User talk:Finell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to my talk page!
Please click HERE to leave me a new message.
Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
I will respond on this page to your messages, unless you ask me to respond on your Talk page or elsewhere.


Contents

Welcome![edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Finell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  RJFJR 04:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for Welcome![edit]

Dear RJFJR: Thanks for the Welcome message you left on my Talk page! I am curious how you even noticed my existence. Are you the official welcoming committee?? Thanks again. Finell 02:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm the officially unofficial (or vice-versa) welcome committee. Which just means that I remember appreciating it when someone left the welcome message for me so I try to do it for new wikipedians in return. Have fun! RJFJR 02:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Stub text[edit]

No, I didn't notice your note until you pointed it out to me. As for your other question, did you click the discussion tab when reading User:Rdsmith4/me? If not, I have no idea why that happened. It's not possible to modify the behavior of the tabs. In any case, I redirected User talk:Rdsmith4/me to my real talk page to avoid future confusion. — Dan | Talk 02:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Right, he was reading User:Rdsmith4/me and clicked "discussion" intending to leave me a message, but left it in the wrong place. The page is fine as a redirect. — Dan | Talk 19:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for your support and kind words on my RfA. Much appreciated. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 04:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Golden mean, Golden Mean, ZGolden mean[edit]

What exactly were you trying to do with these moves/redirects? It seems to me that all you really needed to do was edit the original version of "Golden mean" and change the redirect to point to Golden Mean. Am I missing something? Owen× 12:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Nicomachean Ethics[edit]

Thanks for your help with the introduction--it looks much better now. I made sure the article was accurate, but the writing style isn't always very good. Some of the other paragraphs could probably use some help too. I would like to link to golden mean from NicEth, but I'll wait until it gets sorted out a little. WhiteC 15:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Finell![edit]

Thanks from jossi.png
Thank you for your support on my RfA, and for the very kind words. Both are sincerely appreciated. Look forward to collaborate further with you. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 14:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Sig[edit]

Here, Aum.pngShell <e> 02:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Solar eclipse[edit]

Uh, why did you comment out the entire latter part of the article? [1] -- Curps 05:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Would an Admin PLEASE help me? I am NOT a vandal. I did not mean to comment out ANY part of the text of Solar eclipse. In the course of copyediting 1 section of Solar eclipse, I added 3 words in capital letters at the end of a comment that someone else had already inserted, agreeing with that comment. Did I inadvertently overwrite the end of comment tag that was already there?
When I saved my edit and saw what happened to the article, I immediately tried to revert my own edit, but I was alrady BLOCKED. I tried to respond on Admin Curps's Talk page, but I couldn't because I'm BLOCKED. When I tried to email Admin Curps as the User is blocked" page suggested, I couldn't: I got an error message saying that I can't email either because I am not logged in (but I was) or because I don't have a valid email address in my preferences (but I do).
I am aware that this featured article has been plagued with vandalism. But PLEASE look at my whole edit history on Solar eclipse. PLEASE look at my 2 signed comments toward the end of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Solar_eclipse#All_messed_up . PLEASE look at my whole edit history on Wikipedia. PLEASE post my response on User_talk:Curps or email it to him.
My IP address 75.6.227.164 is also blocked.
Thanks. Finell (Talk) 07:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Looks like the blocker realised this was a genuine mistake very quickly (see the block log [2]). However I guess the auto blocker has caught you, I'll undo those. --pgk(talk) 09:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I missed any autoblocks, I think I checked for them and didn't find any. It's not clear why you weren't able to send e-mail, my e-mail is working fine and I receive e-mails daily. However, your edit did more than just add capital letters at the end of an HTML comment, you also added an HTML end comment string at the very end of the article (after the +zh interwiki link, and far away from the site of those capital letters) [3]. So despite what you said above, it really seems like you did intend to comment out the entire latter part of the article... probably you were experimenting and inadvertently saved that experiment to the actual page instead of the Wikipedia:Sandbox. Unfortunately, Solar eclipse was prominently linked from the main page, as a recent featured article, and we've had a lot of vandalism to such prominently featured articles lately, so it was a bit trigger-happy, but I did unblock the account name a minute later. Perhaps there really ought to be an option to unblock autoblocks at the same time that a username is unblocked. -- Curps 01:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Saints Wikiproject[edit]

I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints. You can sign up on the page and add the following userbox to your user page.

Gloriole.svg This user is a member of the Saints WikiProject.



Thanks! --evrik 19:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

history of astronomy articles[edit]

Finell, I am pleased to see your recent enthusiast contributions to astronomical history articles. One request: could you be less aggressive in editing, and try keep the number of edit sessions limited? I now see >10 changes a day in one article, it is hard to keep up reviewing them. Tom Peters 13:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Finell, I gave you the wrong answer on the meaning of VAT in reference to clay tablets: it is an abbreviation for Vorder-Asiatische Tontafelsammlung, and they are (or used to be) kept in Berlin musea, not in the Vatican. Tom Peters 22:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Golden Ratio[edit]

Thanks for the compliment you posted on my Talk page regarding the Golden Ratio graphic, I wrote a short reply to it there. Good luck on the article. -Eisnel 20:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Golden Ratio in Geometry[edit]

Steven, I am not sure what you are asking about. Last I checked I could not detect any material that I added to the Golden Ratio page. Do you know where the link has gone? I am pretty sure there was one to one of the pages at my site, with all the proofs and relevant sources for a follow-up. Did you find any wrong with this arrangement? -Alexb@cut-the-knot.com 21:19, 3 October 2006 (EST)

Steven, sorry. Absolutely forgot about what I did. The piece about the 4:3 ratio appeared in one of Keith Devlin's columns at the MAA site a few years back. If need be I can find it. As to the potential of the wide screen, this is of course a speculation, but a reasonable one, in view of the mystical aesthetic value ascribed to the Golden Ratio. There is a nice link to a misconceptions page. -Alexb@cut-the-knot.com 21:41, 3 October 2006 (EST)

Fibonacci[edit]

Eh? Minor? To be frank, I didn't even known you can mark moves as minor. I must have thought I was marking the target for deletion! Dunno how that happened. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, er, thanks for the heads up. I am totally aware of minor edits. I just didn't know that MOVES could be marked minor. As an admin I do in fact know uh... a lot.
As to your main point, I corrected all the double-redirects, and no, I don't think it's a good idea to bypass all redirects. Some redirects, yes, definitely not all. For example, the article for "3" should continue stating that it's a Fibonacci number. I think that's quite fine. There's no policy here that all redirects should be bypassed. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Mathematics: Canadian mass nouns[edit]

Do you mean "mass nouns" or "math nouns"? Till 15 September the text was still The word "mathematics" is often abbreviated math in the U.S. and Canada and maths in Britain, Ireland, Australia and many other Commonwealth countries.[4] Then it was changed to North America, after some discussion, now in the archives. If one defines the Google hit operator Gh by Gh[X] = the number of Google hits for search term "X", and the maths ratio for site S by mrS = Gh[maths site:S]/Gh[mathematics site:S], we find experimentally that mr.uk ≈ 0.95, whilst mr.ca ≈ 0.07, supporting the theory of Canadian neighbourly conformance. I'm somewhat reluctant to transform this insight into a contribution to our article Canadian English (North American English confines itself to the U.S.), as it is based on original research. The article seems to take the position anyway that by default the lexicon for Canadian English is the same as for American English, as it mainly documents the differences between these two.  --LambiamTalk 20:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Lavinia Williams[edit]

Finell, thanks for your kind comment regarding Lavinia Williams. Sorry I haven't been around much to reply. You suggested I list the additional citations I found (and mentioned on the article's talk page) under "References" in the article itself. The only thing is, I have no idea if they are real, trustworthy, or accurately transcribed. The citations on the talk page (as opposed to the ones in the articles) are citations I have seen references to online, but where I have not actually seen or heard the books, videos, or audiotapes myself, and could not even find them listed in library catalogs that I checked. I mentioned them on the talk page to give people who wanted to work on the article ideas for places to look, but I didn't want to just blindly propagate them into the article before someone checked up on them. EsdnePyaJ 04:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please Do Not Vandalize My Talk Page[edit]

Adding your information to my talk page is not appropriate. A word is not inherently a personal attack, and using the "dick rule" is quite appropriate. If you have a complaint about it, find the talk page there, and do not edit my page because you disagree with something that is tossed around by many editors and admin as a good rule of thumb. SanchiTachi 04:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear SanchiTachi:

The views expressed in your item "The Following Words are Not Personal Attack Terms" are misleading and are a dangerous endorsement of personal attacks and incivility, particularly to individuals who are new to the Wikipedia community. Do you really contend that if someone wrote on Wikipedia that you are a dick or a bully, or that you behave like one, that would not constitute a personal attack? Therefore, I added corrective information that is documented by the Wikipedia official policy statements that were linked in what I added.

Furthermore, you should take to heart the comments of other Wikipedians who have expressed the view that some of your conduct has been uncivil or has constituted personal attacks, and consider that they may not all be mistaken. At least, consider whether your contributions to Wikipedia would be more effective and more readily accepted it you stopped engaging in conduct that several other Wikipedians view as disruptive. Also, you may find greater satisfaction in your participation here if your conduct is not the object of this sort of criticism. I am not suggesting that you avoid controversy, but rather that you advocate your position on controversial issues more effectively.

As for the immediate issue of your item "The Following Words are Not Personal Attack Terms", I suggest that you do one of the following: (1) Delete the item; or (2) Restore my response in the interest of balance. Of these, I believe that the first one would be best.

Regarding your accusation that my addition was vandalism, please review Wikipedia:Vandalism and you will see that it is not: I did not change or delete what you wrote. If, after reviewing that statement of official policy, you still contend that my addition was vandalism, please either invoke Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or commence formal dispute resolution, so the issue can be resolved authoritatively.

Finell (Talk) 05:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Disrupting user pages is vandalism. You had no purpose there except to try and be argumentative, which goes against Wiki policy. Any further responses by you or changes to my user page or talk page from you will result in me sending your name up for review. You had no reason to be there, nor any purpose except to be disruptive. SanchiTachi 05:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Dear SanchiTachi:
Please do "[send my] name up for review", as you offered to do on my Talk page. That is precisely what my last comment proposed that you do. Also, it is not appropriate for you to delete (i.e., censor) the comment I left on your Talk page, especially since my comment was a direct response to the message that you posted on my Talk page. Finell (Talk) 06:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

licensing[edit]

There's nothing wrong with his multilicensing under GFDL and PD. I just spent like....3 hours looking into it. SWATJester Denny Crane. 13:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

Please note that primary sources are perfectly acceptable sources on WP and your insistance of adding {{unreferenced}} to an article which cites its sources is quite surprising. If you are unfamiliar with the subject matter and find it unbelievable, you would do much better reading up on the matter. Here you have the following sources to the subject matter with *published* English translations, including commentaries:

You would do much better adding these external links to the article than to engage in an edit war insisting on pretending that the article does not cite its sources.--Berig 17:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You say that I began by reverting you, whereas the hisory says that the first revert was yours. If you are unable to spot four (4) sources in the first two paragraphs, and the table {{volsung}} on the right side of the table which mentions four sources, there is nothing I can do.--Berig 04:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
You have to understand that it says nowhere on WP:CITE that naming the primary sources is not citing. If this question is so important to you, why do you insist on plastering tags, instead of adapting the sourcing to *your own* preferences?--Berig 08:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I wrote to the President but got no reply[edit]

Finell

Thanks for your message on my talk page. Attempts to contact the secretary of Bertie's Cabal and clarify the rules for membership have thus far proved fruitless.

I think I wrote the piece as I had intended, but accept it may have been more amusing if reworded. I did, however, your point of view until I was worried that my head might asplode and then decided to go bowling instead.

Paul Tracy|\talk 22:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Peter Nehr page[edit]

Peter Nehr is a subject of interest. Reasons being that he is only Austrian-American natualized citizen that I know of that has made it to the Florida State Legislature that I have been able to find in my research. Thus, that makes him a first in his category. He is now a freshman with sponsored bill which have passed which makes him of significance in any state since he is now within state history regardless of scale of importance. I thank you for taking time to review and appreciate the scope of your position in trying to keep the range and scope of Wikipedia down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anitanehr (talkcontribs)

Conflict of Interest[edit]

re:Anita, I see no indication that you have been locked out of Wikipedia. Your user name is Anitanehr and your account is not blocked. What do you mean that you are locked out? On the other hand, what do you mean by gaining "exclusive access"? No one has exclusive access to Wikipedia articles; everyone has equal access. Also, the fact that you are the subject's wife and were "assigned to establish the Wikipedia listing for [your] husband" suggests the potential for violating the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy. Finell (Talk) 07:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Continuing this discussion please, Finell, It was my mistake on being "locked out"...please forgive, I am new and I was not locked out. Now as to conflict of interest. I could see how my writing style could be construed as biased and changed it to strictly factual and will be providing all backup within the next 2 weeks so that my article is referenced as in my Graduate and my PhD papers were and will be. Will this alleviate any problems for you where conflict of interst are concerned? Doctoral theses have been written on some cases where no distance exists in some areas of science and yet fact can be maintained in the writing. Being close to him, I know his background better than someone else and have access to factual documents such as birth records, naturalization papers, etc that someone outside would not. I also read German fluently which allows me to read old data from before he came to this country should I ever need to add any prior historical information later as his career progresses which the Party asserts to me will happen. I will await your answer. Thank you in being so kind and patient with me. AnitanehrAnita

Die Feen[edit]

Hi Steven, Now that Die Feen contains a synopsis and some critical opinions, I think it is not too far off being suitable for candidacy as a good article. As a preliminary, I'm trying to sort out the referencing. I noticed you added a reference to the booklet from the Sawallisch set. I wonder whether you can help me on who wrote the notes and what pages they are in the booklet? Contentwise, does it indicate whether the recording was made in 1982, as the article previously stated) or 1983 which would fit better with the centenary celebrations? I also wonder if it is a source for the history of the manuscript (ie. its being given to Ludwig and then to Hitler and then being lost) or the lack of braodcasting. Thanks. --Peter cohen 11:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Peter: Where do you see that I added any reference to this article? I just checked my 3 edits, and they do not include adding a reference (I did add a tag to indicate that more secondary references were needed, but it was promptly removed).
I see that you added a lot of content to the article. However, before nominating the article as a WP:GA, I suggest more careful copy editing (just quickly glancing at the article, I saw that the very first sentence lacks a period, and I spotted two words that were run together), adding many more wikilinks, and conforming the capitalization in the headings to the WP:MOS. Also, I suggest moving the list of recordings to the "Performance and Recording History" section, adding more inline references (especially where a statement is attributed to others, such as "Although the music of Die Feen shows the influences of Weber and other composers of the time, commentators have recognised embryonic features of the mature Wagnerian opera."), and removing all the redlinks from the premier cast (no reason to believe that they each warrant a Wikipedia article). Also, many of the Notes and Sources need to be conformed to proper bibliographic citation style; I suggest using citation templates, because they promote consistent style and completeness. Good luck! Finell (Talk) 18:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Steven, thanks for your reply. It is in the following edit [5] that you added the reference at the bottom.

I've done much of what you suggested above. The WP:WPO recommended style is to have a discography at the bottom and a performance history warly on. I'll have a think how best to split the performance and recording material. The Sources section has a query against it, anyway from our trial assessments, and is likely to be replaced by further reading and external links sections. As for, the inline citations, my initial contact with you was to do with finding what was said in which sources. Who the commentators are in the lead mentioned in the lead is explained in the article (specifically) in the The music section. I intend to check which of the performers at the premiere are important. at WP:Wagner we are compiling a list of singers who need articles. Thanks again for your comments and good wishes.--Peter cohen 23:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:BABEL[edit]

Perhaps you'd consider using those language userboxes, so other editors can easily know which languages you are proficient in?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Copernicus in German Encyclopedias[edit]

Okay, I looked it up in the Brockhaus Enzyklopädie and in a text from the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie. His nationality isn't mentioned in my edition of the Brockhaus Encyclopedia, but the text from the ADB [6] has one paragraph devoted to this question. Should I translate it?
In der Wissenschaft ist er ein Mann, der nicht einer Nation angehört means For/In science he is a man who has neither/no nationality. It also says that his nationality couldn't be determined clearly and has been a matter of dispute.
I could also cite the german wikipedia (leading and modern), but this won't count, would it? I hope I could help. --Versusray 13:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Versusray: Cite rather the "Neue Deutsche Biographie", this is the continuation of "Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie". The last "Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie" edition seems to be from 1912. And rather take the newest edition of "Neue Deutsche Biographie" not those from 1953. The older edition can likely disrespect the neutral point of view; most probably because it is the Polish heritage case - which need to be minimized, is not it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.219.176 (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's from 1912, that's why it's public domain and in wikisource. That was all I could find. I don't know if the newer edition is more 'neutral', because this old one already states that Copernicus had neither nationality. I'd already call this neutral. You can also look at the original entry, but I guess this won't help you. --Versusray 19:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

My regard for other users and viewpoints[edit]

You mentioned in the talk page of the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon article that you saw evidence of my lack of regard for other users and their viewpoints on my user talk page. In good faith, I re-read the content on my talk page, and I didn't see any evidence of a lack of regard for other users or viewpoints, unless your definition of "lack of regard" somehow includes "disagreement". At any rate, I found the personal attack offensive. Rray 19:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for offending you, but please distinguish between comments about editing behavior and personal attacks. Was your edit comment a personal attack on me? I did not take it as such. On the other hand, your manner of editing and commenting does tend toward the abrasive, rather than the collaborative. Finell (Talk) 21:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree about being abrasive rather than collaborative, but that's cool too. Thanks for taking the time to reply though, and have a good weekend. Rray 22:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I put Benford's law of controversy up for afd[edit]

regards,Rich 03:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Spelling out of centuries on Joseph Priestley[edit]

I appreciate your desire to adhere to the letter of the law of the MOS, but it is only a guideline. Because featured articles try to attain a professional standard of writing, it is important when getting an article ready for that venue to keep that standard in mind. Professional style guides such as the Chicago Manual of Style dictate that centuries should be spelled out. Academic presses spell out their centuries as well. I'm not going to revert this change again, but I would appreciate it if you would consider the explanation left in the edit summary and the discussion on the article's talk page before reverting. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 19:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I did conider your edit summaries. I am aware of the other style guides, which are not unanimous on this point. There are some MOS standards that I never use elsewhere (periods and commas immediately after a close quotation marks make me cringe). However, Wikipedia should aspire to adhere to the MOS, especially in FAs. Furthermore, in this case ordinal numerals are more legible than the spelled out words. Thanks for not re-reverting 2 other editors who are trying to help. Finell (Talk) 19:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
This is one of those guidelines that makes me cringe, so you can probably understand how it is to read through the article and see those bristly little numbers everywhere. Everyone has their pet peeves. The article is just about ready for FAC. I'm still awaiting a few replies from the peer review and Roger Davies is going to change it all to British English. Awadewit | talk 19:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I didn't think your edit comment was poorly written! It was interesting enough to make me look at the change. I just quoted it as (what I think of as) wordplay... –Outriggr § 23:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and since I'm here, Awadewit has converted me to spelled-out centuries, at least in articles about history. (But then I know someone will convert 'em, so then I forget about it.) I agree that it looks more professional. Especially when they are used in adjectival form—a hyphen is always less jarring when it does not join a numeric construction ("18th-century" versus "eighteenth-century"; "4-speed" vs. "four-speed"). –Outriggr § 23:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: your email[edit]

Hey, sorry, that simply slipped through the net -- if I don't respond when I first get the new messages bar I tend to forget about it. Anyway I responded on my talk page. Cheers, Christopher Parham (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

MOS proposal[edit]

Thanks for your comment, but it does seem to be tangential to the question: do you support the idea that MOS central takes precedence by default, thus encouraging debate on the talk pages of both MOS and the relevant sub-page to resolve inconsistencies (soon after they're identified, we hope)? Tony (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

My vote was "Support, but ...", which I followed with the reasons for my support and some reservations. My last comment was a reply to User:SandyGeorgia, who remarked on one of my reservations. Finell (Talk) 02:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Pumpmeup and talkpages[edit]

Just FYI - he is entitled to delete or archive the information on his userpage, including inactive block/unblock notices and warnings. Avruch T 15:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact it was actually archived, I never delete threads that aren't just vandalism/spam. Please see User talk:Pumpmeup/Archive 4 - I just forgot to update the archive box on the main talk page. Even so you have absolutely no right to restore removed comments, accuse me of lying and ignore policy on the spot ("you should be reminded of your misconduct until you learn from you mistake"). Your edit summaries show blatant ignorism of the appropriate user talk page policy alongside quite severe incivility. Not too mention the incident didn't concern you in the first place and you are not aware of any of the further details. I notice you've had problems with incivility and such in related incidents in the past - which may have contributed to you being blocked. Try and stay out of incidents that don't concern you in future, or at least remain civil and do a bit of policy reading. --Pumpmeup 18:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Pump: Your repeated vandalism of Joseph Priestley certainly did concern me, because I invested effort working on that FA (though not nearly as much as the article's main contributors). So when that FA hit the Main Page, I was one of several editors monitoring it for the usual juvenile vandalism by anon users. I was surprised to see repeated vandalism of that article by a logged in Wikipedian, and then shocked to find that the vandal was an established Wikipedian with several well deserved commendations for your service to Wikipedia. When I saw nothing about this vandalism on your Talk page, I looked at the page history and saw that you deleted the posts about your being blocked for vandalism and also about your failed RfA. Your edit summary on these deletions said that you "archived" the discussions, but they were not in the archives linked from your Talk page (I was not aware that you put them in a hidden archive, but that is essentially the same as simply deleting them). Further, removing Talk page comments about your conduct that you don't like to an archive is not archiving in the way that term is used on Wikipedia; these were posts made the same day on an otherwise empty Talk page. Subsequently, you simply deleted my post on your Talk page without archiving it, and you did the same to a post by Admin Rifleman 82, in which he told you that your post on my Talk page was uncivil and that he was questioning his decision to unblock you.
Given your recent block for vandalism, the comments that Admins and other experienced Wikipedians have made about your conduct, the closing of your recent RfA with not a single supporting vote, and the removal of your rollback privilege for misuse, you would be wise to consider your own conduct rather than attacking others. Your edit summary on my Talk page is disgraceful. Finell (Talk) 02:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Allow me to reiterate that you, Pumpmeup and anyone else is entitled to remove warnings, notices and criticism (and anything else) from their talkpage. The purpose of the talkpage is to communicate with the user - if you leave a warning, and its removed, you can assume that the user read it. I'm not endorsing vandalism or anything else for which either of you have previously been blocked. Simple fact is, he can remove what he wants, and telling him otherwise is not constructive to solving a problem. Avruch T 02:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll respond to your comment on my talkpage. Avruch T 03:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There was no "hidden" archive. It was just the same as all the others - the box just wasn't updated on the main talk page. Seriously, realize that I have, and always will read other's comments before archiving/removing them (in cases where threads provide no meaningful/useful conversation). All revisions/discussions are available in the page's history. Pumpmeup 06:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Pumpmeup & edit summary[edit]

Hi there

Just a note to tell you I've responded at at my talk. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Golden emergency[edit]

I'm trying to create a category to list all the works that were designed with golden proportions or at least been studied because of it's coinciding properties in diverse publications (say, like Stone Henge or the Arc of Noah)... but I can't figure out the right name for such category. I'll also bee needing at least some peer review of the experts. --20-dude (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"(...)omits from its list of resources many of the authoritative sources cited in the Golden ratio article itself." I'm just starting. Howcome every single editor expects every article to be finished already when it is just starting? I'm starting the list from scratch. First placing the books written by the historical researchers, then the academic and scientific researchers from universities and scientific organizatons, then other authors, then internet pages from academic/scientific, and finally regular sourced useful amateur internet pages... If you want you would be more than welcomed to put those sources you mention in the project. Because of your next comment there is still a lot left for me to do:

Also, as the Golden ratio article shows, a lot of nonsense has been written about the golden ratio, and not everything written on the topic is by a reliable source. Yes I'm plenty aware. I could use some more of your advising here. I was thinking on maybe dividing the list in:

  • works that have clear golden proportion and have been studied in diverse quotable publications (like stonehenge, the pyramids or the music of Beethoven)
  • works designed with golden proportion (the parthenon, da vinci's work, le corbusier's work, etc.)

But that would left some other works like the Gothic cathedrals right in the middle. They have unknown authors but the geometrical coincidence is even more detailed than the parthenon.

What are your thoughts? By the way, even if you're an opposer you should be involved.--20-dude (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Nice going with the list! I like a lot the changes you made.--20-dude (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I meant opposer to the WikiProject (since you didn't seem to like it too much), but that was a poor choice of words on my part, anyway. I know you're a great contributor to the golden ratio articles and that's why I came to you. Reinassance is a toughie, but you're right, that's really embarrasing. hahaha. It shouldn't happen.--20-dude (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean any disrespect to the work done and its researchers. The sources there will be eventually placed, but I'm sure even you agree that's the kind of work that can be ready from the beginning. It was my initiative to include a list of sources that can be researched for the related articles, nobody told me to do so and is not that common to see that sort of lists in a Wikiproject.--20-dude (talk) 02:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your reply is in my talk page: --20-dude (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

WARNING[edit]

You gave me constructive criticism, I'll do the same for you:

  • a. What makes you talk with such tone? it kinda sounds like authoritarian arrogance. Nobody likes that either. I suggest you relax, be careful and take it easy. We're supposed to be a community, never forget that.
  • b. I looked for help, especially in those who oppose my view, and results speak for themselves. It worked.
  • c. If you think, mathematics is indispensable for applying golden proportion in aesthetics; you need to learn beyond that. As long as it is man made (or even nature made) it will NEVER get be phi. Divine proportion is, as its name indicates, an ideal of perfection. It is weird to you I know, but art approaches phi like that: A perfect square, a string, a nail, marker and perhaps a hammer is all an artist needs to IMITATE phi. The best approach to GR is the Parthenon: it features the proportion in the global dimensions, in the inner spaces, and in the thickness of the structure.
  • d. I'm fine with Dicklyon, my appreciation of his work and perspective is real.
  • e. Your comments are more than welcomed and your sort of constructive criticism is fine, but never forget, it's very easy to speak when you don't create.
  • f. Wikipedia is all about having articles that are not necesarely complete, but are pushed to appear so. I explained from the beginning I was trying to make a "page under construction", in which tags could indicate so. I the end, I gave up and continue to develop the article with your systems.
  • g. Check the editorial houses and the curriculum of my sources. You come from the math angle; most of my quotes are from historians, architects and designers (and then again, even some engineers).
  • h. You can't blame me about the images as if it were a crime. Actually, according to me, I was giving the author even more credit by not modifying to much the context of the images. And I'm not sure you're even right on that one. What's a fourth of a page compared to a full screenshot, which are so welcomed in WP articles there is a copyright tag for them.
  • i. I don't mind that much, but you come off as rude and have your own flaws. You are also always the first to point fingers. I'm just chatty, and sort of opinionated, nobody is disrupting, not even rude. The evolution of the article speaks for itself, it's not mine or dicklyon's, is the best of both.
  • j. C'mon, the Bangkok thing was priceless. It's moronic, but it has a honest mistake, I kept reading a column as if it were an internet page, haha.
  • k. everybody can make warnings. Please, keep them for when it's worth.
  • l. I was planning on keep going until I finish the alphabet, but when I actually contemplated repeating the same comments with different letter I decided to give it a rest.
  • m. Take care. Bye, now.

--20-dude (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I answered at User talk:20-dude#Warning, where this conversation began. Finell (Talk) 17:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, stop copying what I post on your page in my page. It is not a big deal if I sign up and I axidentally wasn't logged in. I was doing edits from another site. It is not like you have to mind anyway. Same with my warning. That's right my warning is ok yours not. You have to avoid blank reverting and when you see somebody doing so you HAVE to warn him before. I hate wasting my time like this but:

.618=.382+.236=(.618)²+(.618)³ ...so, you can eat your words. 

Specifically the word nonsense. Somebody else might consider that an attack on your part, but I'll assume there is good faith somewhere. Read your comments again, they were uncalled for and very unpleasent.

When Dick blanked my edits twice, back then the article was mostly a list with the books that talk about them as related to golden ratio. He erased the Parthenon 4 Gosh sake! The whole thing is inscribed in a freaking golden prism! You're attacking the editor and not the ploblem (against WP: guidelines, btw)Results speak for themselves, with the exception of the arks (wich I respected when Dick took them off) I have proven that every item was right. You should have observed the items were a very specific selection from the beginning. I could defenitely suport your concern I were placing just any monument like an idiot, say the Statue of Liberty, the Eiffel Tower or the Great Wall, ut there is no justification for taking off such trascendental work as the gothic cathedrals. To finish soon: the damn parthenon paragraphs were actually (and rightfuly) long time part of the Golden ratio article and he took it of!!! PHIdias for gosh sake!!

I tired of this, please let's move on. There's still too much to do. --20-dude (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Not recently. When I'm editing from another computer and I feel to lazy to sing in, you can tell it is me by my familiar way of addresing the editors that always implies that I know them and it is me. And if ask later I always confirm. Sometimes I even change the signature myself (I also always sign)--20-dude (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins[edit]

Hello Finell. Thank you for your contributions to the article Richard Dawkins. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I just commented on the article's talk page. Finell (Talk) 04:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks re: "logical quotation"[edit]

Thanks for your edit at WP:MoS, Steven. That's the first time someone has gotten it exactly right, I think. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Euclid[edit]

Dear Finell I was wondering what your objection to changing the nationality of Euclid is. As it is known, Euclid was probably born in Alexandria. He taught and died in it. No one can confirm that he is purely Greek while what is more confirmed is that most of his life was spent in Egypt. He is even called "Euclid of Alexandria". In the hellinic period the Egyptian and Greek civilizations were strongly mixed with each other and each of them influenced the other. Euclid and many other scientists of Alexandria in the Byzantine age are results of that mix. So it is fair to claim both nationalities for them. So I do not understand why this insistence on claiming a doubtful piece of information (i.e. that he is purely Greek) while refusing something that might have greater evidence? Please note that I am saying he is a Greek/Egyptian and I am not claiming that he is only Egyptian. I linked the NAHSTE website in external links. If you did some search in the internet you would find many evidences that support my claim. Best wishes, Ahmedettaf April 5 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedettaf (talkcontribs) 15:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Correction to my last message: I meant the two civilizations (Egyptian and Greek) were strongly interacting with each other during the Ptolemaic empire and not the Byzantine age. Sorry about that Ahmedettaf (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Luca Pacioli[edit]

Please don't remove cited information, it is considered vandalism. Chessy999 (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed because it's the standard here. Ciao and good work!! --Attilios (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Matila Ghyka[edit]

I did not add any new information. My change was just a correction from Minister to Plenipotentiary Minister (which is the correct title for diplomatic envoys (see Diplomatic rank). Ministers without any other specification can be anything but diplomatic staff. I also added a reference to justify the rest of the information included in the article. I am willing to comply to your request if you are so kind and explain what I did wrong.Afil (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


Thank you. I will make the corrections accordingly. Actually the entire book is about Matila Ghyka.Afil (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Lojack[edit]

Please see my opinion on removing that content here. Nothing personal, I just don't think that content of articles should be held in ransom when it happens to be in accordance with wikipedia policies. (it was libel or it had unreliable sources, it would be different, but this is not the case) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with the LoJack issue. I am not going to push this any further, delete or modify the content just because I think that it should not be there. Wikipedia is a community site and people on it can use it and do what they want with it. I am surprised at the social ethics of some of your contributors, it seems to be a lot more ego then common sense. The people that feel that everything should be out there should be careful for what they wish for because when they realize why some things shouldn't be so available, it will be too late. This really is not a big deal, it is already out there anyway, Wikipedia just makes it easier to find. Please respond in my talk page if you need to reach me.Summitrt (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Edits[edit]

Why do you keep editing articles that are barely within your field of knowledge? the problem is also that your edita are too strong compared to your researching. Since unlike Dicklyon, you never increase sourcing or information, I can't avoid having this perception. Read the source, not the entire thing but specifically the chapter, section or paragraph that contextualizes the wikipedia statement that you're modifiying. This is too focus on your actions, but that's why you always get the content wrong.

To ilustrate my point, your edits the extreme oposite (meaning as bad) of what you consider mine to be: I my writing often need polishing but the information always prove right, stay and evolves into something even better (save for the biblical arcs); while your polishing lacks aproximation to the sources and end up twisting words to the point that the connection to what the source says stops existing.

Also, there was an ongoing discussion about the use of "he calls", the resolution was that there is no need to use such controversial afirmation when there are milloin of ways of expressing the same thing without affirmating something we can't prove: we don't have a sourse stating who coined the term, in consecuence we can't the coining to anyone and twisting word's in the article is not helping either.

Please, as a personal favor, think of you're answser, twice. Because I barely control my temper, an although its all my problem and fault, it's never a good idea to trigger it.

