User talk:Cyan/archive/2

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

I just wasted an hour. Whee! -- Cyan 03:27, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I've rewritten "Generatics" as "Generating arithmetic"; eliminated any controversial element I can find; cited articles (using the --- marker) for my arguments. It could substitute for "Generatics". I initiated the latter as a link I put into the article Peano axioms. Any further action must be taken by you or some other administrator. Thank you for your assistance.jonhays 01:53, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Space concerns for removing things[edit]

Back on 30 September you asked about my reference to deleting things for space reasons. See the George W. Bush article and the GWB VfD nickname discussion.

Why did you delete Tyranokatta? Please preserve it. Thanks!

Kommiec's user page[edit]

User:Kommiec has some discussion about his comments. Also his talk page. Looks to me like it moved off the Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles page.

Re: RickK vs RK: Yes, Martin mentioned the difference to me after my post. I replied to my own post to apologize to both, feeling very very stupid. A day or two later (in the middle of the RK ban issue) I saw that it hadn't gone to the list at all... just back to me. But at that point, I didn't want to say anything more there, what with the discussion then happening... I intend to talk to RickK about things later, and make a couple apologies to him. -- Jake 06:55, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks to your tip, Generating arithmetic is now in place. Thanks again.jonhays 15:53, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I read the E2 guide, but decided to follow another rule from some other article and ignore all fine details, posting it as it is. I had to prepare for the lectures I give, I missed two nights of decent sleep and now I was pulled into this free-speech fight, trying to find a quite place for my controversial writing. I decided that someone else can fix the E2 ports.Paranoid 09:51, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Heh. OK, thanks. There are too many policies to keep up with. :-) Evercat 22:53, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I just changed the redirects to the Fushia etc pages and then realised that you originally directed them here and then changed them to go to Cyan. I didn't realise that and thought you'd done it by mistake because the first one I saw did go here. Anyway, I think it is better they redirect here. User pages redirecting to articles doesn't really make sense. Angela 19:44, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)

Oh I see. I shall revert myself. Angela 20:01, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I was basing it on the number of edits it said had been deleted. I did realise my mistake but forgot to go and change it. The deletion log only shows four deletions, but it doesn't show that I deleted it and I definitely did so either it's wrong or I'm imagining things! Angela 23:00, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were saying that because I had beat you to it the previous time I deleted it. Maybe I didn't. According to the log, I've deleted 15 things today, so I suppose I wouldn't remember all of them. I didn't realise you'd banned him, so I protecting the page was a bit pointless by then anyway. Do change it back to 4 if it bothers you. Angela Oct 13, 2003, middle of the night (BST)

Cyan, thanks for fixing the VfD duplication problem. For some reason, I thought it looked complex: I convinced myself people had added votes in two locations, and I was thinking piecing it apart would be horrendous--next time I'll be bold and take it on myself. Once again, thanks for solving the problem so quickly, Jwrosenzweig 23:32, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I was wondering how long it would be until I got a comment related to that deletion. I am fully expecting to be flamed for it but I don't see why someone should create multiple accounts and get away with rigging the voting like this. Regarding the Wikipedia:Idiots page - Jwrosenzweig has already listed them there. Anyway, there is no point listing every troll. If they are seeking attention, this only feeds them. Angela 00:46, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)

# (cur) (last) . . M 01:56, Oct 14, 2003 . . Cyan (edit conflict)
# (cur) (last) . . M 01:55, Oct 14, 2003 . . Cyan (never mind)

Edit conflict with yourself?? [1]. Angela 01:01, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)

Tester's contributions show that he's edited several other users' pages. Well so what? I'm editing your talk page, are we the same person? --Camembert

Thanks for the analysis - you're quite right, I was maybe a bit hasty in assuming there was no evidence that any of those users were the same. Wartortle and Groessler certainly seem to know each other (to put it mildly), and Donnie Ng may be "familiar" with them as well. I don't think the other users who had their pages edit by Tester are the same person, though, and I'm unsure about Tester him/herself - it's probably not important, because the issue that counts seems to be vote stuffing. I'm afraid that's something the Wikipedia's rather vulnerable to - some would say it's a sign we need a better voting system, some would say it's another reason why voting is not a good way to make decisions here... Sorry, I'm rambling. Thanks again for the pointers. --Camembert

