User talk:Lambiam/Archive 2

Archives

Archive 1: January 2006 – March 2006 Archive 2: April 2006 – June 2006 Archive 3: July 2006 – September 2006 Archive 4: October 2006 – December 2006 Archive 5: January 2007 – March 2007 Archive 6: April 2007 – June 2007 Archive 7: July 2007 – September 2007 Archive 8: October 2007 – December 2007 Archive 9: January 2008 – March 2008 Archive 10: April 2008 – June 2008 Archive 11: July 2008 – September 2008 Archive 12: October 2008 – December 2008 Archive 13: January 2009 – December 2009 Archive 14: January 2010 – June 2010 Archive 15: July 2010 – December 2010 Archive 16: January 2011 – March 2011 Archive 17: April 2011 – June 2011 Archive 18: July 2011 – September 2011 Archive 19: October 2011 – December 2011 Archive 20: January 2012 – June 2012 Archive 21: July 2012 – December 2012 Archive 22: January 2013 – December 2015 Archive 23: January 2016 – December 2017 Archive 24: January 2018 – December 2019 Archive 25: January 2020 – December 2021

George W. Bush

Hey, Lambiam! Just a tip: You can simply use "#Alcohol_use_and_allegations_of_drug_use", as it is already defined by the Mediawiki software. (Every section is automatically assigned an <a name> by the software). Hope this helps! Tangotango 08:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I guess you knew about the anchors then, sorry about that. Too bad they didn't cite an old revision of the article :) -- Tangotango 09:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sheep --> Ovis move

Lambian, I'm a bit unhappy that you moved Sheep to Ovis without any kind of discussion first. I think Ovis is the latin word for sheep, or only the scientific genus name in English. Most people looking for an overview of sheep will go to "Sheep", not "Ovis". Domestic sheep are still at the article of that name anyway, so I'd really prefer we move Ovis back to sheep. Have you changed any of the redirects yet. If you have it's probably not worth moving it back straight away without starting a discussion about it on the talk page first. — Донама 02:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There are now nearly 100 unfixed redirects. I agree with the above, and it should go back to the english name. I'll fix it later, but wait for further comments. jimfbleak 05:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion to Talk:Ovis and replied there. Lambiam^Talk 11:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

AP Psychology

I added reference that the exams are offered only in the U.S. and Canada (I don't know if they're offered elsewhere to be completely honest). AP and 'Advanced Placement Program' are Registered Trademarks of the College Board, and I'm not aware of any other such program operating under the same name. Was there something specific you were looking for or objecting to? —Jnk 22:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, understood and agreed. I was just trying to save it from deletion anyway and as I said there it still needs more work. If you don't think my minor modification fully addressed the problem feel free to retag or suggest other changes, thanks! —Jnk 22:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Gnosticism in modern times

Please see the comment that I posted at talk: Yahoo. Thank you. Sky Surfer 6 May 2006

Saints Wikiproject

I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints. You can sign up on the page and add the following userbox to your user page.

This user is a member of the Saints WikiProject.

Thanks! --evrik 16:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

List of ethnic group names used as insults listed on AfD

Did you see this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic group names used as insults? --Lambiam^Talk 10:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'll take a look, although I must express some surprise to get this message on my page. It's no problem, but may I ask why you decided to notify me about this? --Deville (Talk) 04:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I notified all users who had several edits to the article, thinking they were potentially interested. --Lambiam^Talk 05:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I did not notice that, in fact I had forgotten that I'd ever editted that page! Thanks for letting me know. --Deville (Talk) 18:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

105263157894736842

Hi,

Thanks for giving me the info I have been really, really looking for. I think I will be creating an entry for k-parasitic numbers and let all these numbers redirect there. In that entry, we can list all the (additional) properties of such numbers. I will raise this issue with the user who nominated this for {{prod}} and see if this is a possible alternative. I am sure nobody will challenge the notability of that article. Thanks again for giving such a beautiful solution to this problem. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 04:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks for pointing out what a human flea is.

my image was of a super-hero or a performance artist with that title. r b-j 05:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Non-Muslim_view_of_Ali_(second_nomination) is hardly the place for a discusion . I've cast my vote i'm not changing it . I belive in removing as much pov from wiki as possible be it a king or a commoner , philosopher or fool who said it . (Gnevin 23:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

I've no problem understanding wiki's npov policy my problem is the articial is pov . It counters every negivitive comment with a positive yet doesnt do the same for positive to negivitive.

'Some of the non-Muslim scholars, like Watt, reject all hadith as fabrications, this colouring their view. Others, like Wilferd Madelung, refute the position of Watt.'

'In contrast to this, few others such as L. Caetani in his Annali dell' Islam levels severe criticisms against Ali's personality and policies. Madelung in his Succession provided a detailed critical analysis on these criticisms.'

Am i meant to belive this man was such a great person thiers only 2 negivtive opinions on him ? Also i do have a major problem with the use of pov ladelen scholar's view being put up on wiki and being presented and some sort of truth. Their views as scholars and thats all they are are views should no more be on wiki than mine. Compare this ali articial to Jesus (prophet in Islam) and you'll see its doesnt relpy on a page of quotes .This articial needs some npov researched by proper historians (Gnevin 00:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

To be honest i dont really care what happens to this articial either way i just stumbled on too it and Now i've lost interest in it . Nice to talk too you anyway (Gnevin 00:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

a word of thanks...

Meeting all of the requirements of good writing is extremely difficult for me. I often loose my train of thought and 'am often forced to return to a sentence to make corrections and revisions. I am also a bad speller so I need a copy of Word up and running all of the time. Also many of the technical topics I am interested in provide me with few, if any, readers so I end up literally talking to myself. Without the help which you have provided it would take many more months for the article to reach the point is has reached now. Please accept my humble gratitude and thanks for an effort that is really paying off.

In regard to Twenty questions I have written several Boolean algebra programs as well as one to implement this method and I can tell you the difference between each one. While Boolean Algebra and other techniques are used to reduce independent variables and rules so as to achieve a decision table which is in minimum form the decision tables which are their targets have only one dependent variable and many, many rules whereas the optimization technique this article describes is intended to process decision tables which have multiple dependent variables with only one rule each. Consequently there are major differences in technique and in application.

Thanks again very much for your kind editorial help. The job is not done yet. -- PCE 10:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ivo de Grandmesnil

I just voted (or whatever it is one does at AfD) on it now. Anyway, I understand that you merged in stuff from the other article, but the rewrte I made earlier today was based on a good secondary source and does not support most of the stuff that was merged in, so I would like to revert it, at least for now. Nothing personal. Some bits may well be correct, but as long as the only source in the article doesn't support them, I think they need to go. The previous source, which I ignored, was some random genealogical website; anything medieval in such places can almost a priori be assumed to be garbage. I'll take a look at a couple of journal articles to see if anything can be added from there. u p p l a n d 12:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's fine. There is actually a bit more in the ODNB article, but the whole thing is pretty short and I don't want to get too close to plagiarism. I'll see what I can find elsewhere. u p p l a n d 13:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I've voted now. --Tango 15:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD - India Basher

Just so you know, I checked before reverting 26 May and India Basher was listed on 27 May already. I saw no need to have it listed on both. Am I incorrect in that? CovenantD 01:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

sock tag

I could care less about the sock tag on my user page, but who are you? and why do you care? --Yueyuen 00:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Foundational crisis

Lambian I agree with your sentiments as expressed in your mail to me. Regarding adding the true but unprovable statement as an axiom, of course that can always be done but there's always another true but unprovable statement lurking, just as there's always another real number even if we add it to our list.

Chaitin's work and work on Hilbert's 10th led me to make the statement about natural numbers, but you are correct in pointing out that I'm assuming the Law of the Excluded Middle.

There seems to be a lot of inconsistency circling around Gödel and Hilbert's program on Wikipedia- not so much in the statement of the results but in their interpretation. Getting it right requires funky sentence structure, and as you comment, dialogue, etc.

Thanks, --M a s 16:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Agree with your edits. But many people have seen Matiyasevich's theorem as a response to Hilbert's program. It's hinted that way (by my edits) in truth. Anyways what's there now is good.

Thanks, --M a s 01:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi, another User:Rick_Norwood took issue w. your edit to Truth. I'm trying to take it to the talk. Thanks, --M a s 16:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

My code game

I'm going through all the comments and and i came across yours "At level 5 the name of the crypto method is misspelled: "ea" should be "ae" and next "e" should be "a". --LambiamTalk 18:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)"

I'm looking at level five http://pages.google.com/edit/theresaknott/v and your comment doesn't make sense. Were you talking about a different level or am I just being thick? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

10061092961

Just wondering if there really is something interesting about 10061092961 or if you were being facetious. Robert Happelberg 16:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Robert Happelberg 23:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

question about bias

Lambian, I have something of a philisophical question prompted by the AfD on the Turkish governor. What's the argument in favor of having articles on such minor figures from places like Turkey? Turkey doesn't have many English speakers but does have Turkish wikipedia. It seems useless for Anglophones to have an article on wikipedia about him. I suppose I don't think such articles ought to be deleted (I did change my vote) but I don't see the point in creating them in the first place. Thanks in advance for your response. --Kchase02 (T) 21:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That is indeed a philosophical question. Personally I use the English Wikipedia preferentially mainly because it has the largest number of articles and English happens to be a language I can understand without too much effort. There are many articles on topics I happen to be interested in, and many more topics that I could care less, such as console games, pornographic actors and actresses, and (to me) obscure Canadian politicians. However, I prefer to take the stance that this is not "the Wikipedia for and about the part of the world where English is an official language" (which, by the way, also includes the Bahamas, Belize, Botswana, Cameroon, Fiji, Hong Kong, The Gambia, Ghana, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Namibia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Rwanda, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Swaziland, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe), but the Wikipedia for everyone everywhere about everything, which happens to have been written in English. I'd like that to extend to all Wikipedias: if a topic deserves an article on the Icelandic Wikipedia, it also deserves an article on the Tagalog Wikipedia, and vice versa. The sum total of all human knowledge, available in all human languages (and perhaps Klingon). So, in my opinion, if Mr. Eyüp Sabri Kartal is a worthy topic for the Turkish Wikipedia, then also for the Polish, Danish, and English versions.

Now a next question that I don't want to go into deeply, is whether his importance or notability make for an entry in the Turkish (and therefore English) Wikipedia. To be sure, I think the importance in this specific case is marginal. However, I am also very much in favour of evenhandedness in how we as Wikipedians judge these things. Either we are more strict in general, and also get rid of all kinds of minor political functionaries from the U.S. and Canada, or we allow equally (un)important figures from elsewhere. That was the main reason I referred to WP:BIAS. And yes, I'm glad I can find information in Wikipedia on Turkish issues that may appear irrelevant to people from the Midwest.

Finally, I'm somewhat of an inclusionist: If in doubt, leave it in. One day I hope to find a rhyming version of that maxim. --Lambiam^Talk 22:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

As the (probably horribly elitist) (and exclusionist) user who nominated the page for deletion—partly due to my "Wiki-philosophy" and partly, to be frank, due to my lack of knowledge of the nooks and crannies (i.e., the oft-referenced Mike Bach and that sort of thing) of Wikipedia—let me offer "a rhyming version of that maxim": If in doubt, don't throw it out. (I'm sure it's been said before, and that you may well have had your tongue in cheek when saying that you hoped to find a rhyming version, but let me offer it nonetheless).

I suppose I'm glad to at least (even if unintentionally) have jogged a person or two's philosophically oriented synapses. Cheers. —Saposcat 23:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both. This has been quite interesting. One response about English. That's it's the official language in many places isn't necessarily indicative of the population actually knowing it. French is an official language of Haiti, but is spoken by about ten percent of the population. By contrast, young Germans often know advanced English. But from your activities in WP:BIAS, I expect you already knew that.

may appear irrelevant to people from the Midwest. Please don't assume too much from my location of upbringing; even American Southerners might surprise you!

Thanks again for your response. --Kchase02 (T) 00:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The reference to the Midwest was tongue-in-cheek. People in general surprise me, even from the United States :) . By the way, you'll find more young people in Turkey who understand English (although with limited proficiency) than for example in the Netherlands. That is in absolute terms, not pro rata. Keep up the good work. --Lambiam^Talk 00:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Helpful article re LoEM

I quickly scanned the article. It is very good, indeed... but ... he seems to agree with my assertion -- I have cut this now -- that the LoEM debate strongly influenced Godel and thereby has had a major impact on the mathematics ever since. And I had originally written that the intuitionists objected to the use of reductio ad absurdum form of proof because it is derived from the LoEM (or double negation). This is all cut now.