A sugestion, ask when you don't understand something I write, don't claim it is wrong. Read yourself in the talk pages (as I often do my writting). All your claims were proven wrong or just partially right. The articles remains in escense the same, which is all I care for (I'm not tight with the words I write at all, but with the statements and points they make).--20-dude (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dude: Please tell me exactly which edits you are referring to. You can link the diffs in you reply. Also, if you tried to be more "tight with the words [you] write", what you write would require less editing and clean-up to bring it up to Wikipedia's standards, and there would be less opportunity for others to make mistakes when they edit you. Also, please consider the use of a spell-checker. The spelling in what you write in article space are an embarrassment to Wikipedia, which is why Dicklyon and I refer not merely to editing your writing to improve it, but having "to clean up after you".
It is not a good idea for you to compare Dicklyon and me, or one editor to another in general. We each have our strengths and weaknesses. Dicklyon is a much stronger mathematician than I am; I doubt that you are making the same claim. He has fixed occasional mathematical mistakes that I have made, and I have tweaked some of his writing. But he and I get along reasonably well, and neither of us has had anything near the kinds of problems with one another that we each have had with you. I do not believe that he has ever given me a civility warning, for example, as he has given you. Also, my contributions to Wikipedia include sourced contributions and adding sources to existing material. However, when I copy edit to try to improve writing quality and clarity (something that you admit that you are not careful with), I am not looking for additional sources to cite.
Congratulations on managing your anger. That is a very important personal skill. You should be careful how you raise that subject with others, however. Some people might interpret the following statement of yours as a threat, especially the last part that I put in italic: "Please, as a personal favor, think of you're [sic: your] answser [sic: answer], twice. Because I barely control my temper, an [sic: and] although its [sic: it's] all my problem and fault, it's never a good idea to trigger it." That sounds startlingly close to what wife and child abusers say to terrorize and control their victims. I am sure that you did not mean it that way.
Learning to listen to what others say about oneself, and to try to take criticism in constructively, rather than being reactive and counterattacking (to what may not have been intended as an attack in the first place), is another important personal skill.
Have a nice weekend. Finell (Talk) 04:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell from your edit histories, the Dude seems to be blaming Finell for my recent edits. Go figger. Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I checked.--20-dude (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, watch your comments.[edit]

Consider this a warning. "It is an embarrassment". Is not acceptable as a description, its mean, offensive and raises suspicion of bad faith on your part (because it's too subjective). I demand your apologies.

And no, it's not an embarrassment, it is a stub. You don't like it, go fight the use of stubs at the policy pages, I don't care. Since the only good source in Google books is not good enough for me. I left it there, as a stub, to see if an expert comes along.

It is also not "my child". Quit going through my contributions, you're embarrassing yourself and if I were another person I could do the same to you, but that wouldn’t be civil (in a broader conception of the term). You always forget to ask before making strong statements and weak warnings, because I would have told you to erase it for all I care.

Please don’t reply. You can do as you please with the stub you have my “permission”. It’ll be fun to see what can you do as a researcher (I’m not stating any perception of you here, just to be clear). Again, please do not reply, I won’t care to read it. --20-dude (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to discourage pagemove archiving[edit]

See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal to discourage pagemove archiving. xenocidic (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Your erasing and bad choice of words[edit]

For future reference, I'm sure is just a bad choice of words, but your usage of the word "unintelligible" enrages me (I'm just expressing the effect). That's because a) it's not, the definition of that word goes beyond what you meant (which I'll assume is bad grammar, phrasing or spelling) b) in the past you have showed a limited knowledge and capability understanding the topic, therefore, you must realize unintelligible to you might mean just that (unintelligible to Finell)c) all the paragraphs were created at different times and I'm not the only creator or those 3 paragraphs, d) it's incredibly disrespectful to the creators, much more when you erase it.

I'll move on, but in the future try to think twice and be more considerate before behaving like that. Somehow, you insist on editing a topic you're barely familiar with, that's cool, but take in consideration you are barely familiar with it, so that our collaboration gets better (I understand you're relatively new to the topic, you that I'm relatively new to your language).I put them back, but since your comments and actions let me confused about the problem with them, I did some editing. However, I'm not sure if that was an improvement, please fix them (as you already proved you can), and I'll check them later to make sure the sources are cited right.--20-dude (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You used the comments on my page against me, so I do the same and we're both right (you about me and vice versa):

Please don't remove cited information, it is considered vandalism. Chessy999 (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

--20-dude (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude: I know what unintelligible means. It accurately describes the text that I removed with that edit comment, which was not merely "bad grammar, phrasing or spelling"; the latter descriptions unfortunately characterize most of your contributions to Wikipedia. In that particular instance, even though you cited a source, the statement itself was incomprehensible, and therefore it was not possible to fix it by copy editing.
User:Chessy999 made it a practice to accuse those who reverted his bad edits of vandalism, as his Talk page shows. This behavior led to the discovery that Chessy999 was a sockpuppet of a user who had been banned from Wikipedia for abusive conduct; Chessy999 was blocked indefinitely a few weeks after his post on my Talk page. You will find other examples of abusive editors attacking me when I confront them, such as User talk:Finell#Please Do Not Vandalize My Talk Page. User:SanchiTachi, the author of that post, was indefinitely blocked for incivility a couple weeks later. Finell (Talk) 17:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Is that a threat? It sounds to me as if you're trying to scare me by showing me the "impaled heads you have chopped of", which is just weird.
Nevermind that, I'm also confused by most of your statements. For instance, what do you expect me to say when you label my overall edits? You know I could talk similarly about yours, but there would not be any point to that.
If that makes you ease, I do not think you're a vandal at all. Just a guy who in the end is juts trying to help improve articles that happen to be about stuff he is getting familiar with. As I have recently recognized you have (recently as well) achieved some great edits, but some of your messings include confusing badly what the sources say, and erasing stuff...Some or even most of it already edited by reliable editors (great part of the material you erased and called unintelligible was edited or survived Dicklyon). In consequence, I doubt your objectivity.
Then again, I'd like you to give it a second try. With the sources I added I can assure the material is verifiable (and obviously sourced), but with your collaboration it can also be assured that the material is well exposed.--20-dude (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Euclid[edit]

Finnel, if, as you claim, that Elements is the most the "successful" textbook, etc. etc., and that there are reliable sources (you know, besides the RS page), then cite them in the text, preferably with the context.

Otherwise I could equally claim that I have reliable sources that suggest otherwise, and both claims would be on level.

In sum, WP:PROVEIT.

Danjel (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a note - I responded to your undo in the Euclid Discuss

NittyG (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have begun the process again. Please see the discussion. I will wait shortly for your reply if it's not just that you got my message and when you'd be able to respond in more detail. Thanks NittyG (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


Finnel, I'm sorry I got pushy. I think we both got pretty frustrated. I answered to your reply. Lets take a deep breath and be constructive, objective, and focus now. Objections to what I put are natural, and I understand and appreciate the time you're putting forth in discussing this.

I figured I'd respond the the connect-the-dots remark. I understand why you put that where you did, but we should discuss these things on each others talk page from here on.

What I mean by connect-the-dots is, like in the case of the tin article, also put where tin comes from. The update I did to that article along those lines were regarded highly by the authors, which I'm a part of now.

We may not agree on everything, but lets work it out, work together for the interest of wikipedia

thanks NittyG (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Finnel - what do you think about the edits I made? NittyG (talk) 04:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Finnel - please note the discussion topic on the bottom of the Euclid talk page. Thanks. NittyG (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Thx for your thoughts. Tony (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Fibonacci sum expression[edit]

And why on Earth did you revert my changes? Which "source" do you need, if I proved that formula by myself, because could not find it neither at wikipedia, nor in books? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan Lakhturov (talkcontribs) 19:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

copulative verbs[edit]

re: you have redirected the link again.

Here in the Wikipedia, if one knows a subject (honestly) and be able to provide better explanation to that subject than as it is shown, then such things are beneficial to readers.

Your ways of doing thing (like, only cutting and redirection etc.) is usually a norm of a person who has no knowledge but pretend to be of showing alike (character of self derogatory for something....

Now it is clear that you do not understand those basic English. So why you have to involve if you do not know.

I will redirect one more time. But if you play again the same thing, I will leave it.

Why don’t you provide some more links or explanations if you can?

Nevill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.78.169 (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Anonymous: Thank you for your comments. I am not "playing games", but am trying to improve the encyclopedia. I did not redirect a "link"; I redirected 2 pages (Copulative verb‎ and Copulative verbs) to Copula (linguistics), because the latter article had a full treatment of the subject, and the articles that I redirected contributed nothing additional. You created (or recreated) 2 pages with identical content, which in not permitted because it makes maintaining the encyclopedia more difficult, and the page with the plural name violated Wikipedia's naming guidelines. Further, you marked your changes as minor, which they clearly were not. Your text cited no reliable sources, which violates Wikipedia's standards. More recently, after I restored the redirect, you blanked the page, which breaks links and damages the encyclopedia. Please try to learn about Wikipedia's policies, including its requirements of civil behavior and assuming good faith. Consider registering and participating more fully in the Wikipedia project. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 21:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No big deal but...[edit]

It's no big deal but I'd rather you didn't make changes to my signed comments. If you feel a small change, like the one you made today, would help things along, then just send me a message about it so I can make it myself.

This is no way the same thing as when you altered the statement topping the quotation section. That was meant to be a public message and your change was moderate and explained. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I certainly meant no offense. The response to what you wrote was off-base because he read what you wrote literally rather than what you obviously meant. I apologize. Finell (Talk) 23:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
None taken. I did kind of mean it literally, though.
...but I've noticed something else. You and Tony seem to think that I was involved in the edit war that directly preceded the most recent page block. I did make one reversion during that time, but it had nothing to do with the presence or absence of the explanation paragraph. I made this change: [7], which had already been discussed on the talk page [8]. Duke of Waltham reversed it. However, in his edit summary, he referred to MChavez's changes, not mine. I figured it must have been a mistake and undid Waltham's action. I also sent him a message on his talk page asking if this was the case, but he hasn't answered yet. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
How could you have meant it literally? Hans was clearly saying that so-called American is stupid and so-called English isn't. He was not saying that both (A and E) are stupid, as he made clear in this rebuttal. I took your original statement to mean that one shouldn't call either style (A or E) stupid—which is something on which you and I agree—and which you had to explain in your rejoinder. So I thought that you had hastily used the wrong conjunction, and marked up my change so the change would be obvious). But don't worry, I won't touch your posts again.
Also, the edit is what is important, moreso than the edit summary. A rational editor would only revert an edit because of the edit itself, not because of the identity of the editor. And Mchavez appears to be your ally in this mess, so the Duke's mistake about who he reverted is understandable (or perhaps he recognized that Mchavez's edit restored your earlier edit). The Duke reverted the edit, regardless of who made it, because it was against consensus. And you reverted the Duke, and restored the anti-consensus change, most likely because the other version is weaker and you don't like the guideline in the first place. Disliking the guideline is your prerogative, but editing against consensus isn't. Please stop being coy about what you are doing, such as when you wondered aloud if you were one of the accused edit warriors, when Rootology's warning on your talk page told you you were, the last time your edit warring got the MOS page protected. Finell (Talk) 01:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
That's what I'm saying. I didn't revert the edit because it was done by the Duke of Waltham. I did it because Duke of Waltham reversed changes for which consensus had been found on the talk page giving as his reason something that seemed to show that he'd meant to revert something else. If you're asking if I didn't notice that restoring my changes also restored MChavez's, the answer is YES, I DIDN'T.
I don't do coy, Finell. When I asked why I was accused of edit warring, I was serious. When I explained myself to you here a moment ago, I was serious. You seem to be projecting onto me hidden motives that I do not have. Trust me, I've put everything out in the open on the MoS talk page. I've been quite direct about which changes I support and why I support them. No, I don't like the policy overall and I have made no secret of that.
Check that, there's one thing I've kept back: With regard to the explanation paragraph, it makes the current Wikipedia policy less likely to be reversed, not more. Now, when unfamiliar editors encounter the instructions, they either feel indignation that Wikipedia is "doing it wrong," or they assume, "Surely this is just a mistake," as I did with the colons and semicolons and as MChavez did overall. A line explaining, "Yes, this is different from what you've seen in the newspapers," would dispel those feelings, making discussions of and challenges of the policy less likely. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I might be able to live with a brief statement at the end of the section, to the general effect that Wikipedia's chosen style is different from what many style guides prescribe for the sake of typographical aesthetics, which is to place commas and periods before a closing quotation mark regardless of whether the punctuation mark is part of the quotation, and that Wikipedia chooses to favor faithfulness to the quoted material over aesthetics. As I recall, though, you wanted something to the effect, We know it's wrong, but we do it this way because ..., which I will not support. But I don't think that even a brief statement is necessary or desirable, because our guideline is clear and its rationale is already stated, and I foresee rancor over the form of the statement. Further, I will not support mention of American versus British style in the MOS because it has nothing to do with Wikipedia's guideline; the MOS is not an encyclopedia article on the matters that it covers. Finell (Talk) 03:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
We know it's wrong, but we do it this way because ... Now you're putting words in my mouth. Careful with those.
If the guideline were clear, none of this would have happened. And other MoS don't have that rule for typographical reasons. That's how the rule got started, not why it's still there.
You don't like "American and British" and I find that "typographical" misses the point. How about "most other accepted forms"?
The place to put this explanation would be right next to Wikipedia's reasons for adopting its current style. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Priestley lead image[edit]

I have implemented an Infobox Scientist in the lead of the Joseph Priestley article, effectively right-aligning the much-disputed placement of the image and left my rationales on Talk:Joseph Priestley. Because I strenuously disagree with the alleged consensus about violating guidelines about image placement and consensus across a wide body of other articles, I have offered to open an RfC for more editors' involvement. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Priestley lead image alignment[edit]

You previously have commented on the RfC at Talk:Joseph_Priestley#RfC on lead image alignment on whether or not the lead image should be left-aligned. A straw poll is under way to determine what, if any consensus have been developed towards resolving the debate. Go to Talk:Joseph_Priestley#Major_options and indicate your relative levels of support for each option. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

En dash[edit]

I just noticed a comment you made at Talk:Manual_of_Style where you express concern that an en dash might mess up search engines, etc. I wonder if you are aware that WP:Naming conventions requires us to always create a redirect for the hyphenated version when we use a dash in an article title? I have always assumed it is for precisely this reason. (Personally, I favor hyphen being always used in article titles, with dashes redirected, since that's how people think and type.) Eaglizard (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I forgot about that one. I still prefer avoiding special characters in article titles. Finell (Talk) 02:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success![edit]

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

  • T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
  • WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
  • WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
  • WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
  • WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Monetae cudendae ratio[edit]

Thanks - I really didn't mean to revert your edits but those of the anon which changed the article right before you. And then I had some trouble with the parentheses. Thanks.radek (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The easiest way to have undone that one edit would have been to click the Undo link for that edit in the edit history or while viewing the diff. Regardless of your intent, you reverted my edits twice. Finell (Talk) 23:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

MoS[edit]

Nice fix, Finell. Tony (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Finell 17:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Lecture[edit]

That was quite a lecture you gave at Talk:Speed of light. It seems unlikely that it will do any good. If you have any specific suggestions for me, let me know, as I realize I'm sometimes part of the problem. Dicklyon (talk) 07:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Euclidthegreek[edit]

Hello, could you keep an eye on this user and watch out for any nonsense edits/misinformation he inserts? Given his history it is difficult to see this user being productive. Triplestop x3 02:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll try. I do bend over backward to give newcomers the benefit of the doubt and encourage their constructive participation in Wikipedia. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. From my look at his early contribs, he strikes me more as a joker than a vandal or troll; I don't condone jokes in Wikipedia, but I distinguish immaturity from sociopathology. I take it you saw my comments to him on his Talk page? —Finell (Talk) 03:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I see what you mean. More nonsense. —Finell (Talk) 03:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit to the 'Speed of light' lead.[edit]

After your heavyweight and threatening comments about behavioral change being needed from editors of the 'Speed of light' article I was somewhat surprised to see that, despite on ongoing discussion on the subject in an attempt to reach a durable consensus, you decided to rewrite the lead yourself. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

D Tombe[edit]

A ban has been implemented by you upon D Tombe. The basis for this action appears to be an assessment of D Tombe's activities outside the article speed of light, and even outside of WP altogether. Within this article, he has presented a perfectly cogent viewpoint, which I share along with various eminent published sources ((for example Wheeler; Jespersen; Sydenham), that 299 792 458 m/s is not a fundamental constant of nature, but an arbitrary conversion factor introduced by CODATA in 1983. In view of impeccable sources upon this issue, it is surprising to me that you would intervene simply to support a majority rule stance by a cabal of misinformed editors that cannot make nice distinctions in usage of words. Brews ohare (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I had nothing do to with Tombe's page ban; look at the history at AN/I for yourself. I know nothing of his off-wiki activities. I know nothing about Tombe other than what I've seen of him on WP. On the other hand, if investigation shows that Tombe is sockpuppeting or meatpuppeting with IPs, I will have initiated—but not implemented—the sanctions that will result. If investigation shows that Tombe had nothing to do with the IPs, I will have initiated the process that clears him of suspicion. I will be satisfied however it turns out.
I am not part of any cabal. I am not ignorant. I am not interested in, or persuaded by, your version of physics. Please do not bring your crazy accusations or your science lectures to my talk page again. —Finell (Talk) 22:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear you're not part of a cabal, but all I meant was that your actions seem to support what I have flatteringly called a cabal, which in turn is built from a pig-headed unwillingness to discuss matters. Brews ohare (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Lots of people are behaving in a pig-headed manner there, on all sides (including, but not limited to, Martin, Tombe, and you). The communication style that the three of you share—stating your position your way, and belittling the others who are "wrong" (i.e., who disagree with you), is the opposite of persuasive: it will never persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with you; it cannot produce genuine discussion, accommodation, or agreement, except with those who already agree with you; it therefore accomplishes nothing. I proposed a different method of attempting to reach consensus, to get away from everyone insisting that they are right and those who disagree was wrong. Start with everyone's sources, discuss what they do and do not say, and fairly appraise the sources' reliability; rewrite the article to reflect what the reliable sources say, and balance the article to reflect the weight of the differing views among the reliable sources; ignore sources that are not reliable according Wikipeida's objective criteria. Wikipedia is supposed to follow the reliable sources, not to advance Wikipedians' own views. My proposal was ignored. The disputants continue to shout at, but not communicate with, those whose point of view differs from theirs. The lead is sorrier than ever (or at least was when I looked a few days ago). The article will improve, but only when (1) the style of working and communicating becomes collaborative instead of combative; (2) the disputants are removed from the page administratively, by some form of ban or block, for their failure to edit collaboratively; or (3) the people who are arguing at each other get tired of it and stop working on that article, which will happen eventually (it always does). —Finell (Talk) 01:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I have belittled no-one on the Talk page, though I have called them pig-headed here. And I have used sources (notably Jespersen; and Sydenham) and logic, not sarcasm and invective, as is the wont of several so-called editors. Brews ohare (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Finell, The peer reviewed papers in question have been supplied by Brews. I have looked at two of them and they are unequivocal about the point in question. You have been mislead by another editor who tried to tell everybody that I wrote the peer reviewed papers in question. I didn't, and I have explained that to him on his talk page. I'm waiting for him to correct the matter. I'm also waiting for your updated announcement about your 'ban evasion' accusation in relation to the anonymous IP server. I thought that you were going to do a 'checkuser' and come back to us all and announce the result. It's important that you don't leave a serious allegation like this outstanding. Somebody's reputation will remain at stake until you complete your investigation. David Tombe (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

