User talk:Tamfang/Archive 2011

trivia
Vert, two bendlets &c was awarded (since you ask). (NO I DID NOT) to me, or more precisely to the fictional character that I played in the SCA, by the West Kingdom of that society in recognition of my (his?) service in its college of heralds. But that character is dead. (Or should I say 'dormant'?)

You invited me to "literally question anything" other than your oath. (RETRACTED) I asked whether that includes permission to question your sanity (NO YOU DID NOT). You have a problem with that? (YES I DO)

An argumentum ad hominem is of the form "N has a character flaw, and therefore N's statement is invalid"; this is rather like denying the antecedent. It is not argumentum ad hominem to say "N makes statements A B C, which are fallacious for reasons X Y Z, and incidentally from N's statements I infer X about N's character"; the inference is the other way 'round. If one were to say such a thing, N would be wise to examine the statements in question and ask Nself why they might lead to such an inference.

(THIS STATEMENT IS A SLANTED-AD HOMINEM, ie AGAIN, ATTACKING THE ARGUER, RATHER THAN HIS ARGUMENT, OR ITS CONCLUSION.)

Hypothetically. Do you really think that I am not aware of the ‘blatantly obvious’ circumstances of my stated situation? (NOTE TO SELF)

Your situation hasn't been stated to me in any useful detail, on account of the Official Secrets Act, remember? (CORRECT) So I don't know what circumstances you mean. (YES YOU DO) (Are you quoting the words 'blatantly obvious' from me? (NO) I hope I haven't used such a pleonasm recently.) (NOTE TO SELF)—Tamfang (talk) 07:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You asked me a question, which I've answered with civility and the truth. Your uncivil responses, comments and opinions &c, are of no concern to me whatsoever. Stephen2nd (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

deleted by Stephen from his talk page
Vert, two bendlets &c was awarded (since you ask) [...]
 * (NO I DID NOT)
 * How then am I to understand the question "Who awarded you this, the king of the fairies?" ?

You invited me to "literally question anything" other than your oath.
 * (RETRACTED)
 * Okay, I missed that.

I asked whether that includes permission to question your sanity
 * (NO YOU DID NOT).
 * Mm, reasonable people may disagree on whether that's a fair paraphrase. At any rate, with the invitation withdrawn, I withdraw the question.

An argumentum ad hominem is of the form "N has a character flaw, and therefore N's statement is invalid"; this is rather like denying the antecedent. It is not argumentum ad hominem to say "N makes statements A B C, which are fallacious for reasons X Y Z, and incidentally from N's statements I infer X about N's character"; the inference is the other way 'round. If one were to say such a thing, N would be wise to examine the statements in question and ask Nself why they might lead to such an inference.


 * (THIS STATEMENT IS A SLANTED-AD HOMINEM, ie AGAIN, ATTACKING THE ARGUER, RATHER THAN HIS ARGUMENT, OR ITS CONCLUSION.)


 * Repeating it won't make it true.
 * If someone were to write
 * "Stephen is a drunkard and therefore the German ancestry of royal consorts is irrelevant to British royal cadency practice," or
 * "Stephen is ugly and therefore the white label does not make Mowbray prince of Wales," or
 * "Stephen cheats at cards and therefore the royal motto was not contrived to encrypt his name,"
 * ...that would be argumentum ad hominem. If I have ever said anything remotely similar, I hope someone will let me know.  I have argued that your claims on these points are implausible in themselves.  If afterward, frustrated by our mutual failures to communicate, I allow it to slip out that I may have a personal opinion (derived from your statements; how could it come from anything else?), my arguments on those matters do not retroactively become ad hominem.  Even if I had such an opinion before you'd ever written anything, and secretly had it in mind all the while I was arguing against your propositions, my private opinion does not make my overt arguments invalid (to say that it does would itself be argumentum ad hominem).


 * You have a right to say you've been insulted. But before flinging technical terms it's wise to know what they mean and do not mean — assuming, of course, that you care a fig for your own credibility.

Your situation hasn't been stated to me in any useful detail, on account of the Official Secrets Act, remember?
 * (CORRECT)

So I don't know what circumstances you mean.
 * (YES YOU DO)
 * How?


 * You asked me a question, which I've answered with civility and the truth. Your uncivil responses, comments and opinions &c, are of no concern to me whatsoever. Stephen2nd (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If I learn that something I wrote invites an unflattering and inaccurate inference about me (as has happened a few times), I hasten to clarify it, and adjust my future writing with that in mind. If you're too aggrieved to take such a warning, that's your privilege. —Tamfang (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Accuracy in tinctures
The fleur de lys is in the style of the user Sodacan, whose heraldry is used a lot on that page. He has used it in this file for example. Adelbrecht (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, is that a reason to prefer it? —Tamfang (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

VP
About VP, what do you think?

I think picking and choosing is the worst way. Either have them all (as decided by reliable sources) or none of them. I tend to favor none of them a bit but can see the other side, too.

Please express your opinion on VP if you have any wisdom. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This probably refers to Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 30. —Tamfang (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Tiling upload summary
Drat, one of them didn't get a proper filename. —Tamfang (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I grouped again a bit! Very pretty all! I added some comparisons. I'm done.
 * Do you know about for batch uploading? Tom Ruen (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The reflection domains are the same as the omnitruncated dual, so you've already made those, right? It is good to see the domains with the same perspective (center). (The domains I show from Rocchini are not the same center) Tom Ruen (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The center in each figure is the omnitrunc vertex, so that no symmetry-center is 'preferred'. — I don't think I've generated all of the domain figures (in hi-res) in checkerboard style. I'm doing them now in outline style, with each mirror in a different primary color so that color-manipulation can extract all seven duals from the same image (if I ever learn to run GIMP with scripts). —Tamfang (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Cool! One idea for the uniform boundaries - try "oversampling" the pixels: Find the color in each 4 corners of each pixel, then color black all "transition" pixels (or just use black if corners converge to the same color, but different domain), and that'll make for solid lines down to the border limits. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Also if easy, good to generate all ring permutations, even if results the same topological tiling, the colors are different, so tables like at Wythoff symbol can show all of them. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have generated all seven forms in these nine families, but not yet bothered to upload the 'redundant' ones. —Tamfang (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Clifford torus
Anton, What do you think on this? See Clifford torus and Talk:Clifford torus. Tom Ruen (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think yes, all around. —Tamfang (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

"meet in fives"?
In this edit, you say "the edges meet in fives". What does that mean? What I see is three edges meeting at each vertex. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Before the gluing, each end of an edge meets two others at a vertex. After the gluing, each edge is matched to four others along its whole length (and eleven at its end). —Tamfang (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your help. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Careful with your holy mission
Concerning your "holy mission" to stamp out "a thing as a term" language, you can be overenthusiastic. For example, the recent change you made in Nudity in film was unwarranted. The original said "Nudity in film" refers to…. The quotation marks around the phrase means that the original poster was characterizing the page itself and its title, not nudity. If it had read Nudity in film refers to... without the quotation marks you would have been correct in changing it. But in this case, you were not. Embram (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears that Embram mistook the ''' (bolding) for quotation marks, which have not recently existed in that sentence. —Tamfang (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Seal of Minnesota
I have reverted your unblanking of this article as it was undoubtedly copied from this source, and it has been pointed out that Minnesota state works are not automatically PD and so in the absence of an explicit release it must be assumed to be copyrighted, making the article a copyright violation. As the template says, "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page" (emphasis original). VernoWhitney (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Toponymy in the United Kingdom
Hi there Tamfang. First on List of lingua francas, and now at the present requested move, it seems our paths are fated to cross! I just wanted to talk to you about this edit: I don't think a comment like this is going to help the situation, especially with emotions already running high. Do you think you could do one of the things suggested at Civility to mitigate the situation? I think it could save a lot of arguing. All the best.  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 20:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Joyce Summers
An article that you have been involved in editing, Joyce Summers, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have replied to your comment with

"'That would do as well. I am not a Buffy fan, so I do not know if she would be considered major or minor; I am just considering WP:NOTJUSTPLOT and WP:N. If she's a minor character, List of minor characters in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. If not, List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters.'"
 * Please feel free to modify to nomination for merger if you consider List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters to be the proper destination. It appears that I do not not know enough about the character to choose the proper destination. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, just wanted to check what your !vote is on the merger; from what you've written I am guessing "merge" but I just want to be sure. By the way, I have changed the destination article per your suggestion. The discussion is now at Talk:List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. Thanks! Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Brita Heraldiko
Saluton. Ŝajnas ke vi estas "the right man in the right place": mi tre mallertas en la angla lingvo, kaj tamen mi bezonas ekscii pri la Brita heraldiko, kiu ne estas sen konfliktoj, precipe ĉe "commons", kun la franca. Mia unua kaj ĉefa demando estas : kiuj estas (krom Fox-Davis) la "tenoroj" (la referencoj) en brita heraldiko ?

Vi povas respondi ĉi tie aŭ ĉe mia fr:Wikia paĝo

Mi tre dankas vin. Elkore, Serge Sire


 * Merci beaucoup !

Serge Sire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.235.22.174 (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Line (heraldry) and dancetty: exaction vs education
Considering that few to no other examples in the article Line use positioning in their intro (as opposed to their blazoning), perhaps "chief" should be removed from before Manning's use of "dancetty". I see the article as about the line and its variations, not about what position said line has in the field. Perhaps the lines' position in blazoning can be addressed in a separate paragraph? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

arbitration on Arms of Bagrotioni
Hi, there is an arbitration request about the Arms of Bagrotioni. If you have time to comment at Arbitration/Requests/Case, we would appreciate your thoughts on the matter. - John Vandenberg (chat) 02:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit assistance
Hey Tamfang, I know you're a big Buffy and also do some great copyediting work and was wondering If I ask for your assistance. I recently did an major overhaul and improvement of the "Restless" article (the original state of the article). I think I'll probably ending up nominating it for a GA as I put quite a bit of work into it (pretty much how I spent this past Sunday, ha!). So yeah, guarantee there's some grammar errors and other things that probably need fixing. No rush obviously, just wanted to nicely ask you. Thanks! Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution to Talk:Energy Lobby ... Fossil fuels lobby seems an appropriate new title.
Thank you for your contribution to Talk:Energy Lobby ... Fossil fuels lobby seems an appropriate new title. 99.181.140.229 (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Millrind & the locative
I'm really sorry to have changed back your very correct and judicious edit of tempus to tempore. I was confused in thinking the latter was my original edit and you were saying it should be tempus, so I changed it in an attempt to effect your comment. Just shows my ignorance of Latin. These things are important. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC))
 * Having given the matter more thought, although your Latin grammar seems correct, and I have found Ciceronian usage in my Latin dictionary to confirm your point, I have always seen it as tempus never as tempore in the writings of Victorian antiquarians, who were no slouches when it came to Latin usage. I'm therefore going to change it back to tempus, to follow their precedent, but would welcome your further observations on this point if any. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC))
 * I've only seen it as temp.. —Tamfang (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Am now fully in agreement with your observation, have found many instances of temp. but none of tempus. Clearly short for tempore. Thanks for putting me right on this point. Millrind article now updated. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC))

Be gentler!
"Oh get real?" I've published on rhombi -- I am real. A "tilted square" is a square that has been tilted so that it is no longer a square. A "pushed over square" is a square that has been pushed over so that it is no longer a square. Just like a "toppled dictator" is a dictator who has been toppled so that he's no longer a dictator. It's too trivial a matter to get into an edit war about. But you should be more polite to people who legitimately disagree with you. Duoduoduo (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh! I took "tilted square" to mean a square placed so that a diagonal is vertical. —Tamfang (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

term is a thing
Sorry to revert you there. Normally I'd agree (it annoys me as well), but in the case of Proto-Sinaitic script the phrasing was intentional. I may be wrong, it which case I should be avoided, but here I think it may actually be a term and not a thing. That is, I've seen doubts that there was any single script to go with the label. — kwami (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Campaign to stamp out "a thing is a term" language
Best wishes for your campaign to stamp out "a thing is a term" language! Duoduoduo (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imaginary_number&curid=14554&diff=455634041&oldid=455617662 was an excellent edit of a similar kind.Abtract (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. —Tamfang (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Triangulating Sort


The article Triangulating Sort has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * original research

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Glrx (talk) 03:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Honeycombs 2D Graphs
Hi Anton. Can you make edge-vertex graphs of the Convex_uniform_honeycomb in orthogonal projections, two views, relativecubic honeycomb, one perpendicular to an edge (*442 symmetry), one perpendicular to the cube diagonal (*632 symmetry). Mainly I'm interested in the Wythoffian forms. I expect they should all look like the uniform tilings, or sets of these with overlays. I could try generating these by-hand from the orthogonal projections at Uniform_polyhedron, but automation from the real honeycomb is better! I can generate a few by vertex figures but never implemented a true Kaleidoscopic construction! (This can be done to help visualize the tetracombs too, and there's more projection planes!) Tom Ruen (talk) 02:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll think about it. The first part of my thinking is that simply changing Povray's camera to "orthographic", in my mirror-based scenes, will not have the result you want. —Tamfang (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I expected. Thanks for considering! POVray also might not show vertices and need a symbol like a circle to differentiate vertices from mere visual intersections of edges. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll make the vertices yellow. Should I redo my old views with that in mind? —Tamfang (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Depth-shading and perspective line-width makes it less of an issue, but if you'd like to try, worth it I think! Tom Ruen (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)