User talk:SlamDiego/Archive 13

Contents

Orc Hives
Some earlier messages may be found
· in the first orc hive,
· in the second orc hive,
· in the third orc hive,
· in the fourth orc hive,
· in the fifth orc hive,
· in the sixth orc hive,
· in the seventh orc hive,
· in the eighth orc hive,
· in the ninth orc hive,
· in the tenth orc hive,
· in the eleventh orc hive, or
· in the twelfth orc hive.

---

This editor has too many irons in the fire, and may be suddenly inactive on Wikipedia for indeterminate intervals.

Click the “+” tab or this sentence to start a new discussion.

re: Jay Fawcett

Thanks for noticing this, I'd forgotten about it. I'm wondering if it should be nominated for deletion and see what comes of that. I still don't think that an unsuccessful candidate for Congress from one district in Colorado who has no other biography is notable. What do you think? Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not highly skilled in creating an AfD. Do you want me to do this or are you willing to go forward? Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll jump in with an opinion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry!!

There must be a problem peculiar to the computer that I was using. I thought it was a problem with my own display, since I haven't seen it on anyone else's post, and I couldn't imagine that my computer was the only one to do this out of thousands that are linking to Wikipedia. Thanks for fixing the problem. I'll use undo if it happens again. It makes me look like a vandal, not a good idea if one is trying to argue in favor of keeping an article. If you happen to notice it with any other user, I'd be interested in learning about it. Again, sorry, thanks for apprising me to the problem and how to fix it. Mandsford (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I was sure that it were an innocent mistake. —SlamDiego_←T 05:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for advice

Thanks SlamDiego for your advice posted on my talk page. I reverted this action you refered to (in Teddy bear). I am a new to Wikipedia and very happy to receive input from more experienced users. Nahraana 12:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Push vandalism?

Why in the world would you tag your edit reversal with a push vandalism against me? I clearly explained myself in the talk page and it was only the second such edit I'd ever made on that page, albeit a constructive one. If you don't mind me asking, why are you so set on this staying on the page? It's obviously irrelevant and a complete non sequitur with the rest of the page. Do you like know the rape victim or something? I'm just curious how one person can be so uninvolved yet so inordinately passionate about a subject. ~ Triberocker (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism is defined on Wikipedia as

any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

You are willfully seeking to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia by erasing a documented section which has already been successfully defended in mediation. You are doing this to protect the image of a fraternity, rather than just for the joy of trashing the Wikipedia, but it is still a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The fact that you're commenting to the talk page doesn't change that. —SlamDiego_←T 22:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"...why are you so set on this staying on the page? It's obviously irrelevant and a complete non sequitur with the rest of the page. Do you like know the rape victim or something? I'm just curious how one person can be so uninvolved yet so inordinately passionate about a subject. ~ Triberocker (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)"

You only answered half my question. ~ Triberocker (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you want to complain about that somewhere. —SlamDiego_←T 00:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am correct in believing this is your talk page, no? Please just answer my honest questions. Thank you for your valuable time. ~ Triberocker (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If you think that your question is appropriate, and that I somehow owe you an answer, then perhaps you should contact an administrator to seek action against me. Suffice it to say that I think that you're behaving as a first-rate ass in even asking. —SlamDiego_←T 03:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You consider it being an asshole (and inappropriate) to want to know why you keep making this edit? Lighten up man. If you're that uptight about this whole thing, I don't even want an answer. Sheesh! **clicks unwatch: User talk:SlamDiego** ~ Triberocker (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm evidently not the sort to lighten-up about a gang-rape, and about persistent attempts to erase it from history. And I'm glad to see the back of someone who apparently is such a sort. —SlamDiego_←T 04:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of cold fusion

A discussion that you were involved in was closed with the wrong closing decision. Please revisit the above link to review the article in question and your opinion given there. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

False Accusations

I don't know what you're talking about; stop accusing people of stuff they didn't do. I see the anonymous edits, and they are not mine. Feel free to try to prove that they were. And for your information, I already have unwatched both the article and your talk page because I'm sick of dealing with people like you. ~ Triberocker (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Given this response, I have filed a request for a checkuser. —SlamDiego_←T 08:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And the checkuser concludes that you are probably responsible for the anonymous edits. —SlamDiego_←T 08:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

re: Quantity Theory of Money

Hell, SlamDiego. I have no problem with a criticism section on the "Quantity Theory Of Money", it is a necessary addition, but the current section is poorly written, and in need of citations. I don't mean it as a personal insult to you. Have a good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.176.236 (talk • contribs)

