User talk:Canon

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * If you haven't already, please add your name to the new user log to let others know a little about yourself.
 * Read the article describing how to edit a page and feel free to experiment in the Sandbox.
 * When editing pages, use the preview button before submitting and try to fill in the summary box for every edit.
 * Eventually, read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Newcomers' Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck! Jrdioko

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~ (4 tildes).

Hi! Thanks for your note on the new user log. We'd love for you to share your knowledge. You'll want to be sure to make your material encyclopedic in style and scope, but judging from what you did at gry I don't think you have much to worry about. Good work! Happy editing, Isomorphic 18:29, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Canon, I just thought I'd let you know that I reverted your addition of Newcomb's Problem under the "Philosophical/Psychological" heading of the Paradox article because it was already listed under "Conditional paradoxes". Happy editing, Cyan 15:44, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC) Welcome, User:Canon Robin Patterson 00:52, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Image:Zebra.pdf has been listed for deletion

 * --Romeo Bravo 20:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Zebra.pdf has been listed as a possibly unfree image
How can you justify a copy of a full page as fair use? This looks like a copyright infringement. -Nv8200p talk 23:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe it falls within the fair use exemption to copyright law because the editors of Life International are not claiming that the puzzle is original with them. Read the article for details. Canon 11:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Einstein puzzle
I've responded to your concerns on my talk page and changed the article. Let me know if you think it's improved. --Starwiz 15:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

In response to your email about Einstein's puzzle, the line I deleted (which claimed, as an addendum, that "right" means the viewer's right) was NOT in the original puzzle - somebody added it as part of what they thought was a necessary explainer. Nowhere else in the puzzle is direction stated or implied in a way that would make "stage right" vs. "actor's right" a necessary distinction, which may be why it wasn't in the original puzzle. - DavidWBrooks 00:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Lasker.pdf
Thanks for uploading Image:Lasker.pdf. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 13:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Masquerade (book)
I think the information about the Italian version of the book came from Bamber Gascoigne's "Quest For The Golden Hare". Unfortunately I don't actually have a copy of "Quest..." to check. --Bonalaw 11:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Zebra Puzzle
I noticed that the talk page for Zebra Puzzle wasn't moved from Talk:Einstein's Puzzle when the article was moved/renamed on March 25. There isn't a redirect either, though that may be an option. Is there a reason for this, or should the talk page be moved as well? -- Jared 16:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * When I redirected Einstein's Puzzle to Zebra Puzzle I used a mechanism (redirect) that did not automatically redirect the talk pages. If I had used the "move" mechanism instead this would have been done automatically, but I was unfamiliar with the "move" mechanism.  As a result the talk pages are now bifurcated, although I suppose with some effort this could be fixed. Canon 16:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work. I moved the talk page and the old one (talk:Einstein's Puzzle) should now redirect automatically to the current location. Jared 18:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Mega Society
I have requested that the Mega Society deletion be overturned here. --Michael C. Price talk 16:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have posted the DRV closing admin's analysis with some of my comments at User:MichaelCPrice/mega. I am thinking of doing a broadcast to various sympathetic parties.  See what you think.  The admin was particularly off-hand in the way your contributions were discounted (it looks like a post-hoc rationalisation to me).  He thinks I solicited you -- strange since your entry into the AfD preceded mine.  --Michael C. Price talk 20:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Careful
Please refrain from making statements which could be interpreted as legal threats against other editors. Thank you. DS 00:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * To be specific, be very careful when mentioning libel and/or slander. DS 14:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI Mega Society Judgement
As you may have heard the Mega Society article was deleted awhile ago, at the end of an acrimonious AfD/DRV process. There is a wide divergence between deletion policy (as defined by various policy guideline documents) and deletion practice, as implemented by admins (who claim to be following the "spirit" of the law). Consequently there are lessons to be learnt from the experience, which will not be obvious from reading the guidelines. Here are some tips for future conduct:


 * Single purpose users are frowned upon and were a frequent bone of contention during the AfD and DRV processes. So I urge you all to "establish" yourself as Wikipedians: create, edit and even ... delete articles!  There are plenty of articles that need attention.
 * It is a very good idea to put something on your user page, (it doesn't matter what) to avoid showing up as redlinked users -- being redlinked will count against you in any debate.
 * When voting, include brief reasons which are grounded in policy (votes not backed by reasoning may be discounted; too much reasoning will be ignored).

