Misplaced Pages

User talk:Gandalf61

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ling Kah Jai (talk | contribs) at 14:34, 16 May 2009 (→Repeating decimal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:34, 16 May 2009 by Ling Kah Jai (talk | contribs) (→Repeating decimal)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archiving icon
Archives

It feels like you're wikihoundinng me

(ScienceApologist originally titled this thread "Your're wikistalking me". He changed to title to "It feels like you're wikihoundinng me" in this diff on January 5, following intervention by Durova - see below. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC))

Stop it. I can see it in your contributions. Stop doing it and we won't need to escalate this further. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That is a very serious accusation, which I completely deny. Let me see what I have done recently that could have led you to make this accusation:
  • I have posted my !vote on, I think, 3 AfDs that you have initiated in the last few days, and in some cases I have also tried to improve the nominated article. However, I regularly contribute to AfD dicussions, you have raised a lot of AfDs recently, and in the same period I have contributed to several AfDs that you did not initiate.
  • I contributed (just once I think) to the discussions at Talk:Eric Lerner, which I reviewed after I saw your post at WP:FTN, which is on my watchlist.
  • We also contributed to the same recent discussion at Talk:Timeline of the Big Bang - but in that discussion, my first post preceded your post by 8 days, and my second post was a response to BenRG, not to you.
I am certain that my editing is not "wikistalking". I am quite sure that the majority of my contributions in the last few days have been to pages which you have not edited.
You seem to be telling me that I should not contribute to an AfD discussion that you have initiated or edit a page that you have edited. I regard that as an attempt at bullying and intimidation. I invite you to consider retracting your accusation. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


I am not telling you not to contribute. I'm telling you to not contribute for the wrong reasons. Some of your comments at those AfDs are needlessly personal and considering those are the only AfDs you commented on, and there was, at the time, a high proportion of pages in your contributions where you arrived at and began making comments about me. I am just letting you know how it looks from my end. If you continue editing in the mamner in which you have for the last 24 hours, we can bury this whole discussion. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


So I take it you are not retracting your groundless accusation of wikistalking. Instead, by referring to WP:NPA, you have added a further accusation of making personal attacks. I have reviewed my contributions to the three AfDs that you initiated, and I have copied them out below for reference:
No personal attacks there. No personal comments about you at all. In each case I simply stated my reasons for disagreeing with your nomination for deletion.
You need to learn that you cannot make such unfounded accusations without consequences. I am going to consult your mentor Durova about this issue. What I want to see from you now is a retraction of both baseless accusations and an apology. Do that, and this matter will be closed as far as I am concerned.Gandalf61 (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Gandalf61, you may want to know of, and possibly contribute to, the case submitted to the Arbitration Committee concerning ScienceApologist's behavior. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am already aware of the "Fringe science" RfA. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for being patient with my schedule. I've talked to ScienceApologist and he's toned down the header somewhat. From the looks of things the situation is pretty polarized here and that may not be enough to satisfy you. In chat tonight he and I realized we have a philosophical difference about civility. (SA, if I've gotten this off target and it needs clarification, please correct me.) He believes that civility is about perception, and that the I of WP:IDONTLIKEIT was unduly personal. In general, I don't agree perception is a tenable metric for gauging civility onsite because that's highly gameable: I've seen other situations where editors appear to game it (any permutation of 'no' becomes incivility in some people's eyes) or misremember (stubbornly accusing Editor A of incivility for a post that was actually made by Editor B). In this specific instance I think the WP:IDONTLIKEIT comment was couched in nonspecific terms and could refer to any adherent of the opposing view. Afterward we had a discussion about whether that characterization was accurate.

