User talk:SemanticMantis/Archive 2

intent

Since you asked: I almost replied to this earlier comment of yours to say, "But we have to determine intent! Otherwise someone asking what appears to be a medical information question might be secretly looking for advice, so if we didn't figure that out, they might get away with something!! " But if there's one thing I've learned, it's that sarcasm doesn't always work in these debates. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Ha! Yes @Scs: I would have gotten the point, but sarcasm often works poorly in text-only communication, and almost always does if there is at least one reader who won't AGF with the post!

The other related issue is that I am presumably allowed to ask what, if any, were Hitler's positive contributions to Germany, but IP users are implicitly not. I think it is an interesting and important question, and deeply related to how he rose to power. And I suppose lots of real historians have spilled much ink over the matter, regardless of the fact that some anti-semitic jerks and trolls might also be interested in the question and resultant POV pushing. I'm actually a bit curious about it, but asking at this point would be POINTY. Then again, there is also perhaps something to be said for the other side, vis. WP:COMPETENCE, etc., and even using AGF to start from positive intent won't necessarily defend posts on sensitive topics, because someone trouble might be stirred up. But COMPETANCE is just someone's essay/opinion/advice, whereas AGF is an official guideline... Oh well, I'm glad at least a few of us seem to be roughly on the same page on these issues :) SemanticMantis (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Power-law fluid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oobleck. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Not actually indefinite

You wrote:

Seconded!

Thanks.

Of course now the desk is protected again [1] indefinitely...

Actually you were looking at the expiry time for move protection, not edit protection. --76.69.45.64 (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@76.69.45.64: yes, my mistake, (I know a lot about science and how to find references, but still a bit ignorant of some WP issues). Fortunately I did notice and correct my error before I posted about the issue on the ref desk talk page. Perhaps you have something to add to that conversation? I used to just edit under IP for a long time before I bothered to get an account, so I know how frustrating it is to be locked out due to the problems caused by other people. Even more infuriating is when the others aren't even really causing problems :-/ SemanticMantis (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Most Wikipedia pages are almost always indefinitely move-protected, because moving a Wikipedia page without consensus is disruptive and would be something that vandals would try to do if they could. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

See my comments on my talk page

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Time to vote, if you'd like

Hello ref deskers, Jayron has put up a proposal on the ref desk talk page [2]. I have decided to ping a few reference desk users who may be interested in voting, I hope none of you mind this notification. Lest anyone think I'm doing something wrong or shady, note that I'm including people who will most surely vote in a different way than me, and many people whose vote I cannot guess. I just want a high turnout, and in particular wanted to hear from some of the folks that stick to the math desk and don't show up much on the talk page.

@SteveBaker: @Scs: @Robert McClenon: @Medeis: @Guy Macon: @Modocc: @Drmies: @Deor: @StuRat: @Mandruss: @Wnt: @Tevildo: @Nil Einne: @The Rambling Man: @Dbfirs: @CiaPan: @RDBury: @Meni Rosenfeld: @Tamfang: @Gandalf61: @Bo Jacoby: @JackofOz:

Thanks for your consideration, SemanticMantis (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me, I appreciate it. But I'll stick to sticking to the math desk :). I haven't followed up on this issue, nor am I inclined to catch up now and voice an opinion. Good luck and may the best proposal win :) -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

