User talk:Paradoctor/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Vandals

Hi, I saw your lengthy report on WP:AIV about persistent IP vandals (while checking up on another report - sadly I'm not an admin). One thing that might not have occurred to you is to ask for page protection. If you see a persistent vandal (or set of vandals), doing some damage, say, on average, once a day or more, then it's worth a try (if it's only once or twice a week - don't bother - it will be denied).
Go to WP:RFPP, and fill in a request - semi-protection will stop any IP address from editing - one usually asks for temporary - often the vandals will not bother when the protection comes off.
If you see a date in the future that you are not sure about, then try adding a {{future}} template above those dates. Hope that helps, and good hunting.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I may have not made clear enough that those three IPs are one and the same vandal. As for RFPP, you're right, that didn't occur to me. Wouldn't help with that one, though, he usually shoots his load and scrams. I think I'll report him to Project Oz and be done with it. Thanks for tip with the future tag. Tally ho! Paradoctor (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Anything You Can Do

Actually, the "Anything You Can Do" sequence was one I simply remembered from actually watching the program. Take care. Shaulceder (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts

Hello, Paradoctor. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding User:Likebox a user with which you have been involved. The discussion is about his activities at Quantum mysticism which may be related to his activity at Talk:Chinese room#Searle's assumption further information can be found at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Likebox. Thank you.--OMCV (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

...for the photo comment. I do what I can to lighten the mood. Truth be told, I was actually going zero and my spedometer was broken. Interesting photo nonetheless... — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Rfsmit#Erp_link

Hi, You're referring to a redirect loop which was created after my edit to link to a standalone page: [1]. Thanks for your attentiveness.--Rfsmit (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"Attentiveness" is the word. I just realized that I should have checked links to the page I converted into a redirect. [falls down to his knees and hopes his liege is in a forgiving mood today] Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Smile

Hello Paradoctor, 71.182.244.158 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for award

Thank you for the very unusual hierarchic cabbage award, I've put it at the end of my userboxes :-) Dmcq (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Paradoxes of infinity

Thank you for the message on my talk page. I noticed recently that Charles Matthew's edits to the mathematical fallacy article removed some content that would be more suited to a paradoxes of infinity article (which currently appears not to exist). I notified Charles that there is probably enough content simply lying around that someone could have a go at the article, and he suggested looking first at Category:Paradoxes of naive set theory. Since you are the Paradoctor, you should obviously be in the loop on this kind of discussion. Best, 71.182.244.158 (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 30a075b8e105da14cd1979d4bd6c98e7

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

RE : Smallest number paradox

The original article was indeed deleted. Then a redirect was created over it which now leads to a seperate page. I've just deleted it since it's orphaned now anyway. - Mailer Diablo 02:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Paradoctor (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sexism

Thanks for notifying me that you decided to return those userboxes to their sex-specific terminology. Despite your assertion, no knowledge is lost by making those specific userboxes applicable to any Wikipedian, but since they are yours, you are welcome to retain their sex-specific language. It's unfortunate that it's that important to you, because it does little to foster a spirit of collaboration. I was hoping to use one, but I have no interest in perpetuating sex-specific language when it is completely unnecessary. Let me know if you ever reconsider. Jokestress (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's see: First you accuse me of sexism, then of ownership, then of not having the collaborating nature. We'll ignore your general lack of manners. To avoid further irritation, I suggest you keep further edits to my user space confined to this talk page. Oh, and next time, do the work yourself, will you? After five years and 19000 edits, you ought to know how. Paradoctor (talk) 09:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The list of articles with paradox in their titles

About the list that you created, I noticed that there are a few that are already on the page for List of paradoxes. Would you like a {{Done-t}} template next to those? I could quickly put that in for you. I'm just wondering if they're not marked for a reason. Regards Shanman7 00:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Nah, just pooped. Knock yourself out, I am done for today. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, Thanks für den "barnstar". Gegen Klonen hab ich nichts - so lange es nicht mich betrifft ;-) --D.H (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Are illusions paradoxes?