Oh, no, I'm not insulted! I didn't write that awful section! I made a lot of contributions to that article, but mostly I just stared in horror at that section, and fled! —SlamDiego_←T 17:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fortune Global 500

Hi, I'm not sure who to contact for this, but I thought you'd interested since you're a member of the Economics WikiProject. There is an article called Fortune Global 500. This article is a copy and paste of the list of the 500 largest companies in the world by revenues published by Fortune magazine every year. Fortune magazine lists these companies by countries and cities. They list Shell as being a company from the Netherlands and not a dual company from Britain and the Netherlands (contrary to Unilever). One British Wikipedian doesn't like that and has changed the article, writting that Shell is a dual British/Dutch company, contrary to the source from Fortune magazine. I tried to explain that the article being simply a copy and paste of the Fortune Global 500 list, we have to respect their editorial choices, otherwise it's not the Global Fortune 500 list anymore, it becomes something else. Unfortunately I feel like I'm preaching in the desert, so to speak. If we start changing things from the list based on what we think is right or wrong, then why not also change EADS which Fortune magazine lists as a Dutch company (because it is legally incorporated in the Netherlands for tax reasons), whereas in fact EADS is a Franco-German company with top management in Paris and Munich? As you can see, this could lead to endless changes to the article. I thought on Wikipedia we had to write information that matches with the sources we use. It would be nice to hear from you on this point. Keizuko (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Markèd

My Oxford dictionary says that the accent should be used only (apparently) for playing cards - interestingly, as I always pronounce 'markt' for all meanings. Rothorpe (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting; that's one used for which I've not before encountered “markèd”. (Meanwhile, Adoniscik denied that he had found “markèd” in the OED at all.) I can call upon competing references, but I'll yield to a consensus if one truly develops. —SlamDiego_←T 21:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking again now in artificial light, I can see they are dots to show the pronunciation of 'markedly' & 'markedness'. So that doesn't contradict Adoniscik after all. Rothorpe (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I didn't think that he would be lying in any event; I just thought that he might have been sloppy here (though you'd not actually identified your reference as the OED, and there could be inconsistencies across Oxford dictionaries). —SlamDiego_←T 23:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistencies across Oxford dictionaries!?! The end of civilisation...

I have the Concise OD and the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, 1974, & neither give that pronunciation or spelling. Of course outside of standard English it's a different matter entirely...Yours markedly, Rothorpe (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I simply wouldn't know whether disyllabic “marked” is now more common in American English than in British English. Many things largely abandoned by British English have greater currency in American English. (For example, “billion” first entered English as meaning a thousand million, and Americans still tend to use “gotten” where the British are more likely to use “got”.) Certainly, I wrote the sentence in question (as most of the article) in an American English (of which I note the OED is not a particularly great respecter). —SlamDiego_←T 00:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In re wikt:markèd

At present, its usage-notes section points to something that doesn’t exist. You need to create something like what’s at wikt:learned#Usage notes at wikt:marked#Usage notes, as well as adding a link in that entry to wikt:markèd under an “Alternative spellings” heading. You may want to add pronunciatory transcriptions too, but if you’re unfamiliar with either IPA, SAMPA, or Wiktionary’s English Phonemic Representation (enPR), then just ask and I’ll add them for you. As a final note, the authors of the quotations for citations don’t need to be “notable” — any use will do, as long as it satisfies Wiktionary’s attestation criteria (enumerated near the beginning of wikt:WT:CFI). Regards, Raifʻhār Doremítzwr (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to get onto these things. I am reasonably familiar with the IPA. I'm glad to be informed that notability is not required, though I believe that notable sources are still more desirable. —SlamDiego_←T 03:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of E. M. Washington

An editor has nominated E. M. Washington, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E. M. Washington (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I find the tone of your message on my talk page to be totally inappropriate. You are, of course, free to disagree with my editorial judgement on whether a linearly ordered set should be called a vector. However, leaving a barbed response on my talk page is unnecessary.

The article vector gives a list of the main uses of the word "vector" in mathematics, followed, rather inexplicably, by a reference to a linearly ordered set. This is definitely not standard usage in most areas of mathematics. It may be that there is some small subset of mathematics which uses this terminology, but I for one need convincing before I allow an unreferenced and rather bizarre entry to occupy a list consisting of otherwise uncontroversial and commonplace definitions. (I mean, does someone call the real line a "vector"? Really?)

I will try to check the reference you have given. To save me the time, perhaps you could post a direct quote on my talk page defining a linearly ordered set to be a vector. silly rabbit (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone who felt that his personal experience was thus definitive would of course find it inappropriate to be told not to summarily delete content based on that experience.

