User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (23)

Archived talk: 1 -- 2 -- 3 -- 4 -- 5 -- 6 -- 7 -- 8 -- 9 -- 10 -- 11 -- 12 -- 13 -- 14 -- 15 -- 16 -- 17 -- 18 -- 19 -- 20 -- 21 -- 22

Dysprosia,

Do you happen to know one David Leighton? I want to suprise him, what's his username?

Sincerely,

Kieran (a friend of Daves from Fenner Hall in Canberra)


 * I don't think I should be agreeing to disclose the personal details of anyone on Wikipedia, whether I happen to know them or not, without their consent. Thanks Dysprosia 00:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Bugger. He said you would say that. He's sitting here laughing at me now. I WILL DISCOVER YOU DAVE! - Kieran

Dusprosia, returning your comment that my como edit was not really encyclepedic, I feel that the information was relevant and distinct to the culture of Como. That is why I include it.

Re: image of C crashing
You would appear less strident and argumentative if you could acknowledge the existence of arguments other than your own. I know you were referring to the comment that "an old hand would appreciate the image", but I was making the additional point that other readers might well appreciate the image too. I know you're worried that "the reader may arrive at the mistaken conclusion that all C errors are as bad as this", but as I pointed out, an appropriate caption could mitigate this risk. Finally, if you're worried that a reader might "form a negative opinion of the language", there are much bigger things to worry about, because in general the C programming language article gives quite a negative impression of the language -- or at least, a seriously skewed perspective on its faults -- but as I said, that's an argument for another day. Steve Summit (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * One must make an argument based on relevance to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and that is precisely what I was trying to do, and what I was trying to address in response to the "appreciation" remark. "Appreciation" (as far as I know) is not addressed by any Wikipedia policies and guidelines. "Mistaken conclusions" are -- via the argument I outlined earlier, they may be addressed by Wikipedia's mandatory neutral point of view policy.
 * Secondly, I don't agree with the "appropriate caption" argument; an "appropriate caption" to an inappropriate image is to weasel words to a POV statement, to draw an analogy to text. Dysprosia 21:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sydney Meetup - Sunday 5th Feb 2006
Hi,

We're planning a Wikipedia meetup in Sydney, on this Sunday, the 5th February. This follows on from the successful first Sydney meetup in November of 2005. We are planning on meeting at either Darling Harbour, or the Town Hall steps. As someone listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sydney#Participants you are of course invited, so please come along. For more details please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney

Please direct any comments and questions to that wiki page.

Quick note: You may wish to add:

to your homepage, assuming that you are in Sydney. If you're not, my apologies for the email, and thank you nevertheless for helping with the Sydney WikiProject!

All the best, Nick.


 * I won't be in Sydney on Sunday the 5th anyway. Dysprosia 03:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries - maybe the next meetup in roughly May 2006, which will probably be a BBQ in Strathfield? Sunday's was the first one I went to, and I found everyone was very friendly. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 23:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Touch assist and Reiki
Greetings. The Touch assist article was deleted as a copyvio. If the article is ever recreated as a keeper, I don't have a problem with linking it. --Fire Star 14:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not there now. We can link to it. There is no problem with redlinking, it fosters article creation. Dysprosia 21:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fine. There was a weird thing, when I looked at it a few days ago, just before I took down the link from the reiki article, the copyvio notice was up and fresh, but after your message I looked again and the only thing I could find was a record of deleted edits, the deletion being from last June. Strange... --Fire Star 03:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit by Ck_lostsword
Sorry about that - I was fixing double redirects and edited your page without thinking. I'm sorry - I'll make sure it doesn't happen in the future. Drop me a line if you notice me doing anything wrong again. Thanks. Ck l o stsw o rd|queta! 22:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

(moved talk misplaced on archive 22) Thank you Dysprosia, You are right about the invested interest and I agree with you, if you would be so kind to tell us how our magazine can be listed? Thank you

