sysop is very damaging to the Wikipedia name.

I also now note that he is working his way through, and deleting, images I have uploaded to other pages, such as those of the 6th and 7th Duke of Wellington Pages. ~~

Thanks for the message of support. I've put something up on the discussion page:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arthur_Wellesley%2C_8th_Duke_of_Wellington. Hopefully it will calm things down and solve the problem. Richard Harvey 09:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

La Monte Young's early Fluxus-esque works

I'm sort of smiling and thinking - "Once again, Wikipedians show they collectively know almost everything. That is so amazing!" -- I had forgotten about these Fluxus-esque works, and you just helped remind me of them again. Thanks again for your post on the reference desk, you put a smile on my face and made my day! :-) --HappyCamper 07:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Computer science

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_science is just getting underway. Your input/ ideas are coveted. Quinobi 07:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

cellular automata

I agree that my post was "badly written and unsourced" but the current state of the page is not good eather. I have sent a link to the page to the usenet groop on Google [2] to get some feedback, now thay can not see the page... (there may be a better way but I am a novice to Wikipedia)

If you have any better "concrete definitions of CA" than please post your sugestions, I used the next definition (aproximately) from CA-FAQ [3] (be carufull there is an anoying java fire).

"Information dynamics of Cellular Automata" by Hidenosuke Nishio

"Enumeration of preimages in Cellular Automata" by Erica Jen

My intention is to continue with the article on computing preimages but I need a clear definition to start with.

As you can see I used the neighborhood size k and the output cell shift as such a definition is more usefull when inplementing software, and may be useful to descbibe hexagonal laticess too.

P.S.: I just moved the page to my personal sandbox User:Iztok.jeras/Sandbox I would apeciate comments and edits. --Iztok.jeras 12:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the conversation to the CA discussion page hopefully to get more comments. --Iztok.jeras 21:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise

Dysprosia, Hi. Could you take a look at:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habbo_Hotel - there appears to be two links at the end of the article which take you to sites selling Mob Phone ringtones etc, is that permitted? Richard Harvey 03:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you see such a thing, you should remove the links. Wikipedia does not tolerate commercial links. Dysprosia 03:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of level set

Hi Dysprosia. I've posted a question about the definition of a level set at Talk:level set. Since you wrote the initial article I thought you might be able to answer it. Thanks. — Paul August ☎ 15:13, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Sesame Street on FAC

Hi there, you supported Sesame Street becoming a featured article by in 2004, I was wondering if you'd mind looking again at the article, and possibly supporting the current campaign? Thanks for your time! -- user:zanimum

I shall. Dysprosia 05:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]