User talk:Dzonatas/Archive 1

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar &#91;&#91;User talk:Meelar&#124;(talk)]] 06:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

No harm intended
I think you misinterpreted my use of the word "sad". That's probably because I'm not a native speaker of English. I didn't intend to offend you or your daughter. It isn't "sad" that you gave her the name "Sage d'Arc". If you like the name, and your daughter does, than you should be pleased with it. Nobody is making fun of that. Another thing is that you have your personal reasons to edit the Joan of Arc article. If you wanted to give your daughter the same name as the last name of Joan of Arc, you probably wanted to use the exact spelling. You thought is was "d'Arc". It probably isn't. I don't know. But why bother? Her (current) French name is Jeanne d'Arc. So why be concerned about the exact, original spelling? We probably will never know the original. Is your daughter concerned about it? I guess not. Where I used the word "sad" I meant the way you have mixed your personal feelings with editing a project like Wikipedia. You have been accusing several people of being biased, but you're forgetting your own position. Your approach isn't very scientific: when Durova claims your sources aren't right, you think it's an personal attack (and it is not). I think that's sad. Nothing else. &#8212; Switisweti 09:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Whereas, the use of superfluous hyperbolic phrases are where I have pointed out the personal attacks. Therefore, your claim about the unscientific approach for reasons of personal attacks upon source critique is incorrect. Perhaps, if you truly don't mean it in such a way as "sad," you'll go back and refactor your edits. &mdash;  Dz on at as  21:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Which edits specificly do you want me to refactor? Do you mean I shall delete the word "sad" on Durova's talk page? And I never claimed you attacked anyone. You say you feel attacked by Durova and me and you just shouldn't feel that way. &#8212; Switisweti 22:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

re: Computer Science
I clearly said, that I find your arguments silly. Not you... your arguments. How personal can that be? &mdash;R. Koot 13:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Mister, I hope you will accept my last modification of the CS page. It is a sensible modification. Do realise that most of my time on wikipedia I have spent arguing with you. I dont claim to have universal knowledge, but the thing in life I know the most is CS. Please, consider putting yourself under question from time to time, when others (with some expertise) disagree with you. I would like to point out to you that you have questioned my points of view and contradicted me on every possible occasion, with a total confidence in you. I consider many of your points of view on CS as very naive. In the case of **philosophical** positions, many have expressed opinions about your contributions similar to mine. In the case of **technical** discussions, you have proven to have completely erroneous believes (I am talking of your completely false assertions about the HALTing problem, oracle Turing Machines, and energy efficient algorithms), and I dont think you can disagree with that. The fact that you did not know much about these subject comes as no surprise: they are fairly technical, and I reacon even research level computer scientists dont necessarily know these fields well. Also, we are all entitled to erroneous beliefs, mistakes, etc... That is absolutely normal, and no problem from my POV: I am NOT an elitist at all. What is NOT ok, is that on those technicall problems (which you really did not understand well), the same phenomenon occured as in more philosophical questions: you have NO DOUBT that you hold the truth, however many and how ever expertized your detractors. Please, start considering that when a scientist says something about his field of research it may, at least, not be total nonsens.--Powo 21:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources???
Do you really have any source saying that this: formal mathematical tools required to solve complex tasks is a fundamental aspect of CS? You claim you have shown such sources already, I must have missed them! Would you be kind enough to give them again?--Powo 17:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

As quoted below, in bold, from the computer science talk page:


 * The discipline itself includes, but is not limited to, the fundamentals of computer languages, operating systems and mathematics in use by the computer.


 * This one is okay. I believe it could be expanded into 2 or three sentences to develop a more rounded opener. &mdash;  Dz on at as 


 * I think that the subdisciplines should appear in order of importance. Algorithms is more important in my view, that languages or operating systems. Also, I don't understand what in use by the computer means. Sbwoodside 05:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure of how you don't understand what in use by the computer means. I can make many guesses, but I would like a clue to what you do understand of it. I used the University of California, Davis, pages as a source. An editor didn't like "formal mathematical tools required to use the computer in solving complex tasks" . &mdash;  Dz on at as  16:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)'


