User talk:Hotfeba

Welcome!

Hello, Hotfeba, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Just H 20:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilco, and thanx for welcome! hotfeba 20:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear about your ban...

One Big Gripe... Citing Sources

One big gripe I often hear from non-wikipedians is that the Wikipedia is pretty short on cited sources for its articles. It seems that if editing users can add a "Partial Bibliography" section and just one book citation to an article that has no book citations at all, then that those users have earned their pay for the day. This could be just the sort of SOP that even non-Mensans can handle with relative ease. Hotfeba 19:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For people who are creating non-Wiki web pages, there are instructions at Create a WorldCat link for creating direct links from web pages to WorldCat's search, or even direct search by ISBN for books or ISSN for serials (magazines, journals, other periodicals). For creating original material that is not allowed in Wikipedia articles, the ability to cite books and other publications on non-Wiki web pages using WorldCat goes a long way toward designing a well-referenced website. Hotfeba 17:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading public domain photos at commons can be frustrating, especially when other editors make assumptions without checking source websites. Hotfeba 20:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Galatea

This looks interesting, at least on first impression... Hotfeba 20:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... or may not. There are ideals here, but not realizable. Instead, there may be some usable concepts for page editing, but by groups? Hotfeba 16:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Points and lines

Hi there. I noticed you recently created a page Points and lines. I think this essentially duplicates content from Graph (mathematics), so I decided to be bold and changed the page to a redirect. If you think a separate page is necessary, feel free to revert that, but I think all of the content you covered is already on the graph page. I hope you do not take offense. Thanks.

AndyR 23:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Academia Wikia

This is WAY more interesting than that project above: a wiki repository of original research, and it appears to be comatose... Hotfeba 22:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pending edit wars over philosphy and mathematics as they relate to logic

One editor is leading a charge to limit or remove the "math-centric" POV in articles on mathematics and mathematical logic. The philosopher's argument is that philosophical logic is fundamental to mathematics, so categorizing math under philosophy is logical and any opposition to that is illogical. In that case, all of philosophy is merely an application of language, so philosophy should properly be categorized under applications of language alongside fiction and dirty jokes. Hotfeba 23:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is a BIT of an oversimplification. I certainly haven't called anyone "illogical." The discussion continues.

Yes all philosophy is communicated in language. There's not much we can do about that, except acknowledge it. The thing is, that philosophers are not under the illusion that the language IS the truth. Math is a language used to describe the truth, not the truth itself.

The discussion about theorem has provided support for this point. However, the opening paragraph still has the more specialized, more specific definition mathematicians use, rather than starting with the more general definition from logic. That's math-centric.Gregbard 04:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be seen that "math-centric" is another expression meaning "mathematically precise" as opposed to "philosophically ambiguous". It would be an interesting thought experiment to claim that "philosophically precise" be a phrase in common usage, where the interest would be in how long it would take others to flag such a statement as unverifiable OR. Of course, if there is a debate about the usage-in-context of certain phrases, one may interpret a comment of "be well" when seeing it on one's talk page to be functionally equivalent to "don't be mentally ill". See WP:CIVIL#Problem. Hotfeba 16:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invite

I notice you have expressed an interest in logic. Have you considered joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Logic? It is an effort to coordinate the work of Wikipedians who are knowledgeable about logic in an effort to improve the general quality and range of Wikipedia articles on logic topics. We at the project invite your participation and correspondence. Be well.

Gregbard 04:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The inevitability of edit wars over philosophy and mathematics as they relate to logic

While individuals have not been called illogical, their arguments have been refused as not being of the same logical significance as the arguments of one who would limit the math-centricity of Wikipedia articles as being POV, and since most people agree that the determination of what is logical and what is not is not a matter of infinitely-valued fuzzy logic, what is logical is logical and what is not is illogical in that scheme of common agreement. The fuze has been lit.

Certainly, the word "philosophy" is being used in two senses leading to the edit-wars-to-come, as "mathematics" has been and will be used in two senses before and during the edit-wars-to-come, and the campaigns in those wars will be fought with an intensity that will serve to blend the two senses into one raging sense of opposition to all that does not agree. In one sense, "philosophy" and "mathematics" are true as separate from whatever language is used to express that which is true, and in another sense "philosophy" and "mathematics" are applications of language as their expression exists in writing as stored bits of floridian Wikipedia data locatable within the global Internet. Experience has previously taught me to appreciate "philosophy" and "mathematics" as two faces of the same animal in either sense, and so this hermit will wait out the war in his cave until, from the smoking ruins of shattered computers and broken terminals, a superman emerges in full form... one who has realized the pure philosophy of unspoken mathematical ideals and the autonomy therein... Hotfeba 22:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 03:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 08:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Algorithmic reducibility

Hello. I assumed that you were not aware of our article on Reduction (complexity) when writing Algorithmic reducibility and therefore I replaced your article with a redirect to the former article. Please revert if you think that we need two separate articles. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need to have two articles when the former should suffice. Hotfeba 17:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Old Guard

There has been some recent discussions to the official name of the the unit known as The Old Guard. I would ask if you could please review the topic and respond when you have the chance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:3rd_US_Infantry Thanks. -TabooTikiGod 05:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if you recall our previous struggle to keep the name of the article consistent with that of the unit's official name, but it appears that there will be an argument/possible revert war on the horizon. Once again, it's the 'offcial' Wikipedia military unit-article-naming-convention that is causing problems with an odd (yet traditionally) named unit and article. You mediated the problem for us a few years back, and I'd like to ask that you please take a look at the most recent events at the Old Guard Talk page. Thanks. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/3rd US Infantry, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Daniel 10:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to agree in order for the mediation to begin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/3rd_US_Infantry#Parties.27_agreement_to_mediate -TabooTikiGod 16:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/3rd US Infantry.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 00:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

On the naming of military units within Wikipedia with respect to the Third United States Infantry Regiment

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide#Military units and formations:

An article about a military unit or formation should be placed at "Name of unit (optional disambiguator)". The name should generally be the official name used by the armed forces to which the unit belongs, or, for units that do not have an official name, the most common name used in historical literature.... The disambiguator is not necessary in cases where the name of the country is already present in the name of the unit ....

The full, official name of the unit is Third United States Infantry Regiment. No optional disambiguator is required, as the name itself is unambiguous; there are no other units of this name in existence. Ordinal enumeration may be accomplished by using 3rd or 3d. Within the chain of command, Regiment is optional, but outside the chain of command to prevent ambiguity, Regiment is required on the first mention of the official name, as in an article title or first paragraph, preferably both. Hotfeba 06:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The full, official name with its official special designator (as approved by the Chief of Military History, HQDA, US Army) is Third United States Infantry Regiment (Old Guard). Punctuation is variable as either quotes, parentheses or other bracketing scheme, but the special designator Old Guard is required when used at all.Hotfeba 06:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When a unit has had multiple names over the course of its existence, the title should generally be the last name used by the unit; however, exceptions can be made in cases where the unit is clearly more commonly known by one of the previous names.

The usage Third United States Infantry Regiment is the most current for the unit, having been in print since at least 1896 and now so listed at www.army.mil in that website's directory /oldguard/; further, every incoming soldier to the unit is indoctrinated to use this name as official with respect to the unit. This last fact is in accordance with AR 600-82 regarding the tradition and history of regiments in the United States Army. Hotfeba 06:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discription of the regiment in the 1990 version of AR 600-82 is not current, describing the 3rd Infantry as composed of only one battalion; the 2nd Battalion is now activated, and companies of the 1st Battalion have been re-flagged under the 4th Battalion but still serve with the 1st Battalion in the Military District of Washington. As usual in a table of regiments, the 3rd Infantry is not identified with "US" or Regiment" as the abbreviated usage still applies unambiguously to the Old Guard, and the list contains no Confederate regiments. Hotfeba 01:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mis-identification of the 1st Battalion or other elements as the entire regiment

When referring to "1-3 INF BN" or "1/3 Infantry Battalion", the usage clearly names the 1st Battalion of the 3rd US Infantry Regiment, not the entire regiment. This confusion can be traced to the fact that until recently, there was only one activated battalion, the 1st of the 3rd. The 2nd Battalion has been now activated in the third millennium, and without seeing those activation orders, I am still certain that the name of the regiment under which the 2nd Battalion was flagged for this activation is the 3rd United States Infantry Regiment, consistent with the official name usage in military correspondence and orders; the word Regiment may have been left off according to both custom and Army Regulations but is understood to be part of the name of the unit.

Regimental name as adjective to trailing noun phrase

The usage "3rd US Infantry Regiment BCT Mission Statement" is not the name of the unit, but it is composed of the full official name as a descriptive adjective to the noun phrase "BCT Mission Statement", which is a mission statement for a unit of equivalent size to a brigade combat team. The rationale for publishing a mission statement of this type is that the command exists outside of a conventional brigade or divisional organization scheme as (1) an independent battalion in the case of the 1st Battalion with attachments, (2) another battalion assigned to a larger command in the case of the 2nd Battalion now assigned to Ft. Lewis, and (3) several companies now assigned under the 4th Battalion, serving with the 1st Battalion in the Military District of Washington and apparently not subject to overseas rotation in forward areas. A BCT Mission Statement provides staff coverage and command guidance for all elements of the Regiment during any change in status, especially for 2nd Battalion if it were in transit on being re-assigned to another command or off of Ft. Lewis.

I took a crack at addressing your question. I hope you find an answer.

Cheers! Geo Swan 03:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Post-mediation relief

Ha! Very clever indeed!

It's nice to see you back. Thanks for the input on the article page, regardless of how belated it is. It is still valuable as far as historical records of this inane event go. --ScreaminEagle (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On PDF article output

I am greatly impressed by the option to produce PDF output of articles. When those articles are well supported, the PDF output satisfies all of my previous complaints about wikipedia articles not being citable sources. I am humbled by the ingenuity of this solution to the problem of citable credibility. Of course, there is always the complaint about anonymous editing, but the enclosure of a list of logged-in editors is helpful for anyone wishing to do research into the editing patterns and reliability thereof of those identified editors. Hotfeba (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: First-hand observation of Old Guard in 1970s

Classic. Thanks for directing me to that. Believe it or not, 17 years later, I actually do miss all the TOG dog-and-pony-show stuff... and -- particularly around this time of year -- things like flags in (and out) and all that other extra stuff we'd do that guys from normal field units just couldn't understand without having done it themselves. Being in Guns, we didn't do the Twilight Tattoo, or the SOA stuff either, so we'd train for the EIB and/or go to the field (one section at a time) instead (nothing like Fort AP Hill in the middle of summer, right?). Anyway, thanks again. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 05:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]