User talk:Antaeus Feldspar/Archive 03

Gundam
I suppose this is what VfD is all about. My vote probably was a bit kneejerky, it's also true Hoary's opinion influenced me. Anyway, in encyclopedic terms, I think it's worth a mention, not an article (hint: I'm not completely close-minded on this, however). Wyss 13:08, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd agree (if you notice, my vote on this one, and I think on every Gundam article actually, has been to merge to some more appropriate parent article; I'm starting to think that instead of an inclusionist or a deletionist, I may be a mergist) -- it's worth a mention but not an entire article to itself. But when someone nominates the major antagonist of one of the ground-breaking anime series and says "surely not notable" and someone else chips in and says "super minor fan trivia" -- we have major decisions being made by people who don't know what they're talking about and don't even know that they don't.  That worries me.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:41, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From Danniboy
Mr. Feldspar (isn't that a chemical?)... I'm asking you this time politely not to reverse edits I'm making and call them "spam". I am not spamming. If you will do so again, you're asking for a huge ego fight, and I'm not interested in it. One last time - you have a problem with an edit I'm making, let me know about it and explain yourself. Just remember, I can do the same to you... Thank you.


 * Of course I have a problem with the edits you're making. Or should I say, the edit you're making, since there is only one and you are making it repeatedly, which is just a link to the nlpweekly.com site, which you have re-inserted into the article four times, under deceptive summaries like Removed spam link to "technotip" - reversed to previous version (with no mention, of course, that you added a link rather than just removing one.)  Hmmmm, funny, that's exactly what Special:Contributions/212.179.213.210 did less than twenty-four hours before, claiming (spam link "false memory" removed) when an honest description would have included and also reinserted a frequently removed link.  Why exactly is it that you and 212.179.213.210 are entitled to declare things "spam" but a link that has been reinserted to the article fifteen times can't be called "spam"?  Sure looks like it to me; looks even more like it after a look at your edits.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:30, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * with all due respect, I had recently joined Wikipedia as a registered user, and most often I forget to log in when I contribute content. I've added content in the NLP page, the Hypnosis page and some other psychology related issues. However, I had the impression that as long as I mark the "remember me" when I log in, I don't have to use it again if I close the browser. Apprently I do, so I'll keep you posted on future edits/contributions I'm making, to show you I'm not a spam maker and I do try to contribute to the community with valuable content. At the beginning, I didn't even know who's deleting my edits, but in the last week I found out how to contact them (at least if they're registered like you and I). I appologize if it looked like spam, it was not my intention at all. Have a great new year eve.   ---> Danniboy

Re: What to do about a spammer?
Yeah, I've removed that link more than a few times in the past. At least the link he posted to Anthony Robbins actually points to a relevant article now, and he didn't supplant a pre-existing link, this time. I can't say I care for his threatening tone and deceptive edit summaries, and haven't seen him contribute anything that wasn't self-promotional. The section he added to self-esteem isn't even encyclopaedic, so I think I'll move it to talk. I say we let him keep the Anthony Robbins link, but ditch the link at hypnosis since it's too general a topic: His link is already at neuro-linguistic programming, and that should be enough. Since he has quite a history of self-promotional editing (under dozens of IPs, of course), you shouldn't hesitate to block him (perhaps temporarily at first) if he does not heed your warnings in the future. Cheers, -- Hadal 19:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * - My sincere appologies to both of you, Antaeus and Hadal. I did not mean to sound threatning, just frustrated. However, I will look for my content contributions to Wikipedia in the last few months and send it to you for review. Again, I appologize, have a great new year. - Danniboy

Request: New Year Resolution
Humbly and kindly I would request from you the following new year resolutions:
 * 1) Stop pre-judging me and others;
 * 2) Stop tiny quabbles, and focus on substance;
 * 3) Be less anal retentive;
 * 4) Be more gracious to others;
 * 5) Help instead of hinder;
 * 6) Be kind.

I promise I would do the same. Happy New Year --Zappaz 01:10, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I would not believe your promises, Zappaz. You've shown me your idea of being "gracious", of being "kind", of "helping"; it's to maintain a different standard for every occasion and preach sanctimoniously whichever one is convenient for you at the time.