For me, again and again, the "wikipedia experience" has been another name for "beating one's head against a wall", a not entirely satisfactory feeling. I have learned a lot and indeed I have answered my original question (more or less): what is the LoeM. But I think I have contributed to this article all that I can. I am going to leave it to others. I except that what I have written will be thoroughly eviscerated. (This is part of the "wiki experience" that we are warned about when we volunteer to participate in it). (In passing I do suggest that the intro be eviscerated-- it just plops down statment after statement with no corroboration or examples). But thank you for your help and your comments and the dialog re this topic.wvbaileyWvbailey 19:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I truly appreciate the input how to deal with Wikipedia editors. This helps especially the part about leaving little "work-in progress flags" that discourage editors, and the piecemeal additions, etc. Your criticism has been spot-on; I wasn't lambasting you in particular.

(But...here it comes, the ominous butt...) You obviously know what you are talking about, but you aren't writing? Perhaps it's a time issue? What I find so frustrating with Wiki is (i) abysmal lack of published-in-paper a.k.a. peer-vetted references (ii) bald-face bullshit (e.g. Halting Problem; this I attempted to fix/question/correct/illuminate/stop-dead-in-its-tracks-self-perpetuating-bullshit, but man what an uproar! (iii) persistent bickering (e.g. Hilbert; the anti-Semite behind it (a nazi? no shit) was finally kicked off Wiki for a year.

A worry: if we apply the austere requirements you propose -- that a person write only about what they truly know -- nothing will be written. Nobody is that good. Some (like yourself) are very good, some like me learn as we go and get adequate, maybe; some are kids but are making the effort and should be strongly encouraged (kid Wiki?). But us lesser mortals blanche at the mistreatment we get. It takes a rhino-tough hide to put up the editing, I swear to god. And some (not yours) of the editing is down-right mean.

After 6 months of this I'm sure there is something wrong with the Wiki model: e.g. my son, a post-doc, has nothing but harsh words for Wiki-- he won't use it, won't write for it, distrusts it, disparages it. Yet he could write some wonderful entries (and probably would end up in a reversion war). Wiki may have a million-plus "articles" but, "garbage-in-garbage-out". My opininon is Wiki won't really "work" until (i) Wiki is "published" in editions -- and an edition is frozen until the next update while the fights go on behind the scenes, users can access this noxious dreck but the frozen article is the frontice-piece (ii) the "authors/editors" have to vote on and then sign their work, and (iii) they have to take all subsequent shit for it; (iv) real verifiable writer/editor-names must be used front and center with real, verifiable bios: its too easy to hide in anonymity behind silly web-names and sillier bios.

Anyway, enough of this...back to work.Thanks again, wvbaileyWvbailey 22:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

To your point: Wiki is getting better. Here's a funny story: So I am warring with the folks on the "halting problem" page and I go to the Dartmouth libary. I walk the crooked mile (and a half) with my little back back slung over my littler shoulders... I'm on a mission: find the true source of the phrase: "the halting problem". I've read Turing's proof(s). My cc of Undecidable is a forest of scribbles. I've hunted within my personal beaucoup de sources for the origin of "the phrase". I can't find diddly-squat. And now, here before me, is my quarry: the librarian. Nice looking guy. Friendly. Can he help me find find the source, the penultimate source, of "the Halting problem"? I explain...he looks a bit worried. I look in the honking Oxford dictionary opposite him... Nope. He does a search through the computer deep into the stacks... Nope. "I know," he says, "Let's try Wikipedia, that's a good resource, have you ever used Wikipedia?"/"Uhh..." I say/But he's on it before I can finish./"Here we go..." he says, and he starts to read the page.../"But...", I say, "I'm the guy who added all the references... I wrote a lot of this stuff. That's why I'm up here sniffing around."/ He gives me a look... "Well I guess this won't help."/"Nope," I say./ I end up buried on the 3rd floor (or was it 4th? so many floors so little time...) wandering the stacks, buried deep in the allergy-prevoking dusty fungus-encrusted tomes of yesteryear...(Best guess for penultimate source of the "halting problem": Martin Davis.)

Yes, indeed: Wiki is acquiring panache.It is a worthy pursuit. wvbaileyWvbailey 00:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh my god no shit he's alive? Wow. Thanks! Bill wvbaileyWvbailey 00:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you believe this? Last night, right after I got your link to Davis, i wrote him a letter. This AM, east-coast time 9 o'clock I find a response from him. I've asked his permission to quote from his e-mail to me -- his gist is: he "contributed the name" "Halting Problem" but he seems to defer to a book by Kleene. I think he's just being modest, myself. I'll keep you posted. This is interesting. wvbaileyWvbailey 13:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is Martin Davis's answer to me. He has since responded to me a second time that it would okay to quote him. He did answer another question having to do with the Halting problem and the differences between the two proofs (Turing's and the antinomy version). He is indeed a very nice guy.

Here is his first response:

Thanks for writing.

My book "Computability & Unsolvability" served to bring the subject to the attention of the brand new (not yet named) computer science community. I supplied I smooth easy-to-follow development, but there was almost nothing new in it. I combined ideas and results from Turing, Gödel, Post, and Kleene. With the halting problem, I contributed the name - that's all. Despite appearances, the proof is really there in Turing's paper. You'll find it also in Kleene's book "Intro to Metamathematics" published 6 years before my book. But Kleene doesn't even label it as a theorem. It's just one sentence in a long complicated paragraph.

I hope this helps.

Martin Davis

wvbaileyWvbailey 16:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"Is it possible?"

And is it possible that you is Laciner himself under one of his various wikipedia names? I actually never saw "Armenian Red Army" or "New Armenian Resistance" pages before. I frankly don't care either. I do dislike the blatant AUTO-ness of the Laciner page and the self-promotion going on his page and those of his organizations. One of the main wikipedia rules says if it's worth being on wikipedia, someone else will put it on. Don't go around putting yourself up to help legitimize yourself or the organization. That is the only reason I nominated them for deletion. Also, as a random wikipedian just like the rest of us, why are you so fervently defending someone you don't even know? In your reasonings you speak of the "ISRO" as if anyone outside Ankara has even ever heard of it. Nomral wikipedians certainly have not. If you were just a normal wikipedian, you also would have left your opinion on the Articles for Deletion page where it belongs and not take it to my particular talk page as well. Also, how would you know the intense background on a Review journal few people outside of Turkey have read also? What normal everyday wikipedian knows that it is one of "1629 serials monitored for inclusion in CSA Worldwide Political Abstracts" etc. etc. Please, enough with the senseless self-promotion.
(P.S.- regarding my first edit, I removed the specific story because I did not find it related to the Armenian Genocide. Of course the 70s terror attacks were a result of the genocide and so it is something to mention when talking about the genocide as a whole- I did not censor the entire discussion of it. However dedicating over a paragraph to one incident seemed needless and so I removed the particular cases. Writing about every time an Armenian or Turk was arrested since the genocide is certainly overkill.) [Vartan84]