Template:Listen
You had some strong opinions about listen. Can you comment on my redesign with CSS instead of visual layout tables?
 * Template talk:Listen
 * Template talk:Multi-listen start — Omegatron 23:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks interesting. I'll take a closer look and comment in a short while. Dysprosia 08:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sysops
Hey... I've been voted to become a sysops Requests_for_adminship, but nothing has moved on it... is there something else I need to do? I wasn't sure so I thought I would ask... thanks.--Mfinney 22:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe you have consensus yet. Wait a little longer for some more views to be known. If a clear consensus forms, I'll be happy to make you an admin. Dysprosia 06:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks... I was wondering... I thought it was just a majority. Thanks for looking into it.--Mfinney 06:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Please remove all Tennerel info on Wikipedia. All googled info traces back to info first posted on wikipedia and it has no ISBN. This is SmartBee.
 * It's gone, already. Dysprosia 02:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Focaccia
Hi Dysprosia, I noticed that the phonetic rendering of the word focaccia includes a ee. Actually the italian 'I' is not pronounced in words in -cia/gia (s.), so it sounds like -cha rather than chee-ah but i did not want to change it lest i might tamper with the phonetic notation. Thanks. --Wikipedius 17:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't provide the current pronunciation, I don't know why you see the most current edit as belonging to me, as it was an anonymous editor providing the pronunciation; if the pronunciation is incorrect, please fix it, of course. An IPA pronunciation would be nice. Dysprosia 04:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Chess championship/Tournament 1/Double-Elimination/Game 6
Hello Dysprosia! I hope you're still interested in the tournament? If so, you are playing user:Luigi30, in DE Game 6. Good luck! Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 20:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Goldberg Variations
Hello. Could you please elaborate on what a full sentence is? Because I was planning to rewrite much of the article and you only fixed one instance of "Canon at the..", and there are many other sentences that can be fixed the same way (ie. "This is another two-part hand-crossing variation" instead of "Another two-part hand-crossing variation" or "This variation is a short four-voice fugue marked alla breve" instead of "A short four-voice fugue marked alla breve", etc). I was unable to find a definition of "full sentence", and since English is not my native language, it'd be great to know what exactly I am supposed to do with the article.

Also, if the examples I gave are correct and the sentences should be changed so that they begin with "This is..", then I'm a little concerned with what you're asking for ("write in full sentences please"), because if every description in the article begins with "This is.." or "This variation is..", I think the text is going to end up quite lifeless and bland, even for an encyclopedia.

Oh, and I've fixed another "there's" in the aricle. Thanks for pointing this out. Jashiin 13:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the other instances should be fixed as well. I only saw the one which I fixed. They all don't need to start with "This is", but should form a full sentence: for example, compare "Aria is a sarabande", with "The aria is a sarabande", or "The aria of the Goldberg Variations is a sarabande". Hope this helps. Dysprosia 00:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Goldberg Variations - Variation 12
Hi - I made a couple of changes yesterday to the article on the Goldberg Variations, and you removed them. The second change regarding the translation of the tempo indication in variation 21 is a minor point, but the first change I made, in the description of the canon of the twelfth variation, is important. It doesn't make any sense to say, "The leader appears inverted in the second bar." The leading voice in a canon generally can't be "inverted" when it enters for the first time because the canonic material hasn't been introduced yet; there's nothing to invert until the leader states a theme. Besides, the leader enters on the second eighth note of the first bar of Variation 12 - the follower is what enters in the second bar and moves in contrary motion (relative to the leader). I've revised the article again to reflect this. I hope my explanation here clears up any confusion.

Thank you.


 * Sorry. The change to variation 21 was incorrect -- andante doesn't imply "moderately", and inadvertently removed your change to v.12. Dysprosia 21:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at User talk:67.10.173.8 if you think that "the follower appears inverted" is correct (my second comment there), do I misunderstand something? Actually, mentioning this inversion is somewhat weird, I think I only did it because the old text did. Jashiin 21:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't investigated the above user's change to v.12, I only saw the change to v.21. I'll take a closer look later perhaps. Dysprosia 21:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind, problem solved it seems (the user responded on my talk page). Jashiin 22:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

come on IRC :)

Dysprosia: Got your message, and went to make the change, but found you had already done so. Fully accept the scolding. I must have dreamed that sentence wasn't appropriate, because I awoke with the intent to remove it for the very same reasons.

Hi
Greetings, saw you in the rule-room, and just dropped in to say a big hello. --Bhadani 16:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Last change to my entry... source unknown.
RE: Feminism. Some (is it you?) keeps changing the indication that the existance of Partriarchy in America is a central thesis lying at the very core of feminism. I agree that the way I had the entry worded originally was reasonably subject to question. And even though I believe the orginal was clearly only discussed the U.S., I also agreed that the entry could have improved in that regard. Femininists do love to confuse the issues by switching to international human rights arguments; it's a great strategy for avoiding discussion of the actual facts and realities in America.

