User talk:Silly rabbit/Archive 11

Silly Rabbit
I'm surpised that there is any controversy here. Would you please participate at the article talk page? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Addressing copyright concerns
Hi. I've done a bit more reading on the situation at Gauge gravitation theory, and I wanted to thank you for pointing out the problem. While it looks like it will probably be all right in this case (a little irregular, but I think the permission may clear), we do need to verify identity in cases like these to be sure that we're not infringing on copyright holders. I just wanted to clarify the process for you, since it seems you may be unfamiliar. There's no reason to nominate an article for AfD solely on copyright concerns. If you have other concerns with the material as well, then that's fine. But if copyright is the only issue, we can handle that entirely through the regular copyright problem procedure.

If you tag an article with copyvio, it will not only generate a notice you can easily paste at WP:CP (although doing it manually as you did is certainly fine, too) but also a note you can give to the contributor which contains all the information that he or she needs to verify permission. Sometimes they do; sometimes they don't. After an article has been listed at CP for seven days, an administrator examines it to see what further action is needed. If permission has not been verified, and if infringement is considerable, the article will probably be deleted without need of an AfD. This is a policy-based deletion and doesn't require community consensus. If infringement is minimal, the material may be revised. (Not in this case, not by this admin, anyway!)

Again, I do appreciate your pointing out the problem. I believe in respecting intellectual property laws not only for the protection of Wikipedia, but also for the protection of copyright holders, so I think it's important to be sure that we have authorization to duplicate text.

I'll watch your page for a day or two in case you'd like to discuss the matter. :) Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

arrows
I have reduced the lengths of the arrows AND shrunk the image. Compare current version with. Now but I don't know how to reduce the vertical arrows (concerning the horizontal arrows, would you like them even shorter?). GeometryGirl (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The vertical arrows look fine, and the horizontal arrows look much better. Many thanks.  siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 00:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Complete metric space
There are days where my eyes are not well opened! --Bdmy (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revs
Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template  « l | Ψrometheăn ™ | l »   (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Stalin
The problem is there are very valid people that contend the info in the Stalin intro DID not happen, and their point of view is ignored.

I challenge you to give me 1 good explanation as to why absolutely refusing to recognize one side or account of the Story = Neutral. And I also challenge you to explan how an intro with more sources and information should stand and one that is basically empty and dedicated to Stalin bashing should not.

There is absolutely NO valid reason why the edits should not continue to be reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valeofruin (talk • contribs) 03:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

TOR nodes
Hi, if you find any more disruption from TOR nodes, please report them at WikiProject on open proxies (shortcut WP:OPP). I have already reported the three you mentioned at WP:RPP. I believe this is the only way an IP address can be indef blocked on Wikipedia. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. please use article talk page to discuss you edits there thanks Oo7565 (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I already self-reverted the violating edit before the warning, although I appreciate a warning instead of a default block.   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 01:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is just silly. Silly rabbit is obviously a knowledgeable person and discouraging knowledgeable people from improving Wikipedia is not in anyway furthering the goals of this encyclopedia. Especially since he has over 15,000 edits. Point-set topologist

wp:BLP, wp:AGF, wp:CHILL,wp:BITE

 * This is not a WP:BLP, so I really don't understand your concern. It seems like a cop-out in order to put your own version beyond any possibility of dissent.   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 00:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If you read wp:BLP, then you may understand.

Your statement "This is not a wp:BLP" is a concern. Any Wikikepdia text, anywhere, that is Biographical and refers to a Living Person, is covered by wp:BLP. If the text said "All persons who have user IDs of Sinneed are obviously Satanic scumbags who should not be allowed to publish." it would be clear that it was innappropriate.

"It seems like a cop-out in order to put your own version beyond any possibility of dissent." wp:AGF. We really are allowed to disagree. You can always say "No, that isnt' biographical, because whatever-reason-here."

Your edit summary was not appropriate. It is not time to go to the BLP notice board, you have not yet misbehaved. Do you plan to?

I encourage you to wp:chill. I have no dog in this fight.

I saw an edit war firing up, and I see the inflamatory and possibly wp:BLP violating wording.

