User talk:Vanished user azby388723i8jfjh32: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Hoax admission: I recommend a change to less 'attitude' |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==READ FIRST== |
|||
In my dubious capacity as member of the [[Wikipedia:Department of Fun|Department of Fun]] but also personally, here's a [[Image:WikiThanks.png]] WikiThanks for [[Johnny Zhivago]]. I'm keeping an eye on you as a likely future candidate for a [[Wikipedia:Barnstars on Wikipedia#The Surreal Barnstar|surreal barnstar]]. :-) [[User:JRM|JRM]] 22:21, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC) |
|||
===Nutjobs not welcome to post their self-righteous inanity here=== |
|||
Posts from these users, will be deleted immediately from this page without comment: |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
== Article Licensing == |
|||
* [[User:fvw|fvw]] |
|||
Hi, I've [[User:rambot#Free the Rambot Articles project|started a drive]] to get users to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the [[Creative Commons]] Attribution-Share Alike (''CC-by-sa'') v1.0 and v2.0 [[Creative Commons License|License]]s or into the [[public domain]] if they prefer. The ''CC-by-sa'' license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the [[GFDL]], but it allows '''other projects''', such as [[WikiTravel]], to use our articles. Since you are among the [[Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits|top 2000]] Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at ''minimum'' those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information: |
|||
*[[User talk:Ram-Man#Multi-Licensing FAQ|Multi-Licensing FAQ]] - Lots of questions answered |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|Multi-Licensing Guide]] |
|||
*[[User:rambot#Free the Rambot Articles project|Free the Rambot Articles Project]] |
|||
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "'''<nowiki>{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}</nowiki>'''" template into their user page, but there are other options at [[Wikipedia:Template messages/User namespace#Licensing Templates|Template messages/User namespace]]. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page: |
|||
:'''Option 1''' |
|||
:<nowiki>I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:</nowiki> |
|||
:<nowiki>{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}</nowiki> |
|||
'''OR''' |
|||
:'''Option 2''' |
|||
:<nowiki>I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:</nowiki> |
|||
:<nowiki>{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}</nowiki> |
|||
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "'''<nowiki>{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}</nowiki>'''" with "'''<nowiki>{{MultiLicensePD}}</nowiki>'''". If you only prefer using the [[GFDL]], I would like to know that too. ''Please let me know'' what you think at my '''[[User talk:Ram-Man|talk page]]'''. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- [[User:Ram-Man|Ram-Man]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit§ion=new comment]| [[User talk:Ram-Man|talk)]] |
|||
== Re Color -> Colour == |
|||
btw, I usually spell it without the 'u'. But it seems to me that that's increasingly a minority position, especially given the backlash against american spelling in the light of recent 'diplomatic successes'. |
|||
As I mentioned in an earlier post in Color:talk -- maybe the way out is to use a scheme like for dates .. spelling according to users' preferences. [[User:Quota|quota]] |
|||
* That's already policy —[[User:ExplorerCDT|ExplorerCDT]] 17:29, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|||
* I meant the spelling varies according to the viewer's preferences. Just as date formats vary today (''e.g.'', even though this link: [[December 12]] has month first, as displayed it is day first, for me). So in the case of Color, different viewers would see different spellings for the same article. [[User:Quota|quota]] |
|||
== Colonial Colleges == |
|||
(Copied from [[User talk:Doops]]) Harvard University was known as New College from 1636 until it was named after John Harvard in 1639. Reading the first few sentences of the Harvard University article would have told you that. However, there is ample evidence which I will provide at request substantiating this fact. If this was not fact, I would not have written it. Thank you for your incorrect and misguided edit on Colonial Colleges, which has since been reverted. -ExplorerCDT 12:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|||
::Sorry to take so long in replying to you. Yes, I would be interested in seeing your evidence. I am certainly aware of the first ¶ of the [[Harvard]] article — indeed, I have edited it numerous times — and I'm sorry if my edit summary made it sound like I was rudely rejecting "new college" out of hand. All I meant to question was whether "New College" was a NAME or TITLE in the sense that we use those words nowadays, especially since the college's whole existence was pretty sketchy for those first few years. (The same is not true, for example, with Columbia, where "King's College" was unquestionably a name/title in the modern sense for many years before the name change.) Anyway, thanks in advance for your sources, which I will read with interest. Finally, I hope you won't take it amiss if I suggest that you try to take a more polite tone in future — we all get into disagreements in the wikipedia sometimes, but life's more pleasant if we work them through amicably. Again, I'm sorry if my edit summary sounded otherwise. [[User:Doops|Doops]] 05:27, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|||
:::: I second the sentiment expressed by Doops. Please be more light-hearted in future discussion. Naturally, you are under no obligation to respect this. However, it would be much more pleasant for many others and you would come across as a nicer person - though, as I mentioned, this is up to you. [[User:Mat334|Mat334]] 23:37, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|||
=Cayley Operational Matrix= |
|||