AllBestWishes

Hi, this is my thank-you for your note to my page following problems at RD/Math and your helpfulness generally, which is noticed! As a physicist I acknowledge that Plank's constant inherently must have units i.e. Mnudelman's post is spot on and he exposed a flaw in the parenthetical wording of Claim 2, "the Plank claim". I think you had a hard time trying to persuade a pair of mathematicians that it is inelegant to whoop "nonsense" at such a discovery; doubtless they exchange that shorthand rebuttal in various contexts and I did not take it personally. So for me that was not a misused-word problem and I would not have addressed it with anything like the words "you came here to be rude". I'll touch on two examples that you gave: The Gibbs ringing artifact is indeed an oscillating convergence looking like the Fibonacci golden mean convergence though it can be generated as a continuous function rather than a sequence. I suspect that you actually have a cat but if you said it is 10 I really couldn't be expected to know whether that is in years, kilograms or pounds. I have made an offer to enter mediation at this report at ANI as I would prefer to reach a consensus with Slawekb, if possible. Best regards AllBestFaith (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@AllBestFaith: as someone put it at AN/I, there is a fine line between trolling and crankery. I will warn you that people here often don't care to make a distinction, even though the motive and intent may be very different. The point is, in every standard framing of limits, the ratios of successive terms in the Fibonacci sequence converge to \phi. When we say a sequence of real numbers converges to a number $x_{n}\to \phi$, then we also know that the sequence is a Cauchy sequence, and so for any \epsilon>0, there exists an N such that n,m>N implies $|x_{n}-x_{m}|<\epsilon$. That is why the claim that the differences of the Fibonacci ratio sequence approach some positive number is false. You can probably even prove it to yourself if you're willing to invest a little time with pencil and paper, no need for any discussion of computers or conceptual limits to arithmetic computation. The fact that the Planck constant was picked for this constant makes the claim no more false than it would be for any other positive number, but it does make it sound more like crankery. When you persist in arguing that there is some way in which the claim is true, you are leaving the world of orthodox math. Now, leaving the world of orthodox math is fine, and some people enjoy it, but that's WP:OR, and not something we can provide references for. We routinely ignore requests for review of OR, that's not what we do, that's what academic journals are for.

Whether or not you are a crank, the page you cited almost certainly is authored by a crank, and I'd advise nobody to give that guy money for anything. I'll also note that the reference desk may choose to support or refute outside claims, but we have no burden to do so. Every math department in the world gets a letter now and then from some earnest writer who thinks they can perform angle trisection or some similar problem. In almost every case, the paper is thrown out without reading, because it has been proven that such a task is impossible. Occasionally, a very generous mathematician might help the writer sort out their errors. But if the writer persists in saying that they are right, and the mathematician (and Galois!) are wrong, then the mathematician can understandably conclude that the writer is not worth their time, and may indeed be acting in bad faith. Do you see my point?

I'm happy to explain to you why the claim is wrong, and I'm happy to encourage others to AGF, but I also recommend that you simply drop the issue with Slawekb. Whether or not you had any ill intent with that thread, it will be hard to convince anyone that your motives were pure, and you also have very little to gain. If you want to keep your good name, my advice is to continue to give good refs on the desks when you can, and not to argue with mathematicians about things that look like fringe/crank math. Really it's not very useful to argue with anyone on the ref desk, though I do occasionally point out other user's errors or incorrect information. And by the way, I know all about how mathematicians talk, getting plenty of experience in that while getting my Ph.D. in math. Whether or not it is common, I do still think it is rude, unhelpful, and incorrect to call a claim "nonsense" without any further elaboration. Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Your explanation is an exam-passing exposition of convergent sequences that I am sure Sladekw, Dhrm77 and others would endorse, and for Wikipedia content I join that consensus! However the maligned Shareef Fahmy has proposed actually finding the convergence of the Fibonacci, and I read his meaning as a real world experiment. Certainly he is collecting money towards experimental work. Debunking his claim #2 that "[one] will find that it converges on Plancks[sic] constant" took a big step when we agreed that Shareef seems unaware that Planck's constant has physical units (usually joule seconds). But after that, doubt persists about whether that experiment can be demonstrated to give the expected zero result. Can any computer genuinely iterate this calculation to infinity or is a computer the wrong tool? Shareef Fahmy doesn't mention any computing device in his claim, and using a computer was not introduced into the discussion until after I said "The smallest quantisation that is physically possible in a calculating device, whether analog or digital, is not infinitesimal." To be fair to Sladekw who may have an opportunity in confidential mediation to clarify whether that is an acceptable statement I shall not argue it further here.

Angle trisection looks like a good class teaching exercise because the task looks easy at first sight. After spending effort finding how hard it really is, the student is prepared for the serious theory that explains why. I see the value of that kind of learning experience and would encourage it.

Joke department: I tried to calculate the differences for 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13 but my pencil broke at number 13. Just coincidence? No, it actually confirms my belief that the deep-masonic illuminati are eroding my pencils at night to hide the codes to their world conspiracy, probably using graphite munching nano-insects trained on LSD. Of course they want this to look like trolling and crankery... AllBestFaith (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Ha! Well that is pretty funny. I still think you probably need to think a bit more about the material conditional, and recall that statements in math are not statements about the world. Some interesting reading at mathematical proof, mathematical statement, and logical positivism, but perhaps it's best to let this matter rest for now. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Lifting protection of the subpages of the refdesks...

