User talk:Felyza/Archive 1

For those that care, yes, I fixed my signature now. It links correctly. FELYZA 18:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sig test again... FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 10:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your rollback request[edit]

Hello Felyza, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert anything else (by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with) can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning, depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 18:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry![edit]

I accidentally gave you a warning and reverted your revert on History of spaceflight. You beat me to the revert, then I reverted you by accident a couple seconds after you beat me. Very sorry. --Meaghan ^{guess who :)} 12:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved this message to where it goes[edit]

Hello Felyza, Can you please explain why you deleted 2 reference articles that verify what is being said in the response section of Manufacturing Dissent? Specifically I'm wondering about why you removed the link to an article written in New York City in 2007 and another that recently appeared in a New Zealand newspaper. It advances this discussion about Manufacturing Dissent and Michael Moore's response (or in this case non-response)to it.PS- I like Michael Moore's films but having viewed Manufacturing Dissent I've been curious as to what his reaction to it would be, and I suspect others are as well. Regards, Terry O'Reilly99.231.146.102 (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are dropping links directly into the page, not in 'external links' nor as a ref. It is not the proper manner to add links. Your talk page warns that it appears to be spam, along with guidelines on how to correct it. FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 13:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009[edit]

Thank you for making a report about Rnpd33 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you! Toddst1 (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, using Huggle, it doesn't intelligently handle incorrect warnings apparently. FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 15:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Rollback[edit]

I don't understand why you used rollback to revert this edit. Per Wikipedia:Rollback feature, rollback is to "be used only for reverts that are self-explanatory – such as removing obvious vandalism." This does not appear to be obvious vandalism. Please explain. Toddst1 (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one and this one appear similar. Toddst1 (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ones with medical doctor by 77.161.146.139 are NOT medical doctor references. The user was adding it to several pages where it doesn't belong. Regarding the first, I mistakenly read it as adding a person's name to a header. Upon further review, I was mistaken in the first edit. FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 15:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, I was wrong, they were correctly MD references for fictional characters. My apologies. I'll undo those mistakes now. Sigh. After that, bed time. I'm starting to slip. FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 15:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. To be honest, I think you need some more editing experience before using rollback. I've disabled it for now. You can request it once again after you have more experience. Toddst1 (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI[edit]

Not trying to sound rude here, just informative. The User 208.108.217.23 is a school computer from Sandy Valley Local School District. The vandalism is probably just some asshole doing dumb things. I don't know what you do when the computers are such high use, I just wanted you to know the situation. 208.108.217.23 (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My normal account is Moldy orange if you would like to contact me personally. 208.108.217.23 (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Ludford/Ron Travolta/Swindon 105.5[edit]

Hi.

I'm trying to keep the pages accurate - the page was set up maliciously by user 'thejpmshow', a disgruntled former volunteer at Swindon 105.5 (A local Community Radio Station).

He has also been responsible for setting up a malicious page against me (Ron Travolta) & maliciously attacking the information on the Swindon 105.5 page to air his perceived grievances.

Can you help - or at least show us how to counteract the actions of this person? 18:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Travolta (talk • contribs)

Tea Party Protest[edit]

Hello,

Seeking more information on why my edit here was reverted. Unconstructive is such a broad term. Thanks.--Happysomeone (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Here] is the discussion, in which three editors do not agree with the present edit. Discuss.--Happysomeone (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. We appear to be in agreement, then. Changes made.--Happysomeone (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buttered side down[edit]

You reverted my claim that a solution to the 'paradox' was that the cat could land after being dropped feet first.

I feel I was correct on my edit. I believe we have a contradiction of thoughts due to the different perceptions on what the paradox states.

"A buttered piece of bread should ALWAYS land butter-down when dropped. A cat should ALWAYS land feet down when dropped." - Felyza

I believe you thought that the adages were addressing a state where an object must land (i.e. if an action such as dropping an object were to occur on said object, the immediate results would be that it lands and in a certain way). I believe they were addressing a state of an object if it were to land (i.e. much the same but with a slight differentiation. If an action such as dropping an object were to occur on said object, if the said action results in landing than it would do so in a certain way).

I shall try to prove my interpretation.

As it is stated, the adages deal strictly with landing. You seem to have the impression that something that is droppped MUST land. I shall try to prove the theory that an object doesn't have to land when dropped. If done correctly I shall assume that my interpretation on the paradox was the correct one.

Take this thought experiment. Say I dropped a ball from atop a high mountain. Logic states it would fall and reach the base of the mountain. Say now instead of just purely dropping I instigate a minuscule amount velocity in the horizontal vector. According to projectile motion, it should land, in the weakest sense, some distance say x away from the base of the mountain as a variable of my initial firing velocity and angle of projection. This could be stated to display the exact same effects of landing, which the adages discuss. If I were to fire it with greater force and an angle closer to 45deg, it would land some distance further than my previous, say x+y. Taking the globe as a sphere, if I were to launch it with a force such that x+y were to equal the distance of the earth, the ball would never land but continue to orbit the earth. The ball was still dropped in the sense that it was accelerating toward the centre of mass of the earth but with horizontal velocity. Year 11 projectile motion.

If you disapprove of the lack of differentiation between dropping and launching then perhaps a more simpler example will suffice.

