User talk:Marknau/Archive001

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Help or drop me a line. BTW, we have articles here on every state of the US and every country of the world so Department of Energy is probably going to be a bit ambiguous. How 'bout United States Department of Energy? Cheers! --maveric149

RE your comment on my talk page: No problemo and we don't go yelling and screaming at newbies about RTFM here (well most of use don't -- and those that do get yelled at by people like me ;). Oh boy; made the Department of Energy article by clicking on an edit link on the most wanted page eh? That's not in any way your fault and I am embarrassed that so many wikipedians before you had made wiki links to that title as if there were only one organization named DoE in the whole world. However the one you did write about is the most famous one which is dealt with around here is a special way: you still move the content to a disambiguated title but you redirect the non-disambiguated title to it then you create what is called a disambiguation block at the target of the redirect. Here's how:

It's easy to move an article, all you have to do is make a wiki link with the correct name, hit preview, move all the text into that edit link and then place, in this case, #REDIRECT United States Department of Energy in the now empty page named Department of Energy. Then it gets a bit complicated and it is best to show you an example. Just click on this link to Paris (in a new window). You will see a statement at the top of the article and a link to something called Paris (disambiguation) (which is hidden behind a pipe). Just copy that general format and place something similar at the top of United States Department of Energy. Easy eh? Don't be discouraged about the learning curve, it really isn't that steep -- you just so happened to fall into about the most complicated thing here (disambiguation). Welcome to wikiland! If you need anything don't hesitate to ask. BTW, I'm not anybody particularly special around here, just a contributor like you (been here since January though -- we only had about 15,000 articles then). --maveric149

Ah, classic reliance on set theory when simple logic will do:


 * There does not exist a subject E such that I am an expert on E.

Or in symbols:


 * &not;(&exist;subject E, expert(I, E )).

No sets, just logic!

&mdash; Toby (sometimes described as "an expert on the empty set")

PS: Sometime later we can discuss how you're putting yourself down by making a stronger statement, under intuitionstic logic, than may actually be necessary. &mdash; Toby 13:07 Jul 24, 2002 (PDT)


 * I was drawn to the set theory expression becuase my first thought was to put "The topics I am an expert in include" and end it there. From there, I thought "Ha, ha, I'm an expert in the empty set." I haven't really thought too much about the equivalence between certain set theory expressions and certain logical expressions. Hmmmm. -Mark.

You're an expert in the empty set? But nothing's in the empty set! &mdash; Toby 11:33 Jul 25, 2002 (PDT) ^_^


 * My only possible response to that is "mu." -Mark

Re: Edits to Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident
I have to say, its quite refreshing to see an editor making edits for the sake of improving the article, and not stubbornly furthering their agenda. I appreciate the edits. jheiv (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words! I'm rusty but I'm trying my best MarkNau (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If your objectives were anything other than insulting people and derailing the discussion, or even if you've had your fun insulting people and are ready to get back to work, please strike your postings. Guettarda (talk) 06:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Guettarda, I honestly don't understand how you can interpret any of my comments that way. Could you do me a favor and ask someone you trust, who you think is neutral on this, and ask him/her what they make of our exchanges? I'm pretty sure you feel very strongly about this issue. Please consider the possibility that your passions on the subject are having an influence on your interpretations of what I'm saying. MarkNau (talk) 06:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely aside from the fact that your proposals seemed very reasonable MarkNau, I am utterly baffled by the claim that you were in any way insulting.  Drolz 09  13:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

My personal belief about the "Climategate" incident
(Just as an Easter Egg for anyone who happens to find it)


 * I believe there is strong evidence that the planet is warming. I've looked and played around with the raw data.
 * It seems pretty likely that the CRU guys were not caretaking the scientific process as carefully as they should have. I think they've slipped into advocacy.
 * It would be nice to have some responsible and objective people able to tell us what the risk assessment is. I find myself not trusting anyone on this issue right now.
 * I think the entire incident is quite regrettable, because it is going to create far more heat than light on an important issue.

Please clear this up
I got the impression that Viriditas, ChrisO, and Guettarda were striving to get me to lose my cool, to commit a 3RR violation, or otherwise clearly step across a line so that they could shut me out of the conversation.

Marknau, I just read this over at User_talk:Jehochman and my eyes literally bugged out of my head. Have you or I ever had any previous interaction, or have I ever participated in a discussion with comments directed towards you? If I have, could you please remind me of it with diffs, because I don't recall ever addressing you or discussing anything with you at any time, and for you to claim that I was working with other editors to "get you to lose your cool" strikes me as not only bizarre, but something you invented to attack me. I'm willing to consider that I'm wrong on this, and I'll issue an apology if you can provide a diff of any kind supporting what you are saying. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that the reason you don't recall it is because I am entirely wrong, and it didn't happen that way. I apologize unreservely for my gross error. All I can say is that I remembered it that way, but I clearly see that I remembered it inaccurately. I'm heading off right now, so I won't be able to communicate on here for a while. I give you permission to copy/point to/disseminate this statement in any way you see fit to clear up my error. Again, sorry. MarkNau (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Mark, now that we are in agreement, could you either remove or modify your statement as it appears at User_talk:Jehochman? We both agree it is inaccurate, so if you don't mind, could you be so kind as to fix it?  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. I see I was a bit late in responding.  However, is there any reason you haven't just removed or stricken the comment? Best practice is to strike the comment using ... .  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Striking the comment now. I appreciate your patience in handling my error. MarkNau (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Many reliable sources clearly avoiding "hacked", or casting doubt on "hacked "
The Google News search parameters I talked about before turn up thousands of articles. I'm scanning for a handful of reliable sources in the order they appear in the search, making sure it's not opinion, and that it's the journalist speaking and not a quote from some advocate. Many sources seem to go out of their way to avoid using the word "hack," and some are even explicitly saying that it is not clear. As I said before, there are also many sources that are freely using the term "hack."


 * 1) AFP report on 1700 British scientists (leaked, intercepted)
 * 2) BBC Nick Cohen on Copenhagen (leaked, both written and spoken)
 * 3) Deutsche Presse Agentur (leaked, taken, stolen, "a police investigation is under way to discover how the material was hacked or leaked")
 * 4) Guardian (leaked, theft)
 * 5) Al Jazeera (leaked, theft)
 * 6) Christian Science Monitor ("The leaked (or hacked, it’s still not clear) emails")
 * 7) BBC Science and Nature ("It appears that the material was hacked or leaked; a police investigation has yet to reveal which.")


 * It seems to me that something which is "hacked" is, technically, also "leaked." Leaked definitely connotes an internal source, but the word is also used in a neutral manner indicating that information got out when it wasn't supposed to, without specifying the manner. Obviously, I am on record opposing the use of "hacked" (at least without qualifiers) in the article and title (regardless of qualifiers).  Drolz 09  02:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * More specifically, when used actively (He leaked the documents) it refers to an internal source. When used passively (The documents were leaked) it is technically neutral on the source. Admittedly, in the passive case there still tends to be the presumption of an internal source, but it is not necessarily the case. For my part I support the use of passive "leaked," because we definitely know for a fact that the documents leaked, but we do not know for a fact that they were hacked. I don't really see how we can justify using a word we're not sure of when there's another word which also works and we are sure of. I am staying away from the CRU talk page for the time being, so I hope this is useful to you.  Drolz 09  03:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)