User talk:Fresheneesz

LAST WIPED (on the date next to my name) - Fresheneesz 17:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Archive

View the archive of User_talk:Fresheneesz

Inclusionist proposal

Freshenessz, you are an answer to prayer. After several articles I contributed heavily to were deleted for nn I've all but given up on writing. Instead I've been searching to contribute on a larger scale to protect and encourage quality, nn articles. I've just discovered your conversations at the Village Pump and Wikipedia talk:Notability and am impressed with your zeal. Are you sincerely interested in proposing an inclusionist notability policy? I certainly am, but I don't want to write it alone. Let me know. --Ephilei 00:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. See my edit. --Ephilei 04:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm much more sympathetic to relaxing notability a notch than relaxing verifiablity. Please could you preserve verifiability in your proposals. Stephen B Streater 18:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Cheek

I've been reading through your user page, which is interesting as I expected. Are you very possessive of it? I could fix a couple of typos while I'm there if you like. Stephen B Streater 11:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Not possesive at all, go ahead. Fresheneesz 11:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Admin Noticeboard incident

JzG has posted a note about my recent personal attack (as he calls it). You have been recently involved in the debate so I thought I'd let you know in case you wish to respond. A Transportation Enthusiast 16:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Cognitive therapy and Evidence-based medicine

I was wondering, given your edit [1], if you'd like to comment on an argument at Talk:Cognitive therapy. Regards -- JimR 10:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to discuss some things beyond the confines of Wikipedia? Contact me at : skybum at yahoo dot com. Thanks!

Apostrophes

I've just corrected a couple of instances of your misue of apostrophes in plurals. Some were arguably a style rather than grammar issue (100s vs 100's - the latter isn't universally considered incorrect, though the former is generally preferred), but some (including the title of the page "unit's digit", which I've moved to units digit) I believe were an error. May I suggest you take a look at Apostrophe for clarification on correct usage and preferred styles? perviously unsigned comment by User:Mollymoo

Removed Quotes Talk Page Content

Hey Fresheneesz, I would let the removed quotes talk page content go. I looked at the deletions, they were minor. If you like, maybe you can remove surrounding context that doesn't make sense anymore. But those are old conversations, and I see no reason to make a big issue out of it. Just my opinion. A Transportation Enthusiast 21:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Fresheneesz, I'm sorry, I didn't mean "quotes" (brain fart), I meant the content removed from talk pages to appease Avidor. You indicated on ANI that you were going to add the content back in, and I was suggesting you just forget about it since it's just old talk page content. Sorry about the confusion... A Transportation Enthusiast 09:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Talking online

I noticed you're online now. Do you want to IM about WP:NN? I'm on Yahoo as Ephilei or Jabber/Google Talk as masheach at gmail.com --Ephilei 05:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please check my edit

I'm kinda new to Wikipedia editing. I made one here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Bible

Could you verify its accuracy, since it SERIOUSLY changes what the sentence states.

Thanks.

User:leshalfhill

Hi, me again. To be clear(er?), I am not the source of any of the content of this piece. All I did in my edit was to ADD the word "not" in the third sentence of the second paragraph under the section titled "The Bible vs. History". So "since Jericho and other settlements do show signs of violent disruption in the time period required" becomes "since Jericho and other settlements do not show signs of violent disruption in the time period required".

Seemed like it might have been a simple typo from the original author, leaving out the "not". The overall sentence structure points to the need for the word to be included. But I think you would agree that adding the "not" makes a significant difference.

Apologies for the faux pas on signature style. But then, live and learn, so thanks for the lesson. How's this? ==>

Leshalfhill 16:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)leshalfhill

Essay

While agonising over fine points of notability, you seem to have overlooked the fundamental concept of namespace and WP:ASR. Since you had edited both, I assumed that Essay:Non-notability was just a personal draft and merged it into wikipedia:Non-notability. If you wish it to stand as a separate document, by all means extract it from the history but please do make sure that the title starts with "Wikipedia:" or "user:Fresheneesz/". -- RHaworth 07:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Radius of convergence

This edit of yours is quite unfortunate, and mathematically incorrect. To say that the limit is infinite is not at all the same as saying that it does not exist. The sequence may bounce back and forth between 2 and 3, so that the limit does not exist, and that is clearly not a case in which the limit is infinite. Michael Hardy 18:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Languages

Hi There! Can you translate my name in what language you know please, and then post it Here. I would be very grateful if you do (if you know another language apart from English and the ones on my userpage please feel free to post it on) P.S. all th translations are in alpahbetical order so when you add one please put it in alpahbetical order according to the language. Thanks!!! Abdullah Geelah 14:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Style at dot product

Please don't use your own way of indenting equations with

• the vector a = [a₁, a₂, … , a_n],

it is not standard. Please use the accepted indent only with a column.