But what was wrong with the version of the last paragraph before the last edit was done? I have literally read 100's of feminist authored books, as well as dozens of college textbooks. Next to the the repeated claims of jobs/pay inequality, men's violence/abuse, and rape/harassment by men, I can think of no other assertion more frequently made by feminists. While I'm sure there may be exceptions - although I can't recall a single feminist source that argues against the the existence of a partriarcy in America in recent history - it is incredibly misleading to be sticking hedge words like "some" in my sentences when actualities are "most," or better yet, "most, if not all." I am going to alter my entry again so that it more accurately reflects the general feminist position on the topic. Please help me understand the reasons if you change it again. Doug 22:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The idea of a patriarchy is, if my memory serves me correctly, only central to the strand of feminism known as radical feminism. Of course, non-radical feminists may agree with the idea of a patriarchy, but summing this up this would be the radical feminist and those who agree with the idea of a patriarchy. I don't think this is an amount that warrants a "most".
 * In future, you can examine the page history for edit summaries (which I made, since you were new, I wasn't sure that you would see them) which explain edits and tracks who makes them.
 * Hope this helps. Dysprosia 05:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of feminism...
REPLYS:

Dysprosia: I would be pleased to work on clarifying the meaning of the fact marketing, but not here and now since my insert has been arbitrarily remove and based on the comments below. In brief, it powerfully challenges the whole idea that males and masculinity have dominated during the latter half to two-thirds century.Doug 13:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Zleitzen: I find your comments arrogant, self-righteous, and personally offensive. I'm not sure what you think feminist is, if it is not inherently a gigantic soapbox issue. The entire entry is, figuratively speaking, a soapbox for an activist intellectual minority; a place to sell their sociopolitical ideologies, wild speculations, and misinformation about the sexes.

Most inappropriate of all is describing my entries as "parochial," when the data in fact reflects a high-level of systemic-level thinking. If you have specific criticisms and suggestions, rather than vague, inoperative generalizations, I would be pleased to work on the entry further. There may be merit in what you say, but I have no basis for determinining that.

Your comments are like a wife saying she's divorcing her husband because he's an incompetent mate and then walking out the door. The entry was 500 words, only slightly larger size two others, half the length of the one Heterosexual Relations. Finally, the insert was made in the section reserved for "the-other-side-of-the-story." I'm also not sure how qualified most English school teachers are to evaluate the cultural, legal, and gender climate in America.

I'm not sure exactly who you think you are, but you certainly are not Socrates or God, and certainly should not be spending your time "editing" other people's work in this manner.Doug 13:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Catamorphism: Many of the same comments made to Zleitzen apply to your comments as well. You have taken upon yourself to evaluate my intentions, thus I will observe that you "seem" to have reacted to my submission emotionally, rather than rationally and reasonably. It "seems" you simply do not like the information my entry contains, and are busy seeking justifications to kill it, rather than help make it work.

The entire "pro-feminist" two-thirds/three-fourths of the article is rife with unsubstantiated generalizations and speculation, as well as distortions of contemporary realities and history. Disguising those prejudices and biases in academic mumbo-jumbo and intellectual game-playing doesn't change the actual nature of the entry.

The referenced census data is located on 2-3 pages, and is much more reliable and easier to find than a citation in a single book by an obscure socio-politically motivated feminist author. The facts I site are indeed common knowledge among lawyers, political scientists, and business professionals. Exactly which of them do you find questionable? If you have other - hopefully constructive rather than just destructive - specific suggestions or stylistic recommendations, I would be pleased to pursue them. It could prove to be a learning opportunity.

BUT AT THIS POINT, IT "SEEMS" CLEAR TO ME THAT THIS WOULD BE A COMPLETE WASTE TIME. I suggest you look at my three entries under Masculism as well... you won't "like" those either, and will probably want to arbitrarily remove them as well. Such is the power of feminism over our minds and lives in America today. Doug 13:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Doug, these don't go on my talk page since this page is for comments to myself, but these go on the Feminism talk page. I'll copy this over for you. Dysprosia 22:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Addendum Only to Catamorphism...
It just dawned on me that you are a very young man who could not have had much experience or many opportunities to observe and be confronted with the discrimination against men that pervades our culture. For example, have your ever had a potential child of yours life terminated without your permission, or been denied the opportunity to rear such a child yourself; had a child of yours arbitrarily reared by the mother without you consent, and then be forced to pay child support for the next 18-22 years: had your children taken from you by a mentally incompetent and abusive wife, then lost them to a kind of "living death" forever; or ever actually observed women given preferential hiring salaries, promotions, and pay increases versus men who are better qualified and higher performers (look at my backgroud and the insert on jobs/pay inequality before you arbitrarily reject those truism about the workplace).

You have probably had classes, however, where you read/heard academic nonsense and gobbedly-gook about how much more husbands abuse wives, how much more men sexually violate women and children; how much more socially and legally empowered the male sex is; or how dominated our culture is by masculinity. This is all just feminist propaganda, unsupported by gender-neutral scientific research or objective empirical observations. This is not some kind of harmless intellectual exercise - a millions or more men are actually dying five years prematurely and no one knows why or is working on the problem - several millions being denied equal protection under the 14th Amendment in the very areas that are most vital to human existence.