I warned the IP editor(s) using the TOR nodes. I reverted the TOR node edit, as you were at 3RR. Yet, I find you accuse me promptly of not acting in good faith.

Looking at your extensive editing experience and evidence of the obvious respect in the community, I am surprised. You are clearly better than your behaviour in this matter might lead one to think.

I encourage you to look at the edits and ask "Is there a less inflammatory way to say the same thing?" As a strategy, when I have a source challenged, I look at the wording and ask "Is there a way to make it clearer by wording that the source is appropriate."

By reducing the inflammatory wording, one may succeed in getting one's point into an article. By strengthening the tie to the sources, one may keep both the text and the source together.

sinneed (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Umm... I *still* don't see how WP:BLP applies to this particular sentence. The article isn't a WP:BLP.  The statement wasn't one about a living person.  What gives?  Also, what's with all of the WP:CHILL/WP:BITE/WP:AGF/etc?   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 01:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm no wikilawyer, but I don't see how BLP applies at all here. Anyhow, I reverted most of Sinneed's changes, keeping the one that made sense.  Let's see if we can avoid turning this article into a battleground, despite the subject. Spotfixer (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Entirely unrelated, your page appears to be out of date "Silly rabbit is taking a long wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia some later time."sinneed (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not being clear, and ask you to forgive my failure. All the best.sinneed (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Joke
I apologize, but I could not resist making this joke : see File:Charlotte Ross2 for PETA.jpg

Sorry Wishing you the very best

Warrington (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Logicus
The discussion with this guy is starting to take a toll on me. It now jumped to Talk:Tests of general relativity. You may be interested, it is now about cosmology. Ruslik (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the tip. It now appears as PS  T  08:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC) or  PS  T  (this is just a test to see whether it works). -- PS T  08:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It certainly works. Thanks again. PS T  08:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Resonable person.
I have found many people DO think that Wikipedia is a wp:Reliable Source, and the citation led to a pair of wikipedia articles. I both wp:assume good faith and expect that they are all reasonable persons.sinneed (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all of the assumption of good faith. I feel all warm and cosy now!  siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 22:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of article flags. Young Earth creationism
Please do not remove article flags without addressing them. If you don't understand them, and leave them in place, an editor who does understand may read them, and address the issue.sinneed (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But I did address them. Please see the indicated Ronald Numbers source.  I also posted a comment on the talk page of the article requesting more information.  Also, instead of restoring the fact tag, you removed the information!  That seems a little bit difficult to justify.  Are you personally knowledgable enough about Young Earth creationism to say that you know the statement to be inaccurate?   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 14:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from any comment (and yes, a question is a comment) about my personal knowledge of, or feelings about, religion or religious ideas such as this one. The opinion as stated is not supported by the source.sinneed (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This is old but long story short I noticed there ARE POLLS for things like pro choice stance yet I think it was you who deleted a CBS poll that said 51% of people do not believe Darwin's theory. I actually found this out on various pages showing bias in wikipedia for far left stances. Wow. BTW I am not a young Earth creationist I just like confronting illogical unfactual things on either side, in this case Darwin's theory but I find almost as many flaws with Christians. Sfvace (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually I moved that poll to the appropriate place, Level of support for evolution. Lo and behold, it was already included, along with other polls with much better methodologies.  Cheers,  siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 03:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This is your 2nd warning.
Please do not remove article tags without addressing the issue. In this case, the article makes an unsourced statement. This is a polite way of saying "false". I am restoring the flag yet again. Please do not remove it without providing a source that says what the article says. If the article said, perhaps, "only widespread faith" or "only major faith", the reference would support it.sinneed (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

--- chemical postevolution

Hi Silly Rabbit,

please allow me to comment on your edit of the abovementioned article: the term chemical postevolution is not a neologism. It is a novel scientific term in special technical setting from a special point of view. "How to chemically optimize natural metabolites in order to get good drugs". Like "car driving" and "car racing" would not be discussed in the same article (though car racing is a special form of car driving) also chemical postevolution should not be discussed in the article chemical evolution. Best regards, Paxillus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxillus (talk • contribs) 12:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The (true) fact, that this term is not found in google books only shows that today wikipedia is much faster than scientific monographics (unfortunately a dying species anyways). As you can see only very new REVIEW articles are cited (no original publications). I think it is a big advantage of wikipedia to spread encyclopedic knowledge faster than any other print medium, we should not hamper this advantage with google books searches as a premise for wikipedia articles.

Please allow me another comment: Science has to do a lot with bringing order into complex facts. Often a special point of view dictates how you order things. Though this (often subjective) point of view might look arbitrary (and more based on intuition rather than on hard facts) it might lead to a new way to interprete things, giving us new methodology and new insight, that under very objective criteria will lead to scientific progress. Darwin or Lamarque might be examples for this typical situation in science.

Again coming back to chemical postevolution, it is a special way to look upon chemical drug optimization. When seeing how nature has optimized its natural products (secondary metabolites like taxol [a mulitbillion dollar cancer drug] or daptomycin [a hundred million antiinfective drug] one can also understand where are the limits of natural structural optimization. When seeing these limitations, white spots in natures space become obvious, these are the most promising areas for chemists in drug discovery to go into.

For these reasons I would like to renominate the article. Please give further comments on the talk page.

Best regards, Paxillus

Paxillus (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA
I think before applying for adminship I will delve a bit into AfD's, speedy deletions, blocks and so on. I just walked around at Special:NewPages and, holy crap, it's a bit daunting. What quiet place our nice little math world is... So, I think it's more apt to actually know these matters, but I'll tell you when I feel good.

Let's also work on a decent future for vector spaces. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, after thinking a bit more about the matter I'm feeling more and more disenchanted with becoming or being an admin. In a sense it is a bit like hiding in a niche that few people even see, but my quality and willingness in writing maths exceed the ones in persecuting vandals and patrolling new pages. So I won't apply, I guess. However, I'd like to thank you again for trusting in my wiki-skills. If I can be of any support for you, please do let me know.
 * As an aside: I didn't forget about your request once posted at my talk and I'm still thinking how to enlarge zeteo's usability. I'm still looking around to find a good software that unifies the wiki spirit with the rigor of a good old database. Letting people write their own little templates would then be the most elegant solution. But perhaps I should just sit down and hack the BibTex (and other WP templates such as Harvard citation) in a hard-code way. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Complete metric space
Hi. You recently wrote:


 * However, the space C(a,b) of continuous functions on (a,b) is not a normed space, for it may contain unbounded functions

I understand that it is difficult to be very precise without being very long, but this sentence is, I think, unclear for the reader who does not know the story in advance. This reader may think: well, every vector space can be given a norm by chosing a Hamel basis, and for example the \ell^1-norm of the coefficients. What do you really mean? --Bdmy (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Equicontinuity
Just wanted to say hello, and also about your edits on equicontinuity; yes, I had real-valued functions in mind. (So, thanks for spotting a potential inaccuracy.) Somehow when you are doing analysis I forget that functions may not be real-valued (or complex-valued). -- Taku (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Explanation
Removing some 78,000+ words from an article is a serious red flag (#1). Adding what seems to be a non-neutral point of view version of Heterosexuality, another serious red flag (#2). Removing any and all information pertaining to LGBT, big red flag (#3). So....yeah, that could be considered vandalism. If you wish to add anything to the page, you have to do it in a neutral point of view and show both sides of story. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • February 1, 2009 @ 08:04
 * Actually, hey, I was reverting an edit to the article. If you would use your brain instead of twinkle, you would notice immediately that the article in question is a copy of homosexuality, but with every instance of "homo*" replaced with "hetero*".  Thanks for assuming good faith, by the way.   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 08:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I do...that is how I found your "version". -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • February 1, 2009 @ 08:14
 * I see none of what you are speaking of, but reverting to a POV laced version with some 78,000+ words missing ain't happening, my friend. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • February 1, 2009 @ 08:22
 * Refactor my warnings? What?  That sentence you are going to have to explain to me. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • February 1, 2009 @ 08:25
 * OK, I am an idiot. I didn't see what you were saying and I honestly looked about 5 times.  I didn't click on the other link to see my royal f***up.  So, my apologizes.  If User:Samir hadn't showed me, I probably wouldn't have seen it....all I was seeing was the missing information.  To me, it looks a little POV-ish, but I guess we can work on that.  Again, my apologizes.  Now, if you excuse me, I am going to feel like a moron now. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • February 1, 2009 @ 08:32
 * After all that you gave me a Smile. I appreciate that...makes me feel a little better after being a moron for a few minutes.  Thanks...and again my apologizes. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • February 1, 2009 @ 08:36
 * Thanks! If you ever need any help on an article, please let me know and I will be glad to give you a hand....and this time without any trout.  You have a good evening and a great Sunday. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • February 1, 2009 @ 09:05

Changes to Climate Change page
I have just spent days and days editing this page and you did a "blanket" revert on this! WHY????

Xolin (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I added to this article by adding tens, if not dozens, of new citations and references and then went about "de-plagiarising" a lot of the work that was already there. As for what I have written, I have been very careful not to "copy" other people's work. I think you may want to look at the page at the time before I made any changes - it was a train wreck... Besides, I'm a newcomer - don't bite me!

Xolin (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

p.s Some of it may not conform to the Manual of Style (yet), but that's no reason to do a blanket UNDO. I think that you should just give me time. After all, the other pile of garbage that existed there in the first place wasn't exactly a model of amazing grammatical correctness, was it..?

Xolin (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank-you for your apology. Unfortunately - as a newcomer - I have now managed to lose all the (what i thought, very good) alterations I have made to the start of the article and will have to start editing it again. i really would appreciate it if the next time you want me to change something you let me know, rather than have me lose all that work

Xolin (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Harrassment and Vandalism
Are you stalking me? Please stop. I stated a fact and supported it. If you have a problem with it, you're supposed to counter it, as is the format on this whole moon hoax page.

If you have further problems, take it to the talk page. Don't abuse your power and censor information without good cause.

Aren't you the same guy who deleted the CBS SOURCED poll of 51% of Americans not believing in Darwin's theory, calling the agnostic who made that post a "creationist" lol? I never heard you explain how polls are bad in these kinds of cases, yet I see tons of polls on wikipedia. Last week I saw a poll about most Americans not believing we should outlaw abortions. No wonder there's a war on wikipedia for bias and censorship. Sfvace (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You make no sense. THE OTHER PERSON IS EDIT WARING WITHOUT JUST CAUSE. TELL THEM to take it to the talk page. I will attempt to fix the edit in a fair way, but THERE IS NO GOOD REASON GIVEN ON THE PROBLEM! btw good job IGNORING everything I said. Abuse power much? Sfvace (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

SOURCES 64/65 ARE YOUTUBE SOURCES! Stop the hypocricy; create a talk page. Or I will report you.Sfvace (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Metric tensor
Hello,

In Metric tensor you added some equations numbered by template but for each  you follow it by a white space such that the equation looks like:

rather than:

see the difference?

Would you mind if I remove each white space follow each in order to maintain the consistency with equation like this:

which is found in Template:EquationRef? Since there is a edit conflict between me and User:JRSpriggs there. - Justin545 (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If one is to discuss such small differences, we should also consider this:
 * $$ds^2 = E du^2 + 2F du dv + G dv^2\,$$
 * $$ds^2 = E \,du^2 + 2F \,du \,dv + G\, dv^2\,$$
 * The second one has proper spacing (IMO). Michael Hardy (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent design
Hi. Edits like this are in breach of our policies. If I see you make another edit like this I shall block you. Please let's not go there. Thank you. --John (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I see you got the cut and paste block threat as well. WTF? I have never been threatened with a block before. I am disgusted with this. Since when is one edit in a content dispute a blockable offense? This is BS. Apparently this is how some like to win content wars. Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Reported to AN/I
| Heads up-regarding the above --Aunt Entropy (talk)

Banned?
You aren't banned, so I have removed the banned templates and reverted to previous. If you wish to retire (and I hope you don't), please use. If you are having any problems, please let me know and I will try my best to help. Take Care... NeutralHomer •  Talk  • February 7, 2009 @ 07:12


 * Sorry to hear of this outrageous bullying you've suffered, hope to see you back reasonably soon. . dave souza, talk 13:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)