Given the bias against soliciting (see judgement) I may not be able to contact you again, so I suggest you put the Mega Society in your watchlists. The closing admin's comments on the Mega Society:


 * Within the argumentation of the debate, the most significant point raised by those who supported the article was that a new draft was available. The article is not protected, so this may be posted at any time and (assuming it is not substantially similar to the older version) it will be judged anew on its merits.  This is good news for you.


 * The bad news for you is that it is well-established practice within Wikipedia to ignore completely floods of newer, obviously "single-issue POV", contributors at all our deletion fora. I'm among the most "process-wonkish" of Wikipedians, believe me, and even process-wonks accept that these sorts of voters are completely discountable.  Wikipedia is not a pure democracy; though consensus matters, the opinion of newcomers unfamiliar with policy is given very little weight.  Your vote, that of Tim Shell, and that wjhonson were not discounted.  The others supporting your view were.  I promise you that it is almost always true that, within Wikipedia, any argument supported by a flood of new users will lose, no matter how many of the new users make their voices known.  In the digital age, where sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting are as easy as posting to any message board, this is as it should be for the sake of encyclopedic integrity.  It is a firm practice within Wikipedia, and it is what every policy and guideline mean to imply, however vaguely they may be worded. (I do agree that our policies, written by laypeople mostly, could do with a once-over from an attorney such as myself; however, most laypeople hate lawyers, so efforts to tighten wording are typically met with dissent.)


 * If your supporters were more familiar with Wikipedia, they would realize that, invariably, the most effective way to establish an article after it has been deleted in a close AfD is to rewrite it: make it " faster, better, stronger." This is, in fact, what you claim to have done with your draft. Good show.  Best wishes, Xoloz 16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So the outcome was not entirely negative, although I was disappointed by the admin's rather cavalier approach evidenced by the response to my enquiry:


 * .... why did you discount the votes of, say, User:GregorB or User:Canon? They are not new users, nor did I solicit them.  I presume by Tim Shell you mean Tim Smith? ...... --Michael C. Price talk 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

to which I received this rather off-hand reply:


 * User:GregorB offered a very brief comment not supported by policy. User:Canon did take the time to offer analysis at DRV, but he had been among the first voters at the AfD to offer a mere "Keep" without explanation; therefore, I assumed he had been solicited by someone. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

which didn't fill me with confidence about Wiki-"due process".

Anyway, my grumpiness aside, the Mega Society article, is presently under userfied open-development at User:MichaelCPrice/mega, and will reappear at some point, when (hopefully) some of the ill-feeling evidenced during the debate has cooled. I am very heartened by the article's continued development, and by the development of associated articles. Thanks for everyone's help!

--Michael C. Price talk 14:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Now I understand: Guy thinks I'm user:Asmodeus.... I don't know whether to laugh or cry. --Michael C. Price talk 17:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Mega society and order of the garter
You might also want to point out that the Institute for Advanced Study has at present only 27 faculty, and in the past has had many fewer; nevertheless it is notable. -- Dominus 05:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

*sigh*
Just curious: do you have to type rv vandalism (*sigh*) all the time, or have you figured out some way to make it automatically load into the Edit summary box? - DavidWBrooks 20:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It comes up as autocomplete on the field. Is it getting annoying?  I'm trying to express exasperation to the thoughtless hoodlums, but maybe it's a waste of time and I should revert to the old "rvv."  What do you think? Canon 20:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert of Sphynx Pangram Spelling
You reversed my change of the word sphinx to sphynx in the Pangram page back to sphinx. The Pangram has to have the entire alphabet to be a pangram, and with the spelling of sphinx it is no longer a pangram. Sphynx is a valid spelling. I clearly stated this in the edit summary.


 * The letter y occurs in the word "my" in the pangram. Canon 19:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Zerba.pdf
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Zerba.pdf, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Zebra.abridged.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Zebra.abridged.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Richterman2.png
Thanks for uploading File:Richterman2.png I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 21:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Richterman1.png
Thanks for uploading File:Richterman1.png I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 21:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Crystal cove sign.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Crystal cove sign.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

-gry
Hi Canon ... I am curious to learn why you think that the meta-puzzle version on which we recently worked needs quotation marks around the English language when written? The source you removed did not use quotation marks and it seemed very clear from the context that the only possible focus of the puzzle was the phrase, the English language. Thank you for your clarification. PlaysInPeoria (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It is a grammar distinction between a term and the meaning of the term. For example, if you talk about snow, you are talking about frozen rain; if you talk about "snow," you are talking about a word of four letters.  While speaking this is difficult to indicate, hence we say "quote-unquote" or make air quote gestures.  The various meta-puzzle version only work when spoken; the quotation signs give away the trick.  The reference that I deleted was not grammatically correct. Canon (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Phylomemetics
In this edit, you say: "This is a statement of phylomemetics, not solvability". How do you know? It's only a statement of phylomemetics because of the wording "some people claim that". It seems you're begging the question by arguing that because it uses a weasel word, it is a statement about phylomemetics, rather than solvability, therefore, it's not a weasel word. The sources listed for that sentence don't appear to be making phylomemetic claims. They straight up say: "only 2% of people can [solve it]". They don't say "people say that only 2% of people can solve it" (which would be a phylomemetic statement). Sancho 22:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we are allowed to apply some common sense. The sources give no evidence for their claims and a claim like this is frequently added to puzzles as a form of marketing.  If we have doubts about the validity of the claim, why not drop it completely?  The answer, to summarize and avoid repetition, is that it is of interest that this claim has been made. Canon (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Of interest to who? If it's of interest, then we should be able to find a source that says "Some claim that 2% of people can solve it." Sancho 00:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is clearly of interest that this claim is made about this puzzle; this discussion is evidence of that. Wikipedia articles are not constrained to quoting references.  There are three options here: not mentioning the claim, stating the claim as a fact, or noting that the claim is made.  Of these the third if the most encyclopedic. Canon (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This conversation isn't evidence that the claim is interesting. It is only happening because the sentence was added to wikipedia. To assume then that this discussion is evidence that it is interesting is begging the question. The reference says "2% of people can solve the puzzle". If we think that is a reliable source, we say "2% of people can solve the puzzle". If we don't think it is a reliable source, we say "". If we want to use your third option, "Some claim that 2% of people can solve the puzzle", we need a source that makes that summary. We can't inject doubt or interestingness via the words "some claim that" without a reference that does so. Repeating what reliable sources have stated is the most encyclopedic. I'm not saying we're constrained to quoting references. I'm saying we're constrained to using only facts from reliable sources. Sancho 12:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, we can remove the weasel word "claim" and change it to "say" (WP:CLAIM): "Some people say that...". Also, instead of "some people", attribute it directly to the people or sources making the claims: "X and Y say that 2% of people can solve the puzzle". That would be consistent with reporting simply what has been said. Sancho 12:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Masquerade (book)
As a contributor to Wikipedia and in particular to Kit Williams' Masquerade, I hope you don't mind me asking you a question. I have written a story based around the book and associated events (published in a collection Manuka Experiments). What significance would it have to attain to count as a cultural reference do you think? (Not that I would add it myself, of course).

File:Zebra.abridged.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Zebra.abridged.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 02:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)