I am not certain about a lot of things. But, if there is one thing I can be sure of, it is that you will learn about such things.

Addendum to Addendem (to you only): Also see latest comments by Zleitzen. Rest assured I won't be back to do any more additions or editing. I did not start the presumptuous, arbitrary, and insulting exchanges. I would suggest that it is not in Wikipedia's best long-term interest to let your contributors criticize other people's work in such a vague, arbitrary, and pedantic manner. But that's obvious up to you and whoever makes and administers you policies. It's incredible you would allow participant's to stifle the freedom of speech of people who do not subscribe to conventional, "politically correct" wisdom in such a capricious and arbitrary manner. The only person who offered constructive and professional input was you, and I'm not about to be bullied by comments like those thrown at me by your colleagues. I hope you will forward these exchanges to the appropriate decision-makers so they can have the opportunity to hear my point-of-view and evaluate the situation. At first glance, I thought Wikipedia is a good and culturally beneficial concept. But, just as our founders knew, anarchy is not necessarily the inevitable conclusion to democracy as history demonstrates... provided it is appropriately constrained by a set of rigid overriding principles (like the Constitution) that protects the rights of individuals against potential abuse and suppression by those who enforce "law and order" (i.e. your editorial police).Doug 17:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Last message... FYI
To Zleitzen: I have done exactly as you dictated... pulled everything off of this site. I would like you to understand that neither I nor a lot of American's are one of your British school boys. You simply cannot say and do anything you please, and expect us to sit back and take it with a response like "yes, sir, whatever you say, sir." I'm not the only one who resents being fed nothing but vague sweeping generalizations and talked down to like a juvenile. I lived in your country for several years, and I love and respect your history, culture, and customs... and especially the impact you forbearers have had on the world. But I also understand something about your society’s limitations as well. Have you lived here as well? Regardless, you are probably well-aware that America does not have a similar class-bound social structure, is not quasi-socialist leaning, is obviously very spiritual, is very intolerant of autocracy at all levels and in every form, and is certainly not a nation of feminists... once you get past the intelligentsia and talk to the mainstream of America. The public has certainly been fooled by feminist's shrewd strategies and propaganda. But just as they have rather consistently rejected the liberal left's thinking for a very long time now, they well ultimately come to understand feminism and the incredible damage it has been instrumental inflicting on our culture - the gender-divisiveness (divorce, cohabitation, delayed unions, etc.), the child neglect (abandonment of day-to-day child care, single female parenting, and abortion rates), and devastating effects of neglect of men's rights to equal protection under our laws and health needs. Most feminists don't realize it, but the French socialist Simone de Beauvoir is the actual "mother" of their socio-political movement. And this nation - while often confused and briefly misdirected historically - has thus far ultimately rejected those sorts of beliefs. I will not be revisiting my section of this site, so if you want the last word, send it to baker-doug@sbcglobal.net.Doug 23:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Cisgender
Please weigh in on this AfD. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

CityRail Station Infobox
I know I've been complaining about you lately, but I wanted to thank you for the change to the CityRail infobox. I originally hated the change, but with my few minor adaptations I think it looks a lot better. Thanks. (JROBBO 02:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC))

Chess game
The game's going to have to go on hold for a while. I'm preparing for a big trip soon, and I won't have the time until mid-April. Luigi30 (&Tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; &tau;&omicron; m&epsilon;) 13:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for point out my spelling mistake~ :) --Hunter 12:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Photo status
I was interested to see your (very nice) photo of the interior of St Paul's Cathedral. I see you have attached a copyright notice placing various restrictions on the use of the photo. How is this compatible with what I understand to be Wikipedia's requirement that photos must be in the public domain? Adam 06:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. The licensing requirements on Wikipedia and Commons is a little complicated, but as I understand it, I believe the following holds: Images on Wikipedia do not have to be public domain, but must be under a license that is compatible with the requirements of the GFDL. The BSD license that I use is considerably weaker than the GFDL since it basically only requires that authorship information is preserved. On Commons, the compatibility requirement is unnecessary and the only requirement is that images and other media are released under a "free" license. The BSD license that I use is certainly one of these.


 * Hope this clears things up. Dysprosia 06:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Revert
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page! michael talk 15:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Admin?
Are you an admin?


 * Don't forget to sign your posts. Yes. Why do you ask? Dysprosia 03:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It says you edited Special:Watchlist. I didn't know admins can do that. Look here -- George Mon  e  y Talk   Contribs 04:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You're misinterpreting what I did. I didn't edit Special:Watchlist at all -- I edited the main namespace article "My watchlist", so it would redirect to Special:Watchlist, which will open your watchlist. Dysprosia 05:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh. Ok. I see. -- George Mon  e  y Talk   Contribs 06:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)