User talk:User9669/archive1

Archive 2004-2005 Archive 2006 Archive 2007 Archive 2008 Archive 2009 Archive 2010 Archive 2011 Current 2012

Zipf's law

Zipf's law is also demonstrated as a 1/f function. Given a set of Zipfian distributed frequencies, sorted from most common to least common, the second most common frequency will occur 1/2 as often as the first. The third most common frequency will occur 1/3 as often as the first. The n^th most common frequency will occur 1/n as often as the first.

Without any qualifications, this would appear to conflict with what the article says later, and yet you did not change those later parts. Michael Hardy 20:28, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

... Also: What does "demonstrated" mean? In mathematics, "demonstrate" is often synonymous with "prove", but that's clearly not what is meant here. Michael Hardy 20:31, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't know that the rest of the article says. It is written in math-speak, not English. I wrote Zipf's own description of a Zipf distribution. If it conflicts with the article then either the article is wrong or Zipf didn't know what he was talking about. Kainaw 19:07, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Response to help desk question.

Reposted:

I know how to use the square brackets to link to another article on Wikipedia, but is it possible to easily link to a definition in the wiki dictionary? There are some words that I feel could use a link for a proper definition, but do not warrant a full wikipedia article. For instance, I wrote an article on urchin when a dictionary entry would suffice. Kainaw 15:09, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To link to articles on a sister project, you would type [[(sister project):(title name)|(word name)]]. For example, help is done by [[Wiktionary:Help|help]]. Skyler 15:21, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

USA Patriot Act

I wanted to compliment you on your edits/additions to the USA Patriot Act article. It was sorely needed.

Thank you very much. I have no personal interest in the USA PATRIOT Act, but I do have a strong interest in Wikipedia. As it was, the USA PATRIOT Act article was full of misconceptions, misinformation, and general falsehoods. So, I took it upon myself to read the articles linked in the article and try to clean it up a bit. Hopefully the tide will turn and it will turn into a good article. Kainaw 01:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking Vandalism

Tracking vandalism on Wikipedia is difficult. There are methods of tracking the worst vandals, but not those vandals that wipe a page here and there, then go away for a while, then come page and do a little more. So, I've been going to the talk pages for these anonymous IP address accounts and recording the date that they vandalize articles. My idea is that if we all make a habit of this, we can easily see which IP addresses are used for vandalism and which ones are not. Kainaw 12:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

GWB

Howdy. I'd suggest not making threats on Wikipedia, or even posting anything that remotely resembles a threat. It's simply not a good idea. You may want to redact your comments. Also, please remember no personal attacks; this applies to everyone. I know this is frustrating, but you're simply adding fuel to the fire here. android 79 00:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel that my response is a personal threat in any way. Zephram_Stark claimed that I would prefer to kill all vandals and terrorists. I repsonded that I would prefer to kill him for claiming that I would prefer to kill all vandals and terrorists. That is not a threat. Kainaw 00:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you didn't read the above closely. Anything even remotely resembling a threat, such as "I would prefer to kill him" is simply not a good idea, whether it's a literal threat or not. android 79 01:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. It is obvious that the admins are keen to keep trolls like Zephram around. His input is deemed far more important than mine. Since I am not a troll, I will leave when I am not wanted. Goodbye. Kainaw 13:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I want just as much as you do to get rid of trolls, but the best thing is to ignore them or deal with them matter-of-factly, not egg them on. You're just giving him what he wants. I was just warning you not to get too far off in the weeds with pseudo-threats and personal attacks, which are far more likely to get you blocked than a weak trolling attempt, which I don't want to see happen to a valuable contributor. A very liberal interpretation of the "blocking for disruption" policy could have been used, but in light of his arbcom case, I chose not to. android 79 14:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PATRIOT Act

I've decided to copy you in on this comment that I added to Talk:USA PATRIOT Act.

I'm very sad to say that this article is next to useless. Neither the USA Act or USA PATRIOT Act detail the various clauses. There is tantalising detail here about what the Act contained: for instance, it allowed the FBI to employ translators!

I notice that the actual text has ten titles, each with their own important subsections. Hardly any are covered in this article. This makes it impossible for me to evaluate the criticisms levelled at the Act. I find that this is sad, especially in the light of the following sentence (from the article): "According to The Gallup Organization, the public is wary but ignorant about the USA PATRIOT Act." This article doesn't do much at all to assist with informing anyone about the scope of the Act!

Surely we can do better than this?

Ta bu shi da yu 09:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The Patriot Act is full of criticisms and disagreements, but looking over the actual document is not easy. A lawyer or someone interested in the legal jargon should take a look at it and summarize the work into clauses and facts people can understand.--Screwball23 ^talk 23:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply is on your talk page. Kainaw 13:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you help with the article, and I have time, I'll make sure that any ridiculousness is curbed... - Ta bu shi da yu 14:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Earth science, reply

I have replied to you, regarding the matter of Earth science and geology [1], further comments would be nice. I do think my analysis is correct. --Friðrik Bragi Dýrfjörð 00:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I replied and explained that ge means "rock and soil". Gaea means "planet Earth". Kainaw 00:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, your help has been of great assistance, I also replied on the Reference Desk again. Thank you again for your patience. --Friðrik Bragi Dýrfjörð 01:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to be of help. Kainaw 18:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lexers versus Parsers Reply

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Excellent reply. Top Notch. Where were you 20 years ago, when I was reading man yacc(1)? --Artoftransformation 06:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... 20 years ago was 1985. I was in my bedroom trying to get three Commodore 64's to talk to each other through a homemade 3-way serial port. It never worked that great, but I learned a lot of ways to not do networking. --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that

If you check the noticeboard you'll see they're having issues with the html code today--Hello'from^'SPACE 00:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that could be it. That is why I made sure to only say that the HTML was causing an error and not that you were responsible for the bad HTML. --Kainaw ^(talk) 02:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Vendettas

I would assume one of the three was a swordsman's rivalry of some sort, but I'm unable to find any that would qualify. Kudo Suketsune and Sasaki Nobutsuna, Lord Asano and Kira Kozukenosuke Yoshinaka, and who... Any ideas on what Wiki-citizens to ask? Thanks for the help previously! Daemon8666 19:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would look for anime fans. I know of Suketsune/Nobutsuna and Asano/Yoshinaka from old Japanese movies. That is why I wasn't sure I spelled it correctly. Since movies were made about the stories, I figure that some anime has been made also.

Also, keep in mind that a vandetta does not require swordplay. I'm sure many involved something less interesting for film, such as burning down a small village. But, that probably wouldn't be in the top 3.

Another thought: Since Kurosawa was ripped off by so many western films, perhaps something like High Plains Drifter were ripped off from a popular vendetta. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris

Here is a Christopher who likes the name Chris. Yeltensic42.618 09:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Work with a lot of Russians and Chinese and you will soon get tired of being called Cweez and Clix. Perhaps it isn't the name Chris that I don't like. It is the terribly pronounced variants. --Kainaw ^(talk) 23:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I used to have a friend in elementary school who was Russian (actually he was born in the Ukraine, but later lived in Russia before immigrating to the United States), but he had no accent. My uncle-by-marriage is from Hong Kong, and he sometimes slightly mispronounces my name. But anyway, the long form could end up as Cweeztopher or Clixtopher. By the way, it's a good idea to respond on the other person's talkpage, not your own, so that the New Message box lights up. Yeltensic42.618 00:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atheist Religion

On the Reference Desk, you argued against me about atheist religions. I still do disagree, because a belief in god (or gods) is the fundamental of religious ideology. Morality and tradition is different, so I do not view the "faiths" you mentioned as real religions. What I printed to the Reference Desk is below. Please, if you can, a few links would be nice to understand exactly what and why the groups you mentioned can be termed both.

"I don't mean to argue with you, but I still do disagree. Religion is, fundamentally, "A Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. Religion most commonly is an institutionalized system of tradition and spiritual praise for a Divine being or beings." Most people would not disagree with that. If a group praises a god or deity, that is a religion. If they are a sect or are traditional observers of let's say, a red table representative of a group of gods and deities, that is most likely a traditional function of their lives, not a religious one. I don't agree with the idea that an atheist religion can exist because if someone observes religious holidays and even participates in an institutional worship, they are performing a traditional rite, which may be connected to a spiritual meaning or may have been connected to one, but they aren't personally in a religion. They may even identify as that religion by "preference or affiliation", but not by faith, and therefore, not in complete connection. The sect may pray and congregate, but they are not a religion as much as a community and a traditional function. You can argue with me; tell me about the sect you studied, and I'll be willing to see why you think "atheist" and "religion" can come together. In so saying, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is not exactly a religion as much as a culture and a traditional fad among internet-savvy youth.--Screwball23 talk 23:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)"

Response is on your talk page. --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at "Religion and American Education" as a separate part of my studies and I saw something that changed what I thought:

"Some religions--the oldest forms of Buddhism and Confucianim, for example--are agnostic about God or the gods, and a good deal of contemporary religion places much less emphasis on belief in God than in tradition, morality, and hwo people live their lives." (Religion and American Education pg. 176)

This settles my thoughts about the subject because intuitively, I would have placed atheism and religion as opposites that couldn't exactly complement each other as a single belief system. I was also taught that Confucianism was more of a tradition or a way or life, but I will let it go. You had it right.--Screwball23 ^talk 01:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that right on this topic is a moving target. At one point, if it wasn't Judaism or Christianity, it wasn't religion. Before that, Protestant religions were not considered religions. Perhaps I am just lucky to live in a time when my gut feelings about religion and faith or considered more mainstream. Give it another 50 years and I'll surely be wrong. --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Rock

Hello. I was wondering if you would like to participate in my classic rock survey. I'm trying to find the most liked classic rock song. There is more information on my user page. Hope you participate! RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 03:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Faithless electors

I just responded to your post on my talk page, but I'll repeat it here: Thank you for your kind message, and thanks for splitting the article in the first place and adding the complete list.

— DLJessup (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]