Hello Cyan! Thank you for the support on the design of family trees. I'm glad to have some feedback, because i'm planning to add lots of them: royal houses of europe and other romas families. Cheers, Muriel Gottrop 15:35, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Welcome back[edit]

Yay! Welcome back! With all the people going missing lately it's good to see someone doing the opposite of leaving. Angela 22:46, Oct 28, 2003 (UTC)


Cyan, I did just that. Thanks. How soon can the one that kept getting deleted by deleted? Thanks again. Michael Reiter jmr

Thanks for moving the article. I don't have time to do the editing required there at the moment, but as soon as I can, I will finish the changes that were proposed and outlined already in the body. Paranoid 23:01, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ferdinand Porsche[edit]

Thanks for protecting the page -- since I'm getting very frustrated here trying to get people to TALK rather than just adding/deleting the same sentence or two. I was maybe over-hasty in removing rather than rewording the first time, but I was tired of the cut-n-paste promoting of the pro-Komenda agenda on all the Porsche pages. I'd like to find a compromise (that probably includes putting much more information on the page) and have tried to get everyone concerned to discuss, but no luck ... -- Morven 2:37, 30 Oct 2003

Wik makes personal attacks against me; and refues to discuss things with me. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Thanks for reverting the vandalism at my homepage. I think all Uder homepages ought to protected and accessible only by the User's password. Hey-ho... Adam 04:10, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. And for an experience, yes, I would like to be blocked. :-) Tomos 05:54, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If people copy and paste from the kidnapped version without attribution, isn't that breaking the terms of the GFDL? Anyway, if you get bored, you could do the same at simple. :) Angela 01:59, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)

There are no sysops on simple. I don't know what to do about that place. I used to read every edit that happened there and it seemed to be a nicely developing little Wikipedia. Then when he was banned here, he went there and as well as creating numerous pages, many of which express his own bizarre viewpoints, he started trying to create policy pages, many of which I do not agree with, but I don't want to be the only one arguing with him. Apparently it needs to monitored and disclaimed [2] but it seems like too big a fight. And my solution of deleting the whole thing was not well received [3]. :). Any help would be much appreciated, particularly with respects to the policy issues. Angela 02:23, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)

In recent changes, it will show up as either something like or His talk page is at A Random Troll/Talk. Do you know if hard bans apply across Wikipedias? Angela 21:28, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know how successful that will be but I'm getting fed up of trying to argue with him. Angela 21:36, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I hope my advice is helpful. Of course like most human beings I better at giving advice to others than giving it to myself sometimes. :-) But I do hope what I said in the Wik debate will help cool tempers. There are too many good users involved in the debate to risk losing any. I have always had positive dealings with Wik, though I can see from what has been said that he has annoyed some people. But then of late I have had positive dealings with Lir too, even though we have clashed (wwIII style clashes before his return, minor skirmishes since). I'd genuinely hate to lose either, or any of the major players in the debate. Wikipedia does have what we Irish call 'gobshites' (assholes in other versions of english). It also has incredibly impressive people. We can't afford to lose any of the latter and be able to form a united front against the former. :-) FearÉIREANN 00:34, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Good work, Cyan. It is amazing how, a couple of days ago a paragraph in the article that could read as though pushing a Mormon interpretation of events as 'fact', now covers the same thing in more objective language that does not in any way challenge the Mormon interpretation or attack Mormons. I keep telling people how carefully objective language can in fact be more powerful that language loaded with POV meanings, but unfortunately not everyone on wikipedia fully grasps that, and thinks objectivity means cowardice or refusal to 'tell the truth'. Of course all POV language does is drive away most of those who don't already agree with it and so proves counter-productive. Neutral language can keep readers and allow them to reach a conclusion themselves, sometimes even the conclusion pushers of POV wanted them to reach but were failing because of their language use. FearÉIREANN 00:08, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Don't worry, I took no issue with your summary. I would like to point out that Angela seems to consider it a vote, based on her edit summary. Perhaps others do as well. FWIW, the list doesn't include User:Anthere who felt strongly enough to undelete the article herself. The whole matter has me feeling rather cross because the community standards of process, openness, and opposition to censorship of any kind, which all ordinarily run deep, are being sacrificed merely because some longtime sysops find the matter so unpleasant. Louis Kyu Won Ryu 23:19, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion I caused over calling it a vote in my edit summary but I think that whats it is. Perhaps the name of the page votes for undeletion led me to thinking that. Anyway, thanks for formatting it like that. It does make things clearer. Do you think it was an out-of-process deletion? If so, do you think the deletion policy should change to stop it being one? Angela 00:19, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