David: (1) Regarding the peer reviewed papers, please give me the full citations or web URLs and quote the specific passages that that say what you believe the the article should include. If they say what you want the article to include and they satisfy Wikipedia's reliable sources standards, it should be possible to work them into the article. However, if the articles only make statements from which you draw your conclusions, that is not sufficient; your derived conclusions, if not stated in the source articles, falls within Wikipedia's prohibition of original research. I proposed discussing what the sources say and what they are on the article's Talk page, but everyone ignored me.
(2) I have nothing to update regarding the IPs who turn up to support you (I only saw the one, but you have had other IP supporters before, according to the discussion at AN/I). If you request checkuser to clear yourself of an accusation, they would probably run it. I suggested that you do this and was hoping you did; I had no way of knowing if you did since you didn't respond. For me to request checkusser, I would have to accuse you of being (sockpuppeting) or recruiting (meatpuppeting) the IPs, and I would have to make a case that persuades them that the evidence is a sufficient basis to justify a checkusser; if I say I suspect you, but not accuse you, that isn't enough. So it is easier for you to have checkuser run than for me. I also asked admin Jehochman if he wanted to request checkusser to decide the matter one way or the other. He replied, "I am not interested in raising the heat. The user might adapt better if he experiences less pressure." So I didn't pursue it further. The exchange is on his Talk page. —Finell (Talk) 09:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
PS: I would also appreciate your answer to this question I asked you after your last post on Jimbo's talk page:
David: What do you mean by, "Brews should come out now (voluntarily)"? Please explain. Thanks. —Finell (Talk) 11:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. So you want me to do instigate a checkuser on myself in order to clear myself from your suspicions that you have widely announced? David Tombe (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


Do please stop by[edit]

The only way that I know of to counter the complete nonsense at Wikipedia:Paid editing is to come up with an alternative Wikipedia:Paid editing/Alternative text. Free free to stop by and contribute. If you know of a better way, please let me know. The reason that Wikipedia:Paid editing is in the shape it is in is that a single editor reverts everybody else's contributions, so that I request that everybody follow WP:1RR on the alternatives page. Smallbones (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If one editor reverts everyone else, that sounds like a matter for AN/I. It shouldn't relegate everyone else to an alternate text page. —Finell (Talk) 23:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually they suggested an RfC when another editor brought it up there. I'm not sure an RfC is much different than another talk page. Smallbones (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The situation is more tricky than a simple dispute. Somehow, WP:Paid spent a considerable time under a flag saying that the page is a summary of existing policy. Anything which remotely challenges that position has been removed. I think the best way forward (for those wanting to impose some barriers to paid editing) is to follow the lead set by Smallbones and edit WP:Paid editing/Alternative text for another week or so (and ignore WP:Paid, leaving it for those who see no inherent problem with paid editing or admining). Then it might be appropriate to consider whether the pages should be handled in some other way (for example, swapping the content of the two pages). Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Changes in the metre[edit]

Finell: In presenting matters to Dicklyon I am really trying to consult him on this subject, and not trying to set up another venue for attacks upon my so-called "fringe views". If Dicklyon concludes that something of value to the speed of light crops up, I am sure he will present it in the proper venue more capably than I. So please do not feel obliged to "head me off at the crossroads". Any possible outcome of this little dialog with Dicklyon will surely show up with ample opportunity for you to call it fringe, idiosyncratic, stupid, blind, or whatever you deem (very politely) appropriate. Brews ohare (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon will surely think for himself. In fact, he has already expressed very clearly his negative opinion of your views on this topic. I have been trying to explain to you why you are wrong in this issue, to help you understand why others characterize your contributions as they do. Please start listening. —Finell (Talk) 19:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have some useful advice, please repeat it. Personally, I think my arguments are correct, but that in peoples' minds I am associated with extreme views that, in fact, I have never espoused, which has led to an unwillingness to look at the actual statements I have made and at the sources I have suggested. You yourself have done this, and in fact have extended the problem by misreading the hypothetical example I provided as some kind of claim supporting weird physics. Compounding the problem still further is a tendency of many to use pejorative remarks about "fringe science" idiosyncrasy" and so forth, that have no basis in fact, and are employed to avoid real reasoning, but create a bandwagon effect among those too lazy to evaluate matters for themselves. Brews ohare (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've read your exact statements. I understand them. They are wrong. The sources you cite, which I also read, don't support your statements. Dicklyon, whom we both respect, has told you the same. You are making an unwarranted extension of what the sources do say. I didn't misread your example, and I explained the fallacy of your example. I've given you useful advice, which you have ignored, and which you are free to re-read; I won't waste time repeating myself. And I'll stop trying to help you understand. Less patient people, like Martin, lost patience with you long ago. It is your own persistent conduct and the fallacious views you express, over and over, without listening to and appreciating what others say, that causes you to be marginalized here. This dialogue is over. —Finell (Talk) 20:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
'Less patient people, like Martin'? This is a an unfair and uncalled for personal remark. I have been dealing with Brews and his editing of the speed of light page for nearly a year. I have tried cooperation and discussion but to no avail. Brews insists on adding his own views to the article without regard for established science. This not only degrades the article but makes communication and cooperation between other editors almost impossible. There has to be a time to say enough is enough. You have reached this point rather more quickly than I did. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You are ending this discussion prematurely. I do not think you have understood my statements correctly, and are characterizing misconceptions of them as "wrong". Dicklyon has said (so far as my A& B example goes) that it is correct but unsourced. That is different from your opinion, I believe. Rather than repeat unkind adjectives like "fallacious" "unwarranted extension", etc. why not undertake to examine matters more closely with me?? Brews ohare (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Copernicus talk page[edit]

Hmmm, while the comment left by anon was definitely weird and perhaps even inflammatory I didn't see any outright bigotry in it. I have seen much worse, direct, explicit bigotry on talk pages and in edit summaries made by some of the involved editors, go unpunished (though not always). But I will defer to your judgment on this one.radek (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration[edit]

Please attend to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Speed of light and comment if you wish. Jehochman Talk 14:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light[edit]

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The Virginian[edit]

Finell, I can see that this business about the Lone Ranger has been perplexing you. To put your mind at rest, go to the talk page at Faraday's law. Somewhere down there, you'll see the Lone Ranger involved in a discussion. He's clearly quite sympathetic to what I am saying, but I think you'll find that his analysis of the situation diverges from mine. The Lone Ranger seems to think that the motionally induced EMF is not a part of Faraday's law. I disagree. I think that the time varying aspect and the motionally dependent aspect are two aspects of a single law that can be expressed in total time derivative format. Whoever the Lone Ranger is, he clearly uses a dynamic server which is why you keep thinking that he is a new man in town. I've seen him alot in the past at various articles. I'd be grateful if you could make this information available to all those who you have been making enquiries with. David Tombe (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit]

Progress is now being made at WP:Paid editing. The topic is very important, and I'd love to get the proposed policy back on track. If you have any input, I'd love to see it on the page. Smallbones (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll try, but I'm tied up in a lot of other things, both in the real world and in an arbitration here (referred to above). —Finell (Talk) 16:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Workshop comments[edit]

David does have somewhat of a point - comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light/Workshop&curid=24280965&diff=317400899&oldid=317347898 have nothing to do with the current dispute, so far as I can tell. If I'm mistaken, please let me know, but in that case you do need to provide evidence to show that sockpuppetry is currently an issue. Bringing this up after I just explicitly said he's not socking is over the line. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence length[edit]

Hello, Finell. Your current evidence section at the Speed of Light case is well over the established 1,000 word limits. When you get a chance, please shorten it to fit within this restriction.

Also, as I mentioned in the section above, presented evidence should be kept relevant to the dispute at hand. Much of your evidence is relating to how David was using multiple accounts prior to his last indefinite block; I do not see how this is relevant to the dispute at the Speed of Light article. Please consider refactoring this information, or including details about how it is relevant to the current dispute. Thank you. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Your statement at the Law case[edit]

Who is the user that vandalized the main page? It would be interesting to check if your claims hold up. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

See #User:Pumpmeup and talkpages above. By the way, I was never blocked for incivility, as he said in his comment. I made an edit (to the day's front page FA, I think) with a <!-- hidden comment -->, but I accidentally deleted the first hyphen that is part of the end-of-comment tag. As a result, the balance of the page was commented (blanked) out. Before I could revert myself, I had been blocked for vandalism. The blocking admin realized that he had acted too hastily and unblocked me within about a minute. Finell (Talk) 00:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems his edits are still in the article history and the block in his block log. Also, it was a year and a half ago, so I don't really see any reason to dig in it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't think your mistake caused any big problems. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


Inappropriate behavior[edit]

On WP:Civil you state your opinions regarding matters that are still under review as though they are facts.

You also accuse me of gaming the system, which I just don't get. How can a request for comment on the use of the one-line Edit Summary be gaming the system? The idea is simply to invite ideas on how to avoid cryptic summaries that may result in some heat on Talk pages.

It is an issue unrelated to Case/Speed of light, although I believe some of the problems there originate in these one-line Edit Summaries, and I have recommended that the Arbitrators consider that possible cause. I haven't tried to "nail" anybody for such activity. That is just my opinion as to one origin of unrest: it is not an attack on anybody; it is not uncivil; there is no axe grinding. Brews ohare (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Per your request...[edit]

I took a look and found that the IP edit to the Workshop page earlier was not an instance of abusive sockpuppetry. Due to the Privacy Policy, there isn't much more I can say on the matter, but I would ask that you view the comment made as you would a comment from any other participant to the case. Thank you. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of comments on Talk page[edit]

Isn't it a bit presumptuous of you to delete catcalls by other editors on Talk: Speed of light, with the justification Delete unnecessary remark? If this is a good practice, you could actually delete a good third of the commentary on this page. Brews ohare (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was the appropriate thing to do with this particular remark in the circumstances, but other reasonable editors could disagree or object that it was presumptuous of me; it was a judgment call. If you look a few headings above, you will see that another editor objected when I deleted an ethnic slur from Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus. In other instances on Talk:Speed of light, your repetition of the same arguments over and over led to some of the remarks of which you complain. I'm not about to refactor the whole talk page, and that would clearly be inappropriate for me to do. On a related subject, I don't see the point of inserting what you just did in an old discussion thread that ended last month. Most editors who participate in a talk page only look for new posts at the bottom of the page, or in last several talk topics where discussion is ongoing. Finell (Talk) 19:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


Mozart's nationality[edit]

Finell, You misrepresented my position at the arbitration talk page, and I am not allowed to defend myself. You brought up a stale matter relating to my edits at the Mozart page over a year ago. You claimed that the dispute was over the issue of whether Mozart was a German or an Austrian, and that I had been arguing that he was a German. It is certainly my own opinion that Mozart only ever became an Austrian about 60 years after his death, but that was not what the argument was about.

The two camps in the argument were,

(1) Arguments to back up both cases. I was supported to this end by one other editor.

(2) No tolerance for any suggestion that Mozart was a German.

I was offering a compromise, and the relevant edit can be read here [9].

The real controversy surrounding that incident was not about truth, or sourcing, or willingness to consider both points of view. The controversy surrounded the issue of inserting material into main article space in the knowledge that it would be opposed by a large number of editors.

My counter argument was that the administration were not doing enough to thwart the activities of special interest groups who are intent on re-writing history. As a condition of my unblocking , I agreed to refrain from inserting material into main article space against a clear consensus. While I am disappointed that the administration cannot do more to counteract revisionist interest groups, I can also appreciate that it would not necessarily be an easy task to undertake, and so I have resigned to the reality of it. Since being unblocked, I can provide evidence that I have had a similar kind of dispute relating to New Zealand's independence date, and that I backed down in honour of my pledge.

There has been absolutely no repeat of the factors surrounding the Mozart debate in July 2008, and I'm very sorry that you felt the need to resurrect this issue at the 'speed of light' arbitration hearing because it provides absolutely no similar offence evidence whatsoever.

I would be much obliged if you would do the honourable thing and go to the arbitration talk page and clarify this matter on my behalf. It is totally out of order to try and poison the jury by misrepresenting irrelevant incidents from the past. David Tombe (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Your edit to Year[edit]

I agree with your removal of the new passage about Anno Domini. I though it was really not in keeping with the theme of the article, and all that is needed is to make sure there is a link to the Anno Domini article somewhere in the Year article. I don't, however, agree that is POV to mention Anno Domini without mentioning the CE. When there are many names for something, it is normal in writing to mention only one of them. It is impossible to write if you try to make every sentence be a thesaurus.

If the poster tries again with a more acceptable description of the year numbering system, I hope you won't remove it just because it only mentions one of the names for the year numbering system. --Jc3s5h (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


Huh?[edit]

If you look on the proposed decision page history, you can see three edits around 21:30 by Carcharoth that were oversighted. I'm still not at all sure why -- the content is just Carcharoth voting on some proposals. TotientDragooned (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.

  • All editors are reminded to be civil at all times and seek consensus where possible, and encouraged pursue dispute resolution when necessary.
  • Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is warned for his conduct in this dispute, and placed under a general probation for one year, under which any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions if Brews ohare fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia or general editing and behavioral guidelines, policies, and expectations, despite warnings.
  • David Tombe (talk · contribs) is also warned for his conduct in this dispute and during the course of the arbitration case, and is placed under the same general probation but for an indefinite duration. David Tombe may not appeal his probation for one year, and is limited to one appeal every six months thereafter.
  • Both Brews ohare and David Tombe are banned from all physics-related pages and topics, broadly construed, for twelve months.
  • Violations of the topic bans or general sanctions may be enforced by blocks of up to a week in length for repeated violations, to increase to one year after the third block. All blocks and other sanctions applied should be logged on the case page here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

A question for you[edit]

Hi Finell. I've replied to your last comment here, and posed a question for you in a new section immediately below. Reqards, Paul August 20:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No response? I'd really like to know how you think we should address these editor's conserns. Would you rather we move the discussion to say Talk:Pi? Paul August 19:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Thus far, there is no consensus on the Project Math talk page to change the status quo: several editors want to delete the infoboxes, several editors want to keep them, and some editors don't have strong opinions one way or the other. I was waiting to see if anyone else wanted to reopen this issue. Thus far, no one has. The longer-type infobox has been in the Pi article for at least two years (I went through the edit history back to 10/23/2007, then quit), which reflects a rather long consensus. You can't please everyone, especially on Wikipedia. I see no need to go through this controversy again. —Finell (Talk) 20:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


Move request[edit]

Regarding your move request, I would like to point out that moving a talkpage IS an allowed way to archive it. Please see Help:Archiving a talk page#Move procedure. The other editor did not do anything wrong by archiving the talkpage by moving it. Users can still check the archives (which is actually easier than checking the logs), and there is also an option to search the archives of a article (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling for an example). You may not like this way of archiving a talkpage, but it is allowed and approved. TJ Spyke 21:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. In this case, the disadvantages far outweigh any advantages. The page already has 6 archives (plus 5 separate archives on one particular topic. How would someone know that the history associated with, say, Archive 3 can is attached to Archive 7? Also, there were current, open discussion topics that were archived. In any event, an admin moved it back and was kind enough to set up automatic archiving. —Finell (Talk) 22:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Animality Studies[edit]

I don't disagree with you. However, I closed the move as non-controversial because the user could have done the move him or herself (but wasn't autoconfirmed). Also, the user may be unaware that Animal studies exists. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


Reference and Literature[edit]