Where in the 1964 edition of the [[Handbook of Mathematical Functions]] does this appear? -- [[User:Dominus|Dominus]] 00:04, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|||
My suspicious nature suggests to me that possibly you were the original author of this article, and did it as a test of Wikipedia. If so, please take a look at [[Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point]]. It's a little bit like spraypainting a wall to see whether the janitors are doing their job. If you're interested in determining the accuracy of Wikipedia, do it in non-destructive ways. <br> |
|||
If I'm wrong, of course, disregard the above comments and go about your editing. [[User:Isomorphic|Isomorphic]] 23:17, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|||
==Hoax admission== |
|||
Since you have now admitted knowledge of the hoax nature of that page [[Cayley-Newbirth operation matrix]], and that your comments at VfD defending it were in bad faith, I am going to pursue this matter. Since I think you should be banned, please answer with care. |
|||
First point to put to you: did you create the page, as the anonymous editor 65.177.73.18, on 4 April 2004? (And if not, what was your extent of knowledge of it?) |
|||
* No. I wasn't around here until mid-September 2004. My IP number is 66.171.something. I can't remember exactly, but it's the only IP address I've had since July. I have no knowledge of it, and do not engage in editing math articles.—[[User:ExplorerCDT|ExplorerCDT]] 13:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|||
Second point, you have been editing under the current user name since October 2004. Are there any other edits you wish to be identified with on the English Wikipedia? In particular, do you wish to make public any sockpuppets you may operate here? Were you editing Wikipedia earlier than October 2004? Are there any friends or collaborators who edit here who have to your knowledge also been in some way involved or complicit in hoaxing? Do you have anything to do with the [[Bryleigh's Theorem]] hoax postings, or knowledge about them? When you refer to 'clues' in your VfD edits, would you like to explain what clues or cues to the hoax nature of CNOM were offered, and by whom? |
|||
* No earlier than September 2004. No Sockpuppets. I'll do an occasional tongue-in-cheek edit, but no hoaxes.—[[User:ExplorerCDT|ExplorerCDT]] 13:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|||
Third point, do you have any knowledge relevant to the recent [[User:Slim Jim]] vandalism attack of small hoax edits in mathematics? |
|||
* Nope.—[[User:ExplorerCDT|ExplorerCDT]] 13:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|||
Fourth point, since the CNOM page shows considerable 'insider' knowledge of mathematical jargon and habits of writing, and you made some plausible allusions to mathematical matters at VfD, will you disclose your academic involvement with mathematics, or whether you have been supplied by someone else with this kind of material? |
|||
* I suffered through a few semesters of calc, but never majored or minored in math or took courses other than that required as prerequisites in Economics. I think I only know one person (a teacher) with sufficient mathematical knowledge, but he's been serving in Iraq with the National Guard.—[[User:ExplorerCDT|ExplorerCDT]] 13:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|||
Fifth, since your user page contains a number of comments of an aggressive and antisocial nature, such as the sneering about 'civility', would you like to give an account of yourself in relation to the WP project which would convince anyone that you have some intention of being a better community member in the future?[[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 12:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|||
* No. Warnings should be taken at face value. Now find something better to do with your time. —[[User:ExplorerCDT|ExplorerCDT]] 13:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|||
P.S. Because I like a clean talk page every month, this discussion will be deleted in one week, irregardless. —[[User:ExplorerCDT|ExplorerCDT]] 13:27, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|||
One more chance to be cooperative. You wrote at VfD: |
|||
''The article has been up for 8 months. You can only leave so many clues. ;-)'' |
|||
Smileys don't actually mitigate. 'You can only leave so many clues' refers to what in particular? [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 15:31, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|||
* I don't need any "chances" from you, nutjob. Reflecting on my state of mind when I added that contribution, I should have written "One can only leave so many clues" as that was my intent. —[[User:ExplorerCDT|ExplorerCDT]] 15:35, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|||
I don't think you're in any position to be abusive, or evasive. You have put yourself in a false position in the community. Clean up your user page, clean up your act, or take the consequences. Bad faith editing is an ''automatic'' problem user badge. There are still the questions: what were your anon edits here, what are these 'tongue-in-cheek' non-hoax edits, why are you know so sure about the CNOM hoax since you don't seem to have studied abstract algebra? |
|||
By the way, I'm aware there is an RfC up for you. |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
==Personal Attacks== |
|||
Please keep in mind [[Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks|personal attacks are not allowed]]. I'm not going to [[Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks|remove your personal attack]] in the comment above from your own talk page, but I would strongly suggest you do so. --[[User:fvw|fvw]][[User talk:Fvw|<SMALL><FONT COLOR="green">*</FONT></SMALL>]] 15:42, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 15:52, 24 December 2004
READ FIRST
Nutjobs not welcome to post their self-righteous inanity here
Posts from these users, will be deleted immediately from this page without comment: