User talk:La goutte de pluie/archive 5

be closed minded if you want...but dont ever call yourself a progressive — Preceding unsigned comment added by KDRGibby (talk • contribs)

I'm usually open to critique and comment, but giving me a reading list by all your favourite authors (do you ever stop talking about Friedman and Hayek?) then calling me close-minded for not reading them (you did not want to read Homage to Catalonia and that's free, and open right here, and by the greatest anti-Stalinist of them all, Orwell.). So I shall just point you to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence. Please examine your own behaviour. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much, and pleased to meet you Natalina- Bernard, Montreal, PQ. BernardL 01:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

So there is a communist cabal...anyway, No i said your closed minded because 1. I offered you a book that challenged your beliefs you declined on the grounds that you dont pay for books. 2. I offered you a free book and you turned up your nose because it was not technical nor academic enough for you (seriously you get what you pay for) 3. i turn around and give you a reading list of books which you seriously challenge all your held beliefs and you delete the list as harrassment.

I call you closed minded because you refuse any and all effort to educate yourself even on your opponents own line of thinking. You won't even bother to hear what your opponent has to say, and in the bigger scheme of things this leaves you poorly prepared. If you were ever to debate a free market thinker in person you would be seriously trounced... Open up your mind to alternatives...at the very least learn what your opponent thinks and why. (Gibby 01:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

And about the arbitration you opend that up after failing to do any of the steps invovled. You never sucessfully completed the discussion and before that you never bothered to compromise. You only got a arbitration by collecting leftists like Bernard and you sit here and wonder why I say your part of a leftist cabal that works to eliminate opposition through constant reverts of their work. (Gibby 01:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

Gibby, 172 and Rhobite are not leftists. The RFC was deadlocked because you showed no reason you wanted to come into agreement with other editors, and plenty of other editors concurred with me. This was a suitable reason that previous attempts at dispute resolution had failed, and therefore the Arbcom case could proceed.

It's not that I don't want to educate myself on opponent's stances. It's just that I have rebutted your circular arguments time and time again, and I am sick of tired of you mentioning Hayek and Friedman in every article, given the undue weight, and that you are dogmatic in yourself (in my opinion, pardon the incivility!). Perhaps you want to see meta:how to win an argument. I bet you would be proud; you just "won" the argument, but it's a pyrrhic victory by sacrificing user harmony and what actually matters in the process. I don't want to read your book. It sucks. It's not enlightening. That's my personal viewpoint. Stop pressuring me. There, I've resorted to colloquial language, that explains my utter frustration at your behaviour. Rejecting one book with an awful background, language and goodness knows with what that standard of English has degraded to, is not reflective of my attitude in general. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I would hardly call your efforts rebuting my comments time and time again, you still havent explained how your society will gather the resources to build something as simple as a pencil. (Gibby 06:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

no you are just full of petty excuses to not read books that will challenge you. Period. (Gibby 05:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

"Period". Ha. The one liner. The reason I didn't read it wasn't because itchallenged me; in fact, quite the opposite. There was nothing intellectually stimulating about it. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If you get a chance... [1] for Taslima Nasrin. Thanks. KI 01:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Anyway, I know copyright policy can be rather daunting, but I suggest just studying the image tags now and then to see what can licenses apply (sometimes I petition for licenses; it's worked on several different occasions although half of them don't reply)...I myself am uncertain sometimes, so I just hop on IRC and ask to see what can work. (IRC channel is #Wikipedia at freenode.net). That way you can upload images faster without having to wait for my reply (It's no big deal for me, but I think it will be faster for you.) ;-) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay I checked it. It has a weak fair use rationale, but it might qualify, but it is very borderline. Rationale: will likely not impede commercial revenue; it is used for the critique or discourse about a famous person, it is for educational purposes, and it informs the public. Generally not preferred though. Resolution seems low enough. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Goodness...who'd've thought my little fleshed out article on Gift economy would spark such controversy! Thanks for leading me to the whole debate on Mr. Gibby! (I expect to be defamed some time soon...) Best wishes! Bo-Lingua 02:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

WTF Nati, do you have like a leftist webring you just message all of them and they come running like some freaking cavalry? GOOD FAITH MY ASS! YOu deserve none! Now you have all the numerical superiority go back to deleting all my sections until I'm blocked again! Thats been your strategy so far. (Gibby 05:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

It's another editor. Sheesh. It's called community colloboration. It's not votestacking (this is not an afd), it's organising. That's what "attracting attention" means. I don't have a "leftist webring"; you go around antagonising people it is no doubt that the people you antagonise will all organise together to complain about you. Just because another editor disagreed with you, doesn't mean it's a cabal. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No, what you are doign is trying to collect a cavalry while pretending to compromise and in just a few days you'll delete everything and i'll be able to do nothing lest I get blocked. Its a trademark leftist move, eliminate the intellectual competition and control information in your favor. Its one reason why macroeconomists are so deceptive...and they arent all even far leftists like yourself!...but thats another story. The story is you prefer diseption, bending and breaking rules, and bullying over multiple points of view and intellectual diversity.

It's a community. There is nothing wrong in getting editors to come together. It's not votestacking because I'm not here to call a poll or anything. Neither am I getting people to revert for me; I am simply informing them about the situation. That is what an RFC is. Informing people that you have antagonised about your arbitration case is perfectly acceptable. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

For my defense I was not "recruited." I have contributed some to Gift economy; it's on my watchlist. I've seen the interplay between you both, and frankly, I'm not very pleased; I feel that there are some very important points brought forward and frankly, Gibby, you should drop your rhetoric and name calling for a bit and see the valid points that have been made, ie not making every market article a tribute to Friedman et al but rather making a pointed, specific commentary relating to the article in question that links BACK to the Ultimate Friedman Article so that anyone who's interested can learn more about Friedman, but if they're not looking for him, but the specific economic model, they don't have to read a third of the article about Friedman. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of essays. Bo-Lingua 06:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, not a problem. That first pic you gave me is (IIRC) one of the few colour photographs taken during the entire war, so it should be {{PD-China}}, but I'll go make sure. Where are the rest? A list would be appreciated. Not exactly keen on sifting through pages and pages of untagged images... -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 04:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

K, I'll look out for these. If you have any other pictures just tell me. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 04:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look at those articles, even though I already have a bunch of badly-written articles awaiting cleanup. This is what you get when you mix non-native English speakers, historical negligence and systematic bias. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 05:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested in this. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Argh, it seems that you have to register for the forum to see the post so I'll just copy-paste the relevant parts here:

I have seen color photos from the Sino-Japanese War and this certainly looks plausible.The bedrolls are dark blue and the uniforms are non uniform looking enough in color to pass for this period.The KMT soldiers look sunburned enough to such an extent that it certainly looks like they have been in the field and not merely some extras for a film reenactment.There was virtually nothing of a non documentary nature filmed during this period in China when it came to motion pictures and most of this was in black and white(i.e. Joris Ivens "400 Million")whether it is a posed/propaganda photo from this period is another question. A lot of photos from this period look posed with soldiers in freshly starched and ironed uniforms shown in standing at attention and marching.The Nationalists censored a lot of photos and films of a less flattering and more candid nature. I think that it looks authentic for the Sino-Japanese War,but it comes across as a possibly posed photo using active duty soldiers that was meant to look like a snapshot. (...)

Mibrovsky, I have never seen this photo before and I don't know the source.I have seen many KMT photos and have seen some color group photos of a similar nature in a book dealing with World War II color photos(that one was clearly posed.It is a shame that there were no credits for this one.The barren terrain looks like Xinjiang or maybe some sandy coastal region though. (...)

The man in the front of the photo has a bandolier for a type-80(Mauser C-96 pistol).The image is a high angle shot taken from a platform,possibly an aircraft on an airfield? Note the cross shaped shadow in the upper background of the frame which looks like a possible wings and fuselage of a large plane like a C-46 Commando or C-47 Skytrain.It looks like it may be from an airfield. (...)

The rear vehicle looks like a 5 ton International K-8 truck perhaps?It is tough to figure these old vehicle types,especially when most of the image isn't available.The closest vehicle appears to be crank ignition(a Citroen-Kegresse?).That is a tough call. Their uniforms look like standard KMT and it is hard to tell the summer uniforms apart. Notice how the shades of the uniforms differ,faded knaki tunic,semi green cap, and od green trousers.Just like Han Suyin described them.

There you go, hope that helped. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, when people talk about the KMT, they are almost always referring to CKS & friends. However, the leftwing part of the KMT (led by none other than Wang Jingwei) was still part of the KMT. They didn't have much contact either with the commies, as (IMHO) they were mainly social liberals and (as much as I hate admitting) Pan-Asianists in the mold of Sun Yat-sen. Well, this is if you don't buy into Jung Chang's crying Chinese ladying rhetoric/propganda/shit/lies. Anyway. The KMT was by no means homogeneous, there were a wide array of beliefs held by all the bigshots, which is why you get Hanjian like Wang or communist turncoats like Long Yun and Pan Wenhua all the time from the KMT. The fact that the ROC was essentially (again IMHO) a "federation" didn't help. Warlordism, factionalism, regionalism, you name it. Yeah and there was this warlord who hated CKS so much that he refused to arm his troops with the "Chiang Kai-shek rifle" (essentially a Karabiner 98k) and produced his own copy of the same rifle but under a different name.

Oh oops, rambled on and on. Yeah, when it comes to this period, it's like the People's Front of Judea vs the Judean People's Front... :) I'll see what I can do to clean up those articles. *Warcraft 3 peon voice* Work work! -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I like how you help organize this. I am learning how wiki works from watching you. I welcome assistance on the references. As for sources I know these topics are new, and taboo and largely unknown. I added a whole bunch of sources to the article and will add more as requested. What specific additional sources do you need to make these sections credible to you and to others who use wikipedia?Anacapa 22:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, good so far. I like using the reference format of global warming (or better yet, the citation format used in Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia, but I was wondering if you had any pysch journals we could directly cite. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 07:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

They're @ it again... 68.39.174.238 06:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Pof! si fatigué que j'ai raté la bonne page pour mettre les commentaires... alors Control C Control V !!

Hey! i haven't read everything on your page, but you seem in big trouble girl!!! 15 years old from Singapour, Christian Anarchist, probably a bit too smart, and, beside, lover of classical music, and you still have time to "attempt reasoning" people from the US congress! And I thought being 3 800 years old was a bit too young... Keep it on! Tazmaniacs

Actually, i well may read it all... "Those altruistically ambitious will..." is a jewel! Tazmaniacs

By the way, if you're interested in left-wing politics, have a look at Operation Gladio and Propaganda Due, and consider well the role of people like Licio Gelli, Stefano Delle Chiaie or... Alexander Haig and Henry Kissinger. Operation Condor anyone?... I do not know how things have been in Asia, but here as it was in Europe & South America. + read Giorgio Agamben & Louis Althusser ! -- I forgot Clearstream scandal...Tazmaniacs

Have fun, & read critical theory one day: my favorite authors used to be Albert Camus, who was lot more anarchist than Sartre... and it was him that made me understand this "altruistically ambitious" (he said "l'indépendance dans l'interdépendance", and La Chute is THE book which made me understand this thing about "generous egoism" - strange as cynic a book it is... )... but then I started reading Michel Foucault & Gilles Deleuze, and that really strayed me off to critical philosophy! tellement que maintenant le temps me manque pour lire les contes de fées! Salud y libertad ! Tazmaniacs 14:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism... did I write when i was drunk that quote that "the criminal fight against culture is the reverse side of a criminal culture"??? no, that wasn't vandalism, but it's a drunk edit that's been kept there for a while now...

I ran across the ...umm... enthusiastic anonymous editor ... yesterday,did one revert, but he had more energy than I did, and I'm not really a Mao expert.I posted on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but they apparently have more serious vandalism to work on. Anyway, I wanted to say, thanks for keeping up the struggle, and trying to reason with him.Keep up the good work.GRuban 14:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the Aetherometry talk page should stay a "black hole". That was the consensus. You can keep your own copy, but setting this link might stir the emotions of the highly "oppinionated" proponents, unnecessarily. Awolf002 15:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

From [2]:

Time for a block? although I don't like blocking as a solution... :> — Kimchi.sg | Talk 06:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It's basically a meatpuppet, if not a sockpuppet, so yeah, I am going to treat it as the same user for the past few months. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work! :) — Kimchi.sg | Talk 06:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested in hearing more from you about the notion of stable pages (or triage, if you like). I think you've got a pretty good idea about it. I went and had a look at WP:STABLE, and I think it defines it pretty well. However, I think the approach may be overly broad. If such a change could be implemented in a subtle way (eg a cookie which was set in ones preferences), it might meet with less resistance. I think the most critical problem with it is the (very correct) "this is anti-wiki".

Picture this. In addition to the "edit page" tab at the top of the page, there could be a "stable" tab. Clicking through to "stable" would show you the stable version. From that point, you could see the proposed changes to the stable version (which would be the delta between the version everyone sees and the stable version you were presently looking at). That would allow the viewer of the stable article to approve changes to the stable version. And the only people that would see it were editors who wanted to work on that project.

• Problem 1: "vandals" can still make accounts and follow that process.
  • Solution?: It's possible you could have a group of editors who approved requests to join said group. I suppose this is something like a "stable cabal," but perhaps a necessary evil.

Hm, I have something of a headache. Thoughts? aa v ^ 18:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC) (keats)

I'm sorry you are unable to see the connection, but I'm willing to bet you don't want to. The participatory economic arrangement may discuss how it is different than other socialist and communist market alternatives but Friedman and other free market economists state that if you eliminate certain functions from the market system the system will not work well if at all.

For example.

Free Market must have A, B, C to work. And A, B, C, D to work great.

Communism, must eliminate A, B, C, and introduce D, E, F, G

Socialism, must eliminate, A, B, and keep C, D, and introduce E, F

Parecon must eliminate A but Keep B, C, D and introduce Z.

Free market critics will say that Socialism, Communism and Parecon have eliminated one of the primary variables in making an economy work. Therefore it won't work.

If you eliminate wages, or replace wages with credit based on effort and sacrifise you get roughly the same results= very little incentive to work, work hard, innovate, be effecient, work to become a doctor, lawyer, etc etc etc.

I hope this helps you understand how the market based criticism of parecon does not have to be specifically critical of parecon, because to free market people, it is really no different because it eliminates the very basic things that make an economy work just like every other market alternative.

(Gibby 18:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC))

Oh please. Friedman sees every single alternative as vile evil or basically unworkable, but that doesn't mean he deserves to be mentioned on every article concernig an alternative. The use of abtract alphabets does nothing to illustrate the point. Again, your attitude that I'm wrong and you're right and that if I disagree it's obviously my narrow-mindedness is kind of ironic. Certain mechanisms are used to achieve certain functions. However, some of these mechanisms have flaws and introduce other problems. Thus you want a flexible mechanism that accounts for functions without introducing problems of their own. Reward based on effort and sacrifice doesn't necessarily reduce the incentive for self-improvement (ie. you seem to think people will simply work away at digging sand)...there's a utility aspect, but again, this debate between you and me has nothing to do with the content dispute at hand. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, yes it does. If Friedman says that alternatives to market based economics eliminates the very basic function of the economy and subsequently will not work, it is applicable to all alternatives which eliminate any such function. PERIOD.

Interesting. Excuse me from intervening in a private debate, but... if you define economy by market based economics, than of course alternatives from market based economics would not be considered as economics. That's a question of definition (If Friedman says...). Now, how about defining economics on something else than ideological individual rights which comes from an outdated philosophical theory about the social contract? What if -as Marx said it long before Friedman thought of defining economy according to liberal standards -, social relations preceded individual rights? Tazmaniacs 15:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

And no, reward for effort and sacrifise is not enough for most people to engage in high skill labor...especially if you get paid just as much as a janitor. Should a janitor be paid as much as a nuclear engineer? NOOOOOOOOOOOooo, because society does not value the labor of sweeping floors as much as creating and maintaining nuclear power. If we go to the participator economy where both can potentially earn the same amount based on their effort, WHO THE HELL WILL put all the years in learning how to be a nuclear engineer...you could have the same earning potential by sweeping floors...thus there will be alot of people who would rather be a janitor than an engineer.

Your society will have to force people by coercion to get them to do jobs they otherwise would have been rewarded to do through unequal income (which is not a bad thing), because there is more of an incentive to do an easier job such as a janitor rather than a doctor, lawyer, or engineer...

The system will not work beyond a few true believers, like yourself, or by force. (Gibby 19:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC))

Your use of the word "PERIOD" demonstrates that you think (or Friedman) thinks that this is an axiom. This is bordering on economic fundamentalism right there. Although you accuse me of having bad debating ability; your use of the term "period" reflects badly on yours. Bear in mind this is my talk page concerning editorial issues; and that I respond to non-editorial topics at my pleasure. Friedman has a point of view that alternatives to market based econmics will all fail. This does not mean that his point of view becomes a fact that his point of view is relevant to the article. Someone could say that all politicians are basically lying thugs. That's a point of view. Someone could say that all Christians are authoritarian, or that Islam oppresses women's rights. That doesn't mean they get to put on the page of every Islamic cleric, including those that campaign for women's rights that Islam is inherently against women's rights. A generalised point of view belongs on the general issue. It may trickle down to the specific pages if it is impactful enough. What you're doing now is violating undue weight. You think you're right, and you think that Wikipedia is censoring the truth just because people don't necessarily accept your arrogance. Think what you like.

As well as who will put all the years into learning how to be a nuclear engineer? I like nuclear physics. It will also let me have more legitimacy to justify my arguments in proposal. Also, the community is likely to disfavour individuals who could have educated themselves, especially since the community supported them, but didn't. It doesn't have to be by coercion, just the exercise of individual capacity. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I do think he is correct, much in the same way you think your favored critics are correct, however you miss the point of the period. Period was refering to the fact that the criticism is applicable, not that Friedman is correct, PERIOD, even though I think that would in fact be an accurate discription (its not what I'm saying at the time).

Friedman believes that the more you eliminate market functions and economic freedom the less likely the system will work.

And as I said, there will be few people who would put the effort into becoming a nuclear engineer under a system like particpatory economics. Your already a true believer...aka altruistic. Try convincing someone else to do that job for the same share in resources as a janitor. There will be so few people in high skilled jobs you will either be a highly unproductive and non innovative society or you will force people into the jobs. There arent enough altruistic people in society for your system to work on a state level scale. (Gibby 19:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC))

Yes, but the use of a "PERIOD" invokes the use of authority; you have jurisdiction over your own views in an absolutist fashion (ie. I can say, "this is my talk page, PERIOD") but you can't say "this is applicable, PERIOD" (in the sense of not being seen as arrogant otherwise). You think altruistic people are few and far between. It won't work for non-altruistic people. Well, I will tell you this: I reject the former, accept the latter. The solution then is to convince as many people to be altruistic as possible. It's what Jesus would have done, or any other altruistic religious leader. Go climb the corporate ladder all you want; I will take the path of altruism. You disdain kampungs in favour of materialism. Material wealth does not lead to eudaimonia. As a janitor? There is a janitor...then there are janitors who educate themselves and in fact, plays a role (to clean the built environments of society) ... after all, the community will favour a janitor who builds robots, or works with them in order to achieve his or her function. You assume that "oh, janitor, dead end". What inflexibility! There aren't enough altruistic people because people are born in a materialistic culture (my view, right here, yours truly, camarade). It is my perception that people can be convinced to be altruistic.

But THAT still has nothing to do with whether Friedman's criticism is pertinent or not. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that a candle falame is almost entirely a diffusion flame in that the vaporized fuel comes off the wick and flows laminarly upward so all fuel–air combination must happen by diffusion. On earth, I suppose the steady-state flow may be faster than the flame speed so there may be time for some air to mix before getting to the flame front. At zero-g, though, I think it would only be diffusion since there is no flow (or really, since the reaction melts wax and is exothermic, the net flow field would radiate out from the wick in all directions). I am fairly certain that the spherical flame front we see is a diffusion flame just like the sphirical flame front on a drop of fuel in an aresol or of coal dust in air. (That said, I took one combustion course a year ago and haven't consulted my text. I may do that and add some citations.) —BenFrantzDale 23:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the NASA site established a lot of distinction between the candle experiment and the diffusion flame experiment; perhaps the difference is in height or power? (Ie. evaporation pressure isn't so great?) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something. Nothing on the NASA pages I've looked at (that you've linked) show particularly supprising results, interesting though they may be. A flame being diffusion or premixed is different from being convected, as is the case with gravity. In a candle flame on earth, the convection does bring new oxidizer to the flame, but the fuel is not mixed with the oxidizer before the flame front. Again, I may be missing something. Which NASA page establishes a distinction between "the candle experiment" and "the diffusion flame experiment"? —BenFrantzDale 00:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I meant the cases of diffusion or premixed in both cases of normal gravity and micro. That does remind me. It is mentioned a "premixed flame" has a conical shape, but this seems to only apply for buoyant conditions? Anyway, I made a reading error. [3] It states on "are similar to candle flames except the fuel is supplied by a gas jet rather than by evaporation from a wick". I just really didn't think evaporation was a powerful example of diffusion, but it suffices, I guess. I'll revert myself. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Aah, right, "laminar jet diffusion flame". The evaporation isn't the diffusion. In a candle the wax evaporates because it is heated above its boiling point. Once the fuel is gasious you basically get a laminar jet diffusion flame, the "jet" being powered by convection. You would get a very similar flame if you had a small wick-shaped outlet for propane. Without gravity, a candle won't produce a jet diffusion flame because there is nothing to move the gas along. I suspect if you blew lightly on the flame in the picture, you would get something similar to a normal flame on earth blown in the wind.

As for premixed flames, as I understand it, any time you have a premixed laminar jet (with a circular cross section and) with a flow speed above the flame speed, the flame sheet will be conical. This is because the flame speed in the direction normal to the flame sheet must be equal and opposite to the component of the flow in the same direction. Consider an oxyacetylene torch; it has a bright conical flame even if you point it at the ground.

In the case of combustion of stagnant premixed reactants, the flame won't be stationary. To a first approximation it will move at the flame speed through the volume in a direction everywhere normal to the flame front. Of course, the products will have greater volume which will likely induce flow, at which point all sorts of things can happen. (A cool-sounding demo we didn't get because apparently it is too loud is that premixed reactants in a tube closed at one end will burn slowly if ignited at the open end but detonate if ignited at the closed end.) ―BenFrantzDale 03:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I should add: laminar jet diffusion flames will also be conical for similar reasons, but because a diffusion flame is limited by diffusion, generally, the flame front will not be a thin sheet. (It is accurate, if confusing, to say that the flame front of a diffusion flame will be more diffuse (in terms of its position and size).) Also, since a diffusion flame is essentially a rich mixture, they tend to produce soot which may or may not burn off, but which is what creates the blackbody radiation which is what makes it "fire colored" in layman's terms. ―BenFrantzDale 03:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[4], [5], [6], [7].--BostonMA 00:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove the comment on the "dates of operation"?

It was placed there for a very specific reason. Everytime someone new comes to the page they change 1863 to 1904 (I know because I did it myself) resulting in someone having to change it back. That extra text prevented this from happening without having to worry about people seeing the history section.

You should have at least opened a discussion in the discussion section (or at seen other discussions)

I will be adding it back shortly.

--Allan 16:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments shouldn't be in infoboxes. I reduced it to a footnote. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link on my talk page. I'm having some trouble again, I likely will not be on tommorow, so if you could look into this that would be great! User_talk:KDRGibby#Cuba_2, [8].--Colle||Talk-- 09:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Nati, is still up to her old games, collecting leftists to bully other users... (Gibby 10:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC))

On the contrary, I am collecting witnesses. KDRGibby, although you may feel inclined to label all those who complain against you and slap them with a political label, I think you know the truth. Colle: acknowledged. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You'll want to block them all. Namely:

• Fghrty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ghjtyu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cvbdfg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Poiuyt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dfgert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

P.S. Just thought this is relevant... when the page wasn't semi-protected, all the vandalising IPs have "contributed" only to that page. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 16:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

And all of them were from a Hong Kong ISP. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 16:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Got them. Thanks for the notification. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Natalinasmpf... I've noticed you edits on the Protein NMR pages and I do not like what I see.... First of all the acronyms are a so integral part of the scientific language, that it doesn't make sense to omit them. We don't want to be the only place where the full names are used, right...? At some point the acronyms get so accepted, that the full meaning is less known than the acronym. DNA for an example (Good luck changing that one...). This is the case with a lot of the acronyms in NMR (No one says nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy). Is the acronym HSQC more nonsensical to a layperson that Heteronuclear Single Quantum Coherence...? If you don't know the quite elaborate theory, it does not make sense even though you got the full name. I propose as a possible common ground: The full version stays in the name, but it is changed to "Protein nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy". The first time the acronym is used, it is explained, but in the following, the acronym is used.

By the way.... ¹³C is both more elegant, and at least as correct as carbon-13. It should be stated the first time it is used, that we're dealing with carbon and nitrogen, but the ¹³C is the correct scientific way of describing an isotope....

HNCA and HNCOCA are not abbreviations of anything (THe name describes the path of the magnetization transfer), and cannot be changed to any thing.

Let me know what you think...?? Kjaergaard 04:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then it should at least be renamed to "HNCA transfer" or something similar - at least the title is descriptive. The entire superscript thing causes special characters — and that doesn't go well with titles and such - I mean, we even have deuterium and tritium for our hydrogen isotopes, I do not think that using the atomic notation makes it any better than using words (again, ideally, all articles will have spoken versions - think of how a reader would say that). If I don't know the full acronym, I don't know where to start. For example, I may have knowledge of relativity and some quantum mechanics, and I want to know instantly what area the article deals with. The entire "state full term first, then use acronyms" is tolerable, IMO - but I have no problem with it. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the "state full term first, then use acronyms"-policy applies to NMR as well. Really, nobody says "Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy". The term HNCA transfer doesn't exist. The experiment is called a HNCA, it's not our job to rename it. I guess i can live with the isotope names, even though i think it looks horrible.... Kjaergaard 05:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I renamed them to "HNCA experiment" et al in order to comply with style guidelines. At least that has to be done. Frankly I don't know it's horrible - I think it looks better using the Romanised term. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem with the things in See Also...??? Kjaergaard 05:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

They were redundant; NMR is already discussed at length (since protein NMR is a subset of it) - usually things should only go there if it's really really relevant to the article but didn't have a chance (because it's not fully written yet) to be mentioned in full glory. The ideal article shouldn't have a "see also" section (or have it minimalised). Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby case. Raul654 06:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Natalina. I see you're still talking to Gibby re this. Err... isn't that a waste of time? Don't feed the tr*lls and so on? William M. Connolley 22:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Good edit on the Grounding (punishment) page. It is sort of a pet page of mine, havoing cfreated it. Once agin good edit, it needed it. Thanks. Dolive21 09:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, thanks! It probably has a good chance of becoming a featured article - one day - I just need to dig up parenting magazines. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Since you did participate on the Che page during the vert war on the criticism section please put your input in the discussion on whether or not the sources were blogs or not. Thanks.(Gibby 20:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC))

Okay, I will see to it. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your great clean-up of this article! Very much appreciated. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 22:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope you noticed the barnstar. :D --Terence Ong 15:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes I did, pardon me. Thanks for giving it to me. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 16:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Re this vandal, you have got to be kidding. He's had two "final warnings", wipes out a huge chunk of the main page article today, and you want to give him another warning? Then why give any warnings at all? Warning them repeatedly and then not taking action the next time does not good at all and even encourages them. Not to mention, you wiped out my blatant tag, which today's vandalism certainly was. Rlevse 17:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Blankings aren't malicious (I only saw the IP blank the page once today) .... test5's expire after a week or so for IP's (in my book)...now, had it all been within a few days, I would have blocked. I will block for the next one, so bear with me. Page blankings aren't malicious — insinuating vandalism while apparently knowing the rules is, that is "blatant vandalism". Ie. inserting expletives for dozens of pages over and over again in one article is blatant. Blanking is not. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 17:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe this. Wiping out a page is okay and not blatant? That's a deliberate act. How can it not be blatant? This is repeat violator. No wonder Wiki has so many problems with vandals. Even if they're repeats and told not to do it again, they know there's a good chance nothing will happen. Rlevse 17:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a very good chance it is just testing. It was reverted quickly. Blankings are considered "low level" vandalism — malicious vandalism would be defaming, something that would compromise our reputation in some way, ie. slandering a subject. People will be blocked for repeated blankings, but excessive use of the "blatant vandal" template is frowned upon. For all I know, this is a shared ISP. Oh, I just blocked a nine year old girl indefinitely for legal threats, so don't think I'm being gentle here. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!)

There is a better chance it's vandalism. The user has done it before, so I doubt it's accidental. We should even have to worry about the main page article should be protected in the first place.Rlevse 17:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't. Many anonymous editors make good faith improvements and result in a much better article after it appears on the main page. I do not support protection, in fact, it is highly discouraged. The IP has done it before, I am not sure about the user. I give the benefit of the doubt if it is for one week. Now, if it continues to be persistent, it will be eventually blocked, but I do not see much damage. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 17:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the numerous reverts due to vandalism on today's article. Why should good users have to chase these vandals? The main page article is like a light to bugs, it draws vandals and us good user get our time wasted. Anyone seriously interested in it will come back to it. This is also why Wiki users should be required to have validated email accounts; it would drastically cut the amount of vandalism, such as you and I wouldn't be debating whether or not x.y.z is or isn't the same person. Way too much time is wasted on vandals. Rlevse 17:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a rollback button, so it only takes a click. Now, I understand how absolutely stressful it is to have to revert each time with three clicks, but it should only take a few seconds? Too much time is wasted on disputes; low-level vandalism like blanking is a piece of cake. Many administrators watch the page, so we are usually lenient. The concept is that, the featured article is the first editable article they see, and therefore the first page to test. In fact, vandalism committed on the featured article, as long as it is not malicious in nature (inserting pejorative comments, etc. with a clear intent to sabotage our reputation) is likely to be more testing than anything else. I speak from experience with dealing with several of these IP's, who in fact, became good users later on. Uh, log on to irc.freenode.net and join #Wikipedia: there'll be hundreds of people who will readily explain why the featured article isn't protected and why warnings are issued, not instablocks for vandals. Now, I advocated instablocking people who wanted to remove the image from the carttoons controversy, as that was a clear act of censorship, but I have since taken a step back. How much is our reputation damaged if a page is blanked? Not much, other than "oh, that disappeared". How much is our reputation damaged if a GNAA member decides to exploit a bug and make it very hard for a page to be rollbacked? That is malicious and can be blocked on sight, even. There is a huge difference. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 17:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point. We wouldn't be having these discussions if vandals were dealt with more firmly. So, like today (yes, this actually happened), an anon user wipes out the page with a close up of a human male penis, then a new user looks at the article, and that's what we want said new user to see...a FA on the main page with said image on it when it's supposed to be about merit badges...this is wiki's idea of first editable article they see, how did this affect Wiki's reputation? I can bring up just as many who feel the main page should be protected as you can otherwise. You will never convince me otherwise about the main page or vandals. Rlevse 17:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

We can block for the penis incident (with one warning, in fact). Blankings are mostly harmless. Being the first editable article they see, there it is a high chance that blankings are a test. So, keep up the good work, but I'm just following policy. I used to be pretty harsh on some vandals as well, but there is a reasonable doubt that was not malicious. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 17:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the penis incident was blocked, but I'd have to go back through dozens of cases of today's vandalism to be sure. The blanking that set our round off was a repeat case, and no, I don't care one bit if it's an anon IP. It's the repeat in my book that warrants blocking, and no, I don't care if it was a week ago. If this was a "today was first time ever" case, I'd agree with you, but it wasn't. And, we all know main page vandalism is rampant every day. Rlevse 17:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Test sequences are reset every month because there is a good chance that the ISP reassigned the IP address. Test5's are reset every week at maximum. I'm simply following the current guideline, note that we can block at that moment, but I chose not to, at my own discretion. I am of course, fallible, but I did not see much harm — you can consult another administrator to block if you want to. Blocking is preventive, not punitive, except as a remedy by the arbcom. I haven't seen the user vandalise after that. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 17:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a free country, and admins are free to block ;-)

Cheers Tonywalton  | Talk 17:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, she has yet to know that we deal with much worse people than her. ;-) I can't imagine any good edits coming out of her, and making legal threats as a nine year old conjured too many bad images for me, but I'm not afraid of sockpuppets, she'll eventually learn. Cheers to you, too. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 17:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I ran a double check on the IP and yes, its Bell business, highly unlikely to go to another customer. The user has made several threats on several IP's, I'll flag as a sock if they start again. Tawker 21:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If it's legally legit, can you add the picture from here to Curly Headed Doctor. Thanks. KI 03:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you would revisit your objection on the Invasion FAC page. The references are now in the new <ref> format, I turned the list into prose, I've added examples to air, sea, and land invasions, inserted new sections, and the length of the article now far exceeds 30kb. Everything you asked for and more! :)

I hope you like the changes and will at least withdraw your objection, if not extend your support. Thanks! Kafziel 07:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, no need to vote - the article just passed its nomination. Thanks again for your input, though! Kafziel 08:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, had I been allowed to change my vote I would have certainly done so. So, here is a support, out of principle. ;-) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Saw this on Recent Changes, some newbie was editing this in a jolty fashion.. since you come from Singapore maybe you can meld the changes that I guiltily reversed. I need to sleep. -- max rspct leave a message 11:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I fixed the article, but almost nothing was salvaged from that edit, except for formalisation I would do anyway, as the article did have an elitist/patronising POV and I think the editor sought to correct it. In a bad, childish manner. ;-) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to add a POV-section tag, can you please add your criticisms/concerns to the talk page of the article, and not just mention it in the edit comment. Thanks —Pengo 00:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This is outrageous. Gibby is breaking parole in the most obvious fashion, making personal attacks on multiple Talk pages, and no admins seem to take notice. I have written up a list of all the personal attacks he has made since the closure of his ArbCom case on the admins' noticeboard, but to no avail. Here is a copy of my findings:

• [9] "Bad bad bad electionwood!...you are making the socialist free market conflation mistake! free market limited government advocacy does not mean anarchy! Stop that fallacious assumption please."
• [10] "the complaint is actually...stupid"
• [11] "The neutrality complaint is stupid. [...] Nikodemos is simply on a communist hell bent anti libertarian tirade."
• [12] "Ironically you make the same sophomoric arguement that you complain about. Free markets are only an impossibility if you don't understand what the word means."
• [13] "I've got a word for you, its BULLSHIT. You are not allowed to do this. You guys make so much shit up all the time to get rid of stuff, its creative, but it really shows you guys are running out of intellectual steam, arguements, and freaking material."
• [14] "You lefties are so gd amazing! ITS NOT MY POV that is expressed... The section of the article is REPORTING the views of Brink Lindsey of the CATO INSTITUTE. He has a published book which you can read!!! THIS IS NPOV. STOP ABUSING WIKI RULES TO CENSOR MATERIAL YOU DON"T LIKE!"
• [15] "This is the problem with people like you. [...] Nothing is deleted because I reverted your vandalistic censorship like deletions."
• Disrupting wikipedia to make a point: [16] (added "only because citing free market economists is obviously pov" in a NPOV tag).
• [17] "There is no neutrality dispute you are simply ignorant of the meaning of NPOV and neutrality. Reporting what other people think does not violate this. Learn the rule!"
• [18] "ANd it is, your own ignorance is no excuse however. Citing and reporting an author is not POV. Stop it. Stop the total bullshit!"
• [19] "Nati, you are making up crap again. You are one of the worst editors here and you have a knack for deleting content you don't like for any reason you can think of."
• Refusing to keep a NPOV tag on a disputed article: [20] "the tag is evidence once again that only left leaning views are acceptable here. Leftists hate information that contradicts their own poorly held views. The tag does not belong because the criticism section is already NPOV."
• [21] "Niko just wants to delete Friedman because he conflates Friedman with libertarianism rather than understanding that Friedman is an economist who just so happens to scientifically prove that markets work better than any alternatives and that free markets are the best form of market economies. Thats it. He wants to delete this information because he disagrees with it. BUT REMEMBER NIKO...we are only reporting what Friedman says. But seriously, I think your scared people might start to see how rational his thoughts really are and just might start agreeing."
• [22] "Don't bitch about cited Friedman and Hayek material you disagree with. You are starting to irritate me with your lazy deletion censorship-like methods."
• [23] "Its the circus I refer to on my user page. Its also called BS." (referring to the actions of a number of users)
• [24] "If you are in fact a leftist of some sort, it is very likely you would not understand or want to understand if Friedman himself explained it to you."

Why has no one taken any action on this? -- Nikodemos 06:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Bring this up on the administrator's noticeboard. I like that you have collected evidence yourself already, as I was about to, but I am in no power to take action against him, as I have been in conflict with him myself, and thus cannot take action against a person I have a content dispute with. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

None of those are personal attacks....gosh some people here are so hypersensative they'll do anything won't they! (Gibby 06:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

Oh yes, they are accusations of bad faith, attack on someone being a person, not their content, (being a leftist, etc.) A personal attack is a negative use of an ad hominem; it is not necessarily an insult. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I did bring it up on the admin's noticeboard, but it was ignored... I am thinking of starting an entirely new RfAr, since the previous one is obviously useless insofar as it goes unenforced. Or perhaps I should re-open the existing RfAr. What is the process for doing that? (re-opening a RfAr) -- Nikodemos 17:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for you both. Try discussing your serious changes, especially of well sourced material. That might stop the hostility!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Then, try to be open minded. (Gibby 21:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

Uh, you were given parole. Perhaps you should also discuss your changes before you literally push your weight across articles. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I meant it when I asked you how to re-open a RfAr; I've seen it done before. Do you know the procedure for it? -- Nikodemos 00:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

We don't need to reopen it; we can make a plea at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Gibby was blocked by another admin, and I've protected his talk page. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:39 UTC (2006-03-07)

I've read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested, and it seems that arbitrators are supposed to leave a report there after each case is closed. There is no report on Gibby's case; perhaps that is why admins are largely unaware about it. Could you contact an arbitrator to let him know that a report is due? -- Nikodemos 10:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Johnleemk and Snowspinner (I think) were the arbitration clerks for the case. I'll contact Johnleemk and ask for the course of procedure; I think it was probation and therefore not needed (ie. it was not mentorship). My perception (at a glance) is that no report was needed initially, but users can report violation of parole. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: ehh, you already contacted him. He's updated it. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Cheers big star.

Yer a bit mental for a 15 year old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crestville (talk • contribs)

Why do you say that? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha, sorry, that's not necessarily an insult, just some of the stuff on yer user page. Its deep for a 15yr old. I mean, deep is good, I was deep then but not as bright.

I wasn't politically active at that age, nor was anyone I know (depending on how you look at it, maybe we're still not).

Chin up bright star.--Crestville 22:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. What is the status on this article? If the word exists in the English language, then surely there needs to be a wikipedia entry of some sort...? --Rebroad 19:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, it isn't a word in the English language. It is a neologism. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Is not stalinism and bolshevism an inevivitable reality of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the strict element of marxist socialism, i feel your "non strict, liberal communism" is a paradox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminstewart05 (talk • contribs)

I don't advocate "dictatorship of the proletariat". I am a communist anarchist; "dictatorship of the proleteriat" is sort of advocating affirmative action, which is macroeconomical and thus imprecise. I am not a Marxist, I am an anarchist. There are of course, libertarian Marxists, but that's a different thing. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 18:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It is also necessary to point out that "dictatorship" was used in a sense that has faded behind the more perjorative understanding of the word. "From its historical origins in Rome as dictator rei gerundae causa, designating an extraordinary office limited and foreseen in the constitution for emergency situations—limited in time to six months, which could not be extended, or in function to carry out a particular task" Linz, J., Chapter 3: Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, In:from edited by Fred I. Greenstein, Handbook of political science. - Vol.3 : Macropolitical theory pp.175-252,264-350,, Addison-Wesley Pub. Co (1975)

An ever-lasting dictatorship is not what Marx was talking about.Slizor 19:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well yeah, I understand what it meant, but it is still a form of "affirmative action" so I dislike implementing one in the first place (especially as it was indefinite; although supposedly temporary) ... I prefer a microeconomical implementation than a macroeconomical affirmative action . Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

it would become a dictatorship and stay that way permanently, Slizor you have no idea of how governments work. They are very conservative and always try and protect what they have. Do you realize how difficult it is to eliminate government agencies, IGOs etc? Once you give the government that much power over everyones political, economic, and social life it will not revert except by force.

Do you really think Pol Pot started out as a bad guy? No he was an idealistic altruistic communist student who attempted to put his college thesis into practice and killed over a million people in the process. (14:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

Except that I am anarchist: there will be no state. An anarchist government at worst is a decentralised direct democracy, true democracy; there is no centralised, concentrated power. States are conservative; anarchism is not. The state will not acquire over political or economic life because it never will. In any case it would be based after the Paris Commune, which was successful internally; the military issue was another matter (and of course there was the fact that they didn't dare touch the Paris Bank's gold — because they didn't want to violate property but Versailles borrowed it to use against them)...but anyway, you are making a straw man. Pol Pot failed because he based his revolution after the Leninist cadre. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 14:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not comparing his system to yours. Though yours will fail because your system of incentives is far to weak to work. Thats why Pol Pots government, like Lennin and Stalin broke down.. communist incentives are so weak (EVEN WITH A GOVERNMENT) that they break down to extreme violence in an attempt to operate well enough (actually not quite as well as they could with markets...even heavily regulated statist markets do better than communism). Its not a straw man, you just didnt understand. (Gibby 14:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

The straw man is that Pol Pot was anti-science, and that he was supported by the right-wing regime in Thailand, for ex.. It's easy to aggregate in a highly reductionistic way without looking at the history and the ideologies involved closely. Whether on topic, or off. El_C 14:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and that Pol Pot didn't get philosophy at all; he encouraged equality through destruction, and that was not the type of philosophy I support. It is certainly not about incentive, but that he never sought incentive in the first place. So what if you think the incentives that I espouse are weak? People join anarchist communes voluntarily. No one is forced to live in an anarchist society. At worst, they are a minority in a society or country when it decides to turn anarchist (the Paris Commune did not revolt until the majority of the citizens consented and that is why the Versailles government were so harsh against everyone in Paris and instituted martial law) and then they are free to leave. If a state government voluntarily dissolves because it decides it wants to change its duties (which would be the ideal mode of dissolution). At worst for those who dissent against communitarianism and communism is that the government no longer wishes to enforce capitalist law, and hence has dissolved the original social contract. Anarchist communism does not force communism on the unwilling. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 14:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

People join because they are already altruistic. You are going to have a hard time convincing many people including doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers, about everyone in technology, and about everyone in the energy field. You can try your system, and I hope you do, and I believe you should be free to do so, but it won't be a very large community.

In fact, and perhaps ironically, if WE had my preferential system you could actually start your micro communist community within my decentralized free market community without harming anyone else. (Gibby 15:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

Yes, but we would encourage people to abandon the culture and treat those who adore the concept of private property with suspicion. You may be sure it "won't be a very large community", but many scientists are actually altruistic, as those involved in open source (and this project) are already dedicated to an extent, including WMC, and the editor at Nature. As for lawyers, well, that's a different thing. In an anarchist society, the system would make it easy for one to know his or her civic duties and rights, although rhetorical aid would probably be a living of some sort. And the fact that there is the concept of property is theft, not exactly in Proudhon's terms but roughly the same problem. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Your going to have a hard time shaping that new culture, its not going to happen over night.
• China tried this already and it resulted in the theft of property and the execution of many people.
• Not all people are here because they are altruistic. There are hardly any real experts, those people get paid to do this stuff not waste their time. Most people here are hobbyists. I'm here because its fun to argue and fun to learn of new things lefties are thinking about. Not all scientists are altruistic, it is almost very likely that they do the job because they not only are interested in it, but are paid well to do it too. Very few will do the same job if their benefits from that job were no different than someone whose job it is to mop floors. Your incentive structure is very regressive for most people. ONly altruistic people who already accept your philosophy will find it compelling.

• We already know our civic duty in the capital market system...increase profits. This is done by making customers happy.

(Gibby 23:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

It is very obvious that culture change won't happen overnight. China tried to do it by the force of the state. That was the mistake. The idea is pressure and encouragement of acquaintances, not coercion by a state. If it takes 500 years to finally achieve the goal, so be it. We'll be the noble martyrs in the end - we'd allow ourselves to be oppressed before we ourselves oppress. Thus, we move towards our non-oppression as long as it does not oppress someone else. Please stop generalising leftists as some Bolshevik Leninists who wish to expand the power of the state, Gibby. I can tell you're not very familiar with anarchism.

The benefits for science and expertise is to discover knowledge, and apply it intellectually without restriction. Many scientists find disgust with say, patents on genes, because carving up property like this on information leads to in fact, a so called "regression" as you like to use it, on intellectual progress. If you think most people that are here aren't experts, well, please take a look at User:William M. Connolley, who is an administrator, User:Raul654, as well as the many anonymous editors who in fact edit regularly as encouraged by Nature, oh, did I forget the kind people from the United States House of Representatives?

Profits is a very narrow-minded way to look at it, and is a principle that will only last for an age. As technology progresses, the concept of profits for the private individual and circulated through private transactions will be continuously under stress, for technology doesn't care about private boundaries, and the universe is far from private. We always have certain "holy cows" and sanctitious beliefs about borders that can't be crossed, only to be totally upset by technology. For example, rudimentary brain implants have already been invented, but then what? People will possibly start file sharing and forwarding their thoughts or captures of them, say, a tune they heard, to their friends (pardon my counting chickens before they hatch, but as an example), and that will again ruin all the traditional assumptions of capitalist law. Communitarian order, on the other hand, has no such confinement or pre-assumptions about the traditional barriers of property, because it doese not regard property as a barrier. What happens when we leave Earth, or obtain the technology to drill into it more? Do property rights extend all the way to the core? Then what? Does it come at an angle, using appropriate geometry to define the borders, or does it overlap? What about widely eccentric ellipsoids, or highly irregular ones? Or closer to home, the ocean, or property rights for space itself? You'll probably say that isn't a hindrance and that society could adapt to technology with property rights without a problem, but then, capitalist libertarians advocate a constitution that is unchangeable, or that is nearly static, and that having to redefine the concept of property to deal with technology and the way that we view the universe will cause again, losers and winners (in redefinition over property disputes). How do you "own" a photon anyway? Will you take me to court if my nanorobots keep creating phenomena that continuously steals protons from your side of space to mine? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 15:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It is reporting history. If say, the Court were to prosecute a neo-Nazi in Germany for hate crimes, and used Nazi insignia as evidence, the Court admitting that into evidence and allowing the jury to see it does not mean that it offends the jury, but rather proof of the defendant's offense. Elle

I'm not sure if this was directed at me, but I agree with you and I've used the same logic with this guy. If one reports an offense, they are not repeating the offense. This guy doesn't seem to get that. Haizum 00:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, btw; I've been wrestling with this guy all weekend. Haizum 01:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Man, you guys are slow at reverting today, usually it takes you ten seconds.linkdump!Wurst

I think (if you have not already read it) you would find Gerald MacCallum's article Negative and Positive Freedom where he rejects Berlin's dichotomy between Negative and Positive freedom and instead advances a unitary "triadic" theory of freedom. Well worth a look if you're interested (and if you can obtain access to it.) [25] Will give you the first page, I'm not sure where else to find it.

Slizor 19:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Han Civilisation.png, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Congratulations! ~ Veledan • Talk 01:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

If the copyright is alright, can you add the picture from here to Carolyn Meinel? The picture is on the net in several places. Thanks again. KI 01:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what I meant to do, but I see no problem with your attempt to fix it. Johnleemk | Talk 08:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Natalinasmpf, to bring you some update from the board, there will be a chat day every Friday and weekend. You may also like to drop by at the Singapore IRC Channel for a chat anytime. Also do see this Singapore-related AFDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Suet Fern, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Li Shengwu and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everitt Road saga. Thanks ;) --Terence Ong 16:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

As you feel entitled to misuse speedy deletion when it has been pointed out that it does not apply, I think you should be stripped of administrator status. Osomec 02:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Then submit it for Wikipedia:Deletion review. If you think I'm misusing my powers, apply for an RFC. Although I think it is a tad extreme. Just what article do you have a grievance against? That high school election article? That first, it was already tagged as CSD. That second, it did qualify as CSD A7, please see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. If not, I haven't deleted much of anything recently, so you would be kind to tell what exactly you want undeleted. I haven't wheel warred with anyone. What exactly is your grievance?

Oh: check this. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You know full well that is pointless as you administrators always look after each other. Osomec 05:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The article still was eligible for speedy deletion. For example, if it had been tagged as an attack page, even if it was not, I would still have closed it as speedy delete under criteria A7. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Natalinasmpf, Iwould just like to point out that for all Chemistry articles, as in the hydrochloric acid one, strict terminology guidelines are followed, as pointed out in the Chemicals WikiProject. This is not about British versus American English but about consistent chemical terminology. So it it sulfuric acid and not sulphuric acid. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC).

But take consolation in aluminium, not aluminum. :D -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please help me out on the Azerbaijan page with the Armenian POV-pusher. They were previously blocked for violating the 3RR but their IP changes all the time. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 03:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Already saw the issue at RC patrol. I will be willing to block but you should post this at ANI. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how about WP:AIV? --Khoikhoi 03:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR should work as the sockpuppet connection is strong. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that, but it looks like the anon reverted again. :( Sigh. --Khoikhoi 03:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Please help save the number 3055 by voting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3055 (number). Without this number, 3054 would be followed directly by 3056, and we all know that would be wrong! --BostonMA 18:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3055 (number). Actually, I was joking, but a number of people didn't get that. Maybe you were joking too, and I'm taking you too seriously. --BostonMA 00:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The bot is set to detect and auto-revert those types of obvious vandals, it wasn't reverting earlier mostly because it was blocked (a tiny bug with respect to who it was warning for vandalism that has since been fixed (I hope), it should be back now and auto reverting. I'll talk to curps about having his bot auto block any vandals who use such images, as Tawkerbot2 doesn't have the autoblock capacity (and unless it gets consensus to do so, it never will though the thought of having it autoblock mass ip vandals has crossed my mind, much easier to copy paste a blocklink and post it in IRC for someone to click). If you have any questions feel free to give me a shout! Cheers! -- Tawker 03:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm thinking about an blacklist that the bot would revert on right and or a text match list that it would revert on site, both might be a little CPU intensive -- Tawker 06:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, everything would be IRC controlled so it might not be too hard to do, it'll take a few days though -- Tawker 06:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed you placed a short block on User: 200.74.138.250. The "squidward" vandals have been using open proxies to perform high-speed vandalism, so we've been blocking them indefinitely. There's a discussion here. And while I was typing this, I just received a message from User:Tawker, asking me to use the {{zombie proxy}} tag on those userpages, so I'll pass that along, also. Joyous | Talk 18:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah. One of the earlier edits had been used to push a POV at censorship in Singapore, but I assumed in was done in good faith (because it was not incivil), so I didn't know it was a long-term vandal. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the world tag, there have been so many edits I was trying to restore the old intro and forgot you had added that. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I generally dislike using the "revert to revision" feature unless it's totally or (90%) objectionable. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to apologize taking out my frustration on the poor to-do box at Abortion. I fear it will recoil from me the next time I want to set an actual goal. -Kyd 12:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Good editing, even if Gibbo says otherwise...I think Gibby's beliefs, which seem to be that humans are only motivated by either greed or fear (also known as capitalism) have affected his/her views of everything. There is no leftist cabal, Gibby!!!

It's hard to believe you're only 15! Also, cool picture on your userpage!

Keep up the good work! : ) PJB 21:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've extended thsi block significantly in light of the fact that acheckuser request resulted in him being a sock of a banned user NoToFrauds. Just thought you should know.Gator (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Man, when I first heard the phrase cleavage furrow, myself and everyone else in biology way back in the day had the same image... the furrow where they... well, press together. I'll admit I got a kick out of it, but I think it could actually be helpful. But, if you feel it's best to remove it, I'll go along with the decision. -M^ask 22:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

After some looking and searching, I think you're right. There are numerous articles on related subject matter, like White Lotus Society, Tiandihui, Xingzhonghui, Anti-Manchuism, Chinese nationalism, all of which touch the issue, but no overarching Anti-Qing sentiments article (which should be separate from anti-Manchuism, in case you were wondering). The Chinese wiki suffers the same problem. I could probably write something up, but right now I don't have the time to devote to this. SAT I on 1 Apr and Advanced Placement tests in May, SAT IIs June... :x

PS. I think Tiandihui is the better name as it is more "official" than Hongmen. Oh, I learned about these guys as "Tiandihui".

PS2. I really don't know much detailed history prior to 1911, so this is outside my area of expertise. :(

PS3. The Tiandihui is cool, I once thought about joining them. If only I found someone who was actually a member... :D

-- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia and it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page. This is for the purpose of ensuring the definitude of the copyright notice.

If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then simply note this as such, and provide an applicable copyright tag to the same.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

If you have any questions, please let me know! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, but I already know that. The source is already given and definite - it is a screenshot from the Spongebob Squarepants show. That is a given. Therefore, I have removed the tag. Thus, I think the fair use holds. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

La goutte de pluie/archive 5, thank you you so much for supporting my RfA, which passed successfully 49/6/3. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have taken people's suggestions to heart. I will do my best to live up to people's expectations. If I can ever make any improvements or help out in any way, please feel free to let me know! Thanks again for your much appreciated support.

¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello. In the interest of building a consensus, I would appreciate any input you (as a recent contributor to these pages) would have regarding the request to move Oil (disambiguation) back to Oil. Thank you, --Kralizec! (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello there, -- First, I must ask you to try to cool down a little, and make sure that the efforts and contributions of others are a mere trolling and vandalism before you so promptly remove them. Second, I seize the chance to invite you to contribute to our discussion on the FARC Yom Kippur War, and openly demonstrate your opinion. Third and the third is the Last; I too contribute using GNU/Linux, with the difference that I call it GNU/Linux and not just Linux, commrad! ;-)
Have a great time, Maysara 20:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the semiprotection was not because of a revert war per se (although there was a revert war going on); it was because the user blocked for revert warring created five or six sockpuppets while blocked, and the sockpuppets took up the revert war where he left off. The semiprotection tag was put on first, but some people thought that wasn't quite right because it wasn't actually vandalism that was taking place. So the tag was subst'ed and edited. However, I can see a case for the semiprotection, although I wasn't the admin who did it. There wouldn't have been a major revert war if it hadn't been for that one user (Pro-Lick) and his numerous puppets, although there would still have been some reverting going on with the established users See also WP:RFCU. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 10:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I know about the Pro-Lick issue. His reversion is minor, having already violated 3RR we know how to identify it - it's not like it's a rampant proxy-hopping issue. I don't see it as rampant, anyway...AFAIK, sprotection is never used to block sockpuppets of edit warriors, only sockpuppeteering vandals, according to WP:SPP. It should only be used as a last resort, because you will have regular anon IP's unable to edit. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 10:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"Married I am sure they were, and adopted little Cedric; but I don't think they had any other children, or were subsequently very boisterously happy. Of some sort of happiness melancholy is a characteristic, and I think these were a solemn pair, and died rather early." "Rebecca and Rowena. A romance upon romance, by William Makepeace Thackeray. --DLL 20:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Guantánamo Bay (or Bahía de Guantánamo) is the name of the bay.
• Guantánamo is the name of the city.
• Guantanamo Bay (no accent) is the name of the U.S. Navy base and station.

There are very few links to Guantánamo Bay which aren't intended to go to the naval base, and fixing the redirects will take care of a lot of them. Why make people have to click twice to get what they want?—wwoods 21:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay Naval Base is the name of the naval base. If not, it should be "Guantanamo Bay (naval base)". Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay is short for Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, just as Singapore is short for the Republic of Singapore. But Guantanamo ≠ Guantánamo. It'd be one thing if you wanted to link to the Guantanamo disambiguation page, but there's no point in directly linking to the wrong article!

—wwoods 04:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You deleted Image:NDP 2005 F-16s.jpg when the uploader summary clearly stated "I took this from the Padang". Now, the tagger was in the wrong, and this was months ago, but I would like to clarify that there should be more caution in the future and to check the circumstances of the tag. It would not have been difficult as it was on the same page.

Also, when you messaged User:Tdxiang about the copyright problem, he stated on the talk page that he meant it to be in the GFDL, but apparently you didn't check back. Can I recommend you at least put {{GFDL-presumed}} in the future? The idea is to prevent lawsuits, not as a punitive measure. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 18:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I must say that I disagree with your comments. "I took this from the Padang" doesn't make the source clear - what's the Padang? A website? A photo archive? As far as I'm concerned, this isn't sufficient sourcing, and there were no copyright details provided. And when deleting images, the deleter can't be expected to go to the user's talk page, and check every message in the archives to see if the user has added a one-liner to a message relating to a different image entirely. I also take offence at you calling me "careless" at Tdxiang's talk page, when all I've done is to correctly delete a speedyable image with no source and no copyright status. You say the tagger was wrong (I disagree - I think the tagger was correct) and yet you're leaving a message to criticise me but not the tagger. I don't understand. You say I messaged the uploader about the copyright tag, but didn't check back - do you seriously think that everytime an editor tags an image and notifies the uploader s/he should be checking that user's page? I leave hundreds of these messages, so that would be absolute madness. Also, I can't see where I've messaged that uploader (after all, it wasn't me who tagged the image), so again I don't understand. Regards, CLW 19:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"Way to go"? I really don't like your tone - it's not civil. The Padang is not as well known globally as the Statue of Liberty. That's not my fault, it's just a fact. You're trying to pick fault with me, and I really don't think you're being nice about it. Please could you also answer my queries from my previous message:

Do you really think that every time an editor leaves tags an image as unsource/unlicensed and leaves a message for the uploader, s/he should monitor the uploader's talk page for responses there (and if an editor leaves hundreds of these messages, how should this be done?)

You complain that I didn't monitor Tdxiang's talk page after leaving just such a message - when did I leave this message (it wasn't even me who tagged the image).

Why do you complain to me, but not to the tagger (who you say was in the wrong, even though I don't think this is the case)?

And do you think it's acceptable to bad-mouth me at Tdxiang's talk page by calling me careless there behind my back? CLW 20:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Now I see that you've deleted your "Way to go" comments from my talk page. Your first comment on my talk page begins with the header "in the future, please check carefully before..." and yet you're criticising my actions further to me having left a message on Tdxiang's talk page - yet I didn't leave any messages on his talk page. Yet you tell me "in the future, please check carefully before..."?? OK, I'm going to stay cool here, so I'm loggin off for today. CLW 20:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Will answer at talk page - I will clarify a few things. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That was a quick change, from relaxed to exhausted. Hope you manage to relax again. Maybe some music (and incomprehensible speech) from my part of the world will help? Click on "Éist leis an gclár / Listen to show" here if you feel like trying it: http://www.rte.ie/rnag/sruthnamaoile.html Of course, the music (which is of several different sorts; you may find the first one a bit weird in particular) may not be to your taste at all (in fact from your user page, I'm inclined to suspect not). Palmiro | Talk 14:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Natalina. Got any comment on [26]? William M. Connolley 12:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Erm, I'm surprised about the complaint. I don't think anything abusive occurred. I will post my thoughts on the matter. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I'll reupload them soon. Thanks!--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 ^(Talk)Contributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cold_fusion#Please_stop_using_conditional_grammar_incorrectly.21

- Jed

As a stringent grammarian, no I am not using it correctly. This is a content dispute, not a copyediting dispute. As long as the possibility of cold fusion remains in dispute, conditional tense is used. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Didn't know where to put it, if you can find a better home for it, please do so. Chris 03:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 00:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Nata, I didn't see your last question until I just now when I was planning to archive my talk page. I think that when Sun Yat-sen returned to build his Kuomintang in Guangdong, there was no "Beijing government". It was the Zhili Clique (Zhili is an old province, meaning "directly controlled (from Beijing)") that controlled Beijing. As for the legitmacy question, I don't have a definite answer for you. Sun wasn't held in such high regard back then, I suppose. He did pretty much screw China over by handing it to Yuan Shikai, you know. Maybe you can ask User:BlueShirts, he's much more knowledgeable than I am about the politics aspect, (I just do the 打打杀杀 parts, hehe), but make sure you take everything with a pinch of salt... -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 07:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You didnt mention your other changes in the summary. ackoz 22:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it is good etiquette to avoid reverting whenever possible and to make the most constructive edit possible. Generally this means looking at the diff one is reverting to confirm nothing else was added. To me, "revert to revision" and ignoring other changes implies a bad habit. It was just my take on something I feel is too widespread. I believe the policy on reversions declares "avoid reverting if you can". ;-) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologise again. Should I also avoid double reversions and reversion/edit wars? :-) One more question tho.. being 15, at what age did u stick to the ultra_____ communist ideology? No offense intended tho. ackoz 22:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

About secondary one; 12-13. Ironically, was far-right before then. ;-) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I see - so you were a liberal from 3 to 5, conservative from 5 to 8, far right from 8 to 12, and now from 12 you are christian anarcho-communist. Children do grow up faster in other parts of the world. What does far-right mean anyway in your context? Are you white somehow so you could believe in white supremacy? ackoz 10:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Far-right in the sense of strongly anti-communist, aka I indulged in all the propaganda the PAP gave to me. The 3-8 thing didn't occur. ;-) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 14:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for the protection on the page. Dave 18:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I like what you did, but it's not quite right. The T.A. was effectively nullified at least twice, maybe thrice before the Battle of NDjamena. KI 22:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I see you changed this photo's status to "historical image", but I'm pretty definite that it's not a "unique historic photograph" - vague photos of gunmen driving round in pickup trucks are two-a-penny. Further, the website it is from doesn't seem to actually possess the copyright to it, so it's effectively unsourced (the website the uploader found it at doesn't seem to produce original stories, it is more like Wikinews - the correspondent who reported on the relevant battle in Chad is also covering Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Uganda... I am sure there is no way this site had a press team in place to get this photo, it is almost certainly from an agency, possibly Reuters who have a lot of coverage in the region). In fact I can't even see any evidence that it has actually got anything to do with the article it is being used in - either in Wikipedia, or in the original source. It seems more likely it's a stock "African gunmen in pickup truck" picture - it's certainly not been taken in downtown N'Djamena. The caption in Wikipedia "gunmen near N'Djamena" may in fact be entirely fanciful - there is no caption at all in the original website, the men aren't wearing Chadian army uniform (contrast this to pictures on, say, bbc.co.uk), and there are no reports I can find of the rebels turning up in pickup trucks (on the contrary, they had quietly infiltrated N'Djamena). So, we are claiming fair use for what appears to be an irrelevant picture, the origin of the picture is dubious (but probably from an agency), we are claiming it is a "unique historic" picture (when in fact nobody quite knows what it's of and it is actually pretty generic anyway), we haven't identified the copyright holder, and even in the apparently unlikely event that the original website did have the rights to the photo, {{noncommercial}} isn't allowed. I was going to change the licence to "noncommercial" since that seems the best description of it, but I wanted to run it by you first, just in case you've spotted something that I've missed ... TheGrappler 23:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No objections to its removal. I suggest it be removed from the infobox and put up for IFD. Thanks for alerting me - I had not thought about it (I had 1001 things to do and checking for veracity wasn't on my mind.) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by your semi-protection, what vandalism were you refering to that came from IPs or new anons? JoshuaZ 03:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I was not the one who semiprotected it, I merely added the template. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 15:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like an admint to review my WP:PAIN request. Admins seem a bit sparce out there. ---J.Smith 06:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The sectionbreak template is designed for users on very high resolution monitors. The idea behind it is that for a narrower-monitor user, it may take twenty lines to display a section of an article but for a wide screen user, it may take only nine or ten lines. When this happens, the images used that are designed to correspond with certain sections start to pile up and end up being displayed in the wrong sections. With <br style="clear:both;">, the entire image is displayed before the section is broken, creating continuity.

I see that you have reverted edits made to accomodate widescreen users on the article "Singapore." If it is possible, you can try expanding your window to double its size (for example I use 1680x1050 resolution which is twice the average 800x600) to see how poorly articles display without sectionbreaks. I do not want to start an edit battle.. so I hope you'll agree. Thanks so much drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 22:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, a more efficient way to cancel out the effects is to have two templates, one on either side of a section, one with the coding <div style="clear:both;"> and the second with the coding </div>. On articles that are frequently watched (as I see Singapore is.. you reverted my edits pretty speedily) you may be able to keep such a design in check so that novice users don't remove the coding... Also you might want to figure out something to do with the image of the statue at the top. There's such a huge infobox that it really doesnt have all that great a place to go without getting into some more advanced html coding than other users would like to be confronted with.. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 22:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I use full screen on 1280x1024 but it moves the picture down with too much whitespace and no text wrapping, creating a lot of wasted space and jars flow, so thus my reversion. I'll see if I can find a solution. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you pro-life or pro-choice? ackoz 19:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't get involved in polar American politics. :D My stance is more complex. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

How exactly? This is a yes or no question (most of them are) - either you support the right for abortion or not. I understand that the complexity may lie in the communist (pro-choice) x christian (pro-life) deep internal conflict :-) However, I might assure you this aint no American politics - these battles are also common here in Europe. Come on - say what you have to say. ackoz 20:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't stereotype the argument into "pro-life" or "pro-choice". It requires a definition of life, and thus defining a camp as being against life or choice is not how I do it. It is not about internal conflict, by the way. Perhaps it deals more with transhumanism than anything else. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, so you misunderstood my question. By "are you pro-life or pro-choice", I meant "do you support the right to abortion"? Yes or no? ackoz 20:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC) btw wth does your signature mean?

Rights and ethics are two different things. It depends on the trimester, and the amount of sentience which has developed. Clearly, lots of eggs go down monthly, but it becomes increasingly less acceptable as sentience develops. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, eventually you will tell me the truth :) So .. making long story short, you DO support the right to abortion in the first trimester, when the sentience level can be percieved as lower-than-a-snail, RIGHT? ackoz 20:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC) u did not tell me what your signature means, would you be so amiable and explain, please?

More or less. My signature means "she lived happily ever after" in the French language (roughly - not literally). a tribute to a friend. Elle _{;;;;;;;;;vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I hereby classify you as pro-choice young man. Thank you for your explanation. Want a pro-choice userbox? :) ackoz 21:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You have the addressment wrong. ;-) Anyway, no I'm not a fan of polemic userboxes, except for views that are uniquely my own (or specialised in that manner). Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I just thought you would be a boy coz of the mathematics stuff. And because you clearly spend almost all your free time on wikipedia. So I just thought you were the nerdy geek.. my apologies 2 you. ackoz 21:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

All my sleepless nights, perhaps (I can't sleep at the moment), but ironically most of my time is spent travelling around Singapore either with friends or because of the MOELC. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

ackoz 00:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC) (be daemonic!) > Would you be interested in participating in the Talk:Chiropractic discussions in one of your sleepless nights? Maybe bring your young immature radical POV into the fight? :)

I usually try to mediate disputes, not aggravate them. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

And thats what I wanted you to do, young lady. What happend to your sense of irony? Anyway I am sad that you don't want to :( ackoz 09:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC) PS. I would really appreciate if you joined the discussion there. You could be really helpful.

Maybe I offended you somehow, but I would really appreciate your comment on Talk:Chiropractic. If you are not interested in the subject, please try to recommend someone who could be. ackoz 23:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Natalina, can you help me how to get rid of the excess white space around my userpage (around the grey margin). Although i use firefox i find it displays even worse in Iexplorer. Or did i cause the white space.. My talkpage has no horizontal scroll when displayed (which is what i want). Thanks a bunch! I still lazily learn the html. -- max rspct leave a message 01:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I get pissed when people refer to pre-2004 TCHS and HCI. Or assume I am from HCI. Or try to merge TCHS and HCI's articles. >:( Actually, I didn't know that it was run by Mailer diablo until he told me... Definitely a small world. (Only 4 million people or so what... no wait, that's the whole population of New Zealand! Make it 4 million people on a really, REALLY small island.) You should probably ask him if it's a good idea to use it?

As for Maoism... well don't be fooled by "TCHS". (The Communist High School?) It's (official?) treatment of Maoism and communism is no different from any other school private or government. Ironically, they do teach that the CPC did most of the fighting during the Second Sino-Japanese War... As I am sure every school in Singapore, China, America does. Interesting no? Propaganda is a powerful tool...

Sure, we hijacked the PA system and played Gimn Sovetskogo Soyuza once in a while, and the band played it before flag-raising (with no teacher the wiser...) But then, we also made Nazi armbands during lunch and beat up "Jews", meaning rich kids and those with big noses (which includes me, but I happened to be der Führer so...) For fun rather than any ideological basis.

Why am I telling you this anyway? I'll probably be expelled if I did something like this now... -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 20:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm sure that any school with a band and no teacher who knows how the Soviet anthem sounds like can pull this off. Come to think of it, there was a teacher who probably knew the anthem, but seeing he has a Soviet flag hanging in his cubicle (not to mention portraits of Lenin and Stalin) I suppose he was more amused than pissed off.

PS. You can also look at Mailer diablo's old user page, down at the bottom left. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 02:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• LOL...Mmmm...I thought it'd probably be just another (probably) NN comic? =P Small world indeed, my fellow cartoonist and I just thought we just wanted to rant a bit about the education system in Singapore and have some fun in digital art. ;) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 18:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "who", Nat? Stevay 21:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and how do you get a cool signature thing when you post on a Talk page? Can you modify the thing outputted by the four tildes, or is it a copy-paste job from Notepad? Stevay 22:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I will be replying on your talk page. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no problem with HTML, so I'll write up a decent-looking signature sometime in the future. Stevay 22:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, another question. How do I add Pinyin with tone marks on Wikipedia? Right now, I'm just trying to decipher all this Wikipedia formatting and style guidelines, just for the simple purpose of adding my Chinese name on my user page. o _ O Stevay (Talk) 22:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. The last thing I had wanted to do was convert everything to Unicode escape characters. Stevay (Talk) 22:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and hooray, I finally finished my first minor update of my user page. Yes, I am very bored. Stevay (Talk) 23:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Your latest addition to your user page was perhaps a bit "此地无银三百两". Now for my "隔壁王二不曾偷"... 263. :D Had to dig out the school mag Tdxiang scanned for me to make sure. Looks like I was 5th (for the school). Hmm... -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 04:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly lor. I did hint it was for the memory of getting something I was satisfied with more than anything else. The actual PSLE certificate is somewhere in my mother's safekeeping ... if you have any around to scan that we can upload, we can then put it on the pages, ya know. ;-) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well mine's locked up with all my other awards, certifications, newspaper clippings and research papers, ready to be shown to college admission officers when the time comes. Actually I'll take out my pre-Sec3 stuff, so they're not gonna see my PSLE score. ;) Hmm... I think my PSLE score was worse percentage wise than my SAT score(s)... yeah a 3.58% difference. But seeing as the top PSLE scholar gets 288 and 100 people a year get 2400 on their SAT, I'd say I did better for the PSLE. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 07:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I don't know why you thought this page needed to get moved, but I find two problems:

• The word Archimedean is often used to refer to things that, although they may have originated with Archimedes are done by other people. The title should be completely clear that it's about something written by Archimedes himself.
• "Usage" is not exactly synonymous with "use". Often "usage" means a widespread convention or custom.

Consequently I moved it to Archimedes's use of infinitesimals.

I fixed the link to list of mathematics articles. Can you help fix the other links? Thank you. Michael Hardy 19:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait, have you read Mein Kampf? If there is one thing Hitler is besides anti-Jewish, its anti-Marxist. He was opposed to Marxism, Socialism, Communism and the Soviet Union. I think the fact that you removed the comment about Hitler being anti-Communist has less to do with historical accuracy and more to do with the fact that you want to have only "good", nice people protest Communism.

Astroceltica

I'm a communist myself, but I think the case of Hitler is a cliche, a case of demogoguery and whantot. Hitler was a significant anti-communist, but not a significant critic of communism, as I see it, he has contributed nothing original to the criticisms. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hitler would say that Marxism is a Jewish plague, so associating the political theory with an ethnic group is a new criticism on his part. It gives people a more complete idea of the political spectrum to have the founder of the National SOCIALIST German Workers Party at odds with the actual concept of Marxism. User:Astroceltica

I generally consider racist remarks to be demogoguery, not actual economical criticism. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do I never get these kinds of political questions on my user talk page? Guess I'm not radical enough, huh? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 08:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

â