User talk:Rangergordon

Repeating decimal
I think you ignored these words:
 * We eventually see a remainder that we have seen earlier because only finitely many different remainders
 * We eventually see a remainder that we have seen earlier because only finitely many different remainders

That's the proof you say is missing. Michael Hardy (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving pages
FYI - See Help:Moving a page for instructions on moving a page. Generally a paste and copy of the contents is not appropriate since the edit history needs to go with the current page and not be left on the redirect page. -- Trödel 19:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! -- Trödel 01:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to The National Enquirer has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Leonard(Bloom) 05:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Helpful to Talk:California Proposition 8 (2008)
I found your comment earlier enlightening, but I was wondering if you could find citable sources to that effect. - Gilgamesh (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Blogs insight
Your insight on blogs and editorial oversight was invaluable. I'm planning on addressing this issue at wp:rs and wp:v in the near future, and I will very likely include a link to your comments there. I'll also drop by here at that time and post a link to that discussion, if that'd be alright. Take care. user:j   (aka justen)   05:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine with me,  user:j  . Now, I cannot speak for broadcast news organizations; I only speak from my own newspaper experience in the Salt Lake City market (six years reporting, six years editing). The legal stuff about reader comments was given to us by a lawyer retained by my current employer, an independent weekly. For your purposes, I think even a casual survey of newspaper blogs (particularly those of major dailies that feature multiple single-author specialty blogs) makes it obvious that, in many cases, they do not undergo even basic copy editing. What you're reading is really the author's raw copy--which is not necessarily a bad thing: Disregarding typos and style errors, and taking into account the reliability of the publication, when you consider that the author is a trained professional journalist, such blogs can be considered at least somewhat more authoritative than run-of-the-mill, Joe-Schmoe, here's-a-picture-of-my-cat blogs. Rangergordon (talk) 06:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

California Proposition 8 (2008)
I want to thank you for the edit you made to the results section of Proposition 8, I like the way you clarified that it goes into effect on the 5th. I have made a couple of changes and I want to ask if you agree (for the second one). But I wanted you to know about a neat feature for dates.

The first was to change the way you used "Nov. 5" to November 5, for two reasons: Wikimedia software, if you use the full name of the date, and you make it a link, automatically formats it for the user's date format. So if you use either " November 5 or 5 November " when they appear in text, notice they are both identical: "November 5 and 5 November" and if the reader uses day first, the number appears first, if they use month first, the month appears first. If you include the year immediately before or after the date: "November 5 2008 or 2008 5 November" notice it will format the date as the user has it in their settings; notice they both appear identical: "November 5 2008 or 2008 5 November" including putting the comma in automatically! I wanted to pass this on because it's a nice feature and not well known. (Try changing your date format in "my preferences" and you'll notice that the date format I did on this page changes to the new method automatically.)

Second is, I changed the line:
 * there could be no governmental recognition of any subsequent marriages between gay and lesbian couples until such time as the amendment were struck down.

to
 * there could be no governmental recognition of any subsequent marriages between gay and lesbian couples unless the amendment was struck down.

as I feel the latter is closer to neutral and does not imply - which I think the original wording does - that the amendment would be struck down.

Again, I felt you improved what I wrote, and thanks! Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Paul--I'm sure you're right over the abbreviation of months. I do that out of habit (my abbreviation is AP style, and I'm a journalist) so I appreciate it when editors who are more familiar with Wikipedia style help me correct those kinds of style errors. I'm also glad to learn about this Wiki feature! It seems to make the article more legible for people whether they live in a region that uses the Month/Date style or in a region that uses the Date/Month style. I only wish that newspapers could do this! Thanks for teaching me.


 * Your rewording of the other sentence did make it clearer. Any implication of foreknowledge whether the proposal would be struck down or not was unintended. The use of the subjunctive mood, though, still dictates the verb "were" -- that is, your edit should read:


 * there could be no governmental recognition of any subsequent marriages between gay and lesbian couples unless the amendment were struck down.


 * And maybe "were later struck down" might make it clearer.


 * Thanks again! Cheers. Rangergordon (talk) 07:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

COMING SOON (2006 film)
I just received an e-mail confirmation from Dr. Peter Singer about his COMING SOON blurb. (His quote was ""A film that manages to be both hilarious and disturbing, to entertain while it raises deep questions about the things we are, and are not, prepared to tolerate regarding the treatment of nonhuman animals.") This itself makes this film one of the most important discussions about Zoophilia and certainly more relevant than films like Stealing Harvard! If you're genuinely interested in reating an informative and all-encompassing article about Zoophilia I see no way you can leave out a film that praised in this way by someone of Dr. Singer's stature. Why don't you write him a brief e-mail yourself to confirm it. There aren't that many films that raise deep political questions and I dont think he'll mind some brief e-mails on the subject. Think about it, if you do get the same e-mail confirmation that I did, wouldn't it be silly to deprive your eaders of this due to some sock-puppet sabateurs? SomnaSomna (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Somna. I'm not particularly interested in zoophiles, nor do I consider myself to have "readers" on Wikipedia. I do find Wikipedia to be a valuable resource—with all its drawbacks—and so, from time to time, I try to pay the Wiki community back by helping to edit articles, and I believe I've been able to bring a measure of balance and objectivity to these editing activities.


 * My original interest in the Zoophilia article was born of curiosity after I watched the documentary Zoo about the strange death of a Washington man from injuries sustained while attempting to have sexual intercourse with a horse. The film was largely based on the research of Seattle journalist Charles Mudede, whom I admire. The story may have been something of a major career event for Mudede; it was so perverse and freaky, it just kept unfolding in so many bizarre directions, and Mudede handled the series with such cool detachment that it amounted to a rare journalistic triumph.


 * As far as this "Coming Soon" video is concerned, I'm satisfied that it's either an elaborate joke or a hoax that never took off, and so now somebody is trying to promote it as an Internet meme. To me, the only interesting things about it are:


 * 1) Despite having a measure of creative talent, the publicist's efforts have not achieved much success.
 * 2) This failure seems to stem from overcommitment, and a sense that the publicist holds a view of human nature that is either naive or overly cynical. And,
 * 3) This suggests the publicist may have an agenda beyond that of simple video promotion.
 * Personally, I think it would be interesting if somebody were to connect enough dots to show that the whole thing were, say, a political hoax (for instance, an attempt to manufacture evidence propping up right-wing "slippery slope" arguments). But I don't really have enough time or interest to get to the bottom of it. For one thing, doing so would obligate me to watch the whole video—and, frankly, I couldn't even get through the first five minutes of it without getting bored. Rangergordon (talk) 10:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Somna was censored and asked me to answer on his behalf. Watch the rest of the film and see why international philosophers and artists have been hailing this film. You apparently have spent more time researching and writing ABOUT this film then you have watching it. This strikes me as a personal agenda. MardiGras2009 (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Prop 8 Image change
I was planning on writing a more detailed edit summary, but I was preoccupied with something else and that was all I wrote. I chose this over the San Francisco image (which I uploaded) because: --haha169 (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is more blatantly a Proposition 8 protest, while the SF image is just a swarm of people, with only one No on Prop 8 sign.
 * 2) It has more relevance to the text of the article than the SF one. (The Mormon issue is stated more than once in that section).


 * Oh, I see. Yes, the SF photo could have been taken at any candlelight vigil, and only the caption links it specifically to the Prop. 8 protests. (I have no reason to doubt that the photo was taken at a Prop. 8 protest, but I see your point.)


 * The only reason I felt the replacement photo was less illustrative was that it was of one person holding a placard in front of an LDS Temple, which to me underrepresented the power of the Mormon Church protests. I live in Salt Lake City, where such a protest took place, and it was huge. Really unprecedented, at least around these parts.


 * There were many photos taken of the crowd at the SLC protests—lots of good Prop. 8 signage, etc. Many such photos, taken in front of the Church Office Building (its worldwide corporate headquarters) instead of near Mormon temples, emphasize the idea that protesters were responding to the organization's political activities and not blindly attacking Mormons' religious beliefs. Do you think one of those would be more appropriate, if we can find one in the public domain? Rangergordon (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll try. I'm going through a Flickr gallery right now. I get back with a few links. --haha169 (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Prop+8+mormon&l=cc&ct=0 The only problem is that Allosix is the only one who has decent pictures, but his Creative Commons license isn't free enough. Perhaps contacting him to free up the license? --haha169 (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea. I also have some associates who took some good photos at the protest; I'll see if I can get one to release a photo into public domain. You may know more about this process than I; is the photographer's verbal agreement sufficient, or is a signed release required? And are releases also required for photo subjects? Rangergordon (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not too sure when it comes to this particular field. I usually try to avoid the complicated matters and simply upload free content or fair-use images. However, if used on Flickr, we could simply ask the uploader to change the license. I'm not sure what to do in other cases, though I'm fairly certain a policy would outline the guidelines. Try this for starters. --haha169 (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2009 (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) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)