 * * The link you cite (univ of davis) does not contain the information you say it has
 * * Here is what I understand of the sentence (a guess, as you asked): there (allegebly) are mathematics in use by computers, which are an important part of computer science. Typically, these mathematics could be arithmetics on floating point numbers. Here are my two objections:
 * * This is not a fondamental of computer science, it is a subtopic
 * * Arithmetics on floating point numbers is not really mathematics in the scholarly sense of mathematics.
 * Could you please explain, by giving at least one example, what are these mathematics you talk about, which would be in use by computers.--Powo 20:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You did reply to it. I figured you would have not missed it. &mdash;  Dz on at as  19:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "The link you cite (univ of davis) does not contain the information you say it has"

Here is a copy from part of the text: http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/undergrad/

"Computer Science (College of Letters & Science)

The Computer Science (CS) major is designed to prepare students for careers involving the design of computer systems and their application to science, industry and management. Students taking this major receive solid grounding in fundamentals of computer languages, operating systems, and the formal mathematical tools required to use the computer in solving complex tasks. Emphasis in this major is on software, although introductory architecture is included. The computer science program prepares students for work in industry or postgraduate study." &mdash;  Dz on at as  22:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What a poor source, it is an advertisement program of a CS departement! This is thus basic mathematical tools you are talking about: linear algebra, statistics, calculus, etc... I dont see this as being a fundamental aspect of CS. If you do want to include a mathematical topic which is seriously related to fundamentals of CS, why did you disagree with my proposition of mathematical foundations of computer science which was much more of a litterate choice.--Powo 17:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. I thought you'd might like to read this article: []. Not to say that I take myself as an expert, but apparently everybody doese not agree with you that expertise is not a valuable reource, e.g. when you say: ''Your Ph.D. and MS have no creditential weight here. You'll need to follow the rules like everybody else with no original research. Your expertise doesn't doesn't mean you can get around the rule. Find a source for your claim.'' regards --Powo 18:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It has been reviewed on Slashdot. Expertise is a valuable resource. You like to twist what I have wrote -- I've noticed. &mdash;  Dz on at as  23:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Computer Science
Greetings Dzonatas,
 * Thanks for the considered responses. Please pardon the use of the word spurious if it fails to communicate.  I debated its use, hence why I followed the word with the statement that I believe your statements were not disingenuous; that is, I believe your source are genuine and genuinely provided.  What I meant by "spurious" was that I agree with Powo that at least one of the references was "shallow," since it came from a catalog page of UCDavis (as I recall, but I admit that I did not follow the source myself).  I have no doubt that your sources were diligently discovered and provided.  My statement only went to the "quality" of the source,  not to your intent.  Back to my comment on the mediation page, some sources are better than others. I consider a source from a catalog to be a bit spurious.  That's all.


 * About the "expertise" issue, I generally agree with you, but I think I get there via a different "route."  I would be willing to accept expertise of some individuals de facto.  However, as I stated in my mediation response, verification of those creditials in the Wikipedia context would be very difficult.  So I generally agree that it does no good to wave our credentials around here in Wikipedia.  So, I try to provide documented sources and get on with it.


 * Your efforts to come to a consensus on the defintion of computer science are to be commended. It has been a long and arduous trek.  You have my support.

Hope that helps. Steven McCrary 17:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC) P.S. I do agree with your excellent observation that providing references can become a point of unneeded pressure.

Forward-looking statement
Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Durova 19:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The community noticed your AfD on the article and voted (result: keep). It was not vandalism by any means. &mdash;  Dz on at as  11:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Shared parenting
Please do not "un-sort" stubs (by changing specific stub tags to the basic stub. This frustrates the work of the stub sorting WikiProject. Thank you. Stifle 10:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't. It was an edit clash. &mdash;  Dz on at as  11:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Categories in subpages / sandboxes
Hi, I noticed that you still have the categories in your subpage/sandbox of Joan of Arc, and I'm wondering if you could possibly de-activate them until the page is in the mainspace, as it's currently adding the sandbox to all the mainspace categories (e.g. Category:Nine Worthies). I'd suggest putting a colon in front of 'Category', like so: Category:Nine Worthies. Thanks! Ziggurat 03:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Cleared. &mdash;  Dz on at as  14:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Theodore7/Evidence
Hey there, I have a question regarding the evidence you put on Theodore7's arbitration case. Do you think that's really relevant? The case is about Theodore7's actions, not R.Koot's actions. If you have a problem with R.Koot, I would suggest talking to him if you haven't already, or if you have, opening a request for comment on that, rather than adding that evidence to Theodore7's case. From my own cursory examination, your comments have merit; I'm just not sure they're placed properly. Thanks! —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It is very relavant. There seems to be a trend to create social outcasts. It is obviously about control. With R.Koot, it is obvious by his edits he make identical reverts with no attempt to try to incorporate changes. That does not help. The case lacks merit because it is brought on out of aggravation. Get back to the points on the article, refactor and dispute the facts - not the people. People have a right to get angry, but being under open content also gives us a right to clean up those created messes. &mdash;  Dz on at as  19:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

3rr block
I've blocked you for WP:3RR on Template:WikiProject Computer science and for editing another users comments on Template talk:WikiProject Computer science. William M. Connolley 22:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC).