Regarding your recent revert on Euclidean geometry‎ art., the Reference section is to contain reflist - art. is referencing to some source, not Notes, and what is called Reference now - contains a list of publications related to whole issue discussed. So, I'm a bit puzzled with reverting. Pavel Modilaynen (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Despite the name, the <ref></ref> wikitext markup generates footnotes, which may be used for both citation of references and explanatory notes (see Wikipedia:Footnotes). Despite the names, the <references/> markup or the {{Reflist}} template generate these footnotes. Where footnotes are used for both purposes, it isn't entirely accurate to call the footnotes section "References"; "Notes" or "Footnotes" are the usual headings for this section. But then, another section is required for a bibliography; "References" is the most popular heading for this. "Literature" is not a typical heading for a bibliography on Wikipedia; neither is "Bibliography", although it is the customary term in the real world (see Wikipedia:Layout). As a separate matter, it is customary to defer to the original, primary author(s) of an article on matters of style where that style is consistent with Wikipedia's style guidelines, unless there is a substantial reason for changing it beyond personal preference. Because many of the footnotes in the Euclidean geometry‎ article are short, your idea of a 2-column layout was a significant improvement. Thank you for asking. —Finell (Talk) 16:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Please, stop reverting my edits. What's the reason for that? My changes are not vandalism and are all according the principles of wikipedia good faith. What's really be helpful is to come to a decision that Reference section should be renamed to Further reading, what would be modified by me without problems. You behavior might be rated as offensive and based on preconceived opinion. Pavel Modilaynen (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way. I did not accuse you of vandalism, and I have no doubt that your edits were made in good faith. However, there was no reason for your changes other than your own personal preference. The section headings that you changed are consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines and are widely used throughout Wikipedia; see, e.g., the following Wikipedia:Featured articles: Georg Cantor, Emmy Noether, and Gamma-ray burst. To be sure, many other articles, including FAs, use other terminology. But that is not the point. The point is that it is not appropriate to change an article from one guideline-permitted style to another unless there is a good reason for doing so beyond personal preference. "Further reading" is not an appropriate heading for sources that are used to support the article's content (see Wikipedia:Layout#Further reading), as is the case in all of the articles that you changed. You made no attempt to obtain consensus for your changes. Therefore, the edits of yours that I reverted are not consistent with Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. Please stop making such changes to existing articles. Thank you. —Finell (Talk) 20:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I couldn't imagine that different standards exist and are accepted. Thanks to this case and you, now I have notion on that. Though you are right (in terms of wikipedia standards, which seem a bit strange for me in this respect) I would take as goodwill just pointing me on these standards to allow correct it by me (cause there were changes which meet standards). So, I think, this wraps up the issue. Thank you and nothing personal. PS. Just a citation from WP:UNDO: It should be borne in mind, however, that reverting good-faith actions of other editors (as opposed to vandalism) is considered disruptive when done to excess... Pavel Modilaynen (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Patent costs[edit]

Re your removal of the paragraph on litigation costs, with modification comment “This section is not about litigation”:

Given that the ‘Costs’ subsection immediately follows the ‘Rationale’ subsection, and is within a section entitled ‘Economics’, I'd have thought that litigation costs are actually more relevant than the costs of obtaining a patent, in that I would guess that litigation costs are a larger cost within the economy (based on the guess that the number of legal actions is more than about 32/1000 of the number of granted patents).

Accordingly, I intend to re-add the paragraph on litigation, and will in fact consider moving the litigation paragraph to before the filing costs text. I might also try to add brief mentions of other costs associated with granting patents.

See also Talk:Patent#Costs_associated_with_patents; feel free to move the above text to that section of the Talk page and reply there if you have ideas about how the information should be arranged.

[Incidentally, there was a typo in your nbsp change: missing ampersand, so ‘nbsp;’ appears literally in the rendering.] Pjrm (talk) 06:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It make sense for litigation and litigation cost to be grouped together. Sorry about the typo. —Finell (Talk) 07:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Tycho Brahe & Newton[edit]

Thanks for your various comments on the Tycho Brahe/Newton topic. One point puzzles me, though: what aspect of my last post on the Tycho Brahe talk page is it that you consider inadequately sourced for WP's article space? (Much of my text proposal put on the talk page is, no doubt, moot at this point. I only wrote there at some length to make a record dealing with matters that might possibly crop up elsewhere. But a few words in explanation of your view would no doubt be instructive generally.) With good wishes, Terry0051 (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I was not referring to anything that you put in the article. I was referring only to the points you make from directly interpreting Principia (the primary source) itself; the analysis is very sound, as I said. Frankly, I was trying to make a point to Logicus about the exclusion of OR without using him as the example. I certainly didn't mean to offend you. Further, as I also said, the sourced material that you put together about Newton's views would be worthwhile additions to other articles. —Finell (Talk) 17:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[From Terry0051] Thanks for your reply, and certainly no offence is taken: I was only hoping maybe to learn something about the mysterious WP boundaries between explanation and interpretation, and perhaps also between reliable and not-reliable sources. (For the record, I didn't think I'd interpreted anything as opposed to pointing out, with an element of explanation, the actual contents of the source in the various places in which they were to be found.) And the practice on whether to regard well-known and well-regarded editions & translations of classic works as primary or secondary -- and whether the usual practice reflects the stated policy -- is another mysterious matter. But maybe this is not the best occasion to go into all of that, so please feel free to let the matter drop. Terry0051 (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


Idiosyncratic Signatures[edit]

Thanks for your level headed comments on the history of astronomy talk pages.

You asked at Talk:Tycho Brahe whether the signature practice on that and related pages was a guideline of WikiProject History of Astronomy. It isn't. As far as I can tell it began as a practice of User:Logicus a long time ago and has since been adopted by a number of his correspondents. Logicus seems to enjoy being idiosyncratic. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. —Finell (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Brews ohare Essay[edit]

Hi Finell: You wrote proposed essay misstates and conflicts with existing policies and guidelines. I have reworded this essay here and there to bring up some of your points, but probably not sufficiently. Perhaps you could help me to do this better? I'd like to make an essay somewhat along these lines part of WP, and I could use your help to accomplish this. The idea is that some greater guidance for Talk pages might prove helpful, even if only as suggestions and not guidelines. Although I have responded to TenOfAllTrades, there seems to be little interest in those quarters. Brews ohare (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Professor: Thank you for thinking about me in this regard. I don't think that I am the right person for this job. I expressed my not-so-favorable impression (definitely not a compete analysis) of the essay in my comment on its talk page. More importantly, I don't think that you are the right person for this job. You have a negative opinion of how Wikipedia operates. Since everyone who participates in Wikipedia does so as a volunteer, most of us have a generally positive opinion of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and practices—otherwise, we'd be outta here. Therefore, if you continue to involve yourself in policy from your point of view, you will constantly be fighting, and losing, uphill battles. Making changes of the scope and kind that you want to make here will not happen.
I don't agree with everything that goes on here. For example, I believe that registration should be required to edit Wikipedia. While I am not alone in holding this view, it is a hopeless position to advocate: requiring registration is contrary to Wikipedia's culture, and allowing anyone to edit without registration was one of Jimbo's founding principles.
Somewhat closer to your interests, I believe, the level of civility actually practiced does not approach Wikipedia's stated ideals. I recognize that it isn't going to get much better. There are only enough admins to deal with the most serious incivility and personal attacks, and they have other, more serous matters to attend to. Aspirational essays won't help because they won't influence the people whose behavior requires adjustment. So, I accept things pretty much as they are. When you think about, it's extraordinary that volunteers could have contributed enough time and energy, and could have organized themselves sufficiently, to create what Wikipedia is today. And, for the most part, it wasn't engineered, beyond Jimbo's original vision; it an example of successful social evolution.
In my opinion, if you want to continue editing Wikipedia, you will have to learn to accept it (or at least tolerate and live with it) pretty much as it is. If you choose to continue editing, both you and Wikipedia would be much better off if you edited and wrote articles that interest you that are outside your topic ban, and, more importantly, stay away from disputes. If nothing else, examine your record in disputes and debates on Wikipedia. Then, do something you are good at, instead of something you are less good at (to put it very gently).
And, you have to put your bad experiences here—the outcome of the arbitration, the way you were treated in the disputes that preceded the arbitration, and whatever else on Wikipedia you feel bad about—far, far, far, behind you. Otherwise, it will adversely influence whatever you try to do here. If you can't do that, do something else that is satisfying and productive outside Wikipedia: invent another patentable process or product (preferably one where you will own the patent), write a textbook, publish a paper. Obviously, you know your interests better than anyone else. —Finell (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, Finell, thanks for your perspective. I do find your's to be a rather gloomy picture to decide quite simply that WP despite its guidelines is beyond remedy and improvement. In writing my essay I did entertain the notion that Talk page activity was poor because the heat of activity clouded judgment, and having an essay to appeal to in such a mess might aid in restoring order. Apparently you find that Utopian. The hostility met by any activity in this direction also is evidence that your view is correct. Perhaps I will have to leave, as editing among these people under these conditions is foolish. Brews ohare (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's gloomy at all. And I don't think that you are being Utopian, just unrealistic. People aren't any better than they are, but things really aren't so bad overall. Things tend to improve gradually over time. There are lots of Wikipedians who are working to improve civility here. An essay on improving behavior will probably be read by many Wikipedians, but not by those who are uncivil. Not every article on Wikipedia is contentious, and you can (and should) stay away from that are. Being effective and persuasive in arguments, or at least the kind of arguments that happen on Wikipedia, is not one of your stronger skills. Actually, you are the one whose outlook sounds gloomy to me. Do you really believe that there are no contributions that you can make to articles that will be satisfying and uncontentious? —Finell (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Finell: You may understand that I see the conduct of Talk pages to be problematic. They tend to be contentious, rather than cooperative. That is a tendency of nature under some circumstances, to interpret opposition as attack. What one wants is to interpret opposition as an opportunity to develop a more nuanced view or to add dimension to the topic. There is a good deal more satisfaction in seeing an article become more encompassing and authoritative, than in trumping some editor by a cute turn of phrase or chasing them off.

So I ask you how one might promote the construction of articles as a greater good than massaging ego? My thought with my Essay was to promote an environment where this would happen if Talk pages followed a paradigm of some kind.

I would rather make some contribution to this problem, which I view as major, than to edit an obscure topic. I realize that is an undertaking, and that my Essay is only a step. Maybe you could help? In particular, could you make some suggestions about process, for example, by proposing some changes to the Essay? Maybe you have some alternative actions to propose? Brews ohare (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Although you are motivated by the best intentions, I don't believe that your essay, however it might be revised, will improve civility on Wikipedia. Therefore, I do not wish to invest my time in editing it. Nor do I have a counter-proposal. —Finell (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


Copernicus[edit]

Hey Finell - would you mind giving me a quick overview of how all this works? You and I made some changes today - does that mean they stay unless someone undoes them? Or is there a master editor that has control over the content that makes the final decision? If that is the case, who is this editor? Thanks very much, I appreciate any help. --Piast (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no master editor. If editors disagree about some content in an article, the article's editors decide the question by consensus. The article's talk page is used to discuss issues about the article and to reach consensus where there is disagreement among editors. In the Welcome message at the top of your talk page, there are links to pages you can read that explain how editing Wikipedia works. —Finell 23:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk page[edit]

Thanks, but I am not a newcomer. If I need assistance, I'll be sure to ask. Roger Zoel (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:New Moon (2009 film)#WP:Logical quotation[edit]

Hello, Finell. Would you not mind weighing in on the above linked discussion? From Darkfrog24's suggestion, I take it that your thoughts on this matter will help make this discussion more balanced. Flyer22 (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


Merge discussion for Wikipedia:Contents_box [edit]

Information.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, Wikipedia:Contents_box , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – imis 20:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Please explain[edit]

'Wikify, delete matter unnecessary for disambiguation page, alphabetize, copy eidt' Contentimis 05:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

See generally Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Since I did quite a few things in that edit, what specifically are you questioning? —Finell 05:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
re this of course – imis 15:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages serve merely to direct a reader to the Wikipedia article that the reader may be looking for. A disambiguation page isn't a part of a project or series just because one of the articles that the disambiguation page points to is. In addition to being incorrect (the Content disambiguation page is not part of the "Book structure" series and is not categorized as such), the {{Book structure}} navbox dominated the page and would overwhelm a reader who is lost. Also, we try to avoid self-reference to Wikipedia in the main (article) namespace (see Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects). We have extensive, well-structured documentation (with their own navboxes) in the Help: and Wikipedia: (project) namespaces to guide Wikipedia editors, who are a tiny minority of the individuals who visit Wikipedia. —Finell 19:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

RFC/U Logicus 2 (Draft)[edit]

I am drafting a Requests for comment/User conduct concerning the conduct of Logicus (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) since the abortive RfC of February 2007. Since you have been involved in the recent content RfC at Talk:Celestial spheres, I would appreciate it if you would look over the draft and see whether it seems appropriate, what revisions you would propose, or what you could add.

At the moment, parts of the RfC are little more than outline points and the desired outcome is totally undefined, but with cooperation perhaps something can be put together that could make it through the process.

I had hoped that this RfC would not need to be posted, given the recent closure of a content RfC on Logicus's edits. However, Logicus's recent comments suggest that I may have been too optimistic.

Feel free to either edit the draft or submit comments on its talk page. Your editing skills and tact would be especially useful. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that an RFC/U is a waste of time because Logicus does not care what anyone else says. If his conduct becomes truly disruptive, such as edit warring over article content, AN/I is the appropriate forum. Otherwise, there is no reason to argue with his talk page posts point-by-point; to do so is to play his game and provide him with amusement. Our time is better spent editing articles. —Finell 22:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
You may be right that an RfC/U would be a waste of time, but as I look at the record, Logicus's behavior has long since passed the point of being disruptive, with a two-year record of disruptive arguments on talk pages concerning original research and point of view pushing in the associated articles.
I know the draft is terribly unwieldy, but would you please look at this section and consider
  • whether this record meets your threshold of disruption and
  • what is the best way to bring it to the attention of appropriate admins?
To paraphrase WP:DE, Logicus has just about exhausted the patience of this editor.
BTW, I've contacted a number of other editors who have been involved with Logicus, requesting their input.
Thanks, SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you about his behavior, and understand your loss of patience. However, it is easy enough to respond briefly or not at all to his talk page TLDRs, and that is all he appears to be doing now. He seems to have given up on inserting his OR into articles, at least for the time being. Admins won't act at AN/I unless there is ongoing disruption. While the length and nature of Logicus's talk page posts fit the definitions of disruptive and tendentious editing, at AN/I they may not earn him more than another warning. Removing talk page content and RfD tags would have warranted admin intervention when it was happening, but that is a bit stale now. Administrative action is solely for the purpose of preventing continuing disruption, not punishing past misconduct. If he again becomes sufficiently disruptive to warrant AN/I, past misconduct would be relevant as supporting evidence. An RFC/U, however it turns out, would accomplish nothing. So, I suggest doing nothing about Logicus now. —Finell 00:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Undent

Would you object if I copied the above exchange onto the Draft RfC talk page? Your comments provide a useful perspective.

Thanks, SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection. Thank you for asking, although permission isn't necessary under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL licenses. To reiterate, in my opinion disengagement is the best coping strategy for dealing with this unique editor. —Finell 23:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


Signpost?[edit]

Monday's Policy Report is going to be on WP:Civility, but we don't have enough quotable material from the talk page yet, so I'm beg ... er, soliciting opinions from people who have spoken up on that talk page recently. If you have something quotable, or if you don't, feel free to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Policy report_for_Signpost. - Dank (push to talk) 23:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Finell. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 04:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I dream of horses @ 04:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


So where's the OR in the RfC material ?[edit]

In your recent anti-Logicus RfC comments which alleged the material in question is OR, unfortunately you never identified which of its claims are OR in your view. I would be most grateful if you would now do this so that I may consider how any such breaches of NOR policy may be remedied by some revision(s) should any of your criticisms be objectively valid.

If you can oblige me, I would be most grateful if you would start with the material in the smaller section entitled 'Impetus in the celestial spheres', at least since I imagine it would be less problematical for you on your particular understanding of medieval dynamics, as well as being smaller. So in the first instance, do you claim that particular material is OR anywhere?

And in case you ever thought Wilson's objections were valid, I would also be grateful to know whether you think they have now been overcome by my proposed revisions of the only four sentences he seemed to claim are OR because he claims they are OS.

Thanks in anticipation ! --Logicus (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Logicus[edit]

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Logicus (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Logicus 2. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout[edit]

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Finell. You have new messages at 7107delicious's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Finell. You have new messages at 7107delicious's talk page.
Message added 12:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

7107delicious Weinachtsgespräch 12:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


Help needed at Avatar (2009 film) article about a WP:Logical quotation issue[edit]

Hey, Finell. I asked for your help before. I need your help again, at Talk:Avatar (2009 film)#Armond White's review. It is not about White's review; it is rather about our discussion below the one about White's review. Flyer22 (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Your comments at WP:AN (Logicus)[edit]

I don't know the nature of your disputes with Ncmvocalist, but it is certainly not appropriate to drag them into the discussions on that page. Please discuss those issues on your User talk pages or the pages concerned with the specific disputes they address. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your good judgment, which I respect, and advice. I disengaged. And, as you know, an admin closed the matter with the expected result.
I commented to Ncmvocalist once on his talk page, about his most over-the-top action that I saw.[10] He reverted my comment without reply.[11]
Thanks again.—Finell 01:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a Heads-Up on a Recent Edit to Carl Sagan[edit]

This is just a notification on possible background on this edit to Carl Sagan.