Say I were to drop a ball from a certain height. The ball would accelerate toward the earth and when reaching it "land". If i were to now double the height of my drop location, the time taken to land would increase; more distance would need to be covered by the same force. Now if i were to increase the height of my drop location to a point in infinity such that my gravitational potential energy is 0 the time taken to land would increase to a degree of infinity, in other words, the ball should never land as it is too far away from the earths mass to experience a force of attraction.

Thus the idea that a piece of bread/cat would always land when dropped is incorrect. Hence if we understand this fact now, we can understand what the adages were addressing.

In such a situation that a dropped object doesn't have to land, then not landing wont contradict landing in a certain orientation.

You were correct to assume that if such a case were to occur that an object MUST land when dropped then a paradox would present itself. Since this is not the case, the solution to the facade is what I have stated. Or the converse I supposed holds too.

122.109.68.34 (talk) 06:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Must land, but must land which way, is the problem faced in the buttered cat paradox. You stated it MUST occur one way. When I tested it, I was able to get BOTH outcomes, by testing at various heights. (Yes, my cat is on my lap right now, who was the unwilling participant... testing the buttered cat paradox is far safer than testing the principles outlines in Schrodinger's cat's box, my cat is too precious for that). But, I digress. To say it MUST be cat on feet is just as wrong as it MUST be butter. The outcome lies in more variables than that. The paradox should be left without a which WILL land, as BOTH can occur. FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 10:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're point and to that i have addressed it however perhaps not with a great deal of emphasis.

Throughout my reply I focused mainly on trying to prove that an object, be it a cat, ball or a buttered piece of toast, does not have to land.T here are other points i see you find skeptical of.

To state simply: it follows that if something demands an object land in a certain orientation and it were dropped, to not land would be the only solution to it not landing in that demanded orientation, which I assume you now agree with me on as youre reply made no rebuttal to that logic.

If i were to not drop (leave it lying) a piece of buttered toast from a table, then it wont land. it would still be able to land butter side down if i were to force it to land, say by pushing it off the table, but im not going to and in this example the toast lays on the table for an infinite amount of time undropped. Since it is taken that landing must occur in the wrong orientation to contradict the adage this scenario is therefore not contradicting the original adage (or just by logic we see that no contradiction takes place). Now say somehow i were to drop a piece of buttered toast from a table in such a way that it wont land, taken from my previous statement it could still land buttered side down, if i were to somehow force it to land, but as landing has not yet been undertaken and from the previous statement we can conclude that the adage is also not contradicted.

The exact same can be said with a cat and its demanded landing orientation.

The next problem comes as to obtaining such a situation where an object can be dropped in such a way that it were to not land.

To answer this question in depth one would need to define "drop" and "land" to a degree indicating what exactly an object that is dropped and an object that has landed is, but for this cat/toast experiment sake i shall just assume simply that an object is dropped when it moves from a place of higher altitude to a place of lower altitude, and an object lands when it has been dropped and lies on a surface unique to that which it was originally on (i.e. a dropped object still in motion toward its place of lower altitude has not landed as it does not lie on a surface unique to that which it was dropped from). If you wish for me to reply again with more indepth definitions then i shall but for arguements sake.

I believe my original reply showed possible answers to this problem, however to be specific i shall describe it with one subject of the paradox, the bread. If i were to attach by string a rock to this buttered toast and dropped it, according to my definition of the landing, if the rock were to hit the ground first then the bread would not have landed, as it does not now lie on a unique surface, it is still attached to the rock and has not landed on the surface of the ground. The toast has been dropped but has not landed.

The exact same could be said of the rock if the toast were to land. The toast has been dropped and has landed, whilst the rock has been dropped but has not yet landed.

Now taking my very first statement that an object that hasnt landed could not possibly contradict the adage this example also doesnt contradict the adage.

Now say the bread reaches the ground first, then the idea from the adage is that it would land buttered side down. This also doesnt contradict the adage.

Now exchange said rock for say, a cat.

If the cat were to land, it would do so feet first with the toast still attached to its back without having landed on the floor of your dining room.

This is where i fell into my grave error. I left my conclusion at that.

Of course it is possible for the toast to land, but that also does not contradict either adage and hence shows itself as a possible solution to the paradox. Where one lands, one simply assumes that the other has not landed; without being specific on it being bread or cat.

I just assumed one would be logical enough to understand the real meaning behind what i was proposing.

I stated previously "Or the converse I supposed holds too." without much emphasis. You argued i stated it "MUST occur one way". On that case of course i was wrong. Quite plainly it does not, as i had stated previously. So both results obtained would still prove solutions to the problem.

Coming back to the problem. Now if the toast were to land (the result i did not describe with detail), it would do so buttered side down with the cat still attached to its back without having landed on the floor of your dining room. The toast landed buttered side down (which it is allowed to) the cat has not landed (which it is also allowed to do).122.109.68.34 (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is where we are probably best to agree to disagree. Your logic is based upon the assumption that the two objects become a single object. The problem of the paradox lies in them being separate objects, such that

If the cat lands on its feet, the toast lands not-buttered side down on the cat's back.
If the toast lands buttered side down, the cat lands on it's back on the toast.
As toast must land buttered-side-down, and cats must land on their feet, then they must not land

If they were indeed a single object, then the the paradox does not come into play as it would be a 'cat wearing buttered toast', and not a 'cat' AND 'buttered toast'. FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 13:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]