Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:37, 16 October 2011

Welcome

Hi, I know its "customary" for users to archive their (version of) talk page discussions. You can find my "archives" by viewing the history of this page. That's not a value judgment on the discussions, its a value judgment on the custom. Thanks—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 10:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

œ 10:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Custom citemark

I love Citemark too, but I don't care for the excess metadata. I tried playing around with the javascript, but I have no real ability there. Since I saw you just posted an update to the citemark page, I thought I'd ask if it was possible to make a simple FF version with just url, title, date, and accessdate (in that order), and without linebreaks. And, if possible, to auto format the dates in standard style (dd MM yyyy...27 April 2010). You'd definitely be on my awesome list :D — Huntster (t @ c) 01:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, you bet. I wish there was something like this for google books. I kept the selection→quote feature; it probably comes in handy. If you want to turn off leading zeros for day of the month, like 01 May 2010, just delete the word true so the parenthesis at the very end are empty ()

FIXED: Numbers misread as dates (see: examples) and equal signs encoded with {{=}}. Instead, vertical bars are encoded with {{!}}.—Machine Elf  22:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

javascript:(function(){var%20e=function(a,b){return(a&&b?'|'+a+('='+b).replace('|','{{!}}')+'\x20':'');},f=function(x){return(x&&(x=new%20Date(x))&&,x.getFullYear()].join('\x20')||'');},s=function(){return(window.getSelection?window.getSelection()+'':document.selection?document.selection.createRange().text:'');};alert(.join(''));})()

javascript:(function(){
  var e=function(a,b){
    return(a&&b?'|'+a+('='+b).replace('|','{{!}}')+'\x20':'');
  }, f=function(x){
    return(x&&(x=new Date(x)) 
      &&[x.getDate(),[
        'January','February','March','April','May','June',
        'July','August','September','October','November','December'
      ],x.getFullYear()].join('\x20')||'');
  }, s=function(){
    return(window.getSelection?window.getSelection()+''
      :document.selection?document.selection.createRange().text:'');
  };
  alert(['{{cite\x20web' 
    , e('url', window.location)
    , e('title', document.title) 
    , e('date', f(document.lastModified)) 
    , e('accessdate', f(Date())) 
    , e('quote', s())
    , '}}'].join(''));
})()

May the triforce be with you Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Haha, thank you thank you! Absolutely perfect, in every way. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Changing BCE/CE to BC/AD

Hi, i see you reverted my edits on History of China. Well my reason that I change it to BC/AD is because that has been in use for about 2000 years and has been the standard and the BCE/CE is not widely used. People are familiar with BC/AD but may be confused by BCE/CE. Does for example 1323 BC equal to 1323 BCE? and besides, BCE/CE are secular in idea. Wolfdog406 (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's important to be consistent. The section headers on History of China were changed but the entire article uses BCE/CE and so does Template:History of China. That broke section links from other articles. Please see WP:ERA about changing from BCE/CE to BC/AD. 1323 BC is the same date as 1323 BCE.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please see WP:ERA. The article used BC/AD from the beginning until it was changed in violation of WP:ERA. It is only important to be consistent within an article. No other article or template has a bearing as far as WP:ERA is concerned. If something else got broken, then it should be fixed. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

@VMS Mosaic, I suggested Wolfdog406 see WP:ERA, so perhaps you could infer I've seen it, and I'm acting according my interpretation of it? The History of China article has been using BCE/CE for over a year and, as I mentioned, there have been well over 500 edits since then. That implies a long standing de facto consensus. There must to be a good reason + consensus for you to make your desired change at this time. You combined your attempt to change it to BCE/CE with a vandalism revert and marked it as minor. One reason I oppose the change is because it will break wikilinks to sections of the article that have BCE/CE in the names. You do not yet have consensus and I suggest you refrain from edit warring.

I see that Template:History of China was designed to go either way via a parameter. I agree that the choices made in other articles are not sufficient justification to make such a change, however it's something editors might like to consider in terms of reaching a new consensus.

I'm reverting the article back once again and moving this discussion to the article's talk page. Let's continue it there please.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sex magic

Please see my detailed response on Talk:Sex magic. The "undue" template is being abused. Yworo (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, you are, by definition, the one who is warring, as you are reverting without discussing on the talk page. Yworo (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Yworo, I was trying to respond thoughtfully to your message here... please don't be confrontational. The template isn't hurting anything. I don't think the "undue" template is being abused and I think you made some valid points at Talk:Sex magic#Partiality. I'll respond there asap. K,thx—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In my view, repeated reversion w/o discussion first is confrontational. It also doesn't hurt anything for the template to be off for a while. Yworo (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please be patient and help to discuss and resolve the issue before removing it. Thank you.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, there is no issue. As I've clearly shown on the talk page. Yworo (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You may want to note that another editor, one whose name I recognize as having authored books on the topic, has already agreed with me about the use of the undue tag. Yworo (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to respond to the article's talk page when you keep messaging me here on my user talk. A second editor already agreed with WP:UNDUE so that's 2 in favor and 2 not in favor. Maybe some more editors will see it and chime in (even help improve the article).—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied at the talk page. Thx—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Tendenuously??

Misplaced Pages is not for people who want to discriminate and make others feel uncomfortable - you know that I could have you up for being biggoted just in your previous comments towards me before I replied you on the edits page - I saw what you wrote in your "briefly describe edits section" (i.e. like you telling me I am "prostelyzing" etc - for this is an accusation of sorts) ! If wikipedia claims to be so neutral - then as a participant, don't use terminology that has essentialist overtones or picks on a group of people (i.e Christians or Muslims) to make them out to be bad. Doing that is BAD and not welcome on this site. Objectivity means ALL across the board - and it means also allowing for the input of others where extra information on the page may be needed because otherwise it would be lacking in substance. At the top of the cultural appropriation page, there was a request for more input, more substance. And it is important to be sensitive to the fact there are some terms/words which are going to be racially controversial and I would appreciate that you respect equality by refraining from inserting them into the text. The terms I used were not "villifying any particular group/s" and were instead rather neutral. What's more is I did not throw out huge chunks of other people's stuff. I filled in information I felt was relevant from an indigenous person's perspective and if you can't respect that, well you do have a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siuyinh (talk • contribs) 12:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Forgot to sign Siuyinh (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Siuyinh, I see where the mis–communication began:

1. 19:21, 18 June 2010 (diff | hist) Cultural appropriation ‎ (→Examples: "Cross of Christ"—for what culture is that specifically appropriate? see proselytisation/christianization...)

§Examples

I honestly didn't mean to imply that you were "prostelyzing". I asked what Christian culture you had in mind because Christianity has been introduced all over the world. What I mean is Christianity proselytizes, so in general, Christians would be pleased when a potential–Christian commits to a "Cross of Christ" tattoo. I can't imagine Christians would consider the word "proselytisation" to be insulting, from their point–of–view, they're "saving souls" or "spreading the word"—those are euphemisms—the formal term is "proselytizing".

In the context of the article, all of the examples where "Appropriated by people who have no interest in, or understanding of, their original cultural significance."

• sports team names of Native American tribes,
• tattoos of the Cross of Christ
• tattoos of Polynesian tribal iconography,
• tattoos of Chinese characters,
• jewelry of Celtic knot–work ("art/bands").

Christ isn't a culture. In my opinion, your insert didn't fit—it was confusing and inappropriate. Another editor undid your addition of "obvious" to "Obvious examples include..." and you changed it back, without comment and then removed Christianization, Islamization and Xenocentrism without comment.

^* Various portions were also rearranged so the diff was confusing. I see I was mistaken, you didn't forget to include the paragraph: "A bindi dot when worn as a decorative item by a non-Hindu woman could be considered cultural appropriation, along with the use of henna in mehndi as a decoration outside traditional ceremonies." Rather, you merged it with the previous paragraph and moved:

When two editors undo a minor addition like "Obviously", you shouldn't keep reverting. (That's an example of "tendentious editing"). You could post your reasoning on the talk page in order to solicit consensus...

You say "At the top of the ... page, there was a request for more input, more substance." Actually, it said the article "needs attention from an expert"...

{Expert-subject|sociology|date=November 2008}

If you're a sociology expert, that's super, but I hope you don't expect me to be impressed by your claim of being "indigenous"... WP:NPA still applies to indigenous Sociology experts who call other users bigoted.