 * I'm not "pre-judging" you, Zappaz. I'm judging you, based on bitter experience with your intellectual dishonesty.  There's a difference.  You have pre-judged me, leaping to conclusions about who I am, what I must mean when I talk about cults and how it must be generalization and bigotry, what connection I must have with the ex-premies -- how is that "kind"?  How is that "gracious"?  Case in point:  I went out of my way to spell out what I mean by "cult" and that it is not a brush with which I am tarring every new religious movement.   What was your oh-so-"gracious" response?  To tell me 'Oh, there are 100's of thousands of such new religions, which you call cults, and now you're saying they all have this dangerous structure.'   (After that sort of BS you think I'm going to look to you for my New Year's resolutions?)


 * And hey! You know what would have been "gracious"?  If you had either removed this attack on me or not made it in the first place -- instead of striking it out so that everyone can still see your attack on me and it still has exactly the hurtful, harmful effect you intended, but you don't actually take responsibility for it.  "Stop pre-judging me and others", indeed.  "Help instead of hinder", indeed.


 * When I want advice on how to run my life, Zappaz, I'll take it from someone I can actually admire or at least respect, someone who comprehends the meaning of the word "integrity". Someone I doubt that someone will ever be you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:29, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Antaeus, regardless of your antagonism, I will still try my best. And now, to party, do the countdown and hope the New Year brings me joy. --Zappaz 02:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More Yatta
I would have responded earlier to your comment found on 'My Talk', but I only now figured out how to.

Your gratitude for me not being a twit reassures me about the Wiki community. I am a moderator for a high-mid-level traffic web board, so I loathe the stubborn n00b as much as you. Sadly, many assume the worst of the new people. (Example: Usenet sci.math has sent me multiple nastygrams.)

I just hope future arguments of mine will fly, or at least land softly. I wasn't sure whether your original response was a sci.math-esque mockery or just helpful criticism. Your warm welcome has shown it merely to be the latter. Thank you.

Have a merry...erm...Valentine's Day? Spamguy 22:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

An unforgivably delayed reply (re: rape protection)
Hi; I want apologise for not being around to respond to your query in a timely fashion. For what it's worth, your suggestion was a good one. I hope you've been well (those first few lines atop your user page worry me). Cheers, -- Hadal 03:07, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Copyright clearing
Hello. You edited the zsync article and added a paragraph. I am the author of that article and I have previously published on my site Wikinerds.org (not related to Wikipedia/Wikimedia). Your paragraph is now released under the GFDL since you edit on Wikipedia. I would like to publish a modified version of your paragraph under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license on my site. You will get proper attribution with your full name Antaeus Feldspar. Here and here you can check the original article. If you agree with the CC-licensing of your paragraph, please contact me using my talk page. Thank you. NSK 01:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- NSK 08:44, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Admins
Heya, good job on the link quality assurance. I'd suggest you avoid phrases like "at least two admins are agreeing with my opinion" though: Admins are just regular editors with a few extra powers to aid in janitorial work, their opinions do not count more than that of other editors. Of course in most cases they are established editors with a good track record, but perhaps you could use something like "established editors" or "long-time editors". --fvw *  03:11, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)


 * True, true. *sigh*  It's just that if this guy has already failed to take the clue that if three long-time/established editors are saying this link is not appropriate and it's one anon saying "Sure it is!  Wikipedia policy says it is!" maybe that anon is not understanding the policy the way he thinks he is.  But if he doesn't take a clue from "three people are saying I'm wrong; I'm the only one who thinks I'm right" I don't know if he's going to clue in just from being told that these editors are "experienced."  Plus, you not only have to be experienced in order to be an admin, you have to have earned enough trust from the community for the voting on your adminship to pass.  So, an admin is not just someone who's been around a while, it's someone who has earned some measure of community trust...  -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:32, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I see your point, though the anon definately wouldn't get that whole distinction. And the "person in power" distinction he probably will get is exactly the one we don't want to give, convenient though it may be in this case. --fvw *  03:37, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

Deleted material
Removed material duplicated at Talk:Melissa Joan Hart.

Time to ban/block 204.193.6.90?
He is now engaged in personal attacks, asking if "Did he go against an arbritrttion?" . Between this and his violation of the 3RR, it may be time for him to discover that Wikipedia does not live by the rule of "do whatever you want and no one can stop you". -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think that counts as a personal attack really; just ignore that kind of stuff. Interestingly enough, he hasn't violated the 3RR yet (though I was fooled into thinking so too), see the discussion on WP:AN. Just revert him where necessary and block when he does violate the 3RR, that should get the message across soon enough. --fvw *  17:55, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
 * Hunh. I guess I misread the timestamps too.  I have to disagree about it being a personal attack, though; I have never been the subject of an arbitration, let alone "going against" one, and I find 204.193.6.90's suggestion that I have done both to be a cheesy smear upon me.  (and the irony?  He's appealing to a user who has recently explicitly violated the rule of "Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is" against me.    And this is who 204.193.6.90 is turning to to complain about "cyber-bullying"?) -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:16, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Elias coding
Yes I am moving all three. I am atemptint to be consistent with Wikipedia policy on capitalisation. I checked breifly via google to see if there was a prepoderence of capitals usage, adn ther wasn't (although there is some). Rgds, Rich Farmbrough 01:37, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another link-adder...
I wonder if you'd take a look at 66.234.37.74; he's added external links to five different articles, all links to http://celebritycola.blogspot.com. For obvious reasons, I would rather not be the one this time that raises the issue... -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:13, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * What, you're afraid of making yourself too useful? I Didn't find any of the links to be worth having in the articles and have removed the lot of them. The link reorganising to make it look like it's not just the addition of one link is suspicious too. Good catch. --fvw *  02:18, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

copyvio
Scoring the Hales copy COPYVIO NOTICE You recently put up a notice about an article I put on Wikipedia FYI http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~cornwall/ball/alnw.htm Is my webpage and I am transfering all info across to Wikipedia

My home page is http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~cornwall/ my info on Medieval footbal games is http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~cornwall/ball/shroveball.htm

These pages are mine the have been on the web for several years.

Phil Ellery Talskiddy 23:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Shape property
Hi, I noticed your addition of the shape property to the binary heap article. This is a common part of the definition of binary heaps, but I think there are some applications, such as link-based priority queues, where it's not strictly needed. The term I've heard for the shape property is a complete binary tree, although the definition on Wikipedia seems to be slightly different (perhaps an error). I accept the edit, but perhaps there should be a small note about how the shape property need not always hold in all applications, if you agree. Deco 07:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right that it should probably be complete binary tree instead of the numerical parent-child relationship I gave. (I see what you mean about the definition seeming slightly off, though...)  Perhaps we can combine the two, explaining that the shape property is so valued because combined with 1-based indexing it makes for this very useful parent-child relationship?


 * As for the shape property -- well, to be honest, all my formal reading on binary heaps has stated that both properties are needed for it to be a binary heap; if it's not either obeying both properties or trying to restore both properties, it's something like a binary heap but not a binary heap. However, that may just be the gaps in my knowledge showing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 08:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Advice on controversial articles
I see from your edits that you're quite concerned about the articles that deal with cults, as I am. I'd like to give you just a bit of advice that might help you get more result from your effort, and that's to not give people the conclusion you think they should reach. I call this "jumping in the jury box"; if you want to convince people, you want to put the facts before them and present them in a compelling way. You can't jump in the jury box and announce "I've decided for you that this is the conclusion you should reach!" -- that's more likely to turn people off. Some of your edits have that quality -- the edit summary alone on this one is over the top -- and I hope you'll realize that if there's anyone out there that hasn't yet decided where they stand on the issue, declaring "this is how you'll regard things!" is more likely to alienate them than convince them. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:03, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course, I understand. But some people don't hesitate to play games with the system, under pretence of giving facts. Sometimes it has to be said, so that they understand their maneuvers cannot go far, and so that they think twice before doing it again. I think I got some results that way. What I agree is that it is better to do it in the talk page than in the article --Pgreenfinch 14:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re: your comments on User:Marvelvsdc, a.k.a. User:68.49.237.159
I had a look at these users contributions, I have to say most of what I saw looked like perfectly good information. I totally agree with your "GOOPTI" philosophy, but I think there are literally thousands of users contributing fancruft. I think it's futile to battle fancruft on a case-by-case basis, without a strong policy backing you up. Personally, I don't allow myself to care about these types of contributions anymore. I mean who's going to read an article about an obscure comic book character, except someone who cares about obscure comic book characters? Sure, I wish these articles weren't there; Wikipedia would probably have more credibility- but there is enough work just reverting all the "Paul is gay" edits!

See you around the Wiki ike9898 01:33, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hash table
Why do we need the text "or probably will" in the hash table article? The hash function defines the set of locations in the hash table where the hashed value might be found; ISTM that meaning is sufficiently conveyed without the "or probably will" text. Or is there some variant of hashing I'm overlooking that does need this clarification? Neilc 00:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a variant covered in the article, under Open addressing. In open addressing, the hash function only determines the first place the hash table will try to put the entry; if something already occupies that space, some strategy is used to determine the next place to try, and the next, until finally an open spot is found.  It's not really accurate to count that strategy as part of the hash function.


