User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (22)

Archived talk: 1 -- 2 -- 3 -- 4 -- 5 -- 6 -- 7 -- 8 -- 9 -- 10 -- 11 -- 12 -- 13 -- 14 -- 15 -- 16 -- 17 -- 18 -- 19 -- 20 -- 21

---

Quote Of The Decade All who have accomplished great things have had a great aim, have fixed their gaze on a goal which was high, one which sometimes seemed impossible. Orison Swett Marden. -- fm Anthere

I, Reene, hereby award dysprosia the Wiki Wiffle Bat for her general awesomeness and a great attitude.

For crosswords above and beyond the call of duty, I hereby award you this ____star (4 letters, often raised by the Amish). —CXI

In recognition of commendable deeds of musical heroism on Goldberg variations-- fm Rama

Nemo of honour in recognition of the whole musical works in general -- Rama

---

Assisted edits

Hi, Dysprosia. Unfortunately, I don't believe there is a way of making multiple edits in one go using navigation popups (but if you know otherwise, please let me know!). I think that the benefit in terms of reducing the chances of future double redirects outweighs the disadvantage of a longer edit history, but do please feel free to let me know if you disagree. I tend not to get wound up by other people disagreeing with me, and am always open to changing my mind! Regards, CLW 10:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi - I noticed this comment. Do you want to make multiple edits with the popups? This could be arranged, I think, if you have a compelling application :-) Do let me know. Cheers, Lupin|talk|popups 23:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I doubt your edit will be noticed at the top of this talk page. But it may. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Me? I don't want to use these strange tools that seem to be in vogue these days. I noticed that these things tend to make several entries in the histories for different edits. The tools should use the one edit to make multiple corrections/edits. Dysprosia 05:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Manly

Don't worry, I gave up editing months ago after various episodes of harrassment. Look at that silly red message above yours on my page. All I did was enhanced the image already there, and now some dumb robot is writing in red ink. Wikipedia is good, but full of petty tyrants - like the one that suggested I look in books! (I've been a bookworm for 60 years). Thortful

Spellbinder?

You seem to know a bit about Spellbinder, the TV series: do you know whether there's been a DVD release of it? I remember it from my youth, and I'd like to see it again. CNash 13:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, ok. No worries, I wasn't holding out much hope. CNash 22:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Creeping wave

I am not sure if I have answered this already or not. I learned the term "creeping wave" from a mathematician. Yes, I think it is sometimes the same as ground wave, but it only describes one mechanism.

Hi

Hi Dysprosia, good to see you! Have you got your home connection on yet? I'm looking forward to catching up with you on IRC as soon as you are back :) Thinking of you -- sannse (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Third-World feminism merger

I suggested Third-World Feminism be merged into Third-world feminism, and I havn't seen any dissent. I would like to have just one article and make some additions. Do I need to do anything special, or can I just merge whatever unique content there is and make a redirect. Also, I've never heard of it being called anything other than Third-world feminism. Is there any other name for the idea at which there is already a descent article? Thanks for any input you might have. Smmurphy 03:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Voluntary_Student_Unionism#Going_back_to_the_House

Hi there. Just wondering if you would be so kind as to provide some input into the discussion here regarding the return of the Bill to the House of Representatives. Thanks. Enochlau 09:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like it's been already settled. Dysprosia 06:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Earth to Dysprosia

I don't appreciate not seeing you around in channel. Please remedy this matter if possible. - Mark 14:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't help it, sorry! I don't have regular internet access! Do you want to buy me an Unwired modem? :) Once I have regular net access again I'll be back. Dysprosia 06:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

*sniff* excuses, excuses... ;) - Mark 08:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

We miss you :) Raul654 06:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I miss all you guys too :) Dysprosia 23:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Dysprosia, tell us the secret, how do you deal with internet withdrawal? If I don't check my watchlist for several hours the pressure builds up, I can't concentrate, life is not fun, and all I can think is jump at that first computer whereever I find it. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I've substituted addiction to the internet and Wikipedia to addiction to playing long games of Freeciv or NetHack or mucking around doing other things on the computer ;) Dysprosia 07:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Have a lovely Christmas. I'm in Victoria at the moment, but I'm going to be in the same position as you once I go back to Canberra in mid-January - I've just moved into low-income housing and won't have the internet until I work out how to set up dialup. Ambi 06:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Dysprosia

I dig that name. Dystopos 15:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

heh :) Dysprosia 23:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

hi again

Heya! Yeah, get that connection up and get back to us :) Have a great Christmas Dysprosia -- sannse (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

wikinews

Hi, if you are the same user Dysprosia, from wikinews, just letting you know that I have left you a message at wikinews re crosswords, thanks Brian | (Talk) 02:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Euler-Lagrange Equation

