User talk:Dwindrim~enwiki/2004 March-April10 Archive

MY PERSONAL SANDBOX
Invited Guests Only Please do not poop in the sand.

User:Dwindrim/Testaroonies!!!

Molecules with silly or unusual names

HELLO, VISITOR
Please click here to post a new message.

HaADaBAdAbflll!!!
From VfD debate on fractional electrodynamics, I wrote:

Delete with prejudice. Mr. Baas, having presented us with fractional probability, fractional paradigm, and fractional calculus already, now attempts to hose us once more. Denni 00:01, 2004 Apr 8 (UTC)

Delete with prejudice" (Baas) Ya, you're not supposed to let anyone know that you're prejudice or bias. Then people disregard what you have to say because it's unsubstantiated, by definition. (definition of prejudice)

Also, may I remind you that character attacks are against wikipedia policy.

Also, in a formal debate, character attacks are considered bad form. And prejudice certainly isn't considered an argument. In fact, it often causes one to believe and say things that are not true, as Wile has pointed out. Kevin Baas 16:09, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(Me) Evidently, English is not your mother tongue, so I can forgive you in misunderstanding that "Delete with prejudice" does not refer to you, but to the article. I have spent some time observing your efforts to create articles which lack the barest semblance of connection to current mathematical research, and to be extremely rude to other Wikipedians when they quite reasonably ask for reliable references and sources. What I know of your work tells me that, even if there is some sense to what you posit, it lacks any context with which to connect to contemporary mathematical thought. It therefore constitutes, at best original research, which is explicitly unacceptable here, and at worst, what I will call delusional thought. It therefore has, in my opinion, no place in Wikipedia at this time, if ever. As I said earlier, call us after the Nobel is awarded.

I would request that any further discussion you may wish to carry on be done on the appropriate talk page. I do not welcone you on my own talk page. Denni 04:39, 2004 Apr 9 (UTC)

"Delete with prejudice" response (Baas) This is not your territory. This is the terrority of all who have a voice.

You contradicted yourself when you said that your prejudice was not with me but with the page, and then went on to explain how your prejudice was with me.

Then you insulted me. Insults are not conducive to meaningfull discussion, nor do I in any way appreciate them.

Your failure to see connections is no evidence of intellectual omniscence. This would be, in fact, an oxymoron. Your arguments are overly presumptuous. Consequently, I feel no need to rebuttle.

Furthermore, your attitude is unrespectably hostile. Kevin Baas 09:31, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(Me) As you seem unable to separate your ideas from your identity, it may have seemed like I was criticizing your identity, or "self", as we say in the business. Try as I might, I found nothing in my comments which discussed you negatively as an individual, even to an innocuous level such as not brushing your teeth (and I'm sure you do.) Throckmorton and Hilfiger, though, in a paper published by me in 1997, say that "idea" and "self" are related through fractional intellidynamical impulses which emanate first from the self to the idea, and then back to the self, thus creating a a semantological unificationality of dogmatic theses. In other words, ƒ (i,s) ‡ (&#937; +> bbb>ddd) Sorry, I had to invent my own symbols to show the universal relevance of this code, and the government is still on my case about all those phonecalls to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Anyway, I inderstand =perfectly= that your ideas are beyond value to Humankind, and will rush up and down the street ensuring that each and every person I talk to =MUST= email Wikipedia this minute and let them know how it is you plan to save this universe from conquest by the aliens, or bad water or something. How about you call me in, oh, three or four weeks? Denni 23:23, 2004 Apr 9 (UTC)

(Baas) :Grow up. Kevin Baas 23:42, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * (copied from User talk:Kevin baas) My user page is not yours to edit. However, I can't stop you, so go ahead and be a troll. Have fun. As far as growing up goes, I'll just point you to a mirror, little boy, and ask how long it's gonna be before they can buy the long pants for you. I didn't ask you to engage in any conversations with me, but if you like flame wars, hey, me too, and nothing smells better than roast troll. Denni


 * Talk pages are append-only. This is a talk page.  Restructuring is not appending.


 * Don't worry about me editing your user page. I have left that alone and will continue to.  That is your property.  I will, however, feel free to leave you messages on your talk page.