The paragraph entered in the article by 24.6.219.114 is, for the most part, a quotation from, or a reference to, Cosmos, specifically the episode "The Edge of Forever". However, given the rather truncated and selective choice of phrases, it borders on quote mining, and as such its motives are dubious. Therefore, you made the correct choice in reverting it, it is simply that a lack of citation is not the (most significant) issue. Thank you. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 16:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Brews[edit]

Regarding your comment "Because of that, the rest of us should stop picking up the stick and beating him with it." I want to thank you for saying this. I came into this situation in the middle so I didn't see everything before his topic ban but since then that's all I've seen is people beating Brews with a stick and I find this comment to be mature and reasonable. I am going to be outspooken in Brews defense but if more people had a view like this I could go and get off the Reichstag. ( WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. ) Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

'Voting' in discussion[edit]

Re: [12]. Yes, I would mind – very much – if you decided to turn my comment into a vote. One of the reasons why the arbitration enforcement process is so damnably unpleasant is because of the lining up and taking sides, coupled to the assumption that people reading the discussion aren't bright enough to get past the first word. In my experience, the posts to AE (and to other boards seeking admin action) which are preceded by bold text tend to be from the angry fringe, and tend to be accorded less weight than the comments which simply make their point clearly and concisely. Heck, I'd prefer to avoid having bullets in front of each point, because it prevents the use of paragraph breaks in comments — but those were unfortunately present when I commented.

If you don't mind, it would add nuance depth to your comment at WP:AE if you didn't precede it with a bold vote text. Competent, neutral individuals read the entire discussion before jumping to a conclusion. Or would you object to my removing it? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


inverse golden ratio - capital Φ[edit]

Ok, I withdraw. I couldn't see it in the text, I had never heard of it before, and it is a notation contrary to more common meanings for capitalisation. φ-1 is not exactly difficult is it? (though in convoluted algebras, I suppose it might get wearing!).

There are problems in some articles with a few editors on personal crusades to introduce new notations that they in their infinite wisdom have decided ought be introduced. This looked like one. --Red King (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Finell. You have new messages at Red King's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stacey B. Day[edit]

I have declined your G7 speedy on this article, because other editors had worked on it before User:Daykight. I have restored it to the state before Daykight blanked it, and will notify him, too. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


In-N-Out[edit]

Hello. Lynsi is now the President of In-N-Out burger as of Jan 1st 2010. Mark Taylor is now the COO and no longer president. And yes she still is the sole owner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.99.166 (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Please add citations in the article to Wikipedia:Reliable sources for this information. Also, the two citations at the end of the last paragraph of the 21st century section were dead links. If you can supply sources for the facts in that paragraph, it would help the article. Thanks again.—Finell 02:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of symbols[edit]

Hi Finell: I have filed an RfC at Talk: Bivector#RfC: Unicode wedge symbol. Could you take a look at this matter and proffer some advice? Brews ohare (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the RfC discussion. Everything in that discussion appears to display normally to me (Firefox 3.5.7 under XP Pro SP2 on an old IBM ThinkPad), and I don't remember ever doing anything to tweak my display settings for Unicode characters. Therefore, I have no way of knowing of whether the display problem that you encounter is widespread, rare, or, perhaps, unique to you—there are so many variables that could affect how Unicode (or any other) characters display. Perhaps, God only knows why, you have a non-standard character encoding in your browser settings (or are you set to automatic?). When I see characters displaying bizarrely (roughly once or twice per month), character encoding is usually the culprit. You might want to check with a sample of your colleagues who have a variety of hardware-software combinations, to see how the wedge character displays on their systems.
I believe that the the question of using HTML entity codes versus Unicode characters has been discussed at WP:MOSNUM or WP:MOS, or perhaps both. There may even be guidelines on it. If a substantial percentage of readers have a problem with some Unicode characters, the issue—if there really is an issue— should probably be discussed on the talk page of the appropriate MOS page, rather than being confined to one article's talk page. On the other hand, if you don't find others with the same problem, it may not be an issue for Wikipedia, but some fluke in your particular setup. This sort of thing happens all the time with computers, largely because (in my opinion) standards are so loose and engineers did not play a strong role in the development of PC technology, especially in software; a lot of it was done by people with technical knowledge, but without the engineering discipline.
Regardless, I strongly urge you to avoid disputes—even if it means that Wikipedia is wrong about something. I hope things are going well for you otherwise.—Finell 01:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice on conflict. It is interesting to learn that my PC with Windows XP and Firefox is different from yours. I see the wedge in ab not as a \wedge b but as ab. I can change that by switching fonts from Times Roman to Cambria Math, but that puts extra blank lines in the text whenever the wedge shows up. Brews ohare (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I found another option, to disable the default setting "allow pages to select their own fonts". See Help_talk:Special_characters#Instructions for Firefox. Unfortunately, that alters the font spacing in page text to be a bit less readable, at least in using Times New Roman. Brews ohare (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


Unblocking Brews and David[edit]

The block seems to no longer be necessary or productive. If I were to bring a motion to get them unblocked, would you support it?Likebox (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You are improperly canvassing and forum shopping. If you want to bring up a motion, Do It, Do it *on the relevant fora* and stop a) disrupting the discussion on Talk:Speed of Light and b) haranguing other editors on their talk pages. You are simply being disruptive. Knock it off at once. 67.118.103.210 (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I am asking the opinion of those involved only. This is not canvassing. Neither am I forum shopping--- I will bring it up in the proper place very soon, if everyone agrees it's ok.Likebox (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
It's called a preparation to see if it is even worth opening up. if no one would even consider it why waste the time. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I am not aware that either of them is blocked. Are they? I would not support, and would probably oppose, a motion to lift their topic bans (if that is what you are talking about), for different reasons in the two cases.
Brews is productively and peacefully (for the most part) editing articles outside his physics topic ban. In my opinion, he should continue doing so as a corrective experience until his topic ban expires. It was in physics articles that he got himself into disputes and trouble; I see no reason why he should return to that potentially troublesome topic prematurely.
Tombe is committed to promoting a fringe point that rejects much of modern physics. He has, and uses, other outlets to publish his views on the topic. I oppose allowing him to return to Wikipedia's treatment of physics any sooner than the arbitration decision permits. I would prefer a permanent topic ban for Tombe, but Wikipedia is more lenient that I would be in his case.—Finell 23:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(deindent) Yes--- I was talking about the topic ban. Sorry for misspeaking.

I agree with you that both editors have made edits that are disagreeable. We all have to deal with the circus of diverging points of view. But it is not good to make a decision about whether to block based on a person's opinionated edits.

In order to function, people with different points of view have to be able to speak out without fear of retribution. By allowing topic bans based on ideosyncratic thinking and weird interpretations, we kick out creative individuals. While most of the edits might be misguided, this can be corrected by consensus. On the other hand, they can contribute beautiful work, diagrams in Brews' case.

I have had to deal with many fringe science topics, and I find that the best way is to just follow the policies, read the sources, make sure that all the material is understood by all from first principles, and work hard to mention fringe points of view alongside mainstream thinking so as to clarify every position. To do this well, we have to tolerate disagreements. So even if you would like to see so-and-so banned, I am asking you to put this feeling aside and ask if this ban is helping create a good atmosphere in the encyclopedia.Likebox (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Finell, Your reply to Likebox actually gets to the real core of the matter. The real reason why I was made so undesirable at that ARBCOM hearing was because it is known that I hold unorthodox views in physics which I have published off-wiki. But that is not a legitimate reason for a topic ban.
The correct way to address such concerns would be to formally list what such views have impinged on my edits to wikipedia articles. If those could be formally categorized then I'm sure that an amicable agreement could be reached. We need to move away from all these false allegations about misbehaviour.
You yourself on your own admission hold unorthodox views in physics. You stated those views on Steve Byrnes's talk page. But until anybody's unorthodox views start to make their way into wikipedia main article space, then it should be of no concern to anybody at wikipedia.
The allegation against me of inserting fringe views was examined and refuted by one of the arbitrators, and he based his observation on the evidence of one of the witnesses. That witness, Steve Byrnes, is an editor who I once had an extensive debate with at a physics talk page. Steve Byrnes himself admitted that I had not been inserting my fringe views into the main article space. Those who supported the motion, clearly hadn't investigated the matter in sufficient detail.
At the end of the day, as Likebox has already stated, alot of issues in physics are grey, and there is no definitive manner for presentation in an encyclopaedia article. My disagreements with the establishment are focused at one end of the topic of electromagnetism, and those disagreements do not become relevant for the larger part of the topic. I have stringently avoided physics topics that go into the deep end of matters regarding which I disagree. The accusations of original research were often based on my historical edits, whereby some people were wrongly thinking that stating the views of a 19th century master was tantamount to original research. David Tombe (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
David: There is an important difference. Like Byrnes, I do not insinuate my personal musings into Wikipedia. My editing of Wikipedia is based solely on reliable sources and accepted scholarship. You, on the other hand, try to work you rejection of relativity and such into Wikipedia articles, which is a disservice to our readers. The fact that you publish those views off-wiki is not the problem and had nothing to do with your well-deserved arbitration sanctions.—Finell 20:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

As Likebox has discussed above, the issue of importance to WP is not brews_ohare or David Tombe, but the conduct of discourse on Talk pages. For a quality article to develop, points of view have to be entertained and explored. Knee-jerk reactions have to be avoided along with resort to using WP:Fringe WP:NOR WP:Soap as swear words on Talk pages with no supporting WP:Diffs. It is natural, of course, to react to ideas that are unfamiliar or even contrary to one's instincts as being the maunderings of a crack-pot, but that natural urge has to be suppressed. It also is natural to indulge in oration, self-important pronouncements, and to seek administrator action to quell the irritations of beliefs contrary to one's own. None of these actions promotes good quality articles.

It may be too much for WP editors to bear, but some methodology for catalysis of good discussion would be sooo... wonderful.

You are pleased with my recent editing, which strikes you as somehow different from my behavior on Talk: Speed of light. In some ways it is: for example, I simply abandoned discussion with JohnBlackburne when the runaround appeared nonconvergent. In contrast, on Talk: Speed of light I had a misplaced confidence in the convergence of logical argument, and hoped some formulation of logic and sources could be found that would provoke consideration of the obvious. That notion is Utopian. In some ways my behavior has not changed: where discussion works and editors actually converse, my behavior is exactly as before, and resolution is accomplished to the benefit of WP. My motivations and beliefs have not changed; all that is different is my lowered expectation of useful interchange. Brews ohare (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Brews: Although I respect you, we have different opinions about the arbitration and about Wikipedia's policies and processes. Expressing differing views on a talk page is welcome. Continually arguing the same thing over and over, on the other hand, is disruptive. But I prefer to leave the history where it is, rather than re-argue it, and to concentrate on the present and the future.—Finell 20:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Finell: It is evident that what one party thinks is a different and new argument, another will take as a rehash of the same-old same-old. The convinced party is liable to see the argument as not different because it lead to the same (obnoxious) conclusion. The resulting exasperation over what is taken as mere repetition then can lead to abusive behavior, which should be prohibited by WP:Civil and WP:NPA, but usually is not.

My view, apparently different from yours, is that WP guidelines should be made more explicit on these matters and more rigorously enforced. That (IMO) would lead to more focused and more productive Talk page discussion.

As you might imagine, I view the Speed of light arbitration as an ineluctable example of the failure of WP admins and guidelines to handle such matters. Brews ohare (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

In all fairness, I'd say as well that the Speed of light arbitration illustrates the futility of trying too hard to get a point across. Nonetheless, the powers of persuasion do have greater effect in a healthy editing environment. Brews ohare (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Finell, I challenge you to produce an edit in which I have put my anti-relativity views into wikipedia. And as regards the ARBCOM sanctions, ARBCOM pandered to you big time. You tried to dig up a whole load of irrelevance from 2008 to present against me in a bad light at the ARBCOM case. You built it up in your sandbox. I alerted Hersfold about it, as a consequence of which I got blocked for assuming bad faith. That is how corrupt the ARBCOM proceedings were. ARBCOM went overboard to placate the likes of yourself. ARBCOM have done exactly what you wanted. My personal views on the 'speed of light' clash with yours, and you have engaged in political shenanigans and succeeded in getting me banned from editing all physics articles. No wonder you continue to extoll the virtues of ARBCOM. The whole thing is a shame and disgrace. That ARBCOM hearing was nothing short of a political trial. David Tombe (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Let's not throw that one out there lest it be used as bait for a block....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket, Our lines must have crossed. Thanks for you concern, but don't worry, I'll see any trap and I'll avoid it. I just want to see if Finell can put his money where his mouth is. David Tombe (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Finnell.
I am starting to get a good picture of the nature of the dispute that led to the ban. I have talked to Brews about this, and he can recognise the need to be brief and on-point on talk-pages. You and headbomb are the most against this idea, but I think that it is a really good idea to do this.
I made a draft motion at User:Likebox/DraftMotion. I hope it can get your support, and headbomb's too. I don't want to reopen a contentious can of worms. If you say "no my mind is made up against this", I ask you to be forward looking at the ArbCom hearing. I hope the antagonistic comments by editors directly above have not soured every chance of reasonable compromise.Likebox (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I read your draft motion. I will oppose it for the reasons that I have stated. Stirring this up again is a bad idea. In the 2 (I think that is the number) enforcement proceedings against Brews and in the recent motion for modification of his topic ban (I supported Brews in all of these, and made the second of the 2 motions for modification that passed), the arbitrators were satisfied that Brews had "dropped the stick" and was editing productively. With this motion, he will be picking it back up again. Also, take a good look at the edit histories of the "Speed of light" arbitration pages (especially Workshop and Evidence) and note Brews' extraordinarily high edit counts and rapid edits. Especially since this kind of editing activity was one of the bases of the charge of disrupting editing, the same behavior in the arbitration itself—even after being warned—was unwise. Brews is likely to do more unwise things in connection with your motion, because he is at his very worst in these kinds of direct conflicts with others.
During the arbitration (most of this was on Brews' talk page, and is still there), I advised Brews to offer some concessions and agree to have a mentor. If he had taken that advice, I am certain that his sanctions would have been less severe. Tombe, on the other hand, advised Brews to be a warrior, and Iblis told Brews that he had done nothing wrong and should make no concessions (he also made use of Brews after the arbitration decision because Brews was, like you, one of only 3 or 4 supporters of Iblis's failed ESCA policy proposal). Brews, with his poor judgment in matters of this kind, followed the wrong advice during the arbitration (he took Tombe's counsel despite Tombe's long block record, including blocks for socking). His behavior in the arbitration helped persuade the arbitrators to sanction Brews as severely as they did (the decision was unanimous). He is likely to do it again. Further, Tombe, Hell in a Bucket, and Iblis are likely to be aggressive in supporting Brews, which will probably be counter-productive. Tombe and Hell have reputations on Wikipedia as warriors and troublemakers because of their behavior. Tombe was blocked twice during the arbitration for his bad behavior in the arbitration. Iblis is much better than the other two at working the system and keeping himself out of trouble, but he offends arbitrators. Iblis even advised Brews to IAR after the arbitration decision came down; Iblis was warned against this by a few arbitrators, the clerk, and a few other admins. This kind of support will rub off on Brews. Even worse, Brews may model his behavior in the motion on these negative models, as he did last time. You need to recognize that Brews, who is on probation, has a bigger downside in this process than just losing the motion and everything remaining as is.
Nevertheless, I certainly distinguish Brews' behavior from Tombe's (and anyone else's). You can see that distinction in my comments about Brews and Tombe in the Workshop.
If you still to ahead with the motion, I would appreciate it if you would give me notice when you post it. Thank you.—Finell 07:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(deindent) Will do. I'll keep you informed, and I hope there are no bad feelings. This is something on which reasonable people can easily disagree. As far as fast edits--- professional scientists write quickly. Brews has understood the problem, what went wrong, and has taken steps to acknowledge it and fix it. It would have been easy to be clearer to him about the issue of verbosity though.Likebox (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Finell: Your previous comments take a very dim view of my likely future behavior should bans be lifted. While I'd agree that some engagements can get me excited, I believe I have reached a more jaded stance on what can be accomplished through WP exchanges, especially where more than one dissenting editor shows up. I also have a vastly lower estimation of the ability of admins to grasp and deal with either bad behavior or matters of content. So, given these greatly reduced expectations, I'd say give me a try and see if I am now more realistic. Brews ohare (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Brews: As I have said before, I respect you and appreciate many of your abilities. Understanding and appreciating what other people are saying and thinking, especially the subtleties, is not one of your strengths. Neither is persuading others in a dispute (which, actually, is related to the first one). I do not "take a very dim view of [your] likely future behavior should bans be lifted." I have some concerns, but if I took "a very dim view" of your conduct, I would not have supported making an exception for discussing and editing the images in Speed of light, the scene of your "crime".
I am more worried about you behavior in the course of the motion than I am about your behavior if the motion is granted. If it resembles your behavior during the arbitration, the likely outcome will be additional sanctions, not lifting of the existing ones. You are still arguing that you were not at fault in your pre-arbitration disputes, and it was everyone else who did wrong or lacked requisite comprehension (other editors, admins, arbitrators). These arguments are (1) wrong, in my opinion; (2) wrong, in the opinion of almost everyone else; and, most important of all, (3) not likely to persuade anyone else who does not already support you, except to persuade them to oppose you, even if you were right. On your main point, I know a lot of pages where editors with minority views get along just fine, even on very contentious issues. Your problem was not your minority view, but the way you went about dominating the talk page, coming up with a slightly different version of the same argument over and over. Most everyone understood your argument; I certainly did. You were not entirely wrong as a matter of logic, but you wanted to give way too much emphasis to a point that had no real world impact, to a degree that would have confused rather than informed the general reader. Again, we all know how smart you are and how much physics you know. Your logic was not the problem.
Looking objectively, from a neutral arbitrator's point of view, support by Tombe and Hell in a Bucket will be a minus for you, not a plus. Likebox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) also has a record of blocks for edit warring, and part of his motivation in trying to modify your arbitration sanctions is, indirectly, to justify his own past behavior that led to his sanctions. If you follow their approach (or Iblis's), you will do yourself harm rather than good, as you did last time.
To be very blunt, your judgment about how to deal with these kinds of matters on Wikipedia is poor. For example, you invited your two trips to WP:A/R/E:
  • You took a pure math article, did a good job of developing it, but you added the category of "computational physics" (as in "physics, broadly construed"). So, of course, Tznkai brought you to A/R/E for violating your topic ban. The category you added is the only reason he brought you to A/R/E. Was Tznkai supposed to say to himself that computational physics isn't physics? Is sounds like physics to me. Adding that category was a blunder not smart, or necessary. Other editors (including myself) had to twist ourselves into pretzels to say that "computational physics" isn't really physics (Headbomb, who is not your biggest fan, did an especially nice job). But you brought this problem on yourself, cost the rest of us time defending you, and created unnecessary drama (the last thing in the world that you need).
  • In the middle of a dispute with JohnBlackburne over another math article—which was really over the different approaches of someone who does pure math versus someone who uses math to do other stuff—you tell him about your topic ban and you add a general relativity example to the article. That was like telling him, "Here's a club. Beat me." Back at A/R/E, the rest of us have to argue that it was just an example, you didn't discuss the physics, it is still just a math article, blah, blah.
I was really tempted to ask you, each time, whether you have self-destructive impulses (a Freudian death wish), because you so clearly brought these enforcement proceeding on yourself.
The arbitrators decided that a 1-year topic ban and 1-year probation were appropriate remedies; the length of a sanction is always a judgment call. I think you should "serve the time" and resume editing of physics articles, if you are so inclined, when the year is up. I see nothing but grief for you in this motion—especially if you use it to reargue the arbitration decision itself, which is not a ground for modifying the sanctions on motion. If Likebox goes ahead with the motion, my advice would be to oppose the motion yourself in a brief statement saying that you do not want the sanctions modified. If you cannot bring yourself to do that, then make a short statement to the effect that you will not be making a statement and will leave it to others to discuss whether the motion should be granted or denied. You have not followed my advice in the past, and you are obviously free to reject it now. Before you do so, try a scientific approach: take a careful look at my track record of being right about how things would turn out, just in the disputes in which you have been involved (including the arbitration itself, policy pages, AN/I, A/R/E). Your supporters (including Tombe and Iblis) have been consistently wrong.
Good luck. Try to stay out of trouble.—Finell 23:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Finell: As I said here : You don't have to establish that justice was or was not done, or that the remedy was effective or not effective. All you have to establish is that recent history indicates useful contribution and no disturbance, so a test is in order to see whether lifting the bans will cause trouble again. If trouble does result, action can be taken.