A quick question about TbSmith's edit to Euler-Lagrange equation, which you recently reverted. He had a link to an external site of his own, exampleproblems.com, which you removed. I was curious if you removed this external link because you thought it was inappropriate self-promotion (I'd be inclined to agree) or because it was the second external link to that site on the page. If it was the former, then we should get rid of the works cited link as well. --Dantheox 19:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It is because it's self promotion. Dysprosia 00:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Adding links

Why shouldn't I be able to add helpful links to articles? Can you really say my website is not helpful to those people looking for information on those various mathematical topics? With all due respect, I'm going to replace my links. - Tbsmith

Whether your website is helpful or not is not the problem. The problem is you have a vested interest (as your site, for one, is supported by advertising) in linking to your own website; you can't really be considered to be objective on whether your link is beneficial or not. If you talk to others and ask them to put the link on the article, this negates the problem, and gets an objective point of view as to whether your link is beneficial. Note that your actions can be considered spamming this wiki. Dysprosia 00:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

links

Honestly, what else is the external links section for? I don't think it's fair that I can't put up my own site even though it's relevant, extremely helpful, unique, and free. And it's an open-source wiki! The perfect external link. -Tbsmith

I bugged Tbsmith to format his links well, follow Wikipedia style, and make sure links look relevant. Should be fine in that situation I guess. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Whether it's an open-source wiki is not the problem. It is absolutely fair that you can't promote your own web site for the reason I stated above, and the easy remedy is stated above also. Dysprosia 00:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Dysprosia, reverting all those links second time was a bit too much I think. Plenty of people link to their web sites in mathematics articles (eqworld, cut-the-knot, there was a physics one). As long as the links are relevant not too many, and well-formatted, I don't see that as a problem. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

If you revert me (by replacing the links), then that solves the problem for good (as I hope you can see). I invite you to if you feel the links are worthy. Dysprosia 02:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh, why would I revert what you did? Not my problem. :) However, if the user puts the links again, I would think that it might be better if there is some community discussion rather than removing the links right away, and if it were decided to remove them, I guess links to cut-the-knot and eqworld (which were placed by their owners) might need to go also.

I did check a few, and they are relevant (I checked harmonic function, Laplace operator, and integral equation). The one at several complex variables is not relevant, as it talks about one and not several complex variables. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, that would signify your implicit 3rd-party approval of the link, which is what would be necessary in such an instance -- it's not really about relevancy. I didn't check the eqworld/cut-the-knot articles -- were they put there by Tbsmith? I'll consider that you "approved" the links if the user places the links again and thus won't revert.

In the general case, I still don't like the idea of users placing links to work they have performed without some form of 3rd-party vetting, regardless of relevancy. It shouldn't be a problem to quickly gain this from another editor. Dysprosia 02:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't like users inserting external links without third-party vetting either, but a straight rollback of all such links is not the answer. We are an open encyclopedia, and such external links should, in my opinion, be treated no differently than other contributions, meaning that they should be examined, and accepted or removed on a case by case basis. And besides, one should not say "doesn't matter if they are useful or not", that does matter. :) But you have a point too, and one better have a wider discussion of all this. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but this I've seen this thing happen rather frequently before. I suppose where our views differ is whether we accept the link and then discuss whether it should be removed versus we remove the link and then disscuss whether it should be added. Dysprosia 05:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Oleg is quite right that to say that what matters is not who submitted a link but rather the merit or otherwise of the page linked to. Dysprosia appears to be full of venom toward anyone who would dare to draw attention by means of a link to a page they have written. The creator of a work, even if it is simply a web page, has a perfect right to draw attention to it, by means of a Wikipedia link or any other way. If the page has useful information, complementing the article to which it is a link, then it should stay, regardless of who put it there. Dysprosia exhibits both pettiness and arrogance in presuming to delete links which he suspects may have been put there by the author of the page linked to. Get off your high horse, Dysprosia, and stop making yourself an obstacle to Wikipedia's intent, which is the dissemination of useful information. Erisiastes 15:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite. Let me refute your baseless and vitriolic arguments.

* Dysprosia...delete[s] links which he suspects may have been put there by the author of the page linked to

(I am a she, by the way) from Tbsmith: "Todd Smith, a mathematician and creater of ExampleProblems.com."

* If the page has useful information, complementing the article to which it is a link, then it should stay, regardless of who put it there.

from Wikipedia:External links#What should not_be_linked_to: "What should not be linked to...2. Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates. "

from Wikipedia:Spam: "If your product is truly relevant to an article, others will agree -- try the talk page. We usually recommend that editors be bold in adding directly to articles. But if the above advice makes you concerned that others will regard your contribution as spam, you can find out without taking that risk: Describe your work on the article's talk page, asking other editors if it is relevant."

This is exactly the course of action I suggested to Tbsmith.