If it is an out of process deletion then it does matter. Those are bad. What I think is that the deletion policy needs to cover trolling better than it does as mav's reason for deletion was that the article was trolling. Anyway, don't go thinking about deletion policy if you're all fussed out! Thanks for sorting out the Daniel Chodowiecki thing. I hadn't even noticed the message. :) Angela

Oh no, now I feel bad. I had my doubts at the time over whether that was the 142. I should've said and now I've gone and let someone stay banned for nothing when I should have unlocked him or told you sooner. Anyway, unblocked now. Angela 04:12, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

A closing thought for you both. Objective criteria for determining whether a post is a troll or not have proven elusive. The original "troll" posts were characterized by people posting things like "My cat is sick and I don't want to take it to the vet. Shall I shoot it or is it more humane to cut its head of with an axe" to a newsgroup for people who love cats. Such posts were characterized by being a) fictional, b) off-topic, c) wholly without discussion value and d) likely to generate a kneejerk emotional response. With time, the definition has expanded. Trolls are in the eye of the beholder, and one person's attempt to stimulate productive discussion is all too often another person's troll. And motive does not always equate to effect. I've seen a few deliberate trolls end up stimulating productive disussion, and rather many attempts to stimulate productive discussion produce nothing but flames. 'Night. Louis Kyu Won Ryu

Belated answer to your question of 14/10: Yes, I had my admin-rights taken away by a sysop. Regards, Jeronimo 08:10, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Dear Cyan: Hi. I was trying to update the Green River page with comments overloking the Green River Killings when the page sad you blocked me cause of vandalism. No problem there, Im ot a vandal but that happens quite often and without an apparent reason. What I wanted to ask is, since the page wont let me do it, could you please put some info about the murders? It doesnt have to be much, just an over-all look.

Thank you and God bless you

Sincerely yours,

Minor fix pls[edit]

Hi, could you make a minor correction to Richard Neustadt? It is currently protected. Welfleet, England should be Wellfleet, Massachusetts. I have sysop powers but have already edited it and don't want to be further involved. As far as I am concerned, you can leave it protected. Thanks, Viajero 20:09, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, you seem to be skilled at Mathematics, so I suppose then that it should be obvious to you that our universe is in DIRE need of negentropy... Please help fuel this negentropy by increasing the amount of lateralisation of the developing Gaean Mind--by ceasing to submit yourself to ridiculous memes. Khranus

If you are going to edit Richard Neustadt, you need to unprotect it first. You also need to provide a reference for where he dies, as it is contested. I agree that he didn't die in Wellfleet; but I don't find an article stating whether he died in London, or in his house outside the city. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I'm not sure if you read the mailing list, so I'd thought I'd point out this thread in case you don't. Angela 01:33, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)

re: abuse - Yeah I know it is, just thought you should be aware you featured on the list. re: quotes - it wouldn't make much sense without the links and none of the others have links, so I'm leaving that one out for now, good though it is. Angela 02:45, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Alexandros 04:22, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi, Cyan, I surfed onto your User page when I saw your correction of Francis to Roger Bacon at Scientific Method. I liked what you had to say about flag-wrapping and Talk dynamics. Could I recruit you to contribute to the now languishing, only semi-whimsical article I started long ago? It's Wikipedia:Who, Why?. Just if you're interested.

This has been a pre-paid announcement. We now return to normal programming. 168... 17:35, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

O.K., I understand. Would you mind if I cut and paste or otherwise plagiarize your flag-wrapping comments into the article some time? I could attribute them to you in the subject line of the edit if you like. 168... 20:33, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If Khranus should happen to drop by, he should be informed that the only way to keep people from blocking him is to get Jimbo to unbanned through email. He should also be informed that pseudonyms rarely work for long - people come to rapidly recognize certain types of contributions. -- Cyan 02:18, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion. Please review the problem users entry for User:Petermanchester rather than making an "editorial" comment which will help lead to the very problem (sub pages) that you describe. The user who listed Peter has attacked multiple people and I have been considering asking Jimbo to ban him. I'm not listing him on Problem Users at the moment as I think it would be less productive than just commenting as factually as possible on Peter's entry. I checked several edits by Peter before commenting. Daniel Quinlan 19:00, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

"...It also left a man's decapitated body lying on the floor next to his own severed head - a head which, at this time, has no name."