I reverted your paradox category additions at auditory illusion and optical illusion. Your handle suggests that you have an agenda about paradoxes; I suggest you use the talk pages to say what's up. Dicklyon (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion moved to the proper place Paradoctor (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Expand

Thanks for fixing my typo earlier. If you haven't read it, Template:Expand says, "{{Expand}} should not be used on articles concurrently with stub templates - a stub template is an explicit request for expansion." — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I did overlook that one. (starts reviewing his own contributions weeping) Paradoctor (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

search

thanks for removing the redundant search tag at Muslim Mafia. Question -- is even one appropriate? I've never seen one on a talk page before. Doesn't bother me overly, but seems more appropriate in an AfD, where it always appears. Thoughts? Epeefleche (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

My first time, too. Judging from my experience, though, it looks like a good idea. Many contributors are not really aware that an encyclopedia article is basically an introduction to the literature on any given topic. This means sources, citations, quotations, links, references, in short: WP:V. If desperate measures like lifting templates from evil deletionists help, I'm all for it. ;) I think this might especially useful for WikiProjects, which could create their own tailor-made find templates for articles within their scope. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha. Good points. I would mind it on the article page, but as you suggest I imagine it can only be helpful where it is. They should have a bot affix it ultimately, I would think. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably much betterer

As I only haz FF 3.0.15 it look fine to me. Maybe tiz time to upgrade? Thx. 19:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Pommer

What can I say? One either bloats or sings. Paradoctor (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome.

"Thank you for this userbox." You are very welcome. I am happy to see that it is a success. If you like it, you may like some of my other ones. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 00:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Update

I like your template, though I can't actually understand how it works...my talk page has a more detailed explanation. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 00:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Vanishing-venice.jpg

As you've noticed, User:Heartfield01 said permission had been emailed to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org, but there is no OTRS ticket on the image page. I suggest you check with someone who has OTRS access, which I don't. If they have no knowledge, you can email Heartfield AT blueyonder DOT co DOT uk, as stated on his user page, to ask for it to be sent again. This also applies to File:Leaningrainbow.jpg. Ty 03:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, will do that. Thanks, Paradoctor (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Bit puzzled

... over this optional remark. Quid? DVdm (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, just vented a little bit of frustration. Checking my watchlist, I thought for a moment I was at the German twin paradox talk page, that's where I know Felix from. Oh well, I'd probably die of acute boredom if everyone suddenly starting making sense. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean now. His reply has two double negations and two negative questions - with one overlap (!). So I'm highly reluctant to reply and I think it's best to just ignore. Anyway, every possible interpretation of the questions is off-topic in the context of the article. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

VerbaLearn

Re: verbalearn. Thanks for deleting that. I'm sure Wikipedia is better now for your efforts. Gregman2 23:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregman2 (talk • contribs)

My reply Paradoctor (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Puddle thinking

Your characterization on my talk page of near-consensus for merge is definitely incorrect. "Fences and Windows" and "Hans Adler" state opposition to this merge also, while suggesting a better merge target of Fine-tuned universe. An anon also states s/he is "undecided" (though I agree in discounting anonymous opinions to a large degree). There are two or three editors who like the idea of the merge, but it really doesn't fit into the Anthropic principle article without being dramatically WP:UNDUE weight. LotLE×talk 23:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What an interesting talk page layout! Thanks for completing the merge, the material fits very well where you placed it. Fences&Windows 01:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. As regards the layout, it has a couple of drawbacks, but I like to experiment. Paradoctor (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the nostalgic reminder

It is many more years (than I would like to recall) since I last read 'Zarathustra' and the 'Genealogy of Morals' all now clearly recollected.Miletus (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this refers to, but I'm glad I could brighten your day. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Veni, vidi, visa

On thanks. Me too! Appreciate the neighborly nod. RashersTierney (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Peter David

Awesome work on fixing those reference! Well done! The article looks way better now. Thanks! Nightscream (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Paradoctor (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

SB dates

Thanks for your note, details here. Rich Farmbrough 10:54 2 February 2010 (UTC).

Footnotes and attribution

Hi Paradoctor, I do hope you'll further explain your view on WP:VPP that references only count if the author's name is mentioned in the text and that footnotes don't count as attribution. You appear to be arguing that using footnotes makes Wikipedia no different than any random blog. That seems quite contrary to standard practice, and I'm curious where that belief came from. But perhaps you just didn't read enough of the proposal to see that the discussion isn't about whether WP:SPS are attributed at all, but whether the author's name must be used in the text in addition to footnotes. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh

Did you read the passage? The plagiarism took place in Barrow's 2008 introduction to the republication of the 1944 book by Beard. I'm quite confident that it was not Beard writing about George W. Bush, Jr., in 1944. You may now apologize to me. THF (talk) 09:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Answering there. Paradoctor (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Scientific method?

Regarding this edit: Is it directed at me? The reason why I'm asking here as opposed to on Talk:Zeno's paradoxes is that it seems tangential to that article.

Anyway, if you directed that comment at me, the point I was making is that nowhere in Wikipedia's content policies does it say that in the process of writing articles we should follow the scientific method. Therefore the argument "you aren't following the scientific method when you write articles" is not a valid one. Gabbe (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:V, it's hard to get more scientific than that. Knowledge that is not verifiable is not knowledge, it's dogma. The problem is that Steaphen is misunderstanding the scientific method, and has not yet grasped how to participate in a constructive dialogue. He considers himself a "belief doctor" who knows better than everyone else what's what. I've petty much given up on him, and hope that his foolish ArbCom request will knock some sense into him. Paradoctor (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Where in WP:V does it say we should follow the scientific method? Gabbe (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify:

• In the scientific method, as I understand it, experimentation on phenomena in the natural world is crucial. In WP:V, it is not.
• In WP:V, verifiability "means that anyone should be able to check the sources to verify that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source". In science, it isn't required of material to have been previously published.
• In science, original research is practically a requirement to be published. On Wikipedia, it is forbidden.

My point is that there are important differences between the scientific method and Wikipedia's policies. Gabbe (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

All three points raised falter in the face of a simple question: What substantial difference is there between an encyclopedia article and a scientific review article? If you can answer that one, you'll have convinced me. Paradoctor (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

A substantial difference is that a scientific review article can reach or imply conclusions even if those conclusions have not been previously published. For example, Oresekes' 2004 review (available at doi:10.1126/science.1103618) surveyed 928 articles and concluded that "the scientific community is in overwhelming agreement that [the evidence for climate change] is clear and persuasive." A Wikipedia article would not be permitted cite the same 928 articles and reach or imply the same conclusion without attributing the conclusion to someone, as that would be a novel synthesis. Gabbe (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me note that the paper you cite is a short essay excerpted from a previous lecture. I don't know about the lecture, but that essay is not even close to being a review of the literature pertinent to the question whether there is scientific consensus about climate change. Furthermore, the statement "the scientific community is in overwhelming agreement" is not supported by the claimed (not cited!) evidence. It totally lacks a definition of "consensus", or a discussion of what kind of evidence would be needed to support a claim of consensus. (Consensus is IMHO an essentially contested concept anyway.) From this point of view, the paper already fails WP:V, so we don't need to worry about WP:SYNTH. It's amusing to see how often scientific papers fail Wikipedia's requirements. An amusing recent example. The way it currently appears to me, a complete Wikipedia article in perfect shape would pass scientific peer review in any publication matching its scope. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that it would be against Wikipedia's policies to citing the Oresekes source for the statement "the scientific community is in overwhelming agreement [...]"? Or are you saying that it doesn't qualify as a scientific review article? Let's take a different example, this time hypothetical: Let's say that a world-renowned ornithologist said that they observed a Ivory-billed Woodpecker, but did not manage to take a photo or other similar method of verifying their account. In this case the claim "I observed this rare bird" would be impossible to test, and would thus fail the scientific method. If the ornithologist came to Wikipedia directly, their statements would of course be inadmissible, so lets say that the claim was published somewhere. Are you saying, that because the claim fails the scientific method, we would be prohibited from quoting the ornithologist on Wikipedia? Gabbe (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"it would be against Wikipedia's policies to citing the Oresekes source": It's not just the statement, but how we use it.

Wikipedia says	sources	evaluation
F	928 papers	fails WP:V
F	Oreskes essay	ok, if Oreskes passes WP:RS, and F passes WP:DUE
(Oreskes says) "F"	Oreskes essay	ok, if WP:DUE is satisfied

"it doesn't qualify as a scientific review article": No need to believe me, Science itself has published it as an essay, not a review.