I am within Wikipedia guidelines and policy. Tbsmith is within Wikipedia guidelines and policy. You are barely within policy yourself. As you are a clearly experienced Wikipedian, I'll let you discover which policy it is I'm talking about.

Now, I'm flattered that you chose my Talk page to be your first (and only) edit, but there is a whole other lot of articles for you to contribute to that needs your help. Are you going to aid Wikipedia's intent, which is the dissemination of useful information, or not? Dysprosia 22:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I see that your position is more defensible than I had first thought. However: Any link to an external site is, in a sense, a promotion of it (unless the link is accompanied by disparagement). Therefore 2. is not against promotion of a site but rather against linking to a site (more exactly, a web page) by the site operator (or an affiliate). But this stricture can be justified only on the assumption that a site operator or author cannot make an objective judgement about whether the page linked to contains useful information. ('Objective' in the sense that most 'reasonable' interested parties would basically agree.) Authors, of course, generally regard what they write as valuable/useful/interesting, but in many cases they are correct in this view, so to assume otherwise is an unjustified assumption. To delete an external link to a page which contains useful information, even if you know (and not merely suspect) that it was put there by the author or the site operator, is to restrict the dissemination of useful information, whatever Wikipedia's guidelines might say. I could agree, however that in this matter the guidelines err on the side of caution. Erisiastes 14:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

on the assumption that a site operator or author cannot make an objective judgement about whether the page linked to contains useful information.

I would argue that this is not mere assumption but practical fact. The author of a website, especially one supported by advertising, has an obvious conflict of interest in adding their link to a webpage, and thus cannot really be relied upon for a truly objective judgement. I am suggesting that this conflict of interest be mitigated by third-party approval and vetting. What seems to be the crux of the argument here is whether the links should be either first removed, approved, then replaced, or whether the links should remain, be approved, and offending links removed. I hold the former view, you may hold the latter view (either "ideologies", so to speak, are essentially equivalent given enough consultation). As you may agree that the guidelines err on the side of caution, it follows that a more appropriate means of resolution is to act according to said former viewpoint, even though the latter viewpoint is essentially equivalent. Dysprosia 02:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You are right regarding adding links because of an invested view, but if you could tell us how to get our magazine listed...thank you She Unlimited Magazine

External link

Hi. Will you please see this page and decide if you think my site is helpful, since you are an objective person. If you do, please put it in the external links part on the main site. Thanks. Tbsmith

---

No I was wrong and Alexandrov was right- this link should be at Complex analysis

I'll put the link for Complex analysis. I don't know whether I'm the best person to vet your links since I brought you up on the issue to begin with, but I'm glad to see that you're following the right process! :) Dysprosia 02:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Username change

Please visit your Wikibooks user talk page for more info, but since you are a bureaucrat there, I'm requesting a username change there. Thank you, -- WB 03:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

(Done.) Dysprosia 04:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, can you delete my former user page as well? -- WB 08:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It's best to keep the redirect. Or do you want to delete your now current user page? Dysprosia 09:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I made sure none of the pages leads to the user page, so there would no problem deleting it. Delete the old and the current one. Thank you, -- WB 22:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Done that. Dysprosia 22:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! -- WB 23:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Dysprosia, You are right about the invested interest and I agree with you, if you would be so kind to tell us how our magazine can be listed? Thank you

Style suggestions

Hi Dysprosia. I see you're starting the year by doing some cleanup on your talk (=user) page.

I have a suggestion then. The text at the top of your user (talk) page

Old talk in archive: User talk:Dysprosia/Archive -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (2) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (3) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (4) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (5) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (6) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (7) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (8) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (9) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (10) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (11) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (12) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (13) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (14) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (15) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (16) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (17) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (18) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (19) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive(20) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (21) (most recent)

looks awful. :) (no excuses, truly, trully awful) And I knew that for a while. :) You could compact it a lot, see User talk:Stevertigo for an example. Hope you get my message with the right attitude. :) 05:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Good idea :) Dysprosia 06:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Quorum calls

• You may not be aware that I work for an Opposition MP in Canberra, so I know what I am talking about on this matter.
• A quorum call by definition wastes the time of the House (about ten minutes) and annoys Government MPs, 30 of whom have to drop what they are doing and come into the House, usually at an inconvenient moment. This would be true whatever the subjective intention of the Member calling the quorum.
• Quorums are always called by Opposition MPs, on the instruction of the Whips. There would be no reason for a Government member to do so. One of the three independent MPs could do so, but so far as I recall they have never done so.
• Quorums are not called at random. The Opposition calls quorums as a means of punishing the Government when it has (for example) unreasonably guillotined debate, gagged Opposition members, or put up a backbencher to speak on an MPI instead of a minister.
• Of course Opposition MPs do not say "I am calling a quorum to waste the time of the House." But everyone understands the tactics. In fact the Member calling the quorum doesn't have to give a reason.
• This fetish at Wikipedia for sourcing every statement has unfortunate effects sometimes. There are some things which are true, and which are universally known to be true, but which cannot be attributed to an on-the-record source. This is one of them. There must be some latitude for well-informed editors to say things on the basis of their own knowledge and experience.