I know his name. -- The Kurgan

I have something to say: it's better to burn out than to fade away! -- The Kurgan

Are you another alias for MyRedDice or Martin? Because my question was directed to him, the person who removed my input, not edited, on a proper page and the one who had previously promised an answer. Thank you. NightCrawler 22:27, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

--- And I bet you are right as well... I look forward to seeing the autobiography tomorrow ;) Secretlondon 23:50, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)

That's ok, someone will sort it. Makes me think about the new three reverts proposal though. I stopped reverting after my third one today to see if it would be ok, and I guess the fact you and Hephaestos stepped in shows that even in the case of vandalism (if that's what it was), then it probably isn't necessary for one person to keep reverting. Angela 01:52, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well this whole thing is silly. You can edit it the way you want. I saw some inaccuraces(being a very active freemason myself), so i edited them. lets be friends :) Justin L. Smith 02:36, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well that sounds like a good idea. I cant believe i didnt think of it sooner. About the Freemasonry article I will justify those in the talk page. Justin L. Smith 02:45, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I blank it out so that i dont have to scroll down every time to read my new messages. i wonder why that would be a problem?

Surprisingly well. 'twas interesting. :) Angela

Thanks for the "AOD" comment. If you would have given me three more minutes, you would have found the page...

Let me add an annecdode here: A couple in love had sex in a bush in a park. After sex he said to her: "If I knew that you are a virgin, I would not have been so quick", she answered "if you were not as quick, I would have had time to take off my stockings".

Thanks. Michael

>any sysop has the right to restore any article listed there, provided that the article is relisted on VfD

Nope. Deletion policy says:

"If least 3 people ....currently want to undelete and a majority are currently in favor of undeletion, the page may be undeleted by a sysop. If ten days elapse and the proposed undeletion lacks 3 supporters and a majority, then the page remains deleted" (emphasis mine)

Angela 00:58, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Oh, good point. I've changed it now. Thank you for telling me. Angela 01:19, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I just noticed you changing GH to AM. Do you know what that is all about? I just moved it from vandalism in progress to problem users but it didn't seem to make sense whichever page it was on. I assume you know more about it than I do. Is problem users the right place for it? Angela 03:01, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You answered my question already at Wikipedia:Conflicts between users. You must have been writing that at the same time I was writing the above. :) Angela


I'm glad you like my boilerplate greeting, but you might want to change the [[User talk:Angela|my talk page]] part to a link to your talk page. Lol. You're not the only one it seems. [4]. I should probably add a disclaimer to it. :) Angela

Thank you for clearing up a lot of stuff, I really appreciate it. Sanacja 05:14, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, amigo. /T0ky0 14:53, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have some more questions. What happens when a page I made is listed for deletion? Does that mean it will be deleted? What happens when a person has listed one of my pages as a copyright infringement? I ask because after changing all the Sanacja references, adding cited sources, and altering the pages to be as non-biased as possible I keep getting harrassed by the same person Andy Mabbett. He keeps adding references to Hitler, and the Swastika, which have nothing to do with Sanacja, and which I find offensive. I don't know what to do. Sanacja 16:57, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

  • These allgations of harrassment are fatuous. Andy Mabbett 17:53, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ahoy! Thanks![edit]

Thanks for the help!

Jdstroy 04:26, 2003 Nov 23 (UTC)

Robert Gordon University[edit]

Hi Cyan - you have copyvio'd a couple of pages I added Robert Gordon University and Robert Gordon (understandably), however I actually work for the organisation concerned - is there a particular way in which wikipedia requires permission from the university in order to allow you to use the articles? Cheers, Seajay

re Wikipedia:Requests for adminship:

Your characterization of my interpretation of the events is correct, and you can quote me on that. (Though obviously I disagree with your conclusion!) I can say that whereas the current understanding of the rules about editing protected pages may be one for providing an explicit cause for punishment, the original reasoning is the one that is mentioned in my interpretation.

