User talk:Finell: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Brews ohare (talk | contribs)
47,831 edits
Line 1,008: Line 1,008:


:::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? [[User:Finell|—Finell]] ([[User talk:Finell#top|talk]]) 04:50, 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? [[User:Finell|—Finell]] ([[User talk:Finell#top|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 and accurate, 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? [[User:Brews ohare|Brews ohare]] ([[User talk:Brews ohare|talk]]) 18:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:16, 12 November 2009

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.


Welcome!

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)[reply]

Thanks for Welcome!

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Stub text

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks

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

Golden mean, Golden Mean, ZGolden mean

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)[reply]

Nicomachean Ethics

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)[reply]

Thank you, Finell!

File: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)[reply]

Sig

Here, Shell <e> 02:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Saints Wikiproject

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.

This user is a member of the Saints WikiProject.



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

history of astronomy articles

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Golden Ratio

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)[reply]

Golden Ratio in Geometry

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Mathematics: Canadian mass nouns

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)[reply]

Lavinia Williams

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)[reply]

Please Do Not Vandalize My Talk Page

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

licensing

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)[reply]

Sources

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I wrote to the President but got no reply

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)[reply]

Peter Nehr page

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 (talk • contribs)

Conflict of Interest

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

WP:BABEL

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)[reply]

Copernicus in German Encyclopedias

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

My regard for other users and viewpoints

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I put Benford's law of controversy up for afd

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

Spelling out of centuries on Joseph Priestley

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Re: your email

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)[reply]

MOS proposal

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

User:Pumpmeup and talkpages

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Pumpmeup & edit summary

Hi there

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

Golden emergency

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)[reply]

"(...)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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

WARNING

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Richard Dawkins

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

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

Thanks re: "logical quotation"

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)[reply]

Euclid

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 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Luca Pacioli

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

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

Matila Ghyka

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)[reply]


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

Lojack

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Edits

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No, I checked.--20-dude (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, watch your comments.

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)[reply]

Proposal to discourage pagemove archiving

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

Your erasing and bad choice of words

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Euclid

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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

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

Hi

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

Fibonacci sum expression

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 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

copulative verbs

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No big deal but...

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Priestley lead image

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)[reply]

Joseph Priestley lead image alignment

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)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

En dash

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!

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)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 09:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monetae cudendae ratio

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MoS

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

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

Lecture

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)[reply]

User:Euclidthegreek

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I see what you mean. More nonsense. —Finell (Talk) 03:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to the 'Speed of light' lead.

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)[reply]

D Tombe

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do please stop by

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Changes in the metre

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 16:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copernicus talk page

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)[reply]

Request for arbitration

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

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)[reply]

The Virginian

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Workshop comments

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)[reply]

Evidence length

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)[reply]

Your statement at the Law case

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thank you. I don't think your mistake caused any big problems. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate behavior

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)[reply]

Per your request...

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)[reply]

Deletion of comments on Talk page

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart's nationality

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)[reply]

Your edit to Year

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)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

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)[reply]

Discuss this

A question for you

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Animality Studies

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)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference and Literature

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Patent costs

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)[reply]

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

Tycho Brahe & Newton

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[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)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Idiosyncratic Signatures

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)[reply]

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

Brews ohare Essay

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 and accurate, 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? Brews ohare (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Finell&oldid=325474421"