 * Whether that slight inaccuracy is worth fudging over in the introduction is a question open to debate; I restored it mostly because it looked like someone else had completely misparsed the syntax of the sentence and tried to "correct" grammar that wasn't wrong, and someone else had seen the now-incorrect sentence and removed the seemingly-redundant part entirely. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars and GOOPTI
OK Anteus, you've convinced me (on another user page, which I shouldn't hog). The Star Wars episode I saw (either the second or third) was overrated and hackneyed, and nothing in it seemed new, but yes, OK, these movies had a major, bad influence on Hollywood. Though actually Hollywood studios continued to push out quite a lot of movies, and the near-infallible predilection of suburban cinemas (in the two countries in which I've lived) for the trite minority among them (Pretty Woman, etc.) I think long predated (and thus can't be blamed on) Star Wars. (I did once see Usual Suspects in a suburban cinema -- perhaps it had made some mistake.) Compare two Kevin Costner baseball movies made at about the same time: Field of Dreams, tacky (I rented the video but gave up after 20 minutes), widely exhibited; Bull Durham, first-rate, little exhibited. I've got dozens of DVDs of watchable post–Star Wars Hollywood movies; I'm delighted to say that they don't show any Star Wars influence. (They're also not directed by Spielberg, don't star Keanu Reeves, Tom Hanks, Robin Williams, etc. . . . hmm, they're not very Hollywoody.) -- Hoary 07:34, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)


 * I give in. You're right.  The Star Wars movies are horrible movies.  They are loud, stupid, lowbrow, and of course, American, which encompasses all three of the above.  And of course, as we all know, movies which are stupid and lowbrow have no real impact whatsoever and are ipso facto not notable.  Let's VfD any article which makes any mention of these awful movies which were never popular with any notable number of people, had no impact on popular culture or on the business of moviemaking, and never had any true fans.  There.  Are you happy?  Is this what it takes to make you happy? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I'm unhappy as usual. If they're as bad as I think (and I've only seen one of them so perhaps shouldn't judge), I would indeed be happy if they'd had no influence. But you've persuaded me that they did (or the first one did) indeed have a major influence on Hollywood. That's a most unhappy thought. Meanwhile, "American" of course encompasses loud, stupid and lowbrow, just as "Japanese", "British", etc., do. (Probably "Malian", "Zimbabwean", "Belizean", etc. -- everything.) Luckily it also encompasses stuff that's very different; just from the post–Star Wars era, there are American Movie, Being John Malkovich, The Eyes of Tammy Faye, Fargo, Little Odessa, The Player, Quiz Show . . . oh, lots more. What would it take to make me happy? Well, for a start, Dubya could take a very large bite of a very large pretzel. How about you, Antaeus? Do you enjoy the Star Wars films? Do you think I'm missing something? -- Hoary 04:24, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)

Killian Documents
Thanks for commenting on the Killian documents issue. Are you familiar with the facts concerning the authenticity of these documents? Anonip 00:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm familiar with Wikipedia's principle of NPOV, which is why even on issues that are a whole lot more black-and-white than the Killian documents, we don't jump in the jury box and say "Here is the conclusion you would have to come to if you looked at the facts", we say "here are the facts." -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:25, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wanted to clarify. You haven't actually investigated the specific facts in this case, your position is simply based on your understanding of the Wikipedia NPOV principle. You believe NPOV does not permit Wikipedia to state that the documents are forgeries, even if that assertion is not seriously disputed. Correct? Anonip 00:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Let me put it this way: I do not accept your judgement on what is "serious" disputation and what is "unserious" disputation.  If there wasn't any dispute, then there wouldn't be any debate about how to refer to the documents.  Since there clearly is a dispute, it is Wikipedia's policy to describe the dispute, not to assert "this is the side of the dispute you should take, since it's clearly the correct one."  The only exception I'll make to this is on mathematical topics where certain truths are simply unescapable given a certain set of axioms. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please bear with me. I'm not trying to argue with you, just trying to understand your thinking. When you say "there clearly is a dispute", are you referring to a dispute about the fact among competent sources, or a dispute about the fact among anonymous (possibly incompetent) Wikipedia editors? Do you believe that the latter, in the absence of the former, requires Wikipedia to state that the facts are disputed? Anonip 03:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, you seem to be trying to angle towards the idea "the only people who are not absolutely convinced that they're forgeries are people too incompetent to be taken seriously", presumably under the mistaken assumption that if that could be shown to be the case, it would logically follow that Wikipedia would describe the situation the way the smart, right people see it, and would completely ignore the way the "incompetent" people see it. But since this latter assumption is completely incorrect, you can angle towards the former idea all you want and it won't make a damn bit of difference.  Look at Raelism.  If we went by your mistaken assumption that Wikipedia should state as truth the beliefs of "competent sources" and ignore views which are fringe, "incompetent", or outright lunatic, don't you think the article would state "The Raelians are some real freakin' nutjobs, man!"?  I certainly think their beliefs are seriously bizarre -- but have I tried to edit the article to say "Everyone who's sane agrees that the doctrines of the Raelians are completely wrong"?  No, and if you understood NPOV and cared about it, you wouldn't be on this wrong-headed campaign to say "Everyone who counts knows they're forgeries, and anyone who doesn't think they're forgeries doesn't count, and therefore the article should state as fact that they're forgeries."  -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm having trouble following you. By "competent" I mean those with recognized expertise (in the real world) releence and clearly articulated reaamined the matter carefully, and have stated their expert conclusions supported by credible evidence and clearly articulated reasoning. By "incompetent" (perhaps I should have said "non-competent") I mean those who lack relevant expertise, who have not examined the matter carefully, and who simply assert their beliefs without credible evidence or articulated reasoning. The qualification of competent sources is objective and does not depend on their conclusions. In principle it is possible to have competent sources who reach different conclusions. In that case there would be a serious factual dispute. But what if there are no competent sources who disagree about a fact? Is disagreement by non-competent Wikipedians sufficient to require Wikipedia to treat a fact as disputed? That's my question.