Adam 06:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I know all of this, and I don't disagree with any of the above points. I don't think you quite understand where I'm coming from. The problem is not a factual one. Indeed there are some things which are "universally known to be true". However, saying "X is true" when it is only universally known to be true is not quite accurate. Consider the following exampmle: "All employees do their job well" and "Most employees do their job well". Without knowing the employer's productivity statistics, you cannot say that the first statement is unequivocally true, even if it is "universally known to be true" that "all employees do their job well". In the instance of the article in question, I am not asking you to produce statistics or sources for the statement in question, of course, this is a ridiculous demand to make in this instance. What I am saying is that the blanket statement is not demonstrably true, so we must resort to the general statement. Dysprosia 07:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the merit of that analogy at all, in fact I don't even see that it is an anology, since you are comparing an opinion with a fact. The statements I made about quorum calls are factual, and I have restored them. If you want to delete them you must show how they are not factual. Adam 07:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect in assuming that I do not want to delete the sentence, I have never expressed any desire to do so in this dicussion. What actually was under dispute with the sentence in question is its accuracy, and I was disputing the content of the sentence, not its entire existence. This is why I brought to light the problems with you earlier stating in the article that something which is "universally known to be true" is in fact true when the verifiability of this truth is not possible. If, for example, the motives of someone's actions cannot be verified, we cannot state that the party in question did indeed have these motives. We may guess this person's motives (and possibly be correct in our guess), perhaps by examining from past history, or by effect of this person's actions, or whatever means, but that does not mean that we can provably state that this guess is correct. I believe what I am trying to express here is related to the concept of falsifiability.

I see however, that you have changed your edit to the sentence to something that is now much more accurate. It is indeed accurate that 'the Opposition will "call a quorum" as a tactic to annoy the Government' but it is not accurate to say that 'the Opposition will only "call a quorum" if they wish to annoy the government' (emphasis mine, of course). Dysprosia 08:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is accurate to say that, since there is no other possible motive for them doing so. However if we now have an agreed wording I think we can agree to disagree about that. Adam 08:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

There is the possible motive which I have given you a reference to earlier of a Senator who had clearly states his reason for calling a quorum in that instance. However I think any further discussion on this matter would be bootless. Dysprosia 08:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

three revert rule

You should know we have 3 rev rule. I have told someone about you Crayolacrime 08:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)!

I do know! Thanks for pointing that out, and going through my edits to make sure I didn't make any errors in the articles... or whatever reason you felt it best to do so. Dysprosia 08:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not change any edits you made, except one. However you reverted all edits I made. You are a vandal!!! Crayolacrime 08:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The latter assertions you make are incorrect. Dysprosia 08:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Cologne Blue

Try this CSS: #pabanner { text-align:left !important; } It should work. ;-) — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 23:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks! Dysprosia 04:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

location of the history section

I agree that the history section should be at the top and in fact adviced this to User:Flash200, however the philosophy is usualy covered as one of the first things in the history section (as it is one of the first things that happened in the history of the language and arguably even more context that the history, see for example BASIC programming language) might I suggest that in the case of the Java programming language article, the philosophy section is placed above the history section or is integrated with it? Cheers, —Ruud 23:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with having the sections seperate in that order, sorry. It is important to know how a language came about (History) before we should know what the language is about (Philosophy). It sets up the ideas and context of the article much better than jumping straight in to the Philosophy and then jumping back into its history. However, yes, it may be beneficial to integrate, showing how the history of the language has influenced its philosophy, and that may be entirely appropriate. HTH, thanks Dysprosia 23:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

To clarify my point, the first think what happens when a language is designed (and therefore would be the first event in its history) would be comming up with a philosphy for that language. —Ruud 23:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

OTOH, the philosophy section as it stnds now is much to large to incroporate it with the history entierly, so it would indeed be left after is. I think only the first paragraph of the philosphy section should be integrated with the history section. —Ruud 23:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Would any of this be appropriate for the intro, for instance moving the first paragraph of the philosophy to the intro? Where there's overlap, where should the line be drawn for what goes in the intro, what goes in the history, and what goes in the philosophy? (in the case of summaries/overviews of the language) --Flash 02:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

To the both of you, there should be a clear distinction between history and philosophy. There should be a header for at least History. The following solutions seem acceptable to me: history with a paragraph or two on how the history influenced the philosophy - and then a more extensive philosophy section below it (most preferrable, I think), or one line on the philosophy in the introduction - and a header on history - then philosophy. HTH Dysprosia 04:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)