 * And please stop with the immature comments. If it continues, I will request arbitration. Kevin Baas 00:05, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(Me) I have a =swell= idea - I will criticise your articles on the proper article discussion pages, just like they do in Wiki. Then if you have an issue with what I have to say, you will reply there, just like normal Wikipedians do. You will stay out of my talk page. I will stau out of yours. Deal? Denni 00:40, 2004 Apr 10 (UTC)

(Baas) The first I am already cooperating with. If you make a valid and impartial argument refering to specific content in an article on a talk page, I will respond to it there. If you have something to say to or about me, I will respond to it on your user talk page, as normal wikipedians do. I really don't think other wikipedians are interested in the personal matters of other people.

As to the second part regarding user talk pages, I am all about communication. Kevin Baas 00:28, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(Me) Something I learned a long time ago, and which is increasingly apparent is apropos here: "Never argue with a five year old." Say what you want. Revert my talk page until it's twisted into a fractional dimension. Hurl yourself against the wall of rational thought until you take the paint off the bricks. I don't care. Go away. You annoy me and you bore me. I have nothing more to say to you that would not be offensive to both of us. Denni 00:40, 2004 Apr 10 (UTC)

*(Starcraft
04/03/13

I find it curious that "List of unpopulated professions" is on VfD (exactly where I thought it would end up, and hence no research done.) as a possible threat to the integrity of Wiki, but Science Vessel (StarCraft), Medic (StarCraft), Command Center (StarCraft), Nuclear Silo (StarCraft), Supply Depot (StarCraft), Engineering Bay (StarCraft), Barracks (StarCraft), Refinery (StarCraft), Missile Turret (StarCraft), Academy (StarCraft), and a whole slew of similar articles are encyclopedic? At least Loup is (I hope) modestly amusing. (I personally liked pediatric gerontologist). All these game preserve entries are just destructive. Am I cranky? Nah. Denni 23:27, 2004 Mar 13 (UTC)

ARCHIVES
2004 February Archive

It's fine as long as you say what you're trying to do... After I posted my first message, you posted "this is my name denni" twice underneath, so I thought you were crazy and didn't want to listen. --Jiang 03:57, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup Date headings
If you dropped the heading for March 7 in this edit by accident, no reply is needed, but please be aware of the special importance of avoiding accidental deletions on Cleanup, VfD, etc.

(But if you had a reason to do so, that's important, and i'm anxious to hear it.)

Thanks, --Jerzy(t) 00:37, 2004 Mar 8 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on VfD on Ornament and Crime - on balance I think I agree with you. Yours, Mark Richards 05:21, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Atmospheric circulation
(William M. Connolley 21:00, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)) I'm thinking of making some changes there, see [Talk:Atmospheric circulation]].

I saw your note about Food and cooking hygiene which said ..

''A short but important article. People die because these rules aren't followed. Perhaps move to Wikipedia:How to (food prep) Denni''

I am currently working on Food and when I have dried up on that page, I plan to do some work on the Food and cooking hygiene, Food poisoning and Bad Bug Book pages which all need improvement and, to be honest, putting right of some factual errors. I was thinking of rationalising all the pages to be a more scientific explanation of what food poisoning is, and how it affects people, with the rudimentary hygiene rules as a bit of a post-script. However I wasn't aware of How-to. Do you think I should put the rules in the How-to seperate from the rest of the factual info? Any other suggestions for when I get the time to do this? Thanks David Thrale 20:11, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of unpopulated professions


 * Hey Denny, what on earth is the "unpopulated professions" list supposed to mean? It's great tongue in cheek (appreciate the pediatric gerontologist) but does not belong on Wikipedia. It was VFD's by others before I got a chance. Cheers. Jfdwolff 22:31, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry for misspelling your name. Any background on the unpopulated professions? Some have staying potential (marine astronomers are starfish experts, no doubt). Jfdwolff 23:18, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The unpopulated professions page was pretty funny, but you can't just make stuff up and put it in an encyclopedia. If you want to do that, put it on Meta Wikipedia, where I'm sure it will be welcomed. Adam Bishop 21:01, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

please don't mess up the Wiki
List of unpopulated professions- please put your creations, jokes in a more appropriate place. If we allow this kind of thing the encyclopedia will quickly become a jumble of nonsense. ike9898