And although I don't think the issue here is about fringe beliefs, suppose the Zaelians believe Abraham Lincoln was an extraterrestrial. Would the Wikipedia article on Lincoln have to say something like: "Lincoln is generally believed to have been born in Kentucky, but the Zaelians believe he was born on Sirius Zeta-9."? Anonip 05:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * First off, you need to go read WP:NPOV, because the questions you're asking are answered there. Really.  Second, you can define "competent" all you want and yet it's not going to change the central point:  even if it was provably true that the only people disputing the non-authenticity of the Killian documents were "incompetent", "non-competent", "partisans", "real morons", whatever -- it wouldn't change the fact that they dispute it.


 * Thirdly, your Zaelians example cannot be fairly evaluated because the Zaelians are a made-up group and do not exist. It is therefore impossible to evaluate whether it is truly a "fringe belief" or whether it is a belief held by enough people to make it notable even if it is a belief that no one should be believing (in, of course, the evaluation of those who don't believe it.)  But again, I believe that what you are pushing towards is "if I can convince everyone that everyone's who's anyone believes that the Killian documents are forgeries, and that it's therefore a fringe belief that they might be authentic, then I have all the ammunition I need to say 'Why even acknowledge such a fringe belief?  Let's just go with what we in the right" (no pun intended) "know to be true, that they're forgeries.'"  Trust me, the belief would have to be very much more fringe in order to justify the kind of changes you have been proposing to make. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus, after messing up your talk page last night (although I think it may have been due to technical difficulties on the Wikipedia end), I've decided to move the discussion to my own talk page. That's probably a better place for it anyway. Please respond to me there. Anonip 17:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

TH

Nice explanation
You wrote a really nice letter on User talk:24.126.173.124. You didn't bite the newcomer or denigrate the subject, you succinctly explained the relevent parts of Wiki culture and procedure, and beautifully demonstrated the nature of notability as applicable to autobiography and NPOV. I hope you won't be bothered if I draw upon it in the future if I ever feel the need to write a similar letter. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:54, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC) (Though I must add that I don't know/don't care about the deal with DG's involvement - just talking about the other stuff -W.)


 * Why, thank you. No, I won't be bothered if you draw on it; I'd be quite pleased.  (Though, understandably, you probably won't have to mention David Gerard; I felt I had to do it in this case, because as the letter indicates, his advice to 24.126.173.124 was more reflective of how he feels WP should operate than how it does.)


 * I am an idealist myself sometimes. I haven't seen the letter you were responding to - I just happened upon the page and saw the good explanation of autobiography issues. Anyway, wikilove. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:16, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, so perhaps the wheelie bin is not the most apt analogy to a non-notable biography. ;) Better to use a non-controversial example of non-notability, like an average high school. <;)  In the wiki semi-policy on autobiographies there is a warning that articles begun in vanity may, in the hands of other editors, take on an entirely unexpected character. That's worth repeating too. -Willmcw 09:29, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)