"would be prohibited from quoting the ornithologist": Again, it's a matter of context. How would the statement be used? As evidence that the bird has not yet become extinct? As a claim about what the ornithologist said? Or as a statement of fact? Source criticism comes into play here also. Thank you, I'm enjoying this conversation. Paradoctor (talk) 12:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems you agree with me in that while the scientific method and Wikipedia's polices have some degree of overlap, neither is the subset of the other. Or am I mistaken? Gabbe (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't agree. Wikipedia does not extend the field of knowledge, it builds infrastructure. As such, not all of the scientific method is relevant for us, of course. OTOH, Wikipedia is a project with a scientific goal, and everything we do derives it justification either directly from the scientific principle of reproducibility, or is a pragmatical approach to solving problems and conflicts arising from that goal. I don't see how it is possible to justify the blanket statement that we're not using the scientific method.

Consider using a map as metaphor for the scientific method. Normally, you're not interested in the entire information contained in the map, even if you consult it every time you need to find your way. Or maybe it's more like a set of fancy tools? You know, when you constantly buy shiny, expensive tools, only to keep using screwdriver, tongs and hammer almost all of the time. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we're actually in agreement, but we're just using the term "scientific method" differently. Gabbe (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You sure have a peculiar way of expressing it. ;) I'll keep that in my mind. :) Paradoctor (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobel Prize

Thanks for responding to the my question on the Nobel Prize article AIRcorn (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Paradoctor (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Zeno

I am not to happy that you moved material around, such that it looks like Steaphen was discussing or objecting to my proposed changes, and that it was these proposed changes that caused the stalemate. I only included the proposals as a response to requests by other other editors for comment and input. I was fairly happy with the most recent version of the article, and the changes that I proposed today have very low priority for me. This, while it now seems that these proposals are a major obstacle for us to move on and at the core of the problem. Ansgarf (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand, Steaphen hasn't yet commented. I assure you that causing further confusion is the last thing I intended. As far as earlier proposals are concerned, please be aware that I followed the discussions not in any detail. I'd prefer to leave that behind, and reboot from a single point. Paradoctor (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I just wante to say that the other proposal were responses to other editors requests for comments, and unrelated to the ongoing stalemate with Steaphen. The way you organised them, my proposal now seem to be an essential part of it. Ansgarf (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Finally understood it, sorry for being a bit slow today. I've uncommented the relevant sentence, does that work for you? Paradoctor (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW: With respect to Steaphen's assumed proposals, it would be more useful to either revive the previous mediation attempt, or to initiate a proper mediation process. I doubt that there will be many new insight by repeating the old arguments on the talk page. I might be mistaken, so good luck. Ansgarf (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, just let's see if it works. If not, well, it's not like it would be the first time I learnt something new in this place. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting out all the comments I made, why you let Steaphen go his way. I hope you are aware that the article currently says that there are mathematical formulas that with fair accuracy solve an algebraic problem. Ansgarf (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

As Steaphen latest comments suggest, he also wants to include the "fairly" into mathematical theorem, stating that they are only correct with fair accuracy. But what bother me most is that I cannot reply to this, since you will comment them out. While it seems that you let Steaphen post whatever he wants. If this was an attempt of an self made mediation tried to make an end to earlier mediation attempts, it seems like you failed. Steaphen is continuing with it [2] And I still find it frustrating that under your mediation scheme I do not have a right of reply. I am almost considering to call arbitration on your behaviour, that is how frustrating it is to see how Steaphen can tag mathematical facts as opinion.Ansgarf (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way are you intending to remove all of Steaphen's comment in which he addresses me? Ansgarf (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I was sick for a few days and didn't edit at all.

"commenting out all the comments": If you read the intro to that section again, you'll see that I specifically asked "do not argue", that is what this is all about, getting work done rather than disrupting it. IMO, all the statements I commented out do not contribute to that goal.

"you let Steaphen go his way": Please allow me to remind you of a few facts: I'm not an admin. Neither do I have authority. Any contribution by you to this particular section is entirely volitional. I'm trying to get this place workable again, but if you tell me I've failed, I'll have to accept that. Let me please get back up to speed first, though, ok? (200 edits in three days?!?)

"I still find it frustrating that under your mediation scheme I do not have a right of reply": Casting aside my above reply, I understand your frustration. Now consider my frustration at the state of this article, and the seeming impossibility to get it back on track.

(afterthought): You can reply. Just formulