Leonhard Fortier
Joined 26 January 2016
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Insertcleverphrasehere in topic what are you working on?
Leonhard's Talk page.
Hi edit
Good to see you've made an account. If you enjoy discussions on requested moves, might I suggest checking out the Requested moves noticeboard from time to time? Thanks for your input into the discussion at Genesis creation narrative. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 09:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the welcome. I don't have any real interest in move requests in general I don't think, I'm more interested in articles like Genesis' creation myth, but also many other related topics, so I might stick with those. Simple edits and fixes seem a lot less stressful too, so I'm not too tempted to get involved in the process side of things again :)
- I replied to your last comment to me on Talk:Genesis creation narrative, you'll probably want to read it. :) InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 21:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hahaha, I must admit I was worried :) Your conditional support is appreciated, and I think it will do good for the closing moderator to see that arguments for the creation myth term are in some sense convincing. Thanks for your time InsertCleverPhraseHere. Leonhard Fortier (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Personally I don't see there being any chance of the article moving to "Genesis creation myth", in spite of the fact that it would be a better title than "Genesis creation narrative". In fact, as I've just pointed out over on the page, due to the instability of "Genesis creation narrative", the preference according to the 'no consensus' move guidelines appears to be to change it to its original stable title "Creation according to Genesis", rather than keep it at "Genesis creation narrative". InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 02:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think that's going to solve any problems either, and I lament yet another section with another option being added to the move request. In the end, so long as there is a perception that the article's title is not reflective of academic literature there will be a dispute. It's better to move the article to Genesis creation myth, explain to future objectors that that's the way reliable sources describe the content, and Wikipedia's policies dictate that our descriptive title reflects this. At the very least they will be much less intensive and shorter arguments, leaving more time to actually work on the article. Leonhard Fortier (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I was not giving another option, I was simply pointing out that given the lack of consensus for any of the options (including the current one), the guidelines indicate that it should be moved to the oldest non-stub title (which incidentally was also a stable title for 6 years). It is not my favourite either (story), but the rule exists for cases like this article where there is no option that will ever gain consensus among editors. A move to "Genesis creation myth" won't happen against consensus, and there is no way that the current discussion could be construed as consensus for moving to 'myth'. Going with this route, further move requests would be discouraged (possibly a moratorium put on them for a time) so that more requests did not waste time. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 08:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I know that you're quoting a policy, but it's not actually going to solve anything (which I tried tried to explain above). The idea of moratoriums feels wrong to me, it is grossly anti-collobrative. Even if the article were renamed to Genesis creation myth I would strongly object to one. Everyone should always have the opportunity to share an opinion. Perhaps some mechanism to quickly close move requests if they're considered deficient in new material or argument could be discussed. Leonhard Fortier (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I have to agree about moratoriums (i actually said so on the talk page when someone suggested one). InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 09:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I know that you're quoting a policy, but it's not actually going to solve anything (which I tried tried to explain above). The idea of moratoriums feels wrong to me, it is grossly anti-collobrative. Even if the article were renamed to Genesis creation myth I would strongly object to one. Everyone should always have the opportunity to share an opinion. Perhaps some mechanism to quickly close move requests if they're considered deficient in new material or argument could be discussed. Leonhard Fortier (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I was not giving another option, I was simply pointing out that given the lack of consensus for any of the options (including the current one), the guidelines indicate that it should be moved to the oldest non-stub title (which incidentally was also a stable title for 6 years). It is not my favourite either (story), but the rule exists for cases like this article where there is no option that will ever gain consensus among editors. A move to "Genesis creation myth" won't happen against consensus, and there is no way that the current discussion could be construed as consensus for moving to 'myth'. Going with this route, further move requests would be discouraged (possibly a moratorium put on them for a time) so that more requests did not waste time. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 08:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think that's going to solve any problems either, and I lament yet another section with another option being added to the move request. In the end, so long as there is a perception that the article's title is not reflective of academic literature there will be a dispute. It's better to move the article to Genesis creation myth, explain to future objectors that that's the way reliable sources describe the content, and Wikipedia's policies dictate that our descriptive title reflects this. At the very least they will be much less intensive and shorter arguments, leaving more time to actually work on the article. Leonhard Fortier (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Personally I don't see there being any chance of the article moving to "Genesis creation myth", in spite of the fact that it would be a better title than "Genesis creation narrative". In fact, as I've just pointed out over on the page, due to the instability of "Genesis creation narrative", the preference according to the 'no consensus' move guidelines appears to be to change it to its original stable title "Creation according to Genesis", rather than keep it at "Genesis creation narrative". InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 02:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hahaha, I must admit I was worried :) Your conditional support is appreciated, and I think it will do good for the closing moderator to see that arguments for the creation myth term are in some sense convincing. Thanks for your time InsertCleverPhraseHere. Leonhard Fortier (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- I replied to your last comment to me on Talk:Genesis creation narrative, you'll probably want to read it. :) InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 21:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
what are you working on? edit
Hey mate, I still had this page on my watch list, and I noticed what you have been up to on your user page. I am curious, what are you working on? Looks like some complicated stuff. InsertCleverPhraseHere 10:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hey there. My work at the moment involves a good understanding of the maximum flow problem, but when I came to Wikipedia to brush up on some facts most of the related articles were quite messy. I started by tidying up flow network a bit (which still has some room for general tidying, prose explanations and expansion), which is a central concept for the problem statement, and now I'm working on a particular algorithm used to solve the problem — the push–relabel maximum flow algorithm. For the flow network article I was mostly able to edit in place, but the push–relabel maximum flow algorithm was too complicated to try and change things in place so I've just been shuffling parts of it to my user page to fix up, and then I'll move everything across once it's ready. Leonhard Fortier (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Nice, looks like some complicated stuff for sure. have fun. InsertCleverPhraseHere 20:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)