 * I've noticed. I believe your action to block is of questionable conduct because of your previously stated notions of "baseless" edits against me. &mdash;  Dz on at as  22:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see any need for private email on this. We can talk here in public - no? William M. Connolley 23:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please apply the block equally if the issue wants to be pushed that I reverted. I am not the only one that edited the related page. &mdash;  Dz on at as  23:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Since there was some discussion with other admins, I don't care about if it was done too fast. However, it seems as if some new rules are now used. Your a member of HEC, so by all means I'll agree to the 24hr (or 12hr, or sooner :) ) for the unharmonious changes and expect the same of others. I'm sure you know those rules better than me. I agree it became easy, and quick, to tell how you were able to point it out and make a block under those rules. Nevertheless, the reason I was kept on block wasn't clear to me until further dicussion. I may seem freak'n stupid at times, but we are all human, and we need to talk it out. &mdash;  Dz on at as  00:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Now I'm confused. Since there was some discussion with other admins - what do you mean? Also, by the reason I was kept on block wasn't clear to me until further dicussion do you mean it *is* clear now (in which case, which discussion do you mean?) or that it still isn't clear (in which case why the past tense?).
 * Now, you appear to be asserting that other users should have been blocked. I didn't see anyone else breaking 3rr; who exactly are you referring to, and would you please provide diffs? William M. Connolley 13:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The first edit to the template is (technically) not a revert, but you blocked me anyways. This was discussed on #wikipedia. &mdash;  Dz on at as  13:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't usually do IRC. If anyone said anything there, they weren't interested enough to repeat it here. Oh, and using "rvv" doesn't help - do you really expect to discount that from your count, just because you decided the "other side" were vandals? William M. Connolley 14:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC).


 * I used "rvv" based on User:R.Koot's reason for vandalism within the ArbCom case. Do you think it is justifiable? It doesn't seem like you do: "Oh, and using "rvv" doesn't help...".
 * Of course it isn't justified in your case. You were fighting a revert war over grammar. William M. Connolley 14:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC).
 * When do you consider it a war? How do you know someone's intentions when they want to revert war? How do you know that maybe they just want to edit, and, if they don't see others discuss why the edits are reverted, that the users will continue to edit. I didn't declare war. &mdash;  Dz on at as  15:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you actually looked at the talk page and found where User:R.Koot justified his edit summary over "grammar."? Instead, I see he has posted a poll to avoid the question entirely. Do you disagree? I know some other wikipedians were very helpful to point out were they thought where the grammar could be improved. However, did User:R.Koot make an edit to improve the grammar or just revert entirely? Every revert made is identical. Since he didn't give any justification, I continued to edit and improve it as well as some of the other editors did. Did you block them equally? No. You stated I didn't try. However, if you look at the talk page you'll see how I have tried to get to the point to discuss the grammar. Since this seems to slip by so easily, the discussion on #wikipia took a course to resolve it by policy change. It may be a milestone effort. I hope you agree with the change... &mdash;  Dz on at as  14:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand you. I'm not judging the content, just your 4R. As to the talk page: I've looked. I also suspect that English is not your native language, so I think you should keep out of grammar changes. And your history of 3rr breaking, and then removing the notes from your talk pages, counts against you of course. If you think R. Koot has broken 4rr, please provide the diffs, as I seem to have said before, and talking round in circles is really dull. William M. Connolley 14:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC).
 * * My native language is English. If you want to get technical about it, we can do that. To just state you think I should keep out of grammar changes means that you don't want me to edit wikipedia. Where is that so important? Truthfully, facts need to come first about these grammar bits before just vague accusations.
 * Just edit the facts. Grammar isn't so important. :) Kim Bruning 17:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * * We can judge the reverts. Obviously, if the revert is not justified on the talk page, my edit was not a revert. Koot never justified his revert. Without his justification over the grammar, I continued to edit. Like your statement above lacks facts about grammar, I'll continue to openly edit.
 * An edit-war-like thing it certainly was. Kim Bruning 17:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * * As of history of blocks... well, you blocked me and your block was changed by another admin. Your action to block is questionable, and that also shows how my history of being blocked is questionable.
 * It was changed because you made some promises. I'm sure you haven't forgotten already :-) Kim Bruning 17:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * * Back to my question above - my first edit on either the template itself or the template talk page is not a revert. Can you provide me a diff where Koot justified his revert? I need facts and not "I think you should keep out..." &mdash;  Dz on at as  15:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just stick to HEC, and you'll be fine. Kim Bruning 17:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you're unblocked because you promised to use WP:HEC... don't abuse that trust! :) Kim Bruning 17:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