I will not (really) comment on this...but I think that this special case would indeed have to be brought up at the protection policy talk page. That aside.....what came to mind....and I haven't read the RfC completely...but would pending protection perhaps be a way forward? The parties would meet halfway, and it would preserve a certain freedom for IP's to ask their questions. At least technically it would be possible to pending changes protect the refdesks. Lectonar (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Lectonar:, thanks for looking in to this, even if briefly. I don't think a one-time request requires policy revision, though I also agree that if anyone were to fulfill my one-time request, it wouldn't necessarily help the larger issue. We have been (sometimes heatedly) discussing what is and isn't special/different about the reference desks, as compared to the rest of WP article space. I am of the stance that as an interactive service to the public, WP:5P3, etc, the desks should be open to IP users almost always. Up until relatively recently, they were. I am also of the opinion that we need not seek WP-wide revision to protection policy, though I may take this issue to that talk page eventually. I do not know much about the pending changes and to what extent they would rectify the situation, but I can tell you that some of our regulars ref desk users have suggested that as a remedy, but to my knowledge it does not have consensus. My primary concern with that potential solution is that there are very few users with reviewer status, and this whole problem arises (in my opinion) because a few users are effectively using their special powers to ignore consensus, and adding more privileged users into the fray does not seem to be the wiki way...

I was sort of fishing for input with the unprotect request, so thank you for your comments and suggestion, though I can still hope another admin may review the case and choose to unprotect :) Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

If you ever want a trial, implementing pending changes to one page or so, ping me; I am (at least) willing to do that, and I could also give reviewer status to some regulars at the ref-desks. All in all this is a topic where consensus might be difficult to achieve. Lectonar (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lectonar: Thanks! I do think it could be more workable if more ref desk regulars got reviewer powers. And I also like the idea of a limited trial first. I'm not sure how the community will feel. On the one hand, it could help us keep the ref desks open to good faith IP users. On the other hand, it strengthens the role of power hierarchy and gated access to privileges... anyway, I need to step away from this for a bit, but I will keep this offer in mind if we can't get any thing else worked out. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Why do you listen to Sunshine?

Sunshine says Vote X for Change is banned and you agreed! Said editor was unbanned long ago as a result of a community unban discussion, which is why Zzuuzz said on his talk page that the ban had been "superseded". 89.240.30.97 (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about and I don't especially care to go through edit logs. If you are vote X for change, I do think you could have fun and contribute while following our (actually very loose) guidelines. Main thing is, don't be a dick, be polite, try to be helpful. It's not that hard. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Please post a link to the community unban discussion, either here or at my talk page. I haven't seen it, and I have no reason to believe that there was an unban. If there was an unban, why isn't Vote X for Change posting by user name? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Myles thanks SemanticMantis

It is rare for me to receive a solitary word of encouragement from the Wikipedian hordes, so your kind remarks about my questions was like sweet nectar to a parched throat. Thank you. Without a trace of false humility, I DO think I have asked good quesions in WP, and will continue to do so, and yes they will continue to be zany. I note that you have a mathmatical background, so I will take the opportunity to remind you of three questions associated with maths which I asked earlier, none of which were answered.

1. What is the least number of possible cages in a game of Ken Ken?

2. Some grubs hibernate for 11, 13 or 17 years in the earth before emerging. These are all prime numbers, and the practice minimises emergences of different species at the same time. Are there any other examples of prime number usage (qua prime number) found in nature?

3. What is the shortest route thru a complex maze? Perhaps if you built one of glass and put it between an ant's nest and a food source, the march of thousands of ants would settle on the shortest route, giving one the answer. Myles325a (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Myles325a: I also stand by what I said - nothing wrong with some idle fancy and lateral thinking in our quest for knowledge, and far too many ref deskers cry troll at the drop of a hat...

Anyway, your questions are indeed very interesting, though I cannot begin to answer them all at once. 1. I did not know what KenKen was until just now. I see it is a stricter variant of Sudoku, and as such, your question probably has a well-defined answer, at least if you specify the board size and perhaps a few other things. If you post just that one question on the math desk, I'm sure you'll get some good answers.