If you have your own page on wikipedia that you haven't touched, then good. That is exactly what I believe wikipedia should be about. I think if someone is famous enough to belong on wikipedia, they do not need to make it themselves. That is why I nominated Laciner for deletion, 1. his dubious status as famous and 2. the fact he needed to make it himself. Also I must admit I don't know how to see someone's contributions because I am still getting the hang of wikipedia, though it would have been a good thing to do before making accusations at you. The picture I get from Laciner's self-promotion is that of an extreme sense of self-importance or some slight megalomania. I am not trying to decry him for being Turkish and am not racist (as someone accused me at my page), but because I do not see proof that he belongs on wikipedia. The only thing that comes close is his participation in 2006 Davos Young World Leader, however the way that title has been brandished around on his page (and on mine by anonymous people) I really think the title has gone to his head. The way it was written on his page, first of all, was that he was "selected Davos Young World Leader 2006". I had never heard of the World Leader part, only Davos, and found it quite ridiculous that he would have been selected what appears to be THE Young World Leader of 2006. That might qualify someone for a page. However, after looking into it I saw that he and no less than 100 others got this same distinction in 2006 alone, which while it is certainly an accomplishment is not necesarily reason to run out there and make a wikipedia page about all of them. The other reasons I have seen on why he should have his own page is that 1. He is a professor at a university in Turkey (one that is not even its most famous... does this mean every professor who has ever taught at Harvard deserves their own page?) and that he has published books. Many of my college professors have published books as well but would never think of putting themselves on wikipedia for that. A search of Amazon, which would be a sign that your books are at least obscurely known (there are a lot of out of print books or ones that no one has ever heard of on Amazon, even Edward Tashji and (out of print so no longer for sale there) Sam Weems, however nothing shows up for Laciner. Most of his books (a listing of which was added after I nominated him) don't have ISBN numbers and seeing as one "book" was about the movie "propaganda of the movie Ararat", a movie few people had even heard of, I can't imagine the book made much of a splash (or any?).
A further proof of the apparant self-importance view about Laciner by either him anonymously on my page or an associate is their claim at me that Laciner is world renowned, he has 100,000 hits on Google! A quick google of his name does turn up that many hits, but the list of returned sites (which were more of less all Turkish ones and not involving academic journals which I have heard he is so often published in) dries up pretty quickly around 50! I must admit that is like nothing I have ever seen before to that extreme. So I clicked on the link that shows other hits at the same page and sure enough those thousands of hits take you back to the turkishweekly webpage. If Laciner truly had 100,000 hits on Google they would all not be directed to the page of what he is the chairman of! Instead, having 50 unique hits on Google is not at all impressive in my opinion and does not make one famous. Basically, what I did when I came across his pages, all created by him, I felt they were unwarranted and he was getting out of control promoting himself and his organizations. Not because I am racist or what any of the other claims have been saying about me. I wouldn't have anything against him personally, this is just a matter of me seeing him as being overly self-promotive and using wikipedia as a vehicle for that. By the way, while I have seen Fadix on wikipedia talk pages, I am not him or doing this in tandem with him, nor have even communicated with him before. Just want to make sure that there is no doubt as to me being him or connected to him, I did this alone.
As a reader of the Turkish Weekly I am not surprised you have heard of the ISRO (Indian Space Research Organization?), however are you of the opinion that it is so renowned that most wikipedians (or public at large) would have ever heard of it? Or even a small fraction of them? I don't think Laciner added pages on himself and his organizations for the sake of adding to the world's encyclopedic knowledge but because it would serve his own self-importance. You seen like a good member of wikipedia and I'm sorry if I ever came off as angry, it was never my intention to be like one of those internet trolls and start fights. However I think Laciner, his organizations' famousness, and his motives for creating so many articles related to himself are things that need to be considered by wikipedia.Vartan84 15:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read your reply to Vartan's talkpage, I don't think there need be any more evidences that Ankaram, Laciner and Falcon are all the same user. The one disapear and one reapear just after is just more than a coincidences, that each add links to his journal is more than just coincidences, that each have contributions covered in his journal is just more than coincidences. That Falcon has the same prejudicial beliefs as Laciner is also not a coincidences at all. If you are attempting to show us that there is nothing surprising that three different users contribute in the same articles where nearly no one else has contributed and that they all registered just after the other has left, then, I think it is failed. Probabilisticly, when adding all the elements, there can be no rational doubt that they are all the same person. Quebec Science is also something I read, which is more notable, but it doesn't have any entry in Wikipedia, neither has its president or what have you, his page. and I'm sure he does give lectures around the world too. Fad (ix) 17:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion and notability essay

Lambiam, since we had such a pleasant conversation about notability a few sections up, I figured you'd be a good inclusionist to ask for comments on an essay I wrote. Always good to get comments from the opposite philisophical camp. It's at WP:INCL. Thanks for any insight or critiques you can offer.--Kchase02 T 18:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ashtapradhan

Hi, you have voted "merge and redirect" here. I have expanded it considerably. Could you please consider changing your vote to keep? Thanks in advance, --Gurubrahma 14:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The gladio

I'm not an expert in this content. I meet with this article Operation Gladio, which was too long. I decided to move the events (incidents) to individual pages and keep the main story. I also added For the events please visit the pages; Bahcelievler incident, Taksim Square incident, Abdi İpekçi, Kahramanmaras incidence. The article you mention has only one citation that only refers to another article that gives the same story but not the proof of the diret connection. As far as I know, the events are real. However, everything else is a constructed story, mainly gossip. You can remove the tag, but there is no hard evidance. --OttomanReference 20:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The page that you are reflecting on is: Operation Gladio. If you want to work on Turkey section, you can do it under this page. As I explained, I'm not expert on this topic. If you want to extend "gladio in Turkey", it is not a good idea to break the integrity of the Operation Gladio and move Turkey out of it. Thnks.--OttomanReference 21:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for listing VB bof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on WP:AIV, all vandalism has been revereted, and this account blocked. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've restored Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today. This is an unusaly page, in that it gets moved and redirected by bots each day, it's not quite time for the redirect yet, the bot should hve it fixed by tomorrow in case I sitll got it wrong. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Martin Davis is right: the origin of the Halting Problem must have been Kleene

Hi, wvbailey here again. In a 2nd email from Martin Davis he said that the original statement of the Halting Problem could be found in Kleene's Introduction to Metamathematics. But the single cc at Dartmouth was checked out until the end of the 2006 year. So I found a used cc and, there in black in white just where he said it would be (p. 382, first paragraph) is Kleene's proof. I've added this quote (I'm not sure I know exactly what it means yet, need to ponder it...) to the talk page of Halting Problem.wvbaileyWvbailey 20:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Headline text

Equation: Spear + Name is NOT equal to a quote "Myth" end quote.