The presence of the other definitions in the article is no more explained than is that of the definition that you summarily deleted. Nor could most of those other definitions be said to be standard usage in most areas of mathematics. Conferences that tried to resolve the conflicts in definitions ended in disappointment. (See Cajori's A History of Mathematical Notations for mention of an attempt.)

You may insist that the definition is bizarre, but it is obviously a generalization of the notion of the vector as an ordered set of numbers. And computer science folk have been happy to take it up. For example, Java's Vector.class is named in the context of this conception. (And, ironically enough, a Vector cannot have primitive numeric types as its elements.)

As to what you will allow, I suggest that you reconsider your sense of entitlement here.

Although Kolman, Busby, and Ross define “vector” as an ordered set, without condition that the set be countable, I don't think that they ever apply that definition to uncountable sets. Nor have I elsewhere seen it applied to uncountable sets.

I'm not sure how a quotation would make your life easier, as you'll still want to get the book, find “vector” in its index, and so forth. (The page number and so forth will vary with the edition; they're on edition 5 or 6 now.) But I suppose that I can dig up an exact quote if you haven't first. —SlamDiego_←T 03:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC

So, Kolman et al define a vector as a set X together with a relation ≤ defined on it satisfying the trichotomy? This seems not to fit with any of the other definitions of a vector. For instance, the "ordered sets" {1,2,3} and {3,2,1} are the same set. However the vectors [1,2,3] and [3,2,1] are different. Furthermore, how does one account for possible repetitions of the entries of a vector? It could be that Kolman et al use a nonstandard definition of an ordered set as well (I don't know, I have to wait to check the book) possibly what others would call a "list". Anyway, I can't find this idiosyncratic definition of a vector in any other book, or on Google anywhere, or in any of a number of encyclopedias of mathematics. I think we should hold off until suitable context and references for this addition have been provided and verified. silly rabbit (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What you really want to use as your example is

$\{1,2,2\}=\{2,1\}$

As I said, I'll dig-up a copy, but it is evident that even if I do you will not be satisfied until you have dug-up a copy. I have seen equivalent defintions elsewhere, Kolman &alii sticks with me because it's the first place in which I saw it. —SlamDiego_←T 05:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... No, that isn't the example I wanted to use, but it also works. As I said above, the sets {1,2,3} and {3,2,1} are linearly ordered with respect to ≤. They are, in fact, the same set. However the vectors [1,2,3] and [3,2,1] are different. I also mentioned the issue of handling repetition: thus the example of {1,2,2}. The definition of a vector as a linear order strikes me as just plain wrong. This one doesn't pass the smell test. I'm glad you have decided to reconsider and look at some proper references. silly rabbit (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, returning again to your original post on my talk page, I find it shocking that you think that I somehow deserved to be scolded for removing an obviously silly definition for which there was no indication of how it related to the word "vector". Please read up on the Wikipedia policies of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. We are all here in an effort to create a better encyclopedia. Your snarky condescending remark on my talk page is completely inappropriate and contrary to that objective.

Had there been some well-referenced reason for its inclusion, then probably my own personal experience would not qualify. But my experience in an area that I am very familiar with is enough to say when something seems fishy and needs more careful referencing. Perhaps you are relatively new to Wikipedia, but people often do try to insert outright incorrect information into articles, often in an attempt to prove a WP:POINT. We must therefore insist that all material be verifiable by reliable sources, particularly when the material seems farfetched; see WP:REDFLAG.

In this case, the link you insist on did not pass the judgement of a particular expert in mathematics (myself), and was removed. I did, of course, take the time to subject this to an examination of the sources at my disposal, and I found no evidence of anyone ever saying that a vector is a collection X of objects with a binary relation ≤ satisfying the trichotomy. Of course in such cases one cannot prove a negative, but that is why Wikipedia has policies governing verifiability and reliability of sources.

Anyway, I would ask that you try in the future to be more civil in your interactions. Scolding people you do not know on first encounter tends to bring out the worst in them. In my own case, it made be considerably more defensive than I would have been had you initiated the conversation in a more civil manner. Or perhaps you enjoy eristicism more than your Userpage would suggest. silly rabbit (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Your sense of indignity — and this recurring ranting about the matter — is illustrative of the vary sense of entitlement to which I first objected.

Summarily deleting something on the bald ground that you had not familiarity was itself grossly uncivil. You don't see that for the same reason that you think it uncivil to be told not to do such things.

Most of the entries in Vector have not citation. Yet it would be patently perverse if any time some editor found an entry thereupon with which her or she we unfamiliar, he or she would then just deleted with a toss of his or her hair.