2. Yes, this is very cool stuff. In the USA, we even have names and records for various broods e.g. Brood XIX, and Periodical_cicadas#Broods has a full list. Anyway, we think that the cicadas have been basically using the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, but it's hard to say for sure what they are up to. Here [3] is a research paper that discusses how predator-prey dynamics can select for prime-number cycles. So I suppose it's possible that other prey species have locked into those cycles, and we just haven't noticed yet. Also note that Annual_cicadas come out every year, so the pressure toward prime numbers is not so strong that it pushes out all other strategies. This paper [4] uses the mathematics of finite fields to analyze systems in biology, but I think the prime numbers there are just what it takes to make a finite field, not something deep about the biology. So no, I don't know of any other thing quite as famous as the cicadas that deal with prime numbers in biology. You may be interested in the phyllotaxis and Fibonacci numbers, but also be careful that there is a lot of non-rigorous "woo" descriptions out there too.

3. This topic has whole books written about it! Steiner trees and minimal spanning trees and all sorts of things come in to maze solving. Certainly many ant species do optimize for shortest path, using decay of pheremone signals as a way to prune off useless detours. Here [5] is a very famous paper that uses ants as an inspiration for a way to use a computer to solve traveling salesman problems. Here's a video [6], and see also our article on Ant_colony_optimization_algorithms, which covers this as well as some related algorithms. One you might like is that some ants also have a very cool way to estimate area of a cavity. See here [7] for the study, and Buffon's needle, and here [8] for a nice pop-sci explanation.

So, yes, this is all fun stuff, please do continue to ask things like this at the ref desks, and if anyone tells you not to or questions your good faith, send them to me :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not expect such detailed answers to my questions, and I am most appreciative. Ken Ken is a relative of Sudoku only on superficial appearance. Sudoku is pure logic, but Ken Ken involves simple arithmetic as well as logic to solve the puzzle. I believe that in Sudoku, it is generally accepted but not proven that there must be at least 17 cells given at the start for a valid puzzle (there are some 30,000 such possible 17 cell puzzles excluding rotations and mirrors. If it is not proven that 16 cell puzzles are impossible then it follows that there is no full count of how many puzzles are possible overall. The numbers in Ken Ken would be much harder to figure out, given the plastic and modular nature of the game, and I don't think anyone has even tried. I will take some time to have a look at your work and comment on it, altho I am not a maths person, and only an amateur scientist.

I will shortly raise a concern I had on the recent notion that neutrinos move faster than light in a vacuum, since disproved. But I note that no commentators simply said that it was impossible as it would immediately result in the paradoxes of time travel. When I asked the question of whether faster than light travel inevitably entails such logical paradoxes, on WP Science desk, I received numerous knowledgeable replies detailing the "Event Horizon" business and assuring me that there is no logical possibility of such faster than light speeds. I do not fully understand the arguments, but still reserve my objections. Those objections to those arguments, which I now feel are good examples of "begging the question", were given force when no complaints were made either in WP or in the lay literature concerning the impossibility of such faster than light travel when neutrinos were thought to do so. I now hold that while faster than light travel may be impossible for physical reasons, there is no logical paradox to be overcome, any more than there is with faster than sound travel. And I have Star Trek, Star Wars, and just about all of sci fi to back me up! (Can't find my original question in archives at the moment...) Myles325a (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi

I have edited your comment to avoid those references at the bottom of the page, because they keep moving whenever someone writes something new. Hope you don't mind. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

No worries, thanks. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I have left a comment over at Talk:Theocracy. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@The Quixotic Potato: thanks, I have responded there. In the future if you want to draw my attention to a thread, just ping me there :) SemanticMantis (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Handle a mop?

I think Wikipedia would be the better if you became an admin, so I urge you consider WP:REQUESTNOM. TearsOfaClone (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@TearsOfaClone: Thanks for your vote of confidence; I am flattered! I must admit I'm not sure what I'd do with such privileges. As you may know, I don't to much in article space, and I mostly provide references at the reference desk. So I'm not really sure if the WP user base would support my nomination as admin, even if I did seek nomination. However, I will indeed consider it :) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I would support such a nomination. To be honest, the amount of content work you've done is kind of irrelevant. You need to be the right kind of person, and I think you've just demonstrated that you are (comments from 22:01 and 22:57). The Quixotic Potato (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dollar Shave Club

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dollar Shave Club. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stack Overflow

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stack Overflow. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Star Alliance

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Star Alliance. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:FlightGear

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:FlightGear. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Never wrestle a pig. You get dirty and it enjoys it.