I have to laugh... I realize you're new to Misplaced Pages and everyone needed to get the hang of things like edit summaries, consensus and undo when they were new. By all means, "have me up", if you don't realize you've over–reacted. The truth is, everyone gets a bit upset from time to time and that's all just water under the bridge. There's a lot to learn—hold on to that enthusiasm and easy does it—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Email

Yeh sure, but I don't have your email address... (Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC))

Taijitu

Hi. I'll reply in time, just let us give other editors more time to present their views (as you realized the bizarre actions of the third guy made me to not take him seriously anymore). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Pelasgians

I've restored the previous version, which is close to the given source.Alexikoua (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, references for each view should be indicated individually rather than en masse, but thank you for verifying and I don't have a problem with it so long as all the references aren't simply deleted, (along with any indication that some sort of controversy exists).—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Inferno, Canto VII

Hello, Machine Elf 1735! Welcome to WikiProject Philosophy! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Misplaced Pages. Please do take a look at the Misplaced Pages Tutorial and The five pillars of Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Greg Bard (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Getting Started The project encourages you to use your watchlist to monitor articles and discussions in the area of Philosophy. There are some special pages which the project provides to help keep you aware of current activity: Watchlist and monitor the Philosophy Noticeboard. This is the central discussion area for the project. Watchlist and monitor the Log of Assessment Changes. This is a log of all changes to any Assessment values of articles within the purview of the project. You are encouraged to help in the assessment of articles. Watchlist and review New Philosophy Articles. This page is produced by a bot which searches all new articles for certain terms which indicate that the article may be within the purview of the project. Watchlist and monitor Philosophy Articles Proposed for Deletion. You are encouraged to express your support or opposition and otherwise suggest ways to improve content. You are also encouraged to use templates provided by the project: Add {{User WP Philosophy}} to your user page. It will display a badge and automatically add you to Category:WikiProject Philosophy members. For your convenience, you may also choose to place the Philosophy Navigation Banner on your user page as well by adding {{Philosophy/Nav}}.

Archives

Hi Machine Elf. Since you said you are new, so would probably not know this anyway, I thought I'd let you know that once something has been archived (eg AfD discussion, discussion on a noticeboard or article talk page etc) you should not go in and edit it. You'll notice at the top of closed AfDs that it says 'do not edit'. I've reverted your edit to the Afd on Sabbatic Witchcraft for this reason. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi EotR, I'm was about to open an ANI case about that. Although I'm fairly new, I think I'm able to make a pretty good case that it served no purpose except to cast false aspersions at me personally, and thus can be deleted, although strictly speaking the (completely false) accusations were about "lies" and "behavior".

I'd like you to know that if only someone had just told me you're a young Wikipedian, I would have totally understood and certainly would have cancelled the WQA. I think admins should understand where young users are coming from and act accordingly. But I was left to figure it out on my own.

I'll rewrite my ANI case so that it doesn't say it's been removed. But I wish you would have recognized that Lulubyrd was lying, big-time, and that you would have seen I gave a reason which, arguably, allowed it to be deleted. Most importantly, I wish you had let someone else make that call. After all, you know what a queen I can be when I'm really upset ;-D Probably best to just stay out of each other's hair with anything delicate, don't you think? Sorry if I'm not explaining myself well... I'll ask Johnuniq and E. Ripley to come by too, just to make sure we all have everything sorted out. K,thx—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have not followed this and have probably missed many details, but my advice would be to recognize that bad stuff happens, and we are all likely to encounter minor injustice from time to time. Yes, if editor A says editor B lied, that is an attack that contravenes WP:NPA, and at least one post at WP:Articles for deletion/Sabbatic Witchcraft warrants an NPA warning. However, while I have not looked at any details in this particular AfD, it is common for feelings to run hot in deletion discussions since the values that people believe in are being challenged, and there is generally a fair allowance made for occasional minor bad behavior when under stress. I suggest that a few days should be allowed for people to calm down with no action taken now; after that, if someone makes further unwarranted claims regarding Machine Elf 1735, then warnings and possibly noticeboard action can be taken. If wanted, feel free to contact me on my talk page (provided a few days cooling off has occurred), and I would be happy to provide on opinion on a disagreement. ANI action may get a bad result unless all these points are addressed first: report is brief and understandable; issue is ongoing and serious (a couple of "liar" accusations is not sufficient); other remedies have been sought, including discussion on user talk pages and appropriate noticeboard like WP:WQA. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Machine Elf. I reverted so you wouldn't get in trouble. There's an amusing Misplaced Pages essay Drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass which may give you an idea of the way many people view things that happen between Misplaced Pages editors. On the whole, in my view, ANI is a bit like Imperial Chinese justice - it's far better not to go there at all, regardless of whether you are the plaintiff or the defendant.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Johnuniq, EotR, You nailed it, my blurb was too long and they said I should make an effort to talk to Lulubyrd about it. He he, Judge Dee. Ya, I'm sure pocket lint becomes slightly more exciting than those boards for the admins after awhile. And thanks for that EotR, they said Lulubyrd could still strike it/remove it too, so probably best to patch things up by WP:AGFing that'll happen. I don't mind making an overture, but I'm glad, either way, we can both just go about our wiki-fun, no harm/no foul/no stick—if lie lies are generally covered by NPA, I'll just make it go away eventually if Lulubyrd won't.

It's true, I shouldn't let it get to me... just compounds teh dramz. I've probably caused that sad little AfD to get more attention by complaining than it ever would have gotten otherwise. But some good's come of it anyway, thanks guys—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you've got this sorted, but I just wanted to acknowedge your message. — e. ripley\ 00:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Userfy request

Granted. It's at User:Machine Elf 1735/Moved/Talk:Sabbatic Witchcraft now. - Penwhale | 21:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Great, thank you!—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

History of Taoism

Its unfortunate you thought my edit was some kind of joke. Perhaps I went a bit far with the Jediism, but what exactly was wrong with the inclusion of Reform Taoism and Dudeism? I think they have purpose to be mentioned somewhere in the history of Taoism; the philosophy of Taoism is gaining more and more popularity in the Western world. They're manifestations of taoist thought all the same, and I sympathise far more with them, than all that religious nonsense that Taoism was tainted by throughout history. Where do YOU suggest they go, in the popular culture section of the Taoist page?!ThePhantasos (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to comply with WP:RS and the organization is obviously not WP:NOTABLE. Plus, your description wasn't WP:NPOV: "that undermine the more superstitious outlook that Taoist religion developed into, and seek to reintroduce the fundamental philosophic concepts to 21st Century world". Should read: "a religious organization which founder Michael J. Toley admits is 'actually quite new' but nonetheless claims the Taoist religion developed a "superstitious outlook" and, although they have no clergy, they do have a PO Box in Colorado, with which 'Reform Taoists' will seek to reform Taoists (quarter of a billion+) by 'reintroducing the fundamental philosophic concepts to 21st Century world'." whatever that's supposed mean.

I assumed from your other edits that you probably didn't exactly intend to be more than a little offensive.

So dude, if you honestly want my advice, I suggest you catch a clue about cultural appropriation, and say "thanks trippy dao dudes for all that tasty religious nonsense that I am sym-pa-ti-co with."—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well from the points you've provided, I can see the 'error in my ways'. I'm not overly neutral and fluent when editing large sections of an article, and often subject to bias. I admit that I disagree with what I had written in the statement regarding the billion+ religious taoists, it was somewhat ill-mannered of me. In regards to the dudeism, I apologise if it looked like I was advertising the philosophy?, it was merely something I thought relevant of some recognition. As for your last remarks - if you don't mind my asking, though I can imagine you may at this time - does "tasty religious nonsense" indicate that you're not in fact respective of taoist philosophy?ThePhantasos (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You're doing fine with the editing. I didn't mean to give you a hard time about the Dudeism thing. It's like from that movie, (I didn't see it). We really did talk like that around here, way back when... not so much these days.

My friend, read the great philosophers to make sense of sense, if it's better to admit of no nonsense, and when you're waiting, read the sense to make philosophers of sense; but the Tao in none of these is the eternal Tao which all things respect. What would not?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Pelasgian creation myth

Hi - if you've got time, this article could use some attention, and you seem to know something about it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

And I'd like your opinion of this edit to the article, which I noticed after I posted the above - it's a phrase the editor keeps adding to articles even, I believe, where it makes no sense. Dougweller (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If it hasn't sprouted legs, I've got that book around here somewhere. I noticed the same was gently rolled back on paganism, I'll come by.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback from Yworo

Edit Assist

A delayed thanks for your technical help editing Double Bind. I know the rule is to put most recent entries on the bottom of the talk page but I get the impression no one is reading them. I suppose silence--vs. a revert--says something positive so I shouldn't complain.
For many years I had the vague impression that few people understood DBs which has been confirmed in editing the DB entry--and maybe that's the problem. --Margaret9mary (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No, not many thanks for the hard work, but it doesn't go unappreciated. I appreciate the work you've done for the article anyway — and I'm happy to help. Silence is definitely golden, no doubt about it. It's astonishing some of the analogies people have come up with.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Postmodern Wicca et al.

There are five stages of grief every Misplaced Pages spammer will go through when the content is removed. These steps are a natural and timeless part of life, but it may be helpful to know what to expect and how to cope. It can be difficult to come to terms with the realization that one's business, interests, or existence in general are not relevant to the rest of the world in the form of a Misplaced Pages entry. The five stages of grieving are:

1. Denial: "This is not spam. My website/article is important/relevant/useful/reliable/unique/spectacular."
2. Anger: "How dare you do this to me?! You have no right to censor me! I am going to report you!"
3. Bargaining: "Well, if I can't have my site/article here, neither should that other guy."
4. Depression: "It's very sad to see that a great site like Misplaced Pages is so very unfair."
5. Acceptance: "I am leaving Misplaced Pages forever. It's your loss. Goodbye, cruel world."

Tips for Wikipedians

It is the job of every Wikipedian to help grieving spammers move through the process and arrive at the fifth step as quickly as possible. Without your help, they may find themselves unable to move past a particular step, which will only prolong the pain. Being stuck on step one can lead to protracted discussions and edit warring. Step two can cause retaliatory vandalism and sockpuppetry. Too much of step three invariably causes excessive whining on noticeboards and the village pump, which really just heaps embarrassment on the already-grieving spammer. And allowing step four to go on for too long leads to ineffectual, maudlin rants on the spammer's userpage or, sometimes, on the actual website in question.

Eventually, though, every spammer will move on to stage four. They will express their disappointment in the heavy-handedness of Misplaced Pages, the bias of its editors, the short-sightedness of the policies, and your own worth as a Wikipedian. It is quite likely that references will be made to fascism, communism, or George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. Take heart, and remember that this is only a natural part of the healing process. You are a good person. Be strong. If you are exceptionally lucky, Nazism will be mentioned early, thus removing from you the need to further humor the spammer. Victory is yours, hold your head high.

I think it's a good idea to delete Postmodern Wicca and recreate as a clean redirect. I'll do that - have you copied the material you need already? Like you I am concerned with the wiccamagazine.com link, it's a virtually empty website and of no use whatever as a WP:RS. I'd support you in deleting it and if you don't feel like doing so I'll do it myself. As for needing an admin here, I prefer not to use my admin buttons on pages where I have a vested interest, except in non-controversial ways. But I'm willing and happy to engage as an editor, and likewise you don't need any permission from me to edit however you like on any page here on WP. Kim Dent-Brown 19:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm just running off to an appt this afternoon. It's not so localized, and there are sequences of tiny edits, which is why I was hoping for the history. I do still need to read the talk page. You might be thinking of Talk:Wicca, (or maybe I really need to read that page). The thing is, recreating it as a clean redirect doesn't really solve the issue I'm suggesting, because it would still work. If it were just renamed... on the AfD, someone mentioned an alternative phrase, I don't recall it right now (and I have to go). At the start of this, there were 8 hits on Google for "Postmodern Wicca". Last I checked, there were 33 including her wicca mag on page 1 right after the WP articles. It's just not a term that people are likely to search on, unless they're following this story. What was it she suggested? 400,000?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I like your spammer five stages of grief. Good work. Could be a Misplaced Pages essay. Yworo (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it Misplaced Pages:Grief. Thanks for your help with that.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for anything overly blunt I may have said before fully understanding the situation. Yworo (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Postmodern Buddhism

What do you think the odds are that any of the sources even string both words together in a row (without a comma or period between them), much less define it as a topic of discourse? Yworo (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Last time I looked, it just need to be tagged and bagged. Most of it had been moved to Postmodern religion or something, (looked like a bunch of China tourist websites). On Deconstructing Life-Worlds: Buddhism, Christianity, Culture has ℤ∃ℝ∅... but it claims to be a deconstruction of postmodern thought in Buddhism and both words do appear on 5 pages, (plus the back cover). Academic "postmodernist" writing is barely coherent at best, but that kind of non-academic "reflexivity"... I guess a good "pc" term would be primary gibberish?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Psychobabble? Yworo (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the article says it best: “There is no absolute version of reality, no absolute truths. Postmodern religion strengthens the perspective of the individual and weakens the strength of institutions and religions that deal with objective realities. Postmodern religion considers that there are no universal religious truths or laws, rather, reality is shaped by social, historical and cultural contexts according to the individual, place and or time.”—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Please take a deep breath....

....and although I guess you will have seen it, have a look at my comments on Talk:Postmodern Buddhism. As far as I can see it there is little to choose between you and User:Kary247 right now. Yes, personally I agree that the article is irredeemably flawed. But you are not going to improve it by continuing a flamewar at its talk page, and neither are you going to affect its chances at AfD. Other editors and the closing admin will simply see a lot of poor behaviour from one new editor and one experienced one. I agree that Kary has a lot to learn about editing it but xe is not getting good modelling from you right now. I will have no hesitation in placing a short block on either of your accounts if the behaviour worsens. I will be placing a similarly strong comment with Kary but please don't feel any schadenfreude when you read it; this is the more important message for you to take on board. Sorry to be so blunt but for the sake of some calm back off and let the process work its way through. Kim Dent-Brown 00:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Kim. Bravo. Sadly, it wasn't a tactic, just trying to defend myself. Plus, I'm tired from trying to maintain some sense of decorum responding at the spam forum and I was irritated by the repeated attacks. I'm staying out of the AfDs, more dramz, but I don't think the article should be deleted?! The impression I got was that it's something of a foregone conclusion? so I imagined it would probably get folded into pomo religion, which (I guess) has a better chance of survival. Ironically, I'd delete religion and keep pomo buddha. I don't imagine a closing admin even reads the talk page but there's no question, the subject is notable. The current two paragraphs don't effectively address that subject. I don't really expect anyone to read the over-lengthy notes (I didn't have time/motivation to edit them down, I'm wordy). There are several good sources in the 7, they're just no good at the end of that paragraph/sentence. I'm not planning on editing; too much hassle... The notes are to encourage constructing the article from material that really is in the sources, rather than trying to source those two paragraphs. There are two additional sources I gave that would be really good. One of them even uses the pomo buddha term (albeit with a lowercase p). I liked your comment about ancient v modern syncretism too, it brought a big smile. The good kind, not the one in the dictionary.

It's nice of you to say experienced, but I'm not so very confident... I'm not really able to be a good wp model for anyone. I don't know a good way to deal with that kind of repetitive craziness. I gratefully welcome anything you can do to make it stop.

It's a worry, because the last time I just ignored her and let her make post after post about me... it wasn't pretty. But you've helped quite a lot with that actually and I do appreciate it and trust your judgement.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 07:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking my diatribe in such good humour! I don't think the AfD for Postmodern Buddhism is necessarily a foregone conclusion; if the article were improved that would certainly shift the balance. I had absolutely no idea you were in favour of keeping it - I'd honestly never have known! Why don't you try and improve it - you obviously know something about the subject and with all the detailed work you've done looking at the references you must have some ideas about how the article could be supported? I'm always just as influenced by the content of the article than the arguments at AfD and I think other people may be as well. Kim Dent-Brown 14:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not surprised you didn't know considering the barrage of posts from Kary that followed. I figured it's best an AfD discussion remains on the AfD page, so I didn't address it directly, (just in so far as proposing more sources and a few specifics that the article should focus on). I know it was too long; I just didn't feel motivated to make it shorter, but at the same time, I didn't want it to completely go to waste. I had had the opposite opinion myself until I examined the first and second references, (I had only been looking at the 7 sources tacked on at the end). I don't know if the page is still the same, but at the time, I thought removing the distracting sources and leaving the two healthy ones, would help people notice the history of academic works in continental/postmodern philosophy regarding Buddhism (not my strongest area of philosophy, actually). As it was, a reviewer would most likely take advantage of the clickable refs, (as I had done), and see a travel guide, the atheism page (as you had), or even get redirected to www.celebrity-gossip.net... None of them properly supported the 2nd paragraph and they were all China specific. Also, I didn't want to contradict anyone but I mentioned that none of the group of 7 technically needed to say anything about postmodernism for that paragraph (sentence).

I guess I would be a "keep"... in that so far as I know, the page shouldn't be deleted just because the current article doesn't address the notability of the subject; but if I posted to the AfD, Kary would just make even more posts about me there. My one edit to the AfDs was to prevent her from obfuscating the page history: . (Please don't read an obsessive behavior into trying to help prevent that, I would very much prefer to be able to ignore her). At least the accusatory posts on the AfD don't mention me by name, there, but the comment she removed on Talk:Postmodern Buddhism, , should have been stricken out, and that does nothing to amend any of the rearranged and altered posts she blamed me for simultaneously , never mind the hyperbole and miss-framing.

It would be asking for drama if I tried to edit pomo buddha. I really do appreciate the heads up, as I was letting her get the better of me... it was certainly twice as annoying because she didn't take advantage of the material I provided to improve and expand a short list of good references. (I notice she hasn't given a page number and instead removed the page needed tag, which is typical). Frankly, I don't mind if the article is deleted given the edit summaries she's used on talk page. WP:BEANS encouraged by my comment that I can't respond to questions in her edit summaries.

More WP:BEANS in that I had asked Yworo if he thought informal moderation would help with her fallacious and irrational responses on Talk:Groove (music) and Talk:Rare groove. Since then, it's become clear from the way she keeps returning to it, that she has a deeper COI issue with Rare groove than I had imagined based on my first impression of her rare groove website. I've already responded that I won't comply with her request to remove a comment I made at Talk:Rare groove. Here's the result (in the § below this):

1. she has expanded her request to include a later comment that called attention to her socking (you might not be familiar with this one );
2. she has posted my comments out of context with added emphasis that was not my own;
3. she says "the comment 'your url' seems to be connected to some kind of attempted outing" when I have never outed her in any way (you know about the gender thing);
4. she has misrepresented what the admin said on the project spam list , implying that the message was not meant for "both parties";
5. she stated that I had specifically been given an article to read (ironically, it was WP:LETGO which obviously, she's not doing);
6. that same admin had already said that Yworo's statement was correct , (although he had thought mine was older than it was it ), but point taken that I shouldn't have responded, even on Yworo's behalf, because it had already been resolved (doh) , including comments like "very likely coi" , (I had asked Yworo about it and he thought it was probably too late to go to the COIN noticeboard), so that would have been that;
7. nonetheless, she posted that Yworo had received a warning for edit warring, which actually, he did not receive, and it just goes to show it's no misunderstanding on her part, because she repeated exactly the same misinformation in response.
8. at any rate, I really do feel compelled to add that she was the one who started it again—reason being that she had been blocked for 3RR rather than spam and her Rare groove url had been proposed to the spam blacklist, which she apparently takes to mean that the spam concerns were rejected, (I guess because it was mentioned as a next step);
9. but she really did receive (at least) four spam warnings for inserting spam citations (six times) on that exact same line (plus external links twice in that article alone);
10. and she really was blocked for 3RR over that exact same line (so perhaps I gave her good advice, seeing as she had just unilaterally attempted to redirect the article and went on to earn a warning for edit warring not long afterwards);
11. although she "won" the so-called debate (in so far as I didn't revert her a third time and the article remains the way she had wanted it), she is nonetheless continuing with the same distorted rationalization that she was being "pc", (the verifiable source actually describes the scene as multiracial), pursuant to her alleged source, Aint No Black in the Union Jack, which failed WP:V, both for the page she specified, and for containing no reference to Rare groove on any page whatsoever );
12. she continues to fail to hear what I've said (both there and at Talk:Groove (music) ), instead making false or distorted statements about what I said and did, intent on deflecting this harassment toward a non issue—when it's perhaps more insulting to suggest that black people would even take offense at the phrase "once-exotic music";
13. she says she isn't trying to "assert a URL"... I didn't say she was, I had been trying to provide a citation for the language she, herself, had previously inserted and that she insisted needed a citation (as a rationalization for edit warring over the addition of her own link) but subsequently she removed that language altogether so that it wouldn't need a cite (and I haven't touched it);
14. she states: "I would like to move forward with my work here on wikipedia, however, I feel uncomfortable with the implications and I would appreciate it if you could delete you comment from the discussion page." however, I'm not preventing her moving forward with her work on any page but it's ridiculous for her to claim as "implications" the past mistakes she denies making on that very same line... she needs to WP:LETGO and move on herself;
15. by recommending that I do so without cause, she implies that she's in danger of being falsely reporting by me for spam (something no one has ever done);
16. rather than acknowledging that I've placed my concerns about socking with her IP address on her IP's talk page, (she even fooled Yworo: ), instead she's suggesting that I should report her to that notice board, (which I have no intention of doing);
17. she mentions that she doesn't think an article talk page is the correct place to deal with this issue, but I didn't say that it was—I had already declined, and I was referring to her second request to remove the reference to WP:LINKFARM, which wasn't even meant to be mean spirited, and about which I'd already responded at talk pomo buddha, (the 7 sources that she admits to taking from the Buddhism article).

I'm very tired of this and I accept that putting a finer point on it was (and is) not going to help, (and this whole sloppy tldr train wreck won't do any better). I would really just prefer to have no further contact, and I need help with how to do that. I don't know how to respond. I'd certainly delete it if it weren't for the whole business about not altering talk page histories.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Good thing I checked:

Kary attempted to alter her post from 11:15, 28 December 2010 at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam#raregroove2mp3.com marking it minor with no edit summary

• 15:21, 1 January 2011

I revert that with the edit summary: "Undid revision 405327000 by Kary247 (talk) rvv—Stop altering talk page discussions. It will auto archive after 7 days, fwi."

• 16:26, 1 January 2011

Kary proceeds to post there 11 more times, to which Yworo or I responded... But, although I was sincerely trying to provide accurate responses, because I, myself, had mentioned that she had lengthened the archive time, meanwhile, this is the subterfuge she was posting to the two admin's who had blocked or warned her about edit warring, (one of whom ended the discussion at long last)...

SarekOfVulcan 17:02, 2 January 2011 (→Warning for Edit warring: new section)

-== Warning for Edit warring ==

I am trying to refrain from communicating with Machine Elf as I received a warning for edit warring, however, he is over at wikispam where he and Yworo listed my user name endlessly commenting in some kind of effort to keep my user name listed there on an ongoing basis rather than allowing the talk board to archive. How do I resolve this? --Kary247 (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Kary's "trying to refrain" and yet, meanwhile, she posts to:

• User talk:Barek x2
• Talk:Postmodern Buddhism x5
• User talk:Machine_Elf_1735 x4
• User talk:Kary247 x5 (about me every time)
• Postmodern Buddhism x1

SarekOfVulcan 19:58, 2 January 2011 (→Warning for Edit warring)

I am trying to refrain from communicating with Machine Elf as I received a warning for edit warring, however, he is over at wikispam where he and Yworo listed my user name endlessly commenting in some kind of effort to keep my user name listed there on an ongoing basis rather than allowing the talk board to archive.

• How do I resolve this?
• Given they have already listed the url they are bothered by for proposed black list or whatever, can they keep posting endlessly on the wikispam talk - the result of this is that my user name stays there and says - links to wikispam--Kary247 (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, she posts to:

• User talk:Barek x4
• User talk:Kary247 x1 (about me)

SarekOfVulcan 20:17, 2 January 2011 (→Warning for Edit warring)

-== Warning for Edit warring ==

I am trying to refrain from communicating with Machine Elf as I received a warning for edit warring, however, he is over at wikispam where he and Yworo listed my user name endlessly commenting in some kind of effort to keep my user name listed there on an ongoing basis rather than allowing the talk board to archive.

• How do I resolve this?
• Given they have already listed the url they are bothered by for proposed black list or whatever, can they keep posting endlessly on the wikispam talk - the result of this is that my user name stays there and says - links to wikispam--Kary247 (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• Can you ask them to refrain from repeatedly posting there so that my username gets archive because my username is saying 'links to wikispam'?
• If you are unable to help, could you please let me know what process I follow so that they stop endlessly posting on this board so it won't archive? Thanks--Kary247 (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, she posts to:

• Talk:Postmodern Buddhism x6 (including the edit summary: "PLEASE NOTE EDITOR DECIDED TO DELETE HIS COMMENT, I AM LEAVING MY REPLY TO COMMENT"
• User talk:Kary247 x4 (all about me)

SarekOfVulcan 22:54, 2 January 2011 (→Warning for Edit warring: has been resolved)

Deletes her messages from the admin's talk page and proceeds to post to:

• Talk:Postmodern Buddhism: "stop moving my talk comments around or I will place a report to admin"
• Talk:Postmodern Buddhism: "restoring my talk comment that was manually deleted."
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Postmodern Buddhism: "adding discussion page to AFD Postmodern Buddhism as my comments are being deleted and moved around"
• Deletes her posts and the admin's response from:

Barek 23:54, 2 January 2011 (→Having a problem on the wikispam discussion board and the black list)

-== Having a problem on the wikispam discussion board and the black list ==

Machine Elf and Yworo seem to be attempted to keep the wikispam from archiving by constantly commenting on a situation that should be resolved and archived. How do I resolve this? Can you ask them to refrain from posting on the wikispam talk considering they have already listed the url they are so bothered by to proposed blacklist and other bots and things. The issue is my username keeps say links to wikispam and the discussion board won't archive while they keep posting endless confusing comments there. Can you ask these editors stop posting there or is there some process I need to follow to do this?--Kary247 (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• NOTES

• My user name has been listed here over at the proposed blacklist - http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:SBL - and here and given that a block sufficiently resolved the situation, I feel that this relates more to edit warring, which is so pathetic. Some kind of bot has been placed in connection with my user name which resolves to ip address adobe.com which is ridiculous. A simple block should have been the first step, particularly given that the discussion page was used to list the suggested site. The editor who reverted me was warned by an admin. for edit warring. The same editor listed my user name here and over at the black list place, on the same day the 22 December. It is just so obviously a lame way to connect my user name with wikispam. How mean.--Kary247 (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• I was blocked for edit warring(NOT spam) at blocked for edit warring at 20.08 and yet the editor reported my user name here and at the proposed blacklist at 20.26, see Yworo listing at 20.26so what was the point of that, just being mean. I was blocked anyway, and as I have mentioned, so it is just mean and not following the suggested guidelines, to go and list my user name after I was blocked here and there regardless. Also, given you(Yworo) were spoken to by an admin. about your inappropriate role in the edit warring, this implies that you(Yworo) disregarded admin. advice and continued to edit war by listing my user name--Kary247 (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Continual inappropriate requests by Yworo and Machine Elf for me to disclose information about myself online and listing endless URLs on the wikispam discussion board after they have been told by you that it is a non-issue should have been placed at conflict of interest(?) and the issue should be resolved - this is after the url has been posted to proposed blacklist.--Kary247 (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

As the adding of the link stopped and has not resumed, I've declined the blacklisting request for now. Although, if innapropriate use of the link resumes, it can be resubmitted and I would add it to the blacklist at that point. I'll take a look at the WT:WPSPAM page, I hadn't been following where the discussion progressed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Please, don't let her try to manipulate anyone else regarding this and please make her quit harassing me. I do not deserve any of this and I am not the bad guy.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 10:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

13:42, 5 January 2011 Kary removed the following request, and in the hope it might have been a tacit way of agreeing to WP:LETGO... I put this discussion in a collapsed box, 00:45, 6 January 2011. But no sooner had I done so than Kary's talking smack about me with her IP at User talk:Yworo, because she: "Just dropped by to say goodbye" 00:52, 6 January 2011...

== Please remove your comment on the Rare Groove discussion page ==

"Politely, in a non-judgemental way, raise the issue with the other editor; emphasise the desire to move forward constructively"

Please remove your comment on the rare groove discussion board as I have previously requested. The comment is not relevant to the specific discussion, as my comments in the discussion focused on language choices and the use of politically correct terminology in the footnotes of the reference section. You comments seem to imply that I am a 'spammer' and that I used a 'sock puppet'.

The comments that I would like you to remove are:

"I'll remind you that you were very recently blocked for edit warring about it. You've also receiving four SPAM warnings for inserting your URL"

I am really interested in focusing on sources in a critical way to ensure an unbiased and neutral viewpoint. I was not blocked for edit warring about the language choices in the text. Similarly, the comment 'your url' seems to be connected to some kind of attempted outing - you have been given an article to read about this by an administrator and the same administrator has comment that you seem to bringing up events from the past for no valid reason.

As I was in no way attempting to assert a URL in relation to this particular discussion, I feel that you seem to be trying to strengthen a discussion about political correctness by referring in an un-constructive way to a previous issue that was not connected.

I would like to move forward with my work here on wikipedia, however, I feel uncomfortable with the implications and I would appreciate it if you could delete you comment from the discussion page.

If you feel that I am spamming, please report it to the relevant noticeboard. If you feel that I am using a sock puppet, please report it to the relevant noticeboard.

I don't think the discussion page of an article is the correct place to deal with the issue.

Kind Regards, --Kary247 (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy trails—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

And back so soon to harass me about something else...

== please delete from your subpages the copy of the wikispam talk section ==

It appears that on the 2nd January 2011 you are continuing to preparing a conflict of interest report about me in your user subpages - this is a shame as I thought this issue was resolved. If you must compile this type of report in your user sub-pages, please refrain from having sections of the wikispam talk noticeboard - your edit 2nd January - included in the report as this keeps bringing up this info. in "what links here on my username". Also, when you run an internal search with my username, the copy that you have taken from the wikispam noticeboard comes up. An administrator has already said that this is a non-issue. You are of course, free to file a conflict of interest report, but having this information in your user sub-pages, so that it indexes next to my user name, feels like an attack.

I am sure this is not what user subpages should be used for.

User:Machine_Elf_1735/COIN

• If you need to access information from the wikispam talk board, it will be on the page or in the archives, having it in your subpages, means that this information keeps coming up as linked to my user name.--Kary247 (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks --Kary247 (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)--Kary247 (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Chinese astrology

Please note that years in sexagenary cycles are different from years in the traditional Chinese calendar. The ancient Chinese Astrologist usually takes the start of a year from Li Chun (Feb 4 every year), the system, it's also called "Shichen Bazi" (時辰八字), which has absolute no relationship with the Chinese calendar. In the Chinese calendar, a standard year only contains 354 days, which makes it inappropriate for astrology observation. --LC.Lau (talk) 05:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitely bring it up on the article's talk page (Talk:Chinese astrology). It's a really major change to have been wrong all this time, but that's certainly not impossible. It should be presented for discussion with other editors though... Your changes haven't been deleted, they're still available by clicking the View history tab at the top of Chinese astrology (or click here). I'd be glad to paste it into a new section of the talk page if you like?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please paste it into Talk:Chinese astrology, not quite familiar how things work in English Misplaced Pages... I do have some reliable sources for this but they are all in Chinese, can I cite these webpages too? --LC.Lau (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem: Talk:Chinese astrology#Proposed changes to table. Sure, go ahead and post them there.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Die dice

You know someone's just going to come and put it back to dice again. Myself I don't think it's that serious a grammar error. Slightsmile (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I marked it minor, I can't imagine a serious good faith grammar error but an IP adding 1 letter from "a die is thrown" to "a dice is thrown" should be fixed, don't you think? Anyway, because it's quantum mechanics, I think it needs to be clear that it's 1 rather than 2 dice. I actually thought about changing it to "one of a pair of..." but I thought that might seem confusingly irrelevant to most readers.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense when you explain it that way. It's just that I've been seeing this comedy going on since I started here. Die and dice, BCE and BC, CE and AD. It's it's it's driving me crazy! Slightsmile (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know what you meant, and I'm still not certain, but I did a search and was surprised to find a couple of wiki articles that say, in Britain, dice singular is becoming increasingly acceptable. They're not sourced but taking it at face value and assuming that might be it... I'd just observe that I didn't have a clue it's becoming acceptable anywhere—the conventional wisdom is that it's just plain wrong. I couldn't find any consensus or discussions about it, but presumably WP:ENGVAR would be the relevant guideline? I noticed template:dice offers no explanation for the "ongoing edits":

Template:Dice/doc

So... yes, it's a drag to have to tidy up after WP:ERA–inappropriate edits, but some people take BC/AD as a sort of religious mission and that has been an enormous waste of time for the project with countless archives full of discussion on the subject. In this respect, I'd say the comparison is a stretch vis-à-vis such a simple undo of an apparently sophomoric mistake. (No offence intended to the IP whose prior edits included only minor corrections to Batsuit and General Grievous).—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 11:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No big deal at all - the "driving me crazy" was humour, right? Sure if dice - die affects the meaning then for sure fix it. Everyone has their own editing ways - for example me, if I see someone preferring AD and BC because of some religous thing, or the old US UK spelling dance - I so couldn't be bothered. Slightsmile (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Are your edits constructive?

I'd like to ask if you think your edits to JavaScript Syntax are constructive. Do you know the difference between a false and falsy value? 72.152.120.17 (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I could ask you the same question: do you think this is editing constructively? Thank you pointing out an error, but it wasn't at all clear from your first WP:EDITSUM that there was an error. You included no edit summary in your following edit so it seemed like you just WP:DONTLIKE it. There was no reason to remove the example entirely, as well as the explanations from the other examples... and delete a pair of string delimiters... (presumably a mistake on your part?)

However, I have every confidence you were capable of easily fixing it. And whereas I see you tried to add different examples... and soon deleted them, my confidence remains undiminished, and I would never callously announce that you should “go learn JavaScript” due to a bug in all your examples.

When you reverted my edit, almost all of the changes you reverted were completely unrelated to the previously unidentified error.

At least you've finally said what the problem is, however, your edit summary was extremely rude.

18:51, 4 March 2011 “(Undid revision 416826330 by Machine Elf 1735 (talk) -- Please learn JAVASCRIPT before editing this page. The results of running YOUR code DO NOT MATCH what happens.)”

But that was nothing compared to your post on Talk:JavaScript syntax which I reverted per WP:NPA, (see below). For your information, the edit summary you decided to misrepresent on the article's talk page, would actually return "The No Asshole Rule", which I found apropos. In fact, I was so inspired that I wrote a thoughtful addendum to Template:uw-wrongsummary.

I notice you triggered Abuse Filter 47, ("Prolific sockpuppeteers"), resulting in several of your attempts to edit my talk page (in order to fix the nowiki tag) having been disallowed. So, no hard feelings about that little reminder to use the Preview button, I hope?

“== User Machine Elf 1735 ==”

It's inappropriate to name a section after a user like that. Focus on content.

“User:Machine Elf 1735 keeps reverting my edits and reverting my reverts.”

That's not true, I've reverted your edits once, and reverted your revert once. See WP:BRD.

“He has put in blatantly untrue information into this article,”

No, that is blatantly untrue. There was a simple error in one example which you failed to point out.

“such as true == "0", "Only ±0 and NaN are false Numbers. ", and "Only the empty String is false."”

As you're aware, I corrected “true == "0"” to read “"0"?true:false” why are you harping on that? Both ±0 and NaN would evaluate to false in a boolean context. You're welcome to, but not everyone uses the terms "truthy" and "falsey", probably because they sound a bit silly.

“when in fact, 3 is not equal to true, and NaN is not equal to false.”

There is no example with the number 3, and besides, 3 does evaluate to true in a boolean context, just as NaN would evaluate to false. I fail to see your point.

“There is a difference between falsy and false values in javascript, but he removed this note.”

I've posted a new section Talk:JavaScript syntax#Truthy and Falsey that's focused on content rather than users. If you'd like to source it and say something about those terms, please go right ahead.

“He even put a tenary operator into an example on equality, which is completely unrelated.”

LOL, it was not an example on equality, it was an example on automatic type coercion of booleans and the ternary operator was perfectly acceptable, especially because it demonstrates a different behavior.

“Then he goes on my talk page accusing me of "putting incorrect information" in.”

Your edit summaries were inaccurate, insufficient, and inappropriate as I've detailed at some length above.

I used Template:uw-wrongsummary to post to your talk page; it is an appropriately worded template for such situations. Please consider that you're perceived civil communication as an accusation, while perhaps failing to examine your own behavior. I see your article talk page post as a personal attack, and I see your edit summaries as uncivil.

“He also just deletes my message from his talk page and links to Misplaced Pages:MAJORDICK.”

Typically, you can delete from your IP user talk page as well.

You cherry picked it from an edit summary of my user talk... an edit where I was deleting a post from an IP with an unknown problem (which turned out to be a bad nowiki tag). Be that as it may, you decided to go find that edit summary yourself; it was in no way addressed to you...

javascript:alert("0"?"]":"]") // cheerie bye

“I request he be blocked for reverting correct editing, putting in untrue information, and deleting talk messages about the issue, and etc. 72.152.120.17 (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)”

Right, I request that you relax and try to communicate more clearly and civilly.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 04:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:TPG

Your edits to my page were in violation of WP:TPG. Remove my messages again and I WILL file an admin notice. 72.152.120.17 (talk) 06:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh? It was a talkback.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 06:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yo

Your contributions remain carefully reasoned and constructive. I hope you remain involved, for you add much to collaborations.-Tesseract(talk) 14:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks T²… much appreciated.—Machine Elf  20:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Argument

I see you've allowed yourself to be dragged into the Argument page, in spite of your wanting to be left out of it, and jumped in by deleting my contributions.

Enjoy throwing your weight around without adding anything constructive to the discussion or the article?

Walkinxyz (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I've made it very clear what I suggest and the fact that you characterize it as "deleting contributions" just goes to show how unconstructive your interactions inevitably are. Stay off my talk page and stop edit warring.—Machine Elf  20:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Classic element template

See Template talk:Classic element thx—Machine Elf  20:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Philosophy articles

Hi, you reverted some of my edits to philosophy (metaphysics) articles. Surely you can see that overly strict application of WP rules to philosophy articles will lead to the following unfortunate consequence: Misplaced Pages, if it cannot interpret, explain, or illustrate, becomes "Wikiquotes", whereby all it can do is list direct quotes (small quotes, not whole books) taken from cited sources. In philosophy in particular, there is a very real danger that such uninterpreted/unillustrated small quotes will be completely uninterpretable/meaningless or even highly misleading. So, overly strict adherence to WP policy for philosophy articles leads to bad articles. I will try to make my edits a little more in line with strict policy, but I suggest that if you want WP to be a positive and useful resource (as surely, we all do), then you need to use your discretion a bit more wisely. Thanks, Stho002 (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The current lede of Four-dimensionalism reads like an essay, not an encyclopedia article and I've tagged it as such. Can we please work together to come to a consensus? Thanks. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on a reply but I got a bit distracted. I do agree that the old lede sitting underneath it is better. I hope Stho002 will agree that it needs more work and attempt to incorporate his contributions better into the body of the article. Will post more soon.—Machine Elf  16:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Stho002, I'm glad you wrote. I had been working on this note and I'm glad you didn't find those reverts too discouraging. You were clearly familiar with the identity material, but many, if not most, of the readers won't be. I think we can rely on them to make up their own minds without editorializing—collectively we can provide a neutral, non-superficial treatment of the major perspectives. A speculative, inquisitive, and conversational tone (essay-like) is totally fine on talk pages, as opposed to articles, but your behavior at Talk:Identity (philosophy) was combative and totally out of line, (especially the post which BoK mentioned at Wikiquette)..

I haven't faulted you for explaining, illustrating or even interpreting... Preempting the lead of four-dimensionalism with gripes carried over from your edits at identity and segueing the “discussion” into materialism is just bad form.

FYI, the wikiquotes rhetoric won't impress anybody. I'm sure blogging is hard work. So is editing the encyclopedia. I hope you won't take it the wrong way when I say that people don't care about our opinions on philosophical issues. We should be invisible. It's a much more valuable contribution to accurately convey the opinion of an academic WP:SECONDARY source regarding the subject with no significant embellishments. Take the recently reverted edits at phlogiston theory as an independent example, they didn't “(fix excessive quoting, improve flow)”, they got it dead wrong.

The thing is, I'm not being strict... at all (nor was BofK). I'm just the guy who was telling you there's some toilet paper stuck to the bottom of your shoe. My impression was that you can do much much better... I regret it's taken me so long to reply, but life happens and perhaps the response you're now seeing from additional editors will help convince you that you need to “sort yourself out”. I'm certainly not the best candidate to be handing out advice... but there's some basics, and then there are some issues which WP editors consider very important, like WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV... In fact, these are policy; so arguing about them on user and article talk pages is pointless and you should reconsider whether editing at WP is right for you or if you're OK with that. I'm just trying to give you a heads-up about them because I wouldn't want to see you spending a lot of time on a series of edits only to be shocked that someone has reverted them. Especially when you can avoid it or fix it... Right?.

I was hoping you, yourself, would choose to spruce up your 64 edits _* to identity, which I didn't revert, but meanwhile I see BofK moved the material to the article's talk page and I fully support that. Much of what I had been struggling to say here is found in the subsequent discussion there anyway. Just to be sure you're aware, “deleted” material is always available via the “history” tab. Only articles that go through the “AfD” process (articles for deletion), become unavailable. Also, in regard to your edit, it is never permissible to direct the reader to an article's talk page.

First off: the 2 most important words I can offer apart from “don't panic” _* Show Preview

Adding to the top of articles is not what you want to be doing... This too has been covered at Identity (philosophy)#Lede restored but the WP:LEDE (or lead) is supposed to summarize the content of the entire article (so the references are typically covered in the body). For short articles, they often don't but there are also conventions for the lede in philosophy articles here: WP:Manual of Style (philosophy)#Lead section. Actually, there are many good suggestions and guidelines from WP:WikiProject Philosophy you'll definitely want to check out. I noticed you made bold all instanced of four-dimensionalism but that's only done for the first occurrence. It should appear in the first sentence.

Inline citations with page numbers where appropriate (i.e., possible) are preferred because they're easier to WP:VERIFY. You can include page numbers using WP:Parenthetical referencing but styles shouldn't be mixed and an existing style shouldn't be altered without discussion. Most articles use numbered superscripts, and many use the WP:Citation templates. They're optional, but they're easy and they do help keep the references section consistent. Here are some examples, the part within curly braces is the template, and the part with the angle brackets is used for all (superscript) citations:

<ref name="Zelenak2009">{{cite journal |last=Zelenak |first=Lawrence |year=2009 
|title=Tax Policy and Personal Identity Over Time |journal=Tax Law Review |volume=62 |number=3 |pages=33–75 
|url=http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2811&context=faculty_scholarship&rct=j}}</ref>
<ref name="Robinson1985">{{cite journal |first=Denis |last=Robinson |year=1985 
|title=Can Amoebae Divide Without Multiplying? 
|journal=Australasian Journal of Philosophy |volume=63 |number=3 
|doi=10.1080/00048408512341901 |pages=299–319}}</ref>
<ref name="Sider2001a">{{cite journal |first=Theodore |last=Sider |year=2001 
|title=Occasions of Identity Andre Gallois |journal=British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 
|volume=52 |number=2 |pages=401–405}}</ref>
<ref name="Sider2001b">{{cite journal |first=Theodore |last=Sider |year=2001 
|title=Maximality and Intrinsic Properties 
|journal=Philosophy and Phenomenological Research |volume=63 |number=2 |pages=357–364}}</ref>
<ref name="parfit1986reasons">{{cite book |first=Denis |last=Parfit |year=1986 
|title=Reasons and Persons |series=Oxford scholarship online |publisher=Oxford University Press 
|isbn=9780198249085 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=SlgY93k936UC}}</ref>
<ref name="sep-repugnant-conclusion">{{cite encyclopedia |first=Gustaf |last=Arrhenius 
|first2=Jesper |last2=Ryberg |first3=Torbjörn |last3=Tännsjö |editor=Edward N. Zalta |year=2010 
|title=The Repugnant Conclusion |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 
|edition=Fall 2010 |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/repugnant-conclusion/}}</ref>
<ref name="sep-identity-ethics">{{cite encyclopedia |first=David |last=Shoemaker 
|editor=Edward N. Zalta |year=2008 |title=Personal Identity and Ethics 
|encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 
|edition=Fall 2008 |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/identity-ethics/}}</ref>
<ref name="sep-identity-time">{{cite encyclopedia |first=Andre |last=Gallois 
|editor=Edward N. Zalta |year=2011 |title=Identity Over Time 
|encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |edition=Spring 2011 
|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/identity-time/}}</ref>
<ref name="sep-identity">{{cite encyclopedia |first=Harold |last=Noonan 
|editor=Edward N. Zalta |year=2009 |title=Identity 
|encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 
|edition=Winter 2009 |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2009/entries/identity/}}</ref>
<ref name="sep-identity-personal">{{cite encyclopedia |first=Eric T. |last=Olson 
|editor=Edward N. Zalta |year=2010 |title=Personal Identity 
|encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 
|edition=Winter 2010 |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/identity-personal/}}</ref>

Finally, see WP:BRD. BofK was kind enough not revert at four-dimensionalism although it's not inappropriate to do so. I'll revert a second time and follow up with my concerns regarding style and content there at that article's talk page.—Machine Elf  15:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

reply

I really don't have the time to give this reply justice, but, as always, I'll do what I can: I am very well aware of the (limitations of) the Wiki system (I spend most of my time over at Wikispecies, where I have 200,000 edits, and I had to initially fight a certain amount of resistance in order to transform the site from "an amusement for bored people" into a serious player in global bioinformatics). Your latest reversion of four-dimensionalism is completely unjustified, so I have had no choice but to undo it. I was simply correcting a false/misleading lede, and adding an illustrative example. These things do not require consensus. If you or anybody else objects to my new lead, then the talk page is the place for you to express your concerns about it. To revert a good lede back to a bad one is totally counterproductive. I did try to make this version of the lede more concise and less "essay like" than my previous effort, but there are limits to how much this is possible, without collapsing back to a lede that effectively says nothing. There ought to be slightly more leeway with a lede, as the aim is to be an overall introduction to the topic, and strict quote and cite just doesn't work for this. The main thing is that the lede gives the reader a useful summary of what the topic is about. The old lead does not do this! It is misleading. You are not doing the reputation of WP any good at all by preventing the improvement of a misleading lede ... can't you see that?? Stho002 (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, my lede is fully compliant with NPOV, i.e., I haven't taken sides on any controversial issues pertaining to the topic, but have merely explicated the options. The fact that it is not possible to do this without any element of interpretation is irrelevant to NPOV, or else much of Misplaced Pages is impossible... Stho002 (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and one last point: what I have added to four-dimensionalism is just a starting point, and I intend to improve the body of the article, with full references, if I can find the time (but currently I'm wasting too much time pointlessly arguing over the lede) Stho002 (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Notification of Automated Replies

Hey Machine Elf 1735,

This is a friendly notification to inform you that automated notices are submitted to reported users on the WP:AN/EW noticeboard by User:NekoBot periodically during reviews of the page content to save editors from having to post their own notices and directly link to the report in question. Please see Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests_for_approval/NekoBot and User:NekoBot for more information. + Crashdoom 12:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For being resolutely fair and patient in discussion. Tesseract(talk) 03:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks T², my first barnstar. <blush> —Machine Elf  21:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Multiverse

Is the Multiverse theory the most likely explanation of the composition/structure of space? Pass a Method talk 10:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really, see philosophy of space and time...Machine Elf  23:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost interview

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Philosophy for an upcoming edition of The Signpost. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, you can find the interview questions here. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. If you have any questions, you can leave a note on my talk page. Have a great day. – SMasters (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

universe

I invite you to this discussion Pass a Method talk 09:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I must not have hit save page… it looked like you already had the discussion well in hand so I worked on some of the POV problem in the article instead. Funny how some people react to the idea of a multiverse. Regarding your question above, I ran into a multiverse theory based on old school space-time causality diff. Sorry, I don't really know anything about it though.—Machine Elf  11:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Argument

I am not sure that I catch the drift of the first two paras of you contribution at Talk:Argument#Prevailing use of "Argument" in logic continued. They appear to be about the exponential function — Philogos (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Their own derivative? It was meant in a good way. I thought the other fellow suggested using it as a section, (as opposed to replacing the lede). That seems like a good idea but if I've misinterpreted anything, my apologies. I've only been following along as best I could, tl:dr.—Machine Elf  01:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Pneuma

I didn't delete your addition of psyche. I simply moved it out of the first sentence. In introducing the concept, it only muddies matters to imply it's the same as psyche. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I try to fit everything in ed sums but sometimes it's a bit too terse. I meant to say that I disagree it implies they are the same. It says “related” and they are related…

I also disagree with moving it down below the New Testament, etc. because one, and only one, sentence in the body of the article asserts religious use. It makes no sense to mention such a clearly important and related concept as an achronological afterthought, (though I'm sure the late classical period could be added). It went out of it's way to deny any legitimate basis for comparison:“In classical usage it may be compared to but is distinguishable from ] ({{polytonic|]}}), "soul."”

I know you, yourself, are the one who added the various philosophy sections that clearly demonstrate the points I'm making, so, it's a mystery to me why you want to mischaracterize it as primarily religious and (what?) unrelated.—Machine Elf  16:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, why did you put all the explanatory material on the connate pneuma of Aristotle in a footnote? The footnote is now longer than the section. Explaining this concept is a most welcome addition. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I included the quote in the reference because it supports the points I'm making. It also just so happens to be a good reference for the short section on Aristotle. I'm sure that section, (like the sentence concerning religious usage), will eventually be expanded.—Machine Elf  16:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing: what I object to in your first sentence is the vague "is related to": in what way? Etymologically? In certain philosophies? It's a non-informative way to present the information. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "is related to" is much less vague and misleading than mere "comparisons". That they're related in many ways is made perfectly clear in the body of the article (if "breath of life" doesn't do it for you, not to mention "all the explanatory material" in its footnote)… It's a short lede for a short article/stub that does a fine job of explaining it in more depth… I'm sure you've read the article and the reference I provided, so I don't really know how to respond to bizarre questions like "Etymologically? In certain philosophies?". Etymologically??? Oh, in English? No. All the philosophies mentioned in the article, particularly Stoicism, and frankly, in no uncertain terms.

Please provide a contrary reference if you still disagree, but don't just assert it as WP:OR contrary to what's plainly evident.—Machine Elf  16:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Double bind

Hi. I added the see also link in reference to the idea of (apparent) double binds making decisions more difficult and thus commonly leading to procrastination (ie. in the example of issues involving one or more Catch-22). Thanks. ~AH1  18:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thanks.—Machine Elf  18:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Citations missing#Remove the copywrite language - Fourth request

I saw you had made a request to have {{citations missing}} updated. In order to get an administrator's attention to make the change, add  {{editprotected}}  along with your comments. (Already done.) Also, I think the template message is much better without the copyright phrase. Keep up your good work on behalf of users everywhere! _{Senator2029 | talk | contribs} 12:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah ha, the magic word. Many thanks!—Machine Elf  16:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Policy?

Can you point to a specific wikipedia policy behind your desire to keep the reference "explicit" as you called it on entropic gravity? I dont see any motivation for expressing the exact same information in a more cumbersome way. Clearly there have been other neutron interferometry experiments since 1975. Whatever parts of this analysis may be in dispute it is surely not the existence of interference patterns in 2-slit experiments. Nor should it be the rules of quantum mechanics and what they imply about interference vs entropy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isocliff (talk • contribs) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

What I tried to say in the edit summary, is that form where it's sitting, it looks like a reference supporting the counter-counter argument. But it's not. It's just a reference from 1975 saying that neutron interferometry exists, and it doesn't necessarily support either the argument, the counter-argument, or the counter-counter argument. The WP:POV of the prior editor was clear enough, so I simply left it visible, but from what you're saying it sounds even less relevant than I might have imagined. Make sense? So, why not move it somewhere more neutral or remove it? That would be WP:V. Thanks.—Machine Elf  05:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Fear mongering

My bad accusing you of promoting fear with that initial posting of firmware stuff. I have no excuses. I you wanted to understand my mistake, I would point out that at first I didn't know where the firmware discussion came from, so I googled it, and it encountered a couple bloggers using it to freak out. But again, there was no good reason at all to let (what I considered to be) their bad faith taint my opinion regarding you adding the quote to the Wikipage. I apologize for the role that blunder played in making unavoidably difficult, contentious discussion even more difficult.-Tesseract(talk) 00:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, sorry I didn't reply sooner… didn't feel like getting into it with the article edits.—Machine Elf  23:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Wave functions

You are consistently taking the liberty of removing correct science that is verifiable through reference and literature. This site is concerned with science and correctness only, not your interpretations. Please provide reference and information that formally refutes the addition to this page, being that Wave functions are abstract as represented by their mathematics and inability to be measured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nvallejo (talk • contribs) 04:15, 15 October 2011

Hi Nvallejo, and once again, welcome to Misplaced Pages. The clickable links that start with WP, like WP:BRD and WP:NPOV, are links to policies and guidelines that you should read as soon as you get a chance. As I said at Talk:Wave function#Clarifying abstract and real qualities, your contribution was moved to the talk page for discussion per WP:BRD (bold, revert, discuss cycle). Nvallejo, the reasons you gave in your edit summaries, Reinstated correct science unjustly removed (do the science please don't promote theories), Reinstating correct science. (There has been no consultation here with the author of this revision. Let that be noted.), and You are conducting consistent unwarranted removal of correct scientific literature. were not appropriate. As I said, they should be based on WP policy and guidelines, not “your science”. I'm certainly not be a “Nobel laureate”, but I can tell you're not one either. Two other editors have reverted your contribution as well, and while I'm glad to see that you've eventually engaged on the article's talk page, please keep our policies on WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA (no personal attacks) in mind when communicating with other editors in the future. You are the one who has treated others disrespectfully here, and you have introduced yourself in very bad light with comments like: “I will not tolerate 'roaming patrols' on this site deleting at will subject matter that 'they deem' inappropriate.” I expect you address the WP:NPOV concerns respectfully and to comment on content, not other editors. Please consider yourself advised that must not to revert a fifth time, (see WP:3RR). Also, it would be wise not to avail yourself of the warning templates until you know what you're doing. Finally, please don't forget to sign your talk page posts with 4 tildes (like so ~~~~) ok? Thanks for editing, I hope you like it here and decide to stay.—Machine Elf  15:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It would appear, that yourself and others are experts at interpreting the “rules of the game” for your own end in what is again a blatant patrolling of these pages to make sure that nobody else alters information on a page that reflects ‘science’ opposing that which you ‘deem appropriate’. You do not own these pages and yet seem to have the ability to do exactly that.

No one could offer the ultimate initial insult of disrespect than to completely delete new information that a researcher has offered with immaculate reference. This is your site as well as mine so in the spirit of it, anybody with enough scientific prowess should be able to inform the public of that which is correct. To have it then altered by a friendly community engaged in debate is the next step, not to have it ignored because of self interest and bias.

So do not assume to lecture me by trying to ‘show me the rules’ of ‘your site’ by referring me to links that do not address the prime issue here which is ignorance and curvature of true science.

This matter could have been resolved immediately and quickly rather than the smart arse comments that I initially received by those mentioned ‘wiki police’ i.e. ‘Thanks, I reverted it, which will probably upset them’ as if they have absolute rule over the page/site.

Before you accuse me of disrespect, answer that allegation please, the evidence is right in front of anyone wishing to view it (Michael C. Price ).

Cheers!

Nvallejo (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I realize that you're upset your “research” was moved to the article's talk page for discussion. I also realize that you genuinely believe you have the right to publish your work on WP because it is correct and proper and true beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yet, because no one seems to agree with you, what explanation could there be apart from conspiracy or foul play? I don't know, maybe all the self-righteous indignation is preventing you from reflecting on your own outrageous behavior? The editors here, myself included, have been extremely gracious considering your demands. Maybe if you took a break you'd be able to think more clearly? So far, no less than three people “could offer the ultimate initial insult of disrespect than to completely delete new information that a researcher has offered with immaculate reference.”

As you will recall, your original research was not “completely deleted”, it was moved to a talk page for discussion. I didn't want to hit you with too much at once, but as an advocate for the POV you're espousing, some of your explanations were either curiously wrong-headed or very awkwardly phrased, (probably both).

You only cite two sources; the only WP:Verifiable ones were for the direct quotations, (and one those was WP:SYN). Neither source supported your florid editorial. I had looked up the first one because I'm actually a fan of Max Born, (he's a marvelous writer). That failed WP:Verification for the following: “the particle’s position changes instance to instance probabilistically”. I'm not a scientist, so given the way you immodestly tout your superior prowess, I can only suppose the particles winking hither and thither must be great lulz.

Your other cite was merely for a quote which you took out of context. It was a highly theoretical paper that referred to photon wave functions as “PWF”s, (amid their zoo of such initialisms). Here is, pretty much, the shortest that quote you should have gone with, (emphasis added):

• “We have found, as have others… that the PWF obeys a first-order equation of motion that is identical in form to the Maxwell equations (at least in free space). One should resist, however, interpreting this as evidence that the electric and magnetic fields for a single photon physically exist. We suggest that the PWF may be taken to be the fundamental object. In order for a quantity to ‘exist’ in the sense we are using, it should be experimentally measurable given only one copy of a physical system. A wave function for a single object represents the quantum state of that object, and is not measurable, even in principle… This contrasts with the case where one has many replicas of the object, allowing quantumstate tomography to reconstruct the common state…”

Such a bizarre choice… the authors go on to suggest the E/M fields are emergent properties from many photons. FWIW, you cited the other quote correctly and merely neglected the disclaimer:

• “These comments should not be taken to imply that the wave functions have no physical interest. We shall see in this and the next sections that a wave function actually contains all the information which the uncertainty principle allows us to know about the associated particle.”

Don't come baiting me on my talk page and expect good faith after all the smack you've been talking. However, I don't mind disabusing you of your “immaculate” deception. Thanks for that!

You can hardly argue that MCP was mistaken. Cheery bye.—Machine Elf  08:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

1. James, Marianne. "Art Crime." Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 170. Australian Institute of Criminology. October 2000. Retrieved January 3, 2010.
2. "The Aboriginal Arts 'fake' controversy." European Network for Indigenous Australian Rights. July 29, 2000. Retrieved January 3, 2010.
3. "Aboriginal art under fraud threat." BBC News. November 28, 2003. Retrieved January 3, 2010.