Hi! I just loved the list of unpopulated professions! (despite the fact that i agree with deletion) Have you read Umberto Eco Foucault's pendulum? He describes an University of Irrelevance, with hilarious degrees. About messing up the wiki, i will let you win on my little secret. Cheers, Muriel 01:00, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I like your opening photo too. And yes, i guess this was always like this. People here (with honourable exceptions) dont have much sense of humour. You just create your articles and enjoy editing and ignore the rest, like i try to do. Have fun! Muriel 01:34, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Is my sense of humor the issue? It was a funny contribution; but it's still inappropriate, it has a negative effect on Wikipedia.  Maybe I'm a jerk.  Do you think Wikipedia would be better if we all had lots of funny contributions like yours?  Maybe you do, but the consensus of the Wikipedia community is that this sort of thing doesn't belong here and I think you should respect that.  ike9898

Gee! I just saw what our friend Ike has in his user page. He is having a bad day. I guess from then on everybody does, especially users who care too much (care too much in a good way, of course). Muriel 17:16, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Look, I'm sorry. Just to prove it, I've created my own useless article. If you can't beat em, join em. ike9898


 * Okay, a real apology should be sarcasm-free. I'm not here to fight.  I over-reacted.  I still think joke articles are pain, but I should have handled myself better.  Take it easy ike9898

Re JS Woodsworth, I saw your complaint about loss of attribution on VfD, thus I performed the "delete-move-undelete" trick to merge the page histories as well as the articles themselves. The diffs will look quite odd, but your name does now appear as a principal author as it should. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:22, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

AMA Election
Denni, I've taken the liberty of adding links at Announcements and Goings-on that the Association of Members' Advocates is searching for a Coordinator and I have started a new page dealing with the election. See: AMA Coordinator Election. You editing, comments and participation as an AMA member would be appreciated. [[User:Alex756|&#8212; Alex756 talk]] 20:25, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Passive language
Dwindrim, I notice somebody is claiming that your management of this talk page "is considered vandalism". Kevin makes a claim in passive language without directing us to whose consideration he is citing. You (and I) obviously consider otherwise, so it is also accurate to say in that weak, passive voice that deleting comments from talk pages is not considered vandalism. For all that approach offers, it is accurate to say "the world is considered flat" if we don't offer mention of whose consideration we are advancing.

To the contrary of Kevin's generalized claim, users routinely manage their talk pages, though asking others not to add comments is usually an unproductive management approach. I think Alex756's talk page is the most readily available example of a managed talk page in my mind, though Angela is also a well-known user and administrator whose talk page demonstrates examples of her personal management style.

Archiving talk pages frequently is often a productive way of reducing clutter, and of course you are free to add whatever previous comments you wish from an archived page to a new page. Archiving at least lets people know you read their comments, and gets you out of a boring, stifling, constraining arm-wrestling match with people who you would most likey pay less attention than more. Talk page archives I have seen are most often noted on the relevant talk page such as [ [ User_talk:Dwindrim/archive1|Archive1 ] ]Archive1, but we would have little way of knowing without extensive research to what extent people silently create subpages. But in no case does it seem polite for another person to attempt to filibuster your talk page when you have proposed other venues for where there comments would be more welcome. I don't think you will find much voluntary compliance with an "invited guests only" policy, though, in a format where you are unable to post a strong doorman.

Kevin's approach did little to promote in my mind an interest in exploring the substance of whatever conflict he is attempting to explore by posting on your page, but his position would be stronger if he cited a policy on talk page management. Then you could add your edits to that policy page, demonstrating the lack of consensus on how talk pages should be managed. I recall seeing some ongoing discussion on the matter, but I don't recall seeing any durable concensus about it. If I were asked to vote, I would say the page history function provides adequate well-protected resources for reviewing talk-page history and that anything else is an unnecessary demand placed on charitable donors to Wikipedia. My opinion is that talk pages are primarily for public conversations between you and others, and not necessarily places for people to post comments about you. It would seem more appropriate to me that people post their opinions and views about other users on their own pages, and invite you to join the discussion taking place beyond your control than to attempt to imply policies that cannot be cited and that are the temporal product of an emerging consensus among an open group with revolving membership. Refactor 20:00, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)