frivolity

The above quote is from George Bernard Shaw. I just came across a post you made to Sunshine's talk on 18 February. You're not helping - Vote X for change is not banned. You may wish to withdraw your comments. Any queries, I can be contacted at m:User talk:Jimbo Wales. Background is at m:Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard#Arbitration Committee allegations not notified to the party. All the best, 81.130.133.33 (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC) I really don't think you are Jimbo Wales and I really don't think he wants anyone else using his page as a notification board. I have learned well enough on my own not to engage with FPAS in the future. I am also uninterested in whatever games you're playing, so I will box this up in hopes that prevents FPAS or anyone else who patrols my talk page from deleting this. If you want to participate on WP, get a nice new clean account and play nice, it's very easy. While I do respect the rights of IP users I find myself in what seems to be a shrinking club, and I think you may do better if you have an account. Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC) If you think all editors should have to be registered, that's your privilege, but I suggest you check out Conservapedia's recent changes feed before making up your mind. As for the chilling effect of actions by en:wp administrators, there's an entertaining analysis here: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Editors in sun are Eloi stalked by Morlock. Bearing in mind that Sunshine's rays do not penetrate to Meta, which coordinates discussion on the various projects, if you go over to Jimbo's page there you will see it is a discussion board for coordinating action on this issue and you are more than welcome to participate. Sample threads you may wish to look at are m:User talk:Jimbo Wales#Appeal of English Wikipedia ban and m:User talk:Jimbo Wales#Wikimedia-l moderators. All the best, 80.44.163.169 (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC) No, you're misinterpreting. I don't think all editors should have to be registered. I do understand that many editors feel otherwise, and I do think you'll have an easier time if you register and follow the rules. I apologize, I did not realize you were linking to JW's meta-wiki talk page, which does seem to be acting as a public discussion board. There is some interesting stuff there, and I agree with the those saying to WP:IAR rather than fester over old blocks. Look, don't tell me Vote X is not blocked, don't tell me you're not him. I really don't care about either of those. But if you're the user who's been having harmless posts at the ref desks removed because they think they know who you are and that you were banned in the past, just get a new account and be nice. If you can be decent and helpful I will try to help you out, but I stress that I have no interest in joining your crusade against a few bad users, or sticking my nose into old fights and injustices. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate that you're here mainly to help out on the reference desks, but many of us are content editors, and as a matter of course if we find unreferenced/incorrect material in articles we remove it. That's not a "crusade against bad users", it's what we do. As for Vote X for Change no - one's suggesting she's not blocked. Now

• As a newly registered editor she registered lots of accounts, in the same way that other editors make different accounts to compartmentalise their watchlists according to the different topics they edit on.
• As a newly registered editor she didn't know any better, but she got blocked for sockpuppetry.
• Administrators handle this situation by restricting the editor to one account and indefinitely blocking the others.
• In the case of Vote X for Change all the usernames were unsuitable for continued use and she requested permission to edit as an IP.
• Permission was granted and her IP was unblocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.57.254 (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm so confused now. Are you the same person as the past few posts? Are you the person who once used the account Vote X? Actually don't answer that. But how am I supposed to know if and when I'm taking to the same person? The cooperative principle is important in general, but especially on WP. Registration is not required but if you expect me to know or care when I'm talking to the same person, and you aren't signed in to an account, and your IP changes radically within a few hours, then please do me the courtesy of signing with some plain text that I can recognize. Like "--Anonymous Admirer" or whatever. Perhaps I got something wrong, or perhaps there are more than a few different IPs telling me weird things about Vote X. It seemed to be that FPAS had some sort of grudge against Vote X, and Vote X was happily reciprocating, and that some IP user, possibly the same, was attempting to embroil me in this brouhaha. So let me be clear: I have no problem with you or anyone removing incorrect material. I have no problem using WP:AGF and WP:HUMAN and WP:5P3]. I don't care what any of you do so long as you don't get in the way of me doing what I want to do :) So I really don't know what else we have to talk about. Happy editing, SemanticMantis (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Avoiding dangerous climate change

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Avoiding dangerous climate change. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Human sexuality

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Human sexuality. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:PBB

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:PBB. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I still don't understand

. . . how my two previous messages disappeared from this page. I suppose there's a rational explanation. I'll try it on my page... please visit! --Halcatalyst (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Wha hoppened?