Kind of like how the copyright law, the Second Amendment, etc. have diverged from their original ideals. --The Cunctator 21:07, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

yes. I will try to assume it was not meant to be very offensive. 168 explained me as well. I thank you for explaining cultural references, and filling up my ignorance. :-) ant

Thanks for that move :) Dysprosia 05:29, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't know as a boilerplate for warnings is needed... for a logged-in user I'd usually use the "welcome newcomers" boilerplate. But in extreme cases, like our mutual friend 131, that isn't enough. -- Pakaran 06:06, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Siam's gonna be the witness
To the ultimate test of cerebral fitness
This grips me more than would a
Muddy old river or reclining Buddha

And thank God I'm only watching the game, controlling it

I don't see you guys rating
The kind of mate I'm contemplating
I'd let you watch, I would invite you
But the queens we use would not excite you

So you better go back to your bars, your temples, your massage parlours...

-- The American 06:30, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The next time someone tries to remove a major part of an article, perfectly neutrally written and accurate, please don't let them get away with it. I'm referring to James Dobson -- there's no need to limit the discussion of spanking to two sentences, and who would be a better representative of Dobson's views than Dobson himself?—Eloquence 08:12, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

Cyan, thanks for telling me about the Computing move, I appreciate your thoughtfulness. I'll update my User page soon
Adrian Pingstone 09:38, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip about the talk page thing. It's weird it's suddenly started happening to me. Last week I had the opposite and was getting no notification at all. Angela. 05:09, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

About Caps.[edit]

Hi Cyan.

Thanks for letting me know about the caps. I didn't know whether that was the case (pun not intended :-) ). However the link was [[Cryptographically secure pseudo-random number generator|Cryptographically secure random number generator]]. Note: no ''pseudo-'' in the link title. Of course one could also add the ''pseudo-'', but I thought that would only confuse readers.

Rasmus Faber 16:36, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Most definitely most grateful about your definitive answers! --snoyes 17:44, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Cyan, tahnks for moving the comment from Tony The Tiger from my user page to my talk page. Noldoaran 18:41, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)

That was fast[edit]

Thanks for cleaning that up for me. I was showing off Wikipedia to my friend, and he hit the Save button before I could stop him... 19:41, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Very final warnings[edit]

After looking over the contribs, I agree with you. There's a big difference between a newbie test, and obvious text-editor-aided vandalism. Pakaran 22:47, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

:) Secretlondon 15:01, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)
:P Secretlondon 16:27, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

I've found a misplaced reference showing that "generatics" did not start with me in content,

only in name. The book, "Learn from the Masters", edited by Dwetz, Fauvel, Bekken, Johannsson, Katz (Mathematical Association of America, 1991), says on p. 286, "It was not until 1894 that J. Tannery introduced the arithmetic of rationals as pairs [vectors] of integers." (Jules Tannery (1818-1910), French, is cited ONLINE.)--In 1957, I received a grant from the National Science Foundation to organize the first NSF Workshop in Puerto Rico, planned for high math school teachers (some from States). I taught "Foundations of Mathematics". I was sent papers (later lost) from previous Workshops. One set described Tannery's work and Hamilton's formulation of complex numbers as pairs or vectors of reals. The formulator filled in by deriving integers from pairs or vectors of natural numbers. The latter shows how "the law of signs" derives from CLOSURE on DEFINED DIFFERENCES (DDs) of naturals : (a - b), s.t. subtrahend is not greater than minuend, hence, a natural number. Critical is multiplication law for DD. From standard multiplication algorithm, find that, for DDs, (a - b) * (c - d) = (a*c + (-b)*(-d)) + (a*(-d) + (-b)*c). Applying, 10 = 5*2 = (9 - 4)*(2 - 0) = 18 + (-4)*(2) + 0 = 10, hence, (-4)*(2) must act as a subtrahend -8, leading to "negative times positive equals negative" rule. Applying product rule to 30 = 6*5 = (9 - 3) - (7 - 2) = (63 + (-3)*(-2)) - (18 + 21) = (63 - 39) + (-3)*(-2) = 24 + x = 30, hence, x = 6 = (-3)*(-2), leading to "negative times negative equals positive" rule. This is forced by CLOSURE on DDs. However, in the "Generating arithmetic" article which I initiated, some one put in that CLOSURE is a concept from category theory, very advanceed math. Yet, the above book, on p. 260, says, "For Galois (1830), Jordan (1870), and even in Klein's "Lectures on the Icosohedron" (1884), groups were defined by the one axiom of closure. The other axioms were implicit in the context of their discussions -- finite groups of transformations." So CLOSURE goes back at least to 1830.Jonhays0