Your worries about my interpretation of the Speed of light case and its adjudicators has no bearing, and neither does any rehash of ancient history, nor do Freudian speculations.

I thank you for your encouragement, and hope you can entertain a forward optimism. Brews ohare (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Finell--- I don't mean to disturb you, but you are not right that I am motivated by my history of blocks and so on. All that stuff was related to main-page arguments. I have never been blocked for talk-page stuff (except for once inappropriately regarding the ESCA essay, and that was quickly overturned), and I was completely astonished to see that Brews was blocked for this. The issue for me is sanctity of discussions. My own conflicts were not of the same sort (although there were indications that this might become a problem in the future).Likebox (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

EUCLID[edit]

Dear Finell. You removed a link i recently tried to add to the wiki of Euclid. You state it has no reliable source and is some kind of conspiracy. I agree this link might not was the best presentation of a diffrent history.

But.

Though given the facts that the complete history of Euclid is rather incomplete - information regarding his history is vital.

Here is a reliable source - which also cannot screwed as just a hoax.

Quoteing:" In view of the poverty of Greek tradition on the subject even as early as the time of Proclus (410-485 A.D.), we must necessarily take cum grano the apparently circumstantial accounts of Euclid given by Arabian authors; and indeed the origin of their stories can be explained as the result (1) of the Arabian tendency to romance, and (2) of misunderstandings.

We read15 that “Euclid, son of Naucrates, grandson of Zenarchus16 , called the author of geometry, a philosopher of somewhat ancient date, a Greek by nationality domiciled at Damascus, born at Tyre, most learned in the science of geometry, published a most excellent and most useful work entitled the foundation or elements of geometry, a subject in which no more general treatise existed before among the Greeks: nay, there was no one even of later date who did not walk in his footsteps and frankly profess his doctrine. Hence also Greek, Roman and Arabian geometers not a few, who undertook the task of illustrating this work, published commentaries, scholia, and notes upon it, and made an abridgment of the work itself. For this reason the Greek philosophers used to post up on the doors of their schools the well-known notice: ‘Let no one come to our school, who has not first learned the elements of Euclid.’” The details at the beginning of this extract cannot be derived from Greek sources, for even Proclus did not know anything about Euclid's father, while it was not the Greek habit to record the names of grandfathers, as the Arabians commonly did. Damascus and Tyre were no doubt brought in to gratify a desire which the Arabians always showed to connect famous Greeks in some way or other with the East. Thus Nas<*>īraddīn, the translator of the Elements, who was of T<*>ūs in Khurāsān, actually makes Euclid out to have been “Thusinus” also17 . The readiness of the Arabians to run away with an idea is illustrated by the last words [p. 5] of the extract. Everyone knows the story of Plato's inscription over the porch of the Academy: “let no one unversed in geometry enter my doors”; the Arab turned geometry into Euclid's geometry, and told the story of Greek philosophers in general and “their Academies.”

Equally remarkable are the Arabian accounts of the relation of Euclid and Apollonius18 . According to them the Elements were originally written, not by Euclid, but by a man whose name was Apollonius, a carpenter, who wrote the work in 15 books or sections19 . In the course of time some of the work was lost and the rest became disarranged, so that one of the kings at Alexandria who desired to study geometry and to master this treatise in particular first questioned about it certain learned men who visited him and then sent for Euclid who was at that time famous as a geometer, and asked him to revise and complete the work and reduce it to order. Euclid then re-wrote it in 13 books which were thereafter known by his name. (According to another version Euclid composed the 13 books out of commentaries which he had published on two books of Apollonius on conics and out of introductory matter added to the doctrine of the five regular solids.) To the thirteen books were added two more books, the work of others (though some attribute these also to Euclid) which contain several things not mentioned by Apollonius. According to another version Hypsicles, a pupil of Euclid at Alexandria, offered to the king and published Books XIV. and XV., it being also stated that Hypsicles had “discovered” the books, by which it appears to be suggested that Hypsicles had edited them from materials left by Euclid.

We observe here the correct statement that Books XIV. and XV. were not written by Euclid, but along with it the incorrect information that Hypsicles, the author of Book XIV., wrote Book XV. also.

The whole of the fable about Apollonius having preceded Euclid and having written the Elements appears to have been evolved out of the preface to Book XIV. by Hypsicles, and in this way; the Book must in early times have been attributed to Euclid, and the inference based upon this assumption was left uncorrected afterwards when it was recognised that Hypsicles was the author. The preface is worth quoting:

“Basilides of Tyre, O Protarchus, when he came to Alexandria and met my father, spent the greater part of his sojourn with him on account of their common interest in mathematics. And once, when [p. 6] examining the treatise written by Apollonius about the comparison between the dodecahedron and the icosahedron inscribed in the same sphere, (showing) what ratio they have to one another, they thought that Apollonius had not expounded this matter properly, and accordingly they emended the exposition, as I was able to learn from my father. And I myself, later, fell in with another book published by Apollonius, containing a demonstration relating to the subject, and I was greatly interested in the investigation of the problem. The book published by Apollonius is accessible to all-- for it has a large circulation, having apparently been carefully written out later--but I decided to send you the comments which seem to me to be necessary, for you will through your proficiency in mathematics in general and in geometry in particular form an expert judgment on what I am about to say, and you will lend a kindly ear to my disquisition for the sake of your friendship to my father and your goodwill to me.”

The idea that Apollonius preceded Euclid must evidently have been derived from the passage just quoted. It explains other things besides. Basilides must have been confused with basileus, and we have a probable explanation of the “Alexandrian king,” and of the “learned men who visited” Alexandria. It is possible also that in the “Tyrian” of Hypsicles' preface we have the origin of the notion that Euclid was born in Tyre. These inferences argue, no doubt, very defective knowledge of Greek: but we could expect no better from those who took the Organon of Aristotle to be “instrumentum musicum pneumaticum,” and who explained the name of Euclid, which they variously pronounced as Uclides or Icludes, to be compounded of Ucli a key, and Dis a measure, or, as some say, geometry, so that Uclides is equivalent to the key of geometry!

Lastly the alternative version, given in brackets above, which says that Euclid made the Elements out of commentaries which he wrote on two books of Apollonius on conics and prolegomena added to the doctrine of the five solids, seems to have arisen, through a like confusion, out of a later passage20 in Hypsicles' Book XIV.: “And this is expounded by Aristaeus in the book entitled ‘Comparison of the five figures,’ and by Apollonius in the second edition of his comparison of the dodecahedron with the icosahedron.” The “doctrine of the five solids” in the Arabic must be the “Comparison of the five figures” in the passage of Hypsicles, for nowhere else have we any information about a work bearing this title, nor can the Arabians have had. The reference to the two books of Apollonius on conics will then be the result of mixing up the fact that Apollonius wrote a book on conics with the second edition of the other work mentioned by Hypsicles. We do not find elsewhere in Arabian authors any mention of a commentary by Euclid on Apollonius and Aristaeus: so that the story in the passage quoted is really no more than a variation of the fable that the Elements were the work of Apollonius. http://perseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Aabo%3Atlg%2C1799%2C001&query=elem.%3A1%3Adef. "

In regards to understand the history of euclid and books attributed to this name - the above information deserves to be mentioned in the wiki of euclid. --DuKu (talk) 06:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not say hoax or conspiracy. I said that the piece that Raju published on his personal web site is not a reliable source on Euclid and that his views on the subject are fringe. Raju's academic field is computer science, but he publishes deliberately controversial works in other fields, and is a polemicist for the point of view that Western scholarship has suppressed the contributions of Indian mathematics and science. His views on this and other subjects are regarded as fringe theories, which is Wikipedia's charitable term for crank. A year or two ago, another editor wanted to incorporate Raju's views in the article; that editor ultimately conceded that Raju is not a reliable source on that subject.
I am, of course, very familiar with the material that you quoted above from Heath. Heath is the leading modern scholar on Euclid and on classical Greek mathematics. The fact is, very little is known about Euclid's personal history; almost all that survives is his works, and much of that is through post-mortem transcriptions and translations. The Euclid article says just about all that can be said about his history; everything else is speculation, and therefore not suitable for inclusion under Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines.
It appears from your writing that you are not fluent in English. That may make it more difficult for you to to contribute to the English version of Wikipedia.—Finell 20:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The link i posted has nothing todo with the personal website you mention. Maybe you research first before you make sensational claims, which btw you seem todo alot. --DuKu (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The link you posted was to a paper on Raju's personal web site: http://ckraju.net/papers/MathEducation1Euclid.pdf. The domain name is "ckraju.net". The last sentence in your last message violates Wikipedia's policy: Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Do not do it again, to me or to any other editor. The Welcome message on your talk page has links to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and other information that is helpful to new editors like yourself. I suggest that you read the linked material, as it will make you editing here more productive, and your time here more pleasant.—Finell 20:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow Finell maybe you start reading what i wrote OR what you edited. Here a hint for you http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Euclid&diff=340681663&oldid=340676785 - Further i stop the discussion here now with you, as you obviously just try to engage me in your made up claims. --DuKu (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
That was the first revert. It was an ad for a book. Wikipedia does not link to ads, and ads for books are not reliable sources for article content. I thought you were referring to the more recent revert, which was Raju. You should have made clear what you were talking about. I suggest that you learn, very quickly, about Civility.—Finell 22:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Read my first sentence again, makes your last comment obsolent. If you claim again that i a) personal attack you or b) break civility - i will report you for makeing things up. --DuKu (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Finell reported me for several claims which lead to a 31h bann of my account. I reported him aswell today, as his claims are somewhat twisted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Finell.27s_accusations_.28related_to_my_bann.29 --DuKu (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Finell just made a pretty pointless statement on my user page. Beside this conflict settled. Please stop posting on my user page stuff which make sno sense. Thanks for your cooperation. --DuKu (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Citation template clutter[edit]

Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_criteria#RfC_on_additional_wording_about_citation_templates Tony (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Tony.—Finell 12:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Euclid links[edit]

Hi Finell,

I've noticed the friction between you and Duku on the Euclid page, and have been trying to arbitrate at Duku's end to some extent (Duku is somewhat responsive). It seems to me that the issue is the inclusion of a reference that is pushing a fringe theory to some extent. Is it worth mentioning the fringe theory as fringe, thus justifying the inclusion as a compromise? I have no idea of the issues, the context, interpretations or quality of the reference, so do not want interfere in the article. I feel that Duku is functioning in good faith but doing it in a clumsy way so as to upset others (and now it seems to have got personal). Also, I agree references should not be included unless they were related to the creation of the text. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Looking at their recent edit summaries, I'm not sure of good faith anymore. I'll leave it for the admins Clovis Sangrail (talk) 09:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


Civility[edit]

Beside the conflict with Finell was settled he keeps insulting me with wilde accusations and made up claims. User Finell this is my last post in this regards before i take proper steps to stop you from further insults. Please take the time and read about battleing and insulting of other users. Thank you. --DuKu (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for Amendment to Arbitration[edit]

Hello, Finell. This is to inform you (as you asked me to do) that there is a request for amendement regarding an arbitration case that you have commented on.Likebox (talk) 05:03, 8


Warning: Unsourced content (copied from likebox talk page)[edit]

Information.svg Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Infraparticle. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.—Finell 17:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If this article is as important and well grounded as you claim, it should be easy to supply sources. Why don't you just do that, rather than trying to make a WP:POINT by leaving it unsourced. The current version of the WP:ESCA essay does not justify substantial bodies of text the do not purport to be summarizing or paraphrasing reliable sources. Verifiability is policy. Thank you.—Finell 20:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Did you read the talk page? I explained that I don't know the sources. I learned this from this encyclopedia. However, I have found the original articles with about 10 minutes of work, and cited it on the talk page. Even without this cite, the article's contents are fine as they are, since the subject is well known, and all comments on that page are easily verified by any physicist.
I wasn't making any point--- I was sincerely annoyed to see people deleting stuff they couldn't understand. Please stop deleting it again.Likebox (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The fact that I don't know the sources does not mean that I can't find them. Headbomb does not understand this material, and should not support deleting it.Likebox (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Warning: Unsourced content (again from likebox talk page)[edit]

Information.svg Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Infraparticle. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.—Finell 17:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If this article is as important and well grounded as you claim, it should be easy to supply sources. Why don't you just do that, rather than trying to make a WP:POINT by leaving it unsourced. The current version of the WP:ESCA essay does not justify substantial bodies of text the do not purport to be summarizing or paraphrasing reliable sources. Verifiability is policy. Thank you.—Finell 20:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Did you read the talk page? I explained that I don't know the sources. I learned this from this encyclopedia. However, I have found the original articles with about 10 minutes of work, and cited it on the talk page. Even without this cite, the article's contents are fine as they are, since the subject is well known, and all comments on that page are easily verified by any physicist.
I wasn't making any point--- I was sincerely annoyed to see people deleting stuff they couldn't understand. Please stop deleting it again.Likebox (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important.svg Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Infraparticle. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Headbomb is coordinator of WikiProject Physics, and you hardly say that he doesn't understand the article or the material. If, as you admit, you "don't know the sources", you can't add the content. End of story.—Finell 15:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC) (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply, if any, here on your Talk page)
Coordinator of WikiProject Physics or not, if you look at Headbomb's AFD nomination of the article, then that clearly indicates that he indeed did not understand the topic. Editing the article really has to be discussed on the basis of the content of the sources and the necessary physics that the sources are based on. In this case the sources will assume a working knowledge of quantum field theory, so it is only natural that the article has to do some nontrivial explaining that you cannot directly source. Count Iblis (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The article is a difficult specialist article, written by an expert off the top of his or her head. It is extremely clear because of this. In order to preserve the article, you just find the sources for the arguments presented. It is important to realise that such material is indistinguishable from crackpot contributions for people who don't understand the material.Likebox (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Surely Finell isn't suggesting anyone owns the physics project? Sure seems like that he is indeed suggeszting that and also suggesting you don't ocntribute. Sounds a lot like asking for your qualification on a project that doesn't require them. Would you mind answering those questions Finell? Maybe back up your opinion with a policy you are entrusted to uphold? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────To me it appears that two things are at work here.