I thought I responded on your talk page but now it isn't there. Must have been an hallucination. Anyway, I will get back to you later! --Halcatalyst (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

???

You're dead on about the humanities. In the 60s, as you know, there was huge turmoil in the US and all over the world. You could write an entire book with the title "1968" and no doubt somebody has. Anyway, I had five friends: four of them migrated from math to English (as did I). One switched from English to math. I can only say that such a thing was not too surprising in those times. My desire was to find a major which would set the stage to for me too explore things in my own way. I took a class in classics and to my surprise found the Iliad and the Odyssey tremendously interesting. Plus the teacher was outstanding. I was looking for something broad, and that looked good. I am a curious guy.

Please reply on my talk page. I really have no idea where I wrote before. --Halcatalyst (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Exponential function

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Exponential function. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Opposites

"so by your logic, and using the first method, a rabbit's foot is the opposite of a slab of granite. Because the former is small, light weight, soft, fuzzy, and light colored, while the latter is large, heavy, hard, smooth, and dark colored. Some might say this is a reasonable claim, others might disagree. This is sort of off topic for the thread, but if anyone wants to discuss opposites in more detail my talk page is open :) "

Musical genres are a category of things, and not a thing. If something have all the specifics characteristics, Y, X and Z.... it will fit on a genre that is made of the characteristics, Y, X, Z... The genre example is easier to find the opposite than the rabbit foot thing, also you must list every single characteristic of a rabbit foot and that may be a hard thing if you think about it (what are every single characteristic that something must have to be called a rabbit foot). With genres its an easier thing.

Some related thing: Some guys from a forum decided to get all characteristics that form the painting genre called color field and then used logic, music skills and painting theory skills to convert them to musical characteristics, some new sub-genre was formed, called tonefield, and they even made an label and made songs that fit on this sub-genre https://wavelength2.bandcamp.com/ 201.79.58.148 (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Ha! You know, just last night I spent a good hour making strange sounds on my synthesizer. And I don't know much music theory or how to play keys. And it still sounded better to me than the three of those tonefield experiments I just tried to listen to! That may have been bad luck, the fourth I tried ("Terminal") is pretty decent. But thanks for the follow-up just the same. I do like color field paintings. To me part of what makes them captivating is the rich colors. Musically, I'd think we'd evoke that with rich timbres, but all the examples I listened to had fairly simple sine/saw/square wave voices. Anyway it is perhaps easier to talk about opposite or opposing genres than opposite things, I think that's a good point. So then what painting genre is opposite to color field? Baroque? Or maybe Pre-Raphaelite? SemanticMantis (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Colorfield Painting was one of my favorite genres (this is how I found this), but I also hated those songs. Its more a problem of the artists that made those songs sucking (they just were normal forum users that decided to test the genre they created), than the genre itselt sucking.201.79.58.148 (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Schulze method

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Schulze method. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Have a sense of proportion, please

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Does_kosher.2Fhalal_beef_taste_different_due_to_drainage_of_blood.3F

You criticized me for stating that there are cooking temperatures too low to prepare beef safely, without providing a ref. You then provided a ref which supports what I said. However, when another editor recommended cooking beef to only 122°F, which is dangerous and directly at odds with your source's claim that 145°F is the minimum safe temp, there was no criticism from you. I realize you want to "jump on the bandwagon" and criticize me for not providing refs, whether they are needed or not, but you really need to think about the good of the OPs when you choose actions like this. StuRat (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The lower temperature is less safe but by itself still not unsafe.--TMCk (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I am under no obligation to criticize everything you might criticize. Food safety is actually something I'm fairly cavalier about, and even experts disagree to some extent. I regularly eat old left overs, bloody rare steaks, and chips off the floor. I won't go out of my way to encourage others to do so though, and I don't have to go out of my way to warn people that not all safety bodies consider 122F to be safe for beef. You are of course welcome to post additional refs and argue/criticize whatever you want. Finally, I'll note that while Aspro may also post things without reference when he should include a reference, also does post plenty of good refs, and is about 1/20th as active as you. Part of why you receive increased scrutiny, I think, is because you are among the most active/prolific/vocal of the regulars. I am too some days, but you'll note I have not had many different users suggesting to me that I need to post more refs ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:MDMA

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:MDMA. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Order of approximation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Order of approximation. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:MMR vaccine controversy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:MMR vaccine controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)