Also, note that you got the dot product calculation wrong at dot product.

Also, please note that writing things like

---

The dot product of two vectors is defined:

$\mathbf {a} \cdot \mathbf {b} =\sum _{i=1}^{n}a_{i}b_{i}=a_{1}b_{1}+a_{2}b_{2}+\cdots +a_{n}b_{n}$

where

• the vector a = [a₁, a₂, … , a_n],
• the vector b = [b₁, b₂, … , b_n], and
• Σ denotes summation notation.

---

is poor English, it just does not read well. It should be written as

---

The dot product of two vectors is defined as:

$\mathbf {a} \cdot \mathbf {b} =\sum _{i=1}^{n}a_{i}b_{i}=a_{1}b_{1}+a_{2}b_{2}+\cdots +a_{n}b_{n}$

where

• the vector a is given by a= [a₁, a₂, … , a_n],
• the vector b is given by b= [b₁, b₂, … , b_n], and
• and Σ denotes summation notation.

---

(the differences are in bold italic).

But that is still poor style, as the vectors better be written down before they are being used.

I reverted your edits at dot product, the style was better the way it was before (I believe all your edits were style, I did not see content changes).

You can reply here if you have questions. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Please don't use your own way of indenting equations" - its not my style. Well, i've adopted it as my preferred style, but I got it straight from wikipedia's articles, I've said time and time again that theres lots of precedent for that style. Defining things used in an equation both above and below is poor style, for obvious reasons - one place to look is easier than two or more. Consistancy is important, and so is ease of reading. If you thought the english was poor, you may correct it, please don't mass revert edits, as you threw out the good with the bad. Please be a skillful discriminator. Fresheneesz 17:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So please tell me what was good. I saw nothing than style changes (and not good ones). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

And it was wrong to remove the statement that it is a product of real vectors. The product of complex vectors is defined differently. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right about fixing things rather than doing a blank revert. But if there is too much to fix (and not much gain in the edit) a revert is prefered. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, in that case, is there no dot product of complex vectors? It doesn't make any sense to me that a complex vector would have a differently defined dot product. Looking it up I see that it is defined slightly different, however this should also appear on the page. All I have time for is a link [2]. 198.129.216.235 20:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Stephen B Streater

FYI: Stephen has just been nominated for adminship, should you wish to register your vote. Actually, it might even be too early to vote (he hasn't even accepted nomination yet) but if you're interested, keep an eye on it for the next few days. A Transportation Enthusiast 18:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA message

		My RfA video message
		Stephen B Streater 08:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA comment

You're not supposed to edit an RfA after it is closed, so these were reverted. You could always add your very pleasant comments to the talk page though :-) Stephen B Streater 17:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Integration Userbox

This user integrates Wikipedia.

You've helped out in the past. Add this to your profile if you'd care to: we must spread the word! Cwolfsheep 18:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

NN proposal

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I did not say "this proposal must be closed now"; I merely said "I believe this proposal is not presently active", because there wasn't much recent activity on its page or talk page. If you want to discuss some more, by all means, go ahead. (FYI, there were nearly 200 proposals in CAT:PRO; I marked most of those as inactive, and will look more closely and/or participate at those that are still active).

If you have the time, could you take a look at {{historical}} and see if it can be reworded to clarify its meaning? Thanks.