Tip for you. Giving the Spear that pierced christ a "Name" post biblical text does not rendor it too the realm of fictions and myths. I can call my dog "Spot". Now that my dog's name is "Spot" is it no longer a Dog? Just because the spear mentioned in John does not have a "Title" in the biblical texts does not mean it could not have a title later on. Furthermore, if the title was given by fathers of the early church then they were given the power to give it a title by Jesus Christ which is proven in biblical texts. Again, you can not "Prove" a universal negative as much as you would like too. Soo to sum up

1. Just because the spear was given a name outside of the bible does not make it a myth 2. If the spear was given a member of Christs church then the authority was given to him by Christ through his church...the catholic church.

P.S Next time you want me to review in that topics "Talk" Section reference the section in the archives...I don't have time to sort through the sea of moronic nuances..otherwise I will edit the piece the way I see fit and the way Wiki lets me

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.191.146 (talk • contribs) 01:37, June 29, 2006 (UTC)

Rebuttal

The authority of the Catholic Church and its relevance to the Holy Spear should be discussed within the proper context. In this case the proper context is "Christianity/Catholic/Relics". Notice Quasi "Secularism" is not included as a proper lens or contextual acceptability to view this discussion on this topic. Sure, you can include it if you want too but, metaphorically speaking, that is like asking Ralph Nader to do an "Objective" biography of Ronald Reagen. Secular Humanism (Which is a religion in itself) is at complete odds with theological and some philosophical thought and should be included in a section entitled "Secular Humanism/Philosophy/Religious Opposition". Regarding the Catholic churches role for authority its directly relevant for these three purposes A. They are the only Christian Denomination I know that support the concept of religious relics B. The entire Christian Religion sprouted from Catholicsm, without catholicsm there is no protestantism, therefore there is notan article let alone a topic of conversation to argue over if it was otherwise. C. There are biblical verses that support the Churches "Divine Nature" as granted by Jesus Christ, the orginator of christianity, (I.E The fundamental catholic belive that the church is Not of Mankind's Making)where authority is given through him. Sure you can debate this topic of authority but it's relevance only extends to how it influences the spear. That topic should go into "Christianity/Reformation" or "Christianity/Catholicsm/Divine Authority/Critical Arguments Against". So any slight insinuations, (Mythology for example) included into the article about the holy spear only suggest or present the mere hint of bias which destroys the informative nature of the topic. This may not have been your intention but why risk that?

Also, contrary to popular westernized reporting/writing styles not every single topic of conversation needs to present itself with a mere glint or a major dent of controversy in order to appear "Objective". Sometimes we can just inform the readers without creating or adding controversy to every single damn topic. Controversy is a journalism tactic perfected in the 1960's as media became "Mass Media" because it sells newspapers and T.V Time. The Mole Hill is Mountain Syndrome. If we honestly believe that this kind of "Combative" writing presents a more "Objective" presentation of the topic, then logically speaking, the final paragraph of every article ever written on any topic should also include the biography of the author, his/her political/moral/philosophical influences , monetary compensation background and personal history which was investigated and written by a third person who does not know the author and did his own research on the author. THAT would be more objective and logical.

One more thing,it is hilarious to me that we feign objectiveness by critizing institutions, concepts, etc through a contextual framework that is alien to the topic at hand and then put on a dog and pony show about how "Objective" we are. There is no such thing as objectiveness in this world except mathmatics which just "Is". I do believe there is such a thing as truth but that is different then objectiveness. As long as people are honest about their writing and hidden intentions then its great. But really, Wikipedia as an objective source of information? With the way the editing, credibility, and administrative framework is currently set up? Bahahahah

Thats a good one.

Thanks for AfD fix

Noticed you fixed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Character Clash - thank you. Shall I order double espressos for both of us?

Cheers — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)