WPCS Template
I see that you have again altered the WPCS template without actually proposing your change on the talk page first. While you may not (as your edit summary states) object to that version, others may. I'm personally sick of fighting about this, so I'm not even going to bother to revert your change. But I am extremely disappointed to see that you have elected to ignore my requests to propose changes before making them. I do not think that your actions are in line with the principles of the HEC. --Allan McInnes (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you did not revert me, and I encourage everybody to continue to edit. &mdash;  Dz on at as  15:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Further template changes
You were blocked for 3RR over a wording misunderstanding, to the great frustration of everyone involved. Are you sure that the best way to regain the faith of the WPCS members is to make changes again to the same template upon your return &mdash; for wording, of all things? The editing you are doing is not harmonious, it is confrontational and seemingly without purpose. Allan is right: why do you care so much about a talk-page template? --Mgreenbe 02:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The 3RR is not punitive and should not be stated as such. I hope you restate your comment above to reflect that point. To further push the 3RR implies a motive to keep people out of dicussion, and that is exactly why the 3RR should not be used that way. This is about discussion. People don't win consensus by blocks -- it isn't a true consensus. It isn't that I care about a talk page template so much that I actually care about the topics and discussions. I see a group that has formed and thwarted discussion and made edits of its own justification. I can say likewise, I don't see any member of the WPCS being a member of Harmonious editing club, so why try to even use that against me when they can't join themselves. That kind-of the same thing stated like above how they say I'm not a member of WPCS. At least, I have tried. &mdash;  Dz on at as  03:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You are not a member of WPCS, but persist in editing our talk page template without first checking for consensus. This is rude.  You have misread my comments above from beginning to end, but I don't intend to restate them.  You should reread what I said when you're more calm. --Mgreenbe 03:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I did check. When I see this state "our talk page template", it implies ownership. I have talked on the talk page, and I did check for consensus first. If you do intend to hang a 3RR over my head, that is your way. I've been in very controversial articles where there are many reverts and edits done in a day, but only recently have I actually ran into a group that actually tries to block people over 3RR instead of tries to discuss issues. &mdash;  Dz on at as  03:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Your change was made at 1:28am UTC, when there was no consensus in favor for your proposal at 8:39pm UTC; in fact, there was immediate resistance. Harmonious editing would imply that you would, in that case, not make the change.  I am not hanging 3RR over your head; I rather simply suggest that the light cast from the edit war does not shine well on immediately returning to the same, trivial argument. (This is part of the meaning of my original comment.) --Mgreenbe 03:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have more important things to do tomorrow than change the wording on a talk-page template. I am going to sleep. --Mgreenbe 03:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Your right about what we talked about in #wikipedia, and that is you stated to not to dig up the past. Obviously that is in relation to the 3RR. I have expected that you would follow what you said. Simply state the point, that there might be some other consensus by the act of the revert. Otherwise, I'm pretty calm.&mdash;  Dz on at as  04:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I promised &mdash; and maintain the promise &mdash; to defend you from irrelevant or meaningless invocations of 3RR, to help prevent you from becoming a pariah. I did not, however, promise to avoid mentioning it at all.  "3RR" is a short way of saying "that war that got you blocked over grammar changes to the template".  You'll notice one is shorter than the other, and carries more force.  Please do not see it as an attempt to mark you as "punished" or "outcast".  It is rather an attempt to help you avoid being so. --Mgreenbe 09:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Then blame the words themselves; it is the words themselves that fool us. They were given to us in the form of paper and not in stone. That is our innocence here. I do not hold that against anybody. I appreciate that you talked with me. &mdash;  Dz on at as  15:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)