>Radiant< 20:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that it's preferable to find consensus, but in practice more than half of our proposals die out because of lack of interest, so it simply doesn't always happen. The time period after which something would inactive is a matter of opinion, I suppose, and it depends on the subject matter. I'm reading over the NN proposal again, I'll comment on its talk page. >Radiant< 20:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Vanity

No, I reverted your change because lack of assertion of notability is a criterion for deletion. By the way, until (and if) your proposal passes, you should not preempt it by removing the word 'notability' from policy or guideline pages. However, contradictions between policies are not useful and should be corrected (if a policy contradicts a guideline, the policy wins; in other cases it may be trickier). >Radiant< 18:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• If a policy misrepresents a guideline, well, that's not good but it could be the result of misunderstanding, or of either page having been modified without taking the other along. Could you please point to specifics?
• As to your other question, can you make a clear and unambiguous distinction between the words 'notability' and 'importance'? If so, let's hear it. If not, the two must, for practical purposes, be considered synonymous. >Radiant< 19:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • That's not a distinction, that's just your assertion without any sources to back it up. Look up 'notable' in a thesaurus and you find 'important'. "Uniqueness" is a reasonable synonym of notability and importance; "popularity" is usually a subset of importance. Verifiability is something entirely different (both its real-world usage and its wiki-usage). Amount of interesting content refers to an article's content and not its subject, and again is something different. It seems to me you're just arguing semantics here, and since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy that tends not to lead anywhere. >Radiant< 19:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • To reiterate, can you make a clear and unambiguous distinction between the words 'notability' and 'importance'? You have not actually done so yet, other than to claim that either word can sometimes mean other things. Would you be happy if all policy and guideline pages would use the word 'importance' rather than 'notability'? If not, why? >Radiant< 19:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Because the common term in Wikipedia happens to be "notability". If I understand you correctly, you don't like the word "notability" and wish to replace it with "importance", but you have been unable so far to show a clear distinction between the two. I rather fail to see the point of this exercise. >Radiant< 19:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• In a more serious matter, you have (twice, I believe) alleged to policies contradicting one another or misrepresenting guidelines. I'd be interested to know where that occurs, so that the matter can be resolved. >Radiant< 20:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Template:Wikipedia subcat guideline

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Template:Wikipedia subcat guideline. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Francis Schonken 20:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Page move

Your recent action was to move discussion of a proposal away from that proposal's talk page. Do not do that again; it needlessly confuses people and is, in effect, removing their comments. On the whole, given your recent activities, I would strongly suggest that you spend some more time learning how Wikipedia works before you attempt to change it. Your enthousiasm is appreciated but your recent work related to {{guideline}} and the like is misguided. >Radiant< 09:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• The talk page you moved contained discussion about both the old essay and the new page related to that essay. Since the new page is related to the old, I thought it wise to keep the old discussion there for background, but I wouldn't object to a pagesplit or hist split. You are apparently unaware that your move removed discussion of the new page as well. As a side point, you needn't suggest that I read that essay, since I co-wrote it. And finally, I have not stated anywhere that you are new and clueless, and neither do I think so. >Radiant< 20:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll put the split on my to-do list, but since that's quite a lot of work (indeed, people are generally encouraged not to) I cannot give it any particular urgency. >Radiant< 14:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd be happy to, but they start with "1.become an admin". The reason this is a lot of work is because it requires some tricky business with the delete/undelete buttons. >Radiant< 19:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Indent

I think you're asking

that I

indent like this

• instead of
  • like this?

Hm, I'll see if I can remember that, it rather comes as a reflex to me. I believe there's tons of people doing either. >Radiant< 16:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer indent like this too, unless there is a particular reason. Stephen B Streater 17:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Mailing list

I don't know if you have considered joining the mailing list. We are discussing what should be included in the encyclopaedia, and I linked to your suggestion in passing. Stephen B Streater 09:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Infinity?

I'd say that all natural numbers, at least, are verifiable since just about any math book refers to them as a group, and they can all be iteratively defined by adding lower numbers. It'd get far more tricky for arbitrary irrational or even complex numbers, though. But there are already an infinite amount of natural numbers, hence my point. I'm afraid that in math, infinity isn't such a big deal. Yours, >Radiant< 16:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

We're not talking about math here. I agree that "natural numbers" is 1000% percent verifiable. However, individual natural numbers are not verifiable just because that they are part of that group. This isn't math, this is wikipedia. Telling me that these numbers are verifiable because "any math book refers to them as a group", is like saying that every person is verifiable because they are part of the group "humanity" which is obviously verifiable. Fresheneesz 06:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Cut it out

