User talk:Michael.Pohoreski

NOTE TO EVERYONE: Irrelevent discussions will be removed!

Warning: I delete out-of-date, and no longer relevent discussions, in contrast to others who keep everything on their talk page. If you wish to keep a discussion of ours, save it on your Talk Page! TIA.

Interests

Computer Programming, Software Engineering, Coding, Hacking
Computer Graphics, Geometry, and Physics
Math
Religion
Spirituality
Meta-Science, NeoPhysics

Welcome!

Hello, Michael.Pohoreski, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name.

I've noticed that you have made several edits regarding the Christian faith, and that's great! We have a committed and diverse group of editors in our community with similar interests! Please feel free to ask us questions and interact with us on the various talk pages for Christian topics; we'd love to have you working with us!

If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- KHM03 01:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nazareth

Yes, consistency is important, but not so important that it should be allowed to force us to absurd behavior. There is no stylistic call at all for an entire section devoted to a single brief sentence. It looks awful, and it gives undue emphasis to that single sentence that it would otherwise not merit. I challenge you to locate a single article of FA status (which are held up as exemplars of style) in Wikipedia that has done this.

A apologize for the omission of the Luke reference. It was inadvertant; I simply didn't scroll down far enough to see that part of the diff. I have therefore restored it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't remove comments from my talk page. Technically the point of a talk page is to be a record of personal interactions. For that matter, you should not have removed your original remark there.

Wiki is an encyclopedia first. Talk pages are to deal with administration overhead, and politics of content. Talk pages matter little in the grand scheme of things, IF, at the end of the day the article moves toward being "more complete." Since the fact was added in, what's the point of keeping extraneous complaints about the article, that are no longer relevent?? I, and most readers of the article, could care less about that certain entries/facts were missed in the past; what matters is, "Is the current article, good enough, relevent, and contain the facts I'm looking for?" I just get irked, when a person adds facts to an article, and then the additions get yanked without the moderator even bother to read what was added. I apologize for deleting my comment on your page. I wasn't aware of your rules for keeping comments. I will remember to do so in the future. Michael.Pohoreski 22:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am a mathematician of sorts, but this isn't mathematics; it's an encyclopedia. Absolute logical consistency isn't always called for, especially when it results in poor form. Part of my job is to design graphical user interfaces. Article layout is something of a human factors problem. You design for people in these cases, not logic. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've done my share of designing UI, and article layout, too, and would agree "logical consistency isn't always called for, ..., when it results in poor form" -- the problem though, is that this is subjective. Being inconsistent, can be poor form too. I just find "merging topics" of Old Testament and History to be poor taste, because when a person sees the New Testament, they will naturally be led to "What about the Old Tesament?", and scrolling up, won't find it. Making them read another section entitled History isn't really that logical, since they may well be familiar with other Topics that do have the "split" of "old vs new." The issue is between two orthogonal "standards", hence the discussion. I'll respect the decision to merge the categories, even if I don't agree with it. Michael.Pohoreski 22:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nazirite

I have removed the link that you added to the article Nazirite. I do not believe that the link added met the high standards for external links in Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:External links to read about those standards. Have a good day. Jon513 21:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you wrote:

About removing external the link from Nazirite Jon, couple of questions:

1. How long have you been a Nazirene for?
2. How long did you spend reading the articles on the external website?

Michael.Pohoreski 21:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have never been a Nazirite, and if Nazirene is a different word for Nazirite I have never been that either, but that does not mean that I am ignorant of the subject matter. I spent about a minute and a half reading the site. I saw no reference at all to any ideas connected with the article. It seemed like a Christian website talking about Christian ideas unrelated to Nazirite. Should I read it again? (If you choose to respond, do so here, it will make the conversation more readable). Jon513 21:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an analogy to express the point I was making:

Would you find it acceptable if an Atheist was responsible for authoring/editing an article on Christianity?!

Sorry to be a little rude, but I have been (and are) a Nazirite/Nazirene for 2 years; the author or the external link, for 20+ years. So I find it a little ignorant and arrogant for you to dismiss a link simply because you didn't take the time to read a website from a practising Nazirene. Or maybe you are of the opinion that we should just listen to the arm-chair experts making snap judgements based on presentation, instead of substance??

Personally, I would start at the [Intro] and then make a decision, based on the evidence. (Or maybe you prefer something a little more flashy -- Nazirene Vow Wiki)

Regardless, the point of the external link was to provide an option for people that are interested in learning more about what being a Nazirite/Nazirene is actually about, instead of just reading about what someone thinks it is.

Peace, Michael.Pohoreski 22:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't recall why your talk page is on my watchlist, but it is for some reason and so this exchange came to my attention. The Nazirite vow is a strictly Jewish practice, governed by Jewish law and custom as described in the article. Jon513 is himself Jewish, as you can see from his user page. I'm not sure what to make of your website but now that you've admitted it's your own the link to it should be removed on the grounds that it's a self-promoting vanity link alone. See WP:EL#Links to normally avoid and various sections of WP:NOT.

And to answer your analogical question -- of course an atheist should edit articles on Christianity. Why ever not? (And I am a Christian.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say it is only a Jewish practice if you have never kept it??

The external link I submitted for Nazirite is not my website. Please stop assuming.Michael.Pohoreski 22:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see I failed to read you carefully enough. So the website is maintined by someone else who claims to be a practicing Nazirite. (Or Nazirene; whatever.) It's still an inappropriate website.

How can I say it's a Jewish practice? Because it's a fact. It originated in Torah and was expounded in the Mishnah. Whatever you're doing, it's something completely unconnected to what Nazirites ever were. It's not even clear that you can be a real Nazirite at all if you're not a Jew. Sorry to be so blunt, but you really have no warrant for trying to take the high moral ground here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in responding, I was celebrating Shavuot and Shabbat. I have taken your advice and decided to read the site a bit more carefully "then make a decision, based on the evidence". I have read much of the links that you provided, and I am very surprised that you think they should be included. The link http://www.nazirene.org/ does not mention anything about a nazir at all. It does not quote from Numbers 6 and there is only a vague reference on the intro page (NOT the main page) about not drinking wine. I am sure that there are references somewhere on the site about a nazirite and how it connects nazirene, but I do not have the time to sift through so many pages, and doubt that anyone who would click on the link would either. The main page translates nairene as "the keeper of the way", which is not a translation of the word nazir (meaning “separated”, or according to a minority opinion "crowned"). Furthermore the main page has a list of words at the end that plainly says is there to "get the attention of the search engines", a practice known as link spamming. There is no information about any nazirene congregations and certainly no address for one. The page is clearly not professionally made (absolutely no css, simple formatting, unaesthetic layout, poorly scaled images, multiple webrings), indicating to me that whoever made this page is not in control of a large congregation.

Anyone who is looking for a congregration doesn't understand scripture. i.e.

Ex 19:6 "And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel."
1 Cor 3:9 "For we are laborers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building."
1 Cor 3:16-17 "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If anyone defiles the Temple, him shall God destroy him; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are."

Michael.Pohoreski 02:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the second site http://nazirene.peopleofhonoronly.com/ it seem to be written by a group of people that has combined the words Nazareth, Nazarene, and Nazirite into one. It comes as quite a surprise to me that such people exist. If there was a notable amount of such people I would suggest including a section about them in the Nazirite article, or making a new article about them. However, I can find no source whatsoever that this movement exists outside of a few simply made websites. A google search for nazirene turns up just 19,400 hit, the first being the website you added to the article.

I respect your beliefs, but please understand that you are in a clear minority. I have found no indication that there is a significant amount of people – even a significant minority – that agree with this interpretation. This is not the first time that links to sites by Allan Cronshaw has been removed (see Talk:Ebionites#New_Links) because extreme minority view do not belong on Wikipedia (see WP:NPOV#Undue weight). Jon513 21:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

You quoted some "Giles, ii p86" on Serapis page, but forget to add a reference for this book.--Panairjdde 13:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:TriangleHole.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:TriangleHole.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

About the dPVS demo from Hybrid/Umbra

Michael, if you are still interrested in the dPVS demo (www.wikipedia.org/wiki/dPVS) you can find it using the Symantec siteadvisor.com

Fixed point arithmetic

Hello, Michael, I'm not actually sure how this user talk thing works but I'd like to point out that (presumably your) addition to the "fixed point" page is incorrect at least in that 1:8:23 (IEEE754) is not a fixed point representation: it's actually a floating point representation. Could you do something about it? I also wrote something about the subject to the discussion page.

-Panze

Its correct. The confusion comes from that the _format_ is fixed point, but the _interpretation_ is floating point. Michael.Pohoreski 17:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi

A tag has been placed on Mehdi, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Victoriagirl 15:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry just got back from vacation last week.

I completely disagree that the article should be deleted. Mehdi has eight CDs out (which I linked to Amazon as proof). How many more citations or proofs do you need that he is a famous composer? Unfortunately, there is very little information known about this composer, so I provided a stub article so that others could help out, and flesh out the article. Just because he is not well known outside the "new-age" music scene, does not warrant a deletion. An Encyclopedia's function is to document authors, artists, composers, musicians, etc, regardless of popularity.Michael.Pohoreski 18:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to Amazon.com is part of what makes it look like spam that is trying to sell his products. If the article is not improved significantly, it will be speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G11 (spam) and/or WP:CSD#A7 (no assertion of importance or significance). I turned it into a redirect because that is better than speedy deletion. As you have chosen to undo that change, you need to quickly improve the article so that it does not qualify for either of those speedy deletion criteria. We get, and delete, thousands of inappropriate articles per day. GRBerry 20:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Amazon links, since I agree with your conclusion that it makes the article looks like spam. It is more important to document this composer and his works.Michael.Pohoreski 20:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. Allmightyduck What did I do wrong? 05:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, WP:NOTGUIDE. Allmightyduck What did I do wrong? 05:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhabrot.c

This is why my degree is in philosophy, not computer science. I don't even know what a low-pass noise filter is! :) Evercat (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhabrot.c

Just a heads up: I used Evercat's code with your modifications and generated a new image: File:Buddhabrot 20000.png. Enjoy! Purpy Pupple (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Michael.Pohoreski. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Michael.Pohoreski. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]