Hi Cyan, how come you are reverting edits by He does have some unusual ideas, but I'm not sure they warrant a complete reversion...unless he is a troll or vandal and I am unaware of it... Adam Bishop 20:43, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ah, Entmoots...I should have realized from the IP. Carry on then :) Adam Bishop 20:53, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I support you to kidnap them if you feel like it, and will take care of nurturing all those related to ecology. The only point that is unclear to me, is how these copy and paste should be attributed. No attribution, just indicating we are not the author, giving the name of the user or his ip in the comment box, giving the adress of this page...please guide me :-) PomPom
I keep your recommandation preciously, in case I am said to be doing illegal creations then :-) thanks. ant

Deletion of vandalism[edit]

Thanks for your explanation. I've replied on my talk page, and I expect I'll bring the matter up at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy as well in a few minutes, because I'm obsessed with this sort of thing... -- Oliver P. 22:24, 11 Dec 2003 (

No, there never was any goodbye message. All I know is that he said on Anthère's talk page "Sorry, for the delay response. I have been away, and will be not here more often. -sv" [5] (using the user name Est). Angela. 00:27, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

re: Angelique: I asked Tim Starling to check. re: encyclopedic: Oh, that makes more sense. :) Angela. 04:05, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

logical effort[edit]

Okay, thanks for your comments. Logical effort is a hard topic, and I can't figure out how to make the table look nice. It's currently commented out on the logical effort page.

Barik 04:10, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Several times, in the Wikipedia article, "Logarithm", I entered the following: "Logarithms provide a simple test for irrationality (equivalent to decimal number without repeating segment) of a number. Given c = log to base b of number a, then c is irrational if a and b are integrally coprime (have no common factors)." And I gave the reference in Mathworld as shown below. "Numbers of the form logab are irrational if a and b are integers, one of which has a prime factor which the other lacks." I interchanged a and b in my statement, since b is more evocative as a logrithmic base. The term "coprime" is equivalent to the Mathworld "if" condiition. But each time, my contribution was erased. i merely wished to show a simple test for irrationality of a number: c is irrational if expressable as log to base b of number a, where a,b are coprime. What's bad about that?jonhays 02:36, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. Bmills 16:00, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Thanks, Cyan -- I suspected as much -- so why are people having that discussion...? BCorr ¤ Брайен 19:42, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)


"Lir is busy in a fuss over Socialism...." Allow me to discourage you from characterizing other users' earnest struggles in a way that they might take to be devaluing them. Whether a dispute constitutes a mere "fuss" or matter of great gravity can depend on one's perspective;)168... 20:33, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Are you going to follow around behind this edit and fix all of the nonsense he types? Or are you planning on leaving it to others, or just leave it as it is? He flat refuses to change. RickK 03:04, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

My goals are to remove unnecessary information from the article, and add factual data. For example, "DNA is a nucleic acid." and it is not necessary to inform the reader that parents produce offspring. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Hi Cyan, just wanted to thank you for helping out with and to let you know I'll probably be going through his edits also (I've found it doesn't take too long if I just run the spellchecker on them). - Hephaestos 18:31, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I find it rather rude for 168 and Peak to attempt to ban me, after I demonstrated my ability to get along with Mr. Adcock. You have not posted to talk: DNA in some time, and discussion has broken down into personal attacks against me. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I'm O.K. with your stance. I do think silence is damning. I just wish it were more effective, and wish I had more people willing to jump on this bandwagon.168... 08:06, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Actually, on reflection, I find your silence less friendly to my interests. If Lir is not banned, then a possible consequence is that 'I' will come to be seen antisocial too; because I will revert the edits by Lir that I don't like, and besides providing reasons for my preference, I won't negotiate them. The culture here seems to consider all discussion meritorious, so long as there isn't too much name calling, and counts an unwillingness to negotiate, no matter with whom, against a person. I consider this unfortunate not just for me, but for Wikipedia.168... 16:42, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Let me roll my eyes at the claim that Ive somehow "edited" the history to appear nicer. If Im not mistaken, the current version is harsher. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I've glanced at principle of indifference and done a couple of minor edits; I'll look at it closely later. Michael Hardy 02:17, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Yes, I might have said "second derivative with respect to time." I haven't thought about it hard enough to know if it's a perfectly apt metaphor, but my feeling is it's pretty good.168... 21:11, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Whoops. Good eye/good point. I meant derivative, not second derivative. I read your question too quickly the first time. 168... 16:55, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)