If you have a problem with me, tell me to my face rather than leaving snarky messages all over the wiki. If you had checked the log, you would have noticed that I did not delete that poll - so this is the second false accusation you've leveled at me in a week. Furthermore, discussion about users is inappropriate on a log page, making personal attacks like that is inappropriate anywhere, calling people to "fight" me sounds like borderline harassment, and if you think the issue is one of semantics between the words "vote" and "poll" you are seriously misunderstanding the situation. Just cut it out already. >Radiant< 15:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Radiant, I simply said that if they needed help, to ask me for it. Personally, I don't like the way you handle things, and I noticed that I'm far from the only one. Fresheneesz 19:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't make straw men. You were falsely accusing me behind my back, and posting personal attacks on a log page, and rounding up people to "fight" me; your words, not mine. All of that is highly inappropriate behavior. >Radiant< 20:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll gladly stop if you find a way to be more diplomatic in the way you handle yourself. Fresheneesz 23:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not receptive to threats. >Radiant< 00:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That was not meant to be a threat. To generalize: if you don't become more diplomatic, less people will cooperate with you. Thats just how life works. Think Karma. Fresheneesz 20:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikidata

I was wondering whether you noticed my message on your user page:

| I can provide a site like Wikipedia (based on mediawiki) for you to pursue this idea, if you're willing to do management and so on (I'll give you sysop, ftp and shell access). Just let me know on my talk page. I think, though, that Mathematical data should be accepted as well. --nkayesmith 08:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

--nkayesmith 22:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Just confirming that you are watching my user page. --nkayesmith 01:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing personal attacks or other potential offenses

Hi, I just noticed that you didn't like when Radiant replaced someones inflammatory comment after someone else removed it. I just wanted to add my say in, because this has been an issue before on talk pages i've been on. While personal attacks are to be avoided, I find that removing them increases the problem rather than abating it. Especially when people are discussing the problem at hand, things get very confusing when comments that one person talks about magically disappear. Outsiders wonder whos lying, or if they're lying, or what the hell's going on.

So for me, removing any comment is bad, and should simply never happen. Insensitive comments like "shut the fuck up" are history of someones character, and help others judge how to respond to that user. Anyways, that just my opinion - I always replace comments that I notice have been deleted. Fresheneesz 01:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fresheneesz,

Thanks for your comments. I really do appreciate them. I don't agree that personal attacks should left on Wikipedia talk pages, as they are still visible in the edit history. A personal attack like "shut the fuck up" isn't going to help defuse the situation, nor does it offer any sort of positive alternative: for me, it's really just a form of vandalism. And a comment that contains little except personal attacks just has no reason to be made in the first place. You certainly raise valid points about people wondering what was said, etc. I will definitely consider what you say, as my editing should reflect the consensus of the community. Anyway, thanks for nice note on my talk page. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 01:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Group-velocity.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Group-velocity.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia exists to write Great Articles not great policy

Hello Fresheneesz :-) You have two traits that should be great assets to Wikipedia, Boldness and Enthusiasm. IMO, currently you are using them in ways that are disruptive and hurt Wikipedia. Insisting on high intensity debates about our established ways of doing things does not help Wikipedia make great articles. Debating policy in the mistaken attempt to force policy changes does not make great articles. Using uncivil language and making personal attacks and threats towards other editors does not help make great articles. Please refocus your time here on endeavors that make great articles. Contact me on my talk page to discuss ways you can use your Boldness and Enthusiasm to make great articles. Take care, FloNight 21:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. - specifically, your remarks against Doc Glasgow are inappropriate. >Radiant< 23:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

My comments were 100% appropriate Radiant. His removal and mutilation of my post on a talk page is vandalism, and I won't stand for it. Your campaign against good faith edits is not something I will stand for either. Fresheneesz 00:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It is ironic that in response to a warning about personal attacks, you make more personal attacks. You should familiarize yourself with WP:NPA, WP:CIV and WP:ETIQ before continuing your edits. >Radiant< 00:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Fresheneesz please rethink your manner of communicating your thoughts to other users. I really do not want to put it this strongly but must so you have a clear understanding of how you are not following policy against incivility and personal attacks. Consider this a warning and if you make another personal attack or highly uncivil remark you will be blocked from editing. These remarks are not acceptable. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. --FloNight 00:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)