Your self-reference, “the judgement [sic] of a particular expert in mathematics (myself)” is the key to what's grossly wrong here. Wikipedia cannot function other than pathologically if such a protocol were widely adopted. And that is what made what you did uncivil. (Once you trashed civility, part of its restoration involves calling a spade a spade.)

Finally, note that your concluding reference to eristicism is simply a petty and, in context, hypocritical attempt to get revenge. —SlamDiego_←T 16:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Look. I made a single WP:BOLD edit, on the basis that this is a completely nonstandard usage of the word vector (if it is in fact used this way at all). This is not a violation of WP:CIVIL. Editting in good faith is never uncivil. In fact, this is explicitly encouraged by Wikipedia policy WP:BOLD. Writing snarky, condescending messages to other editors is uncivil. As I have already pointed out, if you want people to respond well to your edits, you might want to consider being a little nicer when you interact with them. Otherwise, you may make other editors defensive. As a new editor here, perhaps you should also go read WP:CIVIL, WP:BOLD, , and (in light of the recent edit-war you caused) WP:BRD. Thanks, and goodbye. silly rabbit (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, you keep calling, implicitly (and occasionally explicitly) on your own presumption of expertise to justify that boldness. Had you instead slapped a {{fact}} there first or placed a notice/query on the Talk page and waited a bit, then your action would not have been uncivil. (For a disambiguation page, the latter would probably have been better.) There was nothing condescending in my response to your presumption of astonishing personal expertise. You're just flailing with a reaction of wounded pride to being told not to invoke — and certainly not to wildly over-estimate — your personal expertise to defend WP:BOLD changes. And I'm simply going to point out the passive-aggression insinuation in your referring to me as new editor and in citing various policies. For example, there was no implication that you were acting in bad faith when you invoked personal expertise — I believed (and it becomes ever more clear) that you truly thought your expertise in mathematics to be so great that if you were unfamiliar with such a thing then it must not be. —SlamDiego_←T 16:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for pointing it out, but your position seems to be that your own astonishing personal experience trumps my own. In the end, it is the edits which count, and any material which is unsourced can be removed if challenged. There is no requirement to put a {{fact}} tag next to something which is definitely misleading, and probably flat-out wrong. I do not, even as an expert, believe that never having heard of something implies its nonexistence. Indeed, I made an honest, good faith effort, to find this peculiar definition of the term vector, as I have indicated repeatedly. I came up completely empty-handed. Feeling that this was, perhaps, a sneaky vandal's attempt to prove a WP:POINT, I removed it. You responded to this with overt hostility and incivility. And you continue to personally attack me here, calling my actions "passive aggressive" and "presumptive," saying that I have "wildly overestimated" my personal expertise. Do you see the lack of civility in any of this? Do you see that you are making this personal, and how I might take offense at your behaviour? silly rabbit (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No, as someone who claims notably mathematical expertise, you should know that a single counter-example is a disproof. And there is no implication of sweeping expertise in possessing a counter-example; for example, were you to claim that your expertise on birds were sufficient that you could deny the existence of blue-eyed birds in Southern California, I would not be claiming to know of anything but a blue-eyed bird in pointing you to an example.

The content in question wasn't wrong. Your claim that it was “probably flat-out wrong” is, again, based upon your exaggerated sense of expertise. As to content that one thinks is misleading, properly one {{huh}}-tags it or rewrites it, or calls on the talk page for clarification, rather than summarily deleting it.

I agree that your actions were honest and in good faith, but neither of these is sufficient. Again: WP:BOLD changes should not be defended based upon such presumptions of personal expertise. And it is a sad state of affairs that you keep citing WP:AGF only to reveal that you violated that very policy: “[f]eeling that this was, perhaps, a sneaky vandal's attempt to prove a WP:POINT, I removed it.”

There was, again, nothing uncivil in my telling you that your uncivil summary deletion based upon wild presumptions of expertise was inappropriate. I don't see the non-existent incivility that you want me to see because, on the one hand, I actually know what civility is and why it is; and, on the other hand, I didn't begin with the esteem for you that you have for yourself nor with a need to esteem you as you seem to need to esteem yourself.

No, it is you pursuit of personal vindication that has focussed this discussion on your person. And, in your flailing, you've repeatedly introduced the issue of my merit — when logically I could be a Very Bad person without that in any way saying Good Things about you.

And, no, I don't find your behavior in response to my behavior to be surprising; but to be anticipatable and to be justifiable are quite distinct things. —SlamDiego_←T 18:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)