User talk:PaddyLeahy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:PaddyLeahy)
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, PaddyLeahy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  --Flex (talk|contribs) 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


Fine-tuned universe[edit]

I'm not a simpleton. I spent quite a bit of time seeing if Hoyle actually said it, and lo and behold, he never did. The references used in Creationist articles were false. The original Nature article does not exist, because it wasn't ever written. Don't revert if you don't have facts on your side. Orangemarlin 22:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Check out this page[edit]

Observational cosmology. We need help expanding it. --ScienceApologist 13:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Shan't! :) (I'd end up writing a book) PaddyLeahy 20:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

87 Exit[edit]

Hi, I'm the 87-IP from the spoiler discussion. I was blocked again, this time for initiating a vandalism report against an admin who suppressed my comments on WP:ANI: [1], [2], [3] (Oh, and he changed the discussion too: [4])

This whole thing is either:

  1. completely ok; good for me, I got finally rid of my Wikipedia addiction! Keep it up!
  2. completely not ok; well, someone should do something. I certainly don't feel like heading back into the fight right now.

Blocked[edit]

I have blocked you for 24 hours for edit-warring and breaking WP:3RR on Wikipedia:Spoiler with five reverts in a 24-hour period. --Cyde Weys 15:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops... PaddyLeahy 19:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Reponse[edit]

Since you are blocked, I will paste the reponse to your "target audience" comment here:

  • I am insulted by your comment, Paddy. First, I am an advocate of plain english, not that redundant, flowery, overly formal nonsense that is associated with the "educated elite". Why? So everyone can understand the material. That has nothing to do with spoiler warnings. Second, most of my editing is on pop culture; yes, I'm a mergist, but I'm not someone who wants it "much smaller" because I enjoy the idea of covering broader topics; however, that doesn't mean having an article on each video game weapon or level. Third, by "target audience", I am refering to those who want to learn about a topic. We are not an advertisement service; we are here to educate, and our target audience is supposed to be those who want to learn, not those interested in purchasing an item. Just because we cover more material than other encyclopedias doesn't mean the goal has changed; that goal is to inform. Also, making Wikipedia a site full of reviews, every detail, and user-sumbitted POV analysis would certainly alienate those who want a succinct overview of a topic from a neutral, unbiased, scholarly perspective; we're not here to mislead them with user-submitted POV reviews and every minor detail about a topic. Now, Paddy, you see why my comment several threads above was a tangent to this spoiler warning discussion, and why this entire thread was created out of a tangent. (Like I said in that thread, "That wasn't necessarily in response to the spoilers; rather, it was a response to us being deemed an entertainment forum or database in general. — Deckiller 01:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)") So this thread, a stretch on a clear tangent, was just crafted as a personal attack against me? In the future, if you want to make a personal response to a tangent, please comment on my talkpage or via e-mail; don't start a thread and cleverly try to stretch it back into the discussion to disguise a mild attack. — Deckiller 17:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • With respect to collecting critical response and other out of universe information, that's the approach most of us take already. Heck, I helped promote and fine-tune WP:WAF, and I've been planning a new notability proposal to require that all fictional character/setting articles have at least development and critical response sections.
    • With respect to plot summaries, by "complete" I don't mean "a ton of detail"; I mean not ignoring major facts or details (taken from WP:WIAFA). In that way, by "complete" it means in relation to how we are meant to handle summaries. An ideal plot summary for an RPG with a 40,000-80,000 word script roughly ends up being 750-1100 words (and that's what I usually aim for), and a decent summary for a typical 2 and a half hour film about 400-600. Some otherwise good articles have been bogged down by slightly excessive plot summaries, such as Final Fantasy VII and Final Fantasy IV (articles that I'd prefer to see have their summaries shaved by almost half); however, I'm in the minority, because I helped those articles reach FA status and the summary is still a little lengthy. So we're more or less in agreement there; however, I still feel some of the main points in a summary are bound to be spoilers, and readers will expect that a summary will outline the entire plot from start to finish. Even if it's just a two paragraph outline of key points, it will still mention the twists in some way.
    • Everything has a target audience, and it's reflected in advertisements and content. It only becomes elitist when we shut out those outside the target audience completely, although even then there are exceptions (we swiftly delete unencyclopedic content, we stress NPOV, and we block people who dislike or harm the encyclopedia; clearly, those aren't the type of readers and writiers we are attempting to bring in). For those who are actually looking to purchase an item, there are rarely spoilers in the lead or the critical response sections, unless it's a twist that's become embedded in popular culture. Heck, I'm an advocate of keeping big spoilers out of the lead unless they are well known and timeless; a one-two sentence introduction to the plot is enough for the lead. Generally, the critical response is at the bottom of the article, far away from the synopsis; readers can just skip over the section clearly labeled "plot summary" (and in some cases "development") and go directly to the critical reaction via the table of contents. So by removing spoiler warnings, we aren't really ignoring the selective readers; there are still ways, such as the table of contents and scrolling right past a plot section, that they can navigate. And if some readers think a plot summary will just be a two sentence, back-of-the-book ordeal that mentions only the exposition, they will probably realize after seeing the amount of text and the writing style that it is not the case. — Deckiller 19:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • A lot of us agree that the ideal length and style of a plot summary for a deep RPG is Final Fantasy VIII; it's roughly 1,000 words and paints a general picture of 40-60 hours worth of material (whereas VII's is 2,000 words with detailed subarticles on an RPG that's 5-10 hours shorter). For films, I think the ideal plot summary is The Phantom Menace or The Empire Strikes Back, which is still a little excessive in my opinion, because RPG scripts are at least four times the size of movie scripts. But anyway, since we're generally in agreement on that, I think the only difference is what we think the readers will want. And since that's a fundamental difference, we'll probably just have to agree to disagree. I truly believe that the readers will understand that a plot summary will contain spoilers, but if we have to compromise, I can live with spoiler warnings in places that would be surprising to contain spoilers. — Deckiller 22:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Anthropic Frayn[edit]

Hi Dave, thanks for adding the Frayn book to anthropic principle. I've been trying to reduce the number of "orphan" references in this article by citing them at appropriate points in the text. Any chance you could do this with Frayn (havn't read it myself so I have no idea which bit of the article is relevant). PaddyLeahy 22:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

OK - I'll do that within the next few days. Won't promise to be any quicker than that because I'm a bit stretched both with some tedious Wikipedia disputes and with real life. All the best. DaveApter 08:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Done now DaveApter 10:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Anthropic principle[edit]

Thank you for exressing your concern over my changes to the page. I moved the paragraph down because it did not seem to fit well with the other two paragraphs. The part on anthropic reasoning seemed to be simply stuck in there and did not provide for a coherent introduction. I will change it back and copyedit to address your concerns. Sorry for any inconvenience. --Kenneth M Burke 00:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I simply reverted back to the original, though I think the the structure of the paragraphs could be improved. I am sorry that I am not in the right mind to do so right now, or to provide justification of my point. Maybe another day. I do hope that you are contented with the revert. --Kenneth M Burke 00:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Solidarity[edit]

Hey. Thanks for everything you've tried so far. Here's a symbol. If you want to show support, put it on your user page or keep it on your talk page; if we get it on enough pages, it might just count for something. Please remove it if you don't want to show it. And if you've got a better picture, be my guest and use it. I'm open to suggestions for viable alternatives to the present spoiler policy - we need those more than criticism of the current one, as justified as it may be. --Kizor 16:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Newton's laws[edit]

I also don't think a detailed discussion of relativistic corections is appropriate. I had made the same point earlier, but other editors seemed to think otherwise. Feel free to make the change you suggest.

As for variable mass, there are plenty of references. The following quote is an exact reproduction from Physics part I by Halliday and Resnick, page 199:

"It is important to note that we cannot derive a general expression for Newton's second law for variable mass systems by treating the mass in F = dP/dt = d(Mv) as a variable." (All emphasis in original)

A few lines later, they again say:

"We can use F = dP/dt to analyze variable mass systems only if we apply it to an entire system of constant mass having parts among which there is an interchange of mass."

Kleppner and Kolenkow say the following in page 133-134:

"Recall that F = dP/dt was established for a system composed of a certain set of particles...it is essential to deal with the same set of particles throughout the time interval...Consequently, the mass of the system can not change during the time of interest."

Loom91 13:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for bringing the problem edit by SundarBot to my notice. This problem has occurred perhaps because there were two ta wiki articles linking to the same en wiki article. Pending resolution, I've stopped the bot. I apologise for the trouble. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 09:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Kudos for a job well done (Benefactus)[edit]

Kudos for eliminating, researching and finding the copyrighted material on the Julius Caesar page. The level of vandalism the page endures demonstrates its significance in English speaking countries as a topic in education, and so your edits will have a profound effect. On behalf of Latin people everywhere: gratias tibi agemus Legis Nuntius 16:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Force[edit]

Thanks for your edits in Force article and its talk page. I tried to point out problems of a definition of "force" some time ago and it seems, it was not accepted by Wikipedians although many theoretical physics textbooks state the same. Miraceti 07:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: New Mexico Tech[edit]

Hello – thanks for the message. I won't block the entire range of New Mexico Tech addresses. Anonymous editors who have done nothing wrong will be prevented from making legitimate edits, and we don't know how many of them would be affected. Range blocking is a drastic step, and there are other steps we can take to squash this kind of thing.

I have semi-protected both Unified field theory and Theory of everything indefinitely, which prevents new accounts and anon IP editors from editing both pages. This isn't the first time they have been protected, meaning this is not a new issue. Let me know if more action is needed; if the status box on my user page says "busy," ask for help at requests for page protection. Thanks – KrakatoaKatie 02:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

PatLeahy[edit]

Since we kind of bumped into each other at MOS Dates and Numbers I just thought I would say hello. I hope you won't mind if I copy you and capitalize the L in my user name. -- PatLeahy (talk) 07:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Paddy, are you still around?[edit]

Or did the Wikipedia monsters chase you away? We need physicists at articles like Fine-tuned universe or Anthropic principle or non-experts will change them into political/cultural articles. 207.190.198.130 01:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I still am, though not editing much at present. I noticed the recent fuss at Fine-tuned universe, see this edit (now archived). Seems to have converged OK now! Not that I can see any reason why articles shouldn't address relevant political/cultural issues... PaddyLeahy 15:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Politicization of science[edit]

Hi there. I think you made a good point on the Galileo deletion, our friend there did not wait enough for more comments. Do you mind to drop by in the Talk page and comment on the NPOV discussion still open to review the leading paragraph. Mariordo (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

re: Total number of eligible accounts[edit]

I'd like to make an estimate of the turnout in the board vote, but your statistics page doesn't quite give enough information. You quote 31900 accounts meeting edit-count requirements, but some of these are bots or are blocked, hence not eligible. You also quote 21804 unique accounts which are eligible and have a unique e-mail address. My reading of the rules is that you don't have to have an e-mail address to vote, so the question is, how many eligible accounts are there (or if you like, how many eligible accounts are there without e-mail addresses).

I do realise some of these will be multiple accounts belonging to the same person, but we can estimate this fraction based on your data on unique e-mails. PaddyLeahy 21:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Adjusted numbers:
  • 31900 accounts meet edit requirements;
  • ≈28898 accounts are eligible (not bot or blocked);
  • ≈21804 unique email addresses in valid format.
{admin} Pathoschild 14:43:33, 08 July 2008 (UTC)

Your flagged revs vote[edit]

It's just not your day! (I'm not restoring your vote, in case I'm misunderstanding this). PaddyLeahy (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what that's all about, but it's no big deal. Cla68 (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Paddy, I'm not sure where to reply as the discussion started at your vote is getting fairly big and difficult to handle. Should we continue right here, at Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions/Trial or just stay at the voting page? Regards, --X-Weinzar (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I answered and moved it. Feel free to edit the heading to better describe the thing or the discussion itself to make it more readable for "outsiders". Regards, --X-Weinzar (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Newton[edit]

I did a master degree in economic history waaaaay back. I can explain in details how the mint operate in bimetallic system. However, I certainly don't have a time or a mean right now to go to a university library to read up on a book which is written 30 or 40 years ago. The title of the book I read was "The Royal Mint". I can't remember the author's name. History research is a slow process so we use books/articles written 30 or 40 years, sometimes 60 years ago. That is waaaaay before the internet. So most books don't come up on Google Scholar. Feel free to reverse my edit but the previous edit I corrected didn't have reference either. Vapour (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage[edit]

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)