The first is that the article is of main interest to specialists. From the viewpoint of Likebox and Count Iblis, that specialist nature means that only a few people can understand the article, and everyone else should just go away. A more honest view would be that these authors are not willing to take the time to boil the article down into levels of detail. At some broad level the article should make sense to anyone, and as the levels deepen, more readers will be lost (or better, directed to places where they can fill in the background).
A common approach to bringing people on board is to present a historical resume that leads up to the presentation of the article, and explains the contribution of the article's topic to that development, and the uncertainties that yet are to be faced. Such a thread is readily documented: for example, "so-and-so said such-and-such at some-time-or-another."1, 2, 3 By identifying historical milestones one also identifies key concepts.
The second thing at work here is impatience of the participants with each other, stemming largely from the view of some that WP is broken, and from others that it is working just fine. The resulting animosity makes this article a proxy for these larger issues. Whatever your view, evolution to a better WP requires a focus upon generating content, not upon using rules to decide how content is created, and to eliminate content instead of helping to improve it. Where objections arise to article content it seems to me to be preferable to point out in detail what is the problem and what might be the solution, rather than throwing guidelines about like WP:SYN, WP:OR or WP:V as if they were self-evident pejoratives. These guidelines are a last resort, and only generate friction when introduced without an obviously sincere attempt to help the author. Brews ohare (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Brews: I agree with your first 2 paragraphs and the first 2 sentences of your third paragraph (which is quite a lot). I also agree that, in the abstract, it should not matter how good content is created, and improving Wikipedia's content should be the reason for what we all are doing here. If a Wikipedian knows a topic well enough to draft an article (or additional content for an existing article), and can then look up source citations to add, that is fine. However, from an encyclopedic point of view, good content has to include good sources. Unlike Encyclopaedia Britannica, or Encyclopaedia Americana, or numerous well-respected reference works and text books that are written and edited by experts in their fields, Wikipedia relies solely on amateur author-editors; with relatively few exceptions (you are one of them), even the project does not know the identity or qualifications of its author-editors. Wikipedia's policies were created for this particular reality.
Many apparently-knowledgeable physics editors assessed Infraparticle as a poor article before I got involved. It was stubbified as the result of an AfD because of this, so it could be rewritten with sources. Restoring the same disputed, unsourced content does not improve the article and is a disservice to readers. Adding sourced content, and insisting that content be sourced, seems to me like the best way to improve this particular article. When there is doubt about an article's accuracy or treatment of a subject, requiring sourced content, and checking the sources, is a sure-fire solution.
Wikipedia is full of unsourced content, policies notwithstanding. I could spend all my Wikipedia time deleting or challenging unsourced content. I don't do that.—Finell 23:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Finell: Thanks for all the agreement. Maybe as a non-expert you feel you can do little to help these authors in this case beyond challenging them and policing WP guidelines. But, I'd guess you could help these authors further, because they really don't have a good idea of how to write this thing in an accessible manner.
I just saw a title in Barnes & Noble: “String Theory for Dummies”. More than probably, the reader of this book is not set up to do graduate work in string theory. But the book is testimony to an interest out there for specialized topics that can be addressed at a popular level, and probably will help some bright souls to launch a serious career. That is how the intro to Infraparticle might work too. Brews ohare (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Brews, in this case it was actually an explanation to make the article more understandable that was deleted on the basis of OR/Synth. In case of string theory, one could cite popular books. But in case of infraparticles, you cannot precisely cite (almost) verbatim quotes of explanations, as the material has not made it in undegraduate textbooks yet. So, adding more explanations to make the material more accessible is going to raise even more red flags for Finell. However, this is precisely what we will do as we don't want to write only for experts. Also once you got a lot of explanations in the article, the article can be more easily edited by people with less knowledge. Count Iblis (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Whoa! That wasn't me. I did not participate in the AfD. I did not see any accessible introductory material in what Likebox added, and which I reverted. My only complaint about the material that Likebox added was that it was unsourced. I never complained about SYNTH (the material was unsourced, so there wasn't anything to synthesize from) or OR (if one contends that anything unsourced is OR, that makes OR meaningless as an independent concept) in Infraparticle. I am always in favor of making articles more accessible to the general reader. Iblis: If you want to attempt to make Infraparticle more accessible, please go ahead; I will not raise unreasonable objections, and I will try to help with copy editing and the like.—Finell 21:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I posted on the talk page of infraparticle on how to make progress. Count Iblis (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

AN/I discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic User:Likebox deceptively sourced infraparticle. Thank you. -- The Anome (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


March 2010[edit]

Please stop wikihounding me under any circumstances, be it through needless interactions or inappropriately editing or moving my commentary without my permission. If you have concerns about clerk notes being placed in the clerks notes section, please take the matter up with an arbitrator who is authorised to police the arbitration pages in the manner that they wish. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What in the world are you calling wikihounding? I made a statement in, and have been following, that particular proceeding. It is an outgrowth of the Speed of light arbitration, in which I was a party. I have not been following you around and harassing you. If you disagree with that statement, please point where I have done so.
You posted notes in a section that is preceded by this instruction: "This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks." The operative preposition here is "by", not "to". You are not a Clerk, non-recused or otherwise. I do not understand why you insist on commenting in a Clerk's-only section. While you had no business putting your comments in that section in the first place, restoring your remarks to that section was particularly pointless, since the issue you raised was resolved. If a Clerk wants to record in that section the request or the action taken, that is the Clerk's prerogative, not yours. You have many legitimate options for communicating with the Arbitration Clerks; commenting in a section that is for the Clerks' exclusive use is not one of them.—Finell 21:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Your particular interest in following my editing activity is disruptive, and it has not been limited to this particular proceeding. Again, if you have a problem, take it up with an arbitrator - this is neither your call to make, nor do you appear to understand the norms of arbitration. Frankly, I think it's incredibly lame that you are making every possible attempt to edit comments made by someone else other than yourself - particularly when there's a history of disagreement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yet another example of Wiki-fundamentalism causing pointless conflicts. Count Iblis (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Help[edit]

Hi finnel, I am a new user of wikipedia. my nickname is soso97, i don't like this name but i don't know how to change it. I love science and knowledge. I am science star's friend at school. I hope you could help me how to start using wikipedia. Soso97 (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


Speed of Light[edit]

Dear Finell,

Referring to my recent edit, "Substituted 'believed' with scientific terms 'theorized' and 'hypothesized'", which you undid with the message: "The simple words are simpler and more accurate."

Well, the reason for my edit was that I was just following Wikipedia guidelines: Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Words_with_multiple_meanings

As you can see from the guideline article, my objection to the terms "belief", "believe", and "believed" are because of their 'religious' connotations: Creationism is my belief; I believe in Jesus Christ; I believed that God would save me.

Therefore, I think that the terms "hypothesize"/"hypothesized" and "theorize"/"theorized" are more appropriate in a scientific context.

Yours sincerely,

IVAN3MAN (talk) 05:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. In the context, I doubt that anyone will conclude that these notions were akin to religious belief, so forms of the word believe are not ambiguous in this context. Further, theorize and hypothesize have implications beyond mere belief, and we do not know whether these implications are warranted. As used in the article, was one belief part of a theory? Was the other stated as a formal hypothesis? To my ear and in this context, theorize and hypothesize strike me as an effort to sound "scientific" by using somewhat fancier words, and comes off sounding a bit pompous.—Finell 13:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. Actually, I never had a problem with the terms believe and/or believed until I started having 'debates' with "Intelligent Design"/creationist nutters on Internet forums, who accuse me and my fellow associates of being "evilutionists" (sic) and allege that "evilution [sic] is a belief and a religion"! Furthermore, those bloody "Electric Universe" cranks who often plague the comments section on astronomy websites, such as Universe Today, are just as bad if not worse than friggin' creationists at accusing "standard model" astronomers of following the 'religious belief' of the Big Bang theory. Hence my reason for wanting to change believe and/or believed with some alternative terms. —IVAN3MAN (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
It is worse than pointless to debate with biblical creationists and other cranks. I'd rather have "just a theory" to rely upon than "just a superstition" or "just mythology" any day. —Finell 00:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

removed PDF accessibility[edit]

Hello, I think, your removal of PDF accessibility information in the PDF article was not a good idea. PDF accessibility is an important issue and there are hundreds of articles on internet about this topic. Please, help improving wikipedia articles with new references and new information instead of removing them. Thank you. Some references: [13], [14], [15] --89.173.64.200 (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for improving the article by adding the necessary citations to reliable sources. Verifiability is essential for assuring the reliability of information in Wikipedia. An {{Unreferenced section}} tag hung over that section since June 2009, but no one came forward with sources. I'm glad that my deleting this section motivated you to supply the necessary sources.—Finell 22:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that your removal will not motivate most people and no one will recognise that something was removed. As I see it, there are only few contributors that will spend time with this type of corrections.--89.173.64.200 (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Medieval dialectic[edit]

Hello Finell.Why did you delete the material I posted in the dialectic page? The source I provided was called "Dialectics and its place in the development of medival logic".And the content is verifiable.There´s a link to the book. Of course, there are some pages missing, but I just named these philosophers. These names appear in the summary and all over the book. I think that, for the purpose of naming a few philosophers that used dialectics in the middle ages, the source is good.--Knight1993 (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The link is to the acknowledgments page of a book. Your citation does not give the page numbers that support statement made in the article, so the source for the statement cannot be verified.—Finell 17:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


Air India Express Flight 812[edit]

Hello Finell,
Thought you might like to know that there was a discussion about the "Reaction" section at Talk:Air India Express Flight_812#Reaction lists you removed. (I am fairly neutral on the matter) Just letting you know! Happy Editing! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I did look at the discussion, and there appeared to be a (weak?) consensus for deletion. As a matter of policy, the content was clearly un-encyclopedic. Indeed, the expressions of condolences were not even newsworthy.—Finell 02:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
No worries. It was just going to grow 'like topsy'. As I said in my comment there, every governemt would very likely, as a matter of 'form', send a message and it would outgrow the actual crash article. Good to have an "uninvolved" editor be bold! Face-smile.svg--220.101.28.25 (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


Vision Airlines[edit]

Hi! Regarding this edit:

I reverted it. Let's take a look at things:

  • "Correct location" - Look up the address "3975 Johns Creek Court Suwanee, GA 30024" on Yahoo Maps!
    • Suwanee is in Gwinnett County. As per Yahoo Maps!, the address of Vision Airlines is in Forsyth County. It cannot possibly be in Suwanee.
    • The U.S. Census Bureau map of Suwanee is here - Whatever is inside the yellow is "in" Suwanee. Anything else is not in Suwanee.
    • This is the map of Forsyth County, Georgia
  • And regarding Infobox URLs, AFAIK it is best to say "thiswebsite.com" without the "http://"

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The company's own web site, which is cited as the source of the statement, says that its headquarters is in Suwanee, GA. Who are we to argue? What you are doing with your map analysis is prohibited by the Wikipedia:No original research policy. Also, if you plug the street address and zip code into Google Maps, Google Maps adds Suwanee, GA to the address (although that is also prohibited OR). You also reverted other good edits of mine (or, at least, edits that you do not say that you object to). Therefore, I reverted your revert, but I changed the URL back to your preferred style.—Finell 00:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


Very amusing[edit]

Well, I thought I gave some constructive analyses of the article lead, along with possible directions for improvement. While I fully considered seeing potential trolling and negativity, it was unexpected to see it from you. Oh, by the way, "travelled" is not a misspelling, but a variant used by millions of people. Tim Shuba (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Tim, I certainly did not mean any disrespect toward you, and I did not say that your ideas for the lead were not constructive. Opinions among Wikipedians differ on how much should go into the lead, and I expressed my opinion on this one. It is a matter for the consensus to decide. I don't believe that warrants an accusation of trolling.
Is travelled a British versus American issue? Firefox's spell checker marked it as misspelled. Word auto-corrects it. WordPerfect marks it as misspelled.—Finell 23:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC) But, I should have noticed that the double-l spelling was used consistently throughout the article.—Finell 04:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I do often use the word trolling in a rather wide sense, and I don't consider it inappropriate in all cases (sometimes it is even a positive). I suppose I had that word on my mind due to other postings on and related to that talk page. So never mind the accusation, if anything I was doing more trolling by posting the message here in the manner I did.

Yeah, travelled is British English, in fact I think it's used pretty much everywhere outside the USA. Dropping the doubled letter there was one of the many initiatives by Noah Webster of dictionary fame. See the text on his bio page where I just added a citation. Webster had tons of other language reform initiatives, many successful, many not. From my personal observation, the travelled-->traveled change in American English was never fully integrated, with both form appearing regularly in publications by American writers. So I would say the neither form is obviously preferable even in American English. In part because there is no official body to unequivocally mandate correct English usage, the evolution of the language has always been a free-for-all. Tim Shuba (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


Opinion request[edit]

Would you please weigh in at the Examples discussion at Talk:Fringe theory? Thank you. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I invited the editors who had weighed in on that page and the pseudohistory page and then I went to the edit histories and talk page histories and invited every editor who ever edited or commented on those pages. (I also got confused while doing that and I might have invited some editors who had commented on some of their talk pages; I had a lot of windows open at the time). Apparently at one time you had edited or commented on one of those pages. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


Wikipedia:WikiProject_Golden_ratio[edit]

Just wondering what you think of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Golden_ratio, seeing as it's up for deletion and you're one of only two active members of it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 03:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


Carpe Diem citations[edit]

You requested citations on the carpe diem article. I restored the link to the dictionary entry on perseus. This link was deleted from the article some time ago for some unknown reason, most likely vandalism. Gx872op (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Speed of light FAC[edit]

I have nominated speed of light for FAC. As a major contributor, please leave your 2cents on the review page.TimothyRias (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Tim: Good for you, and good luck this time! I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. I simply haven't had time to devote to Wikipedia in the last few months. To tell you the truth, this respite from Wikidrama has, to my surprise, been a pleasant relief. Best wishes.—Finell 21:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 09 July 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 16 July 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 23 July 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 30 July 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 06 August 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 13 August 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 20 August 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 27 August 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 03 September 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 10 September 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 17 September 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 24 September 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 01 October 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 08 October 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 15 October 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 22 October 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 29 October 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 05 November 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 12 November 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 19 November 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 26 November 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 03 December 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 10 December 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 17 December 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 24 December 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 31 December 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 07 January 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 14 January 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 21 January 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 28 January 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 04 February 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 11 February 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 18 February 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 25 February 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 04 March 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 11 March 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 18 March 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 25 March 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 01 April 2013[edit]

Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych[edit]

Thanks for the copyedit. Ceoil (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 15 April 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 22 April 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 29 April 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 06 May 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 13 May 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 20 May 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 27 May 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 05 June 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 12 June 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 19 June 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 26 June 2013[edit]

Rosamunde[edit]

You're very welcome. I knew it had to be an accident. Kostaki mou (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 10 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 17 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 24 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 31 July 2013[edit]

Refactored[edit]

I refactored your survey entry at the quotation RFC to fit the schema of short numbered entries without discussion. I hope that's OK. Also, you've said TQ where you probably meant LQ (first use); I left that. Dicklyon (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 August 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 14 August 2013[edit]

Conciseness[edit]

Finell, I mentioned an old edit of yours at WT:AT#“Conciseness” wording. Your perspective would be appreciated. Dicklyon (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 28 August 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 04 September 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 11 September 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 18 September 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 25 September 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 02 October 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 09 October 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 16 October 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 23 October 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 30 October 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 06 November 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 13 November 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 20 November 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 04 December 2013[edit]

  • Featured content: F*&!

The Signpost: 11 December 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 18 December 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 25 December 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 01 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 08 January 2014[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for January 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Modem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Modulate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 22 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 29 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 29 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 12 February 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 19 February 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 26 February 2014[edit]

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 12 March 2014[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for March 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fish oil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 26 March 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 02 April 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 09 April 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 23 April 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 30 April 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 07 May 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 14 May 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 21 May 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 28 May 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 04 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 11 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 18 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 25 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 02 July 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 09 July 2014[edit]