SA tells me it's his belief that when interacting with people, the civil thing to do is to let them know how you feel. He expressed uncertainty about what you consider uncivil about his post. In the immortal words of Mae West, It's not what you do, but how you do it. In tense editor interactions where good faith is in short supply and tempers run high, I've often found it helps the people I mentor to be someone they can come to when they need to blow off steam, and perhaps review a draft post and suggest a few changes to reduce the chances of it going across the wrong way. That didn't happen while this was brewing, so we agreed we're going to try that. I hope in a small way that makes this situation a bit closer to satisfactory; Rome wasn't built in a day. Best wishes all around, Durova 06:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Durova - first of all, thank you for your help and for your explanation of SA's position. I will give SA some credit for making a small step in the right direction by changing the heading of this thread, but unfortunately that is now too little and too late to make amends for his incivility. Let me take some time to respond to your points one by one:
  1. You say SA is not clear about what was uncivil in his original post. Well, he now knows that I am deeply offended by such unfounded accusations. If he lacks the insight to understand why that should be, then I cannot help him - but I trust he now understands that he should not make such groundless accusations in future.
  2. You say that SA thinks it is not uncivil to let other editors know how he feels. He is correct, and if he had worded his original post in that way (for example "I feel you may be wikistalking me. Can you explain your recent posts to AfDs that I have initiated ?") then I would not have taken offence. But he did not talk about how he felt - he outright accused me of wikistalking, and refused to correct or retract that accusation when politely asked to do so. He has now left it much too late to credibly backtrack and claim that he meant to say something different.
  3. You say that SA thinks that my reference to WP:IDONTLIKEIT was "unduly personal" (a view which I note you do not share). However, once again, if he had said that was how he felt, then I would have considered re-phrasing that particular post. But he didn't - he said "Some of your comments at those AfDs are needlessly personal" (note "some", not "one"), with a link to WP:NPA. Once again, it is now too late for him to credibly claim that "needlessly personal" with this link was not intended to accuse me of making personal attacks on him.
  4. I note that you do not say that SA shows any signs of regret for the distress that his spurious accusations have caused me, or has any intentions of apologising to me. I am sure that if he had said anything along those lines, then you would have passed it on.
SA's response following your intervention is, obviously, less than adequate - which is not in any way a bad reflection on your mentoring, as you are not responsible for the actions or inactions of your mentee. I have been considering what further action I should take in this situation. I now see that another editor has referenced this thread in their evidence to the "Fringe science" RfA, so I think any further action or discussion on my part has become irrelevant and inappropriate. Unless SA wishes to offer a full and sincere apology (which might mitigate his offence somewhat) I have no interest in anything further that he says about this matter. By not retracting his groundless accusations when I first asked him to do so, SA has made his bed, and now he must lie on it.
I applaud your plans to help SA in his future interactions with other editors, and I hope for everyone's sakes that they meet with some success. Thank you once again for your help with this matter. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
A quick clarification: he did express that if he understood your objections he would make the appropriate amends. Regarding his manner of approaching you, your own suggested alternatives are quite close to what mine were. Best regards.

What does Topic outline of Big Science need?

Hi.

In its deletion discussion, you !voted to merge Topic outline of Big Science with Big Science (which has also been nominated for deletion, by the way).

I'm in the process of fixing the outline, but in order to address your concerns and bring the outline up to par, I need to know what your concerns are. Why do you feel the page should be removed from Misplaced Pages's outline of knowledge, and what needs to be done to it in order for it to stay there?

Would you mind returning to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Topic outline of Big Science and explaining your reasons? That would sure help.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    01:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Commented at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Topic outline of Big Science. Gandalf61 (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:RD/Math#Group of points on the unit sphere

I hope the tone in your last comment here does not mean I have offended you. I would not want to offend someone I hold in such high respect. Algebraist 02:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No, not offended. It was a good catch. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A positive linear functional is a linear functional on a real vector space which takes only positive values.

Do you have examples? Katzmik (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I misread the definition. I see User:Algebraist has already fixed the example. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment on my talk page

Hi. Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I'm a bit puzzled by it, though, as I've said in each nomination that the purpose of the nomination is not to obtain community consensus on the overall issue (e.g. from Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of chemical compounds with unusual names (3rd nomination) - "Note however that this deletion nomination seeks to establish community consensus for this article, not for others."). I guess perhaps you missed that? If you take a look at my replies to MGM on his/her talk page, you'll see that I do plan to establish community consensus on the overall issue via a centralised discussion in due course. That's separate from the individual nominations though, which are for the reasons stated in the nomination, not for that reason. Do get back in touch if that doesn't clarify things. All the best SP-KP (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, I did see your disclaimer, but it seems to me that initiating three recent AfDs on such similar articles is in effect testing community consensus, whatever your rather confusing pre-amble says. I just think you are going about it the wrong way - you should have started the centralised discussion first, then followed it up with AfDs if and when there is a consensus that such lists are unencyclopedic. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Lists of unusual things - centralised discussion

Hi. Please could you take a look at: User:SP-KP/Centralised discussion on lists of unusual things and let me know if you think this is OK as an opening contribution to the centralised discussion. If you can suggest any improvements, please do. Once we're happy with, I'll move it to the appropriate place and notify other interested parties. Thanks SP-KP (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Fib coding

thank you for the fast response, got it--Billymac00 (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A centralised discussion which may interest you

Hi. You may be interested in a centralised discussion on the subject of "lists of unusual things" to be found here. SP-KP (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Very curious:

I'm new to wicki contributions. You deleted an entry with the following apparent reasons:

00:05, 30 January 2009 Rjd0060 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Evolutionary vector" ‎ (Deleted because expired WP:PROD; Reason given: Incoherent original research - a random collection of occurences of a phrase without any connecting concept. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC).)

Without having the original verbage in front of me, I'm curious.

As a biologist and evolutionary theorist, I'm not sure why a simple and clear definition that explains the phenomenon of various rates of evolutionary "progress" would be classified by you as:

"Incoherent original research - a random collection of occurences of a phrase without any connecting concept."

Perhaps you are an math person without an understanding of the possible alternate uses of the term "vector"? As in, its ability to apply not only evolutionary "direction" to a possible set of mutations, but to provide a mathematical or graphic element to the speed by which such changes occur. This seems to be quite useful, descriptive and coherent.

Evolutionary geneticists, noteably Lenski et al, 2008; Nat. Academy of Science, specifically addresses the fact that some otherwise ignored mutations may suddenly be "facilitated" by a new particular mutation. In the past they may have meant nothing, but in the light of a new mutation, they are suddenly quite beneficial. Hence, the "velocity" of the totality of accumulated changes is altered; ergo, it's Evolutionary Vector is altered.

This "effect" has been clearly documented in research observations on bacteria, as well as in hypotheses that might the sudden appearance of new transitional organisms in the fossil record, at an apparently enhanced speed.

So, what gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thotful1 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I proposed that the "Evolutionary vector" article should be deleted - you can read the proposed deletion policy to see how this works. Anyone who disagreed with the proposed deletion could have stopped it by removing the {{prod}} tag at the top of the page - there is always an interval of at least 5 days in which this can be done. In this case I proposed the deletion on 24th January, and the article was actually deleted by Rjd0060 on 30th January.
As best I can recall, my main reason for proposing deletion was that the article seemed to be attempting to assign a meaning to the term "evolutionary vector" that was not supported by any of the references provided. Note that Misplaced Pages articles should only be summarising information that is available in reliable secondary sources - Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original research. The effect that you were describing may have been observed, but you also need to show that a reliable source has used the term "evolutionary vector" to describe this effect.
You can always recreate the article if you want to, but if you do, please make sure that you clearly describe the meaning of the term as used in your sources, not what you think the term should mean. As a new user, I suggest you read our guidelines for writing your first article, as well as our policies on notability and verifiability. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Thotful1, are you referring to the article with the title "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli"? That article does not use the phrase "evolutionary vector" as far as I can see. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

I make it a habit to scroll through RD/MA every once in a while, and I've seen you offer intelligent insight on multiple occasions. Hence, a barnstar. :) —Anonymous Dissident 11:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Gosh ! Thank you very much. I have moved the barnstar to my user page. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Link to OEIS in your response to "About Lagrange's Theorem"

I tried clicking on the link to A006431, but didn't get connected. Is there something wrong with the address?Partitioin (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, yes - link should be this one. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

DRV

I have opened a DRV on the wrangler categories, on which you opined. Occuli (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have now contributed to the DRV. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Aliquot sequences

I have an interest in aliquot sequences and I am currently pursuing one (130396). Good fun too! I happened to notice that your most recent edit to Aliquot sequence, where you updated the stats for open sequences, was followed by the termination of a sequence (62850) a few days later! What an unlucky time to update the stats! Also regarding that page, it recently had "maths suks" written on it. I reverted that one. 82.1.31.90 (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I feel wiki-hounded too.

In regards to your post that I noticed on Robotics lab's talk page:

I have reported your abusive posts at Talk:Classical Hamiltonian quaternions to Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts. Gandalf61 (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody really cares any more. No one in our community is ever going to work on the article classical hamiltonian quaternions ever again. We don't watch that article any more.

Our content dispute now is over the contents of the main article quaternions, thank you for teaching us that it is perfectly acceptable to change the focus of an article over and over again, we now agree with you that these activities do not constitute vandalism. Sorry for any confusion or hurt feelings this might have caused. Good luck with your project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.86.76.28 (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Repeating decimal

Gandalf61, I left you some note to be discussed at Talk:Repeating_decimal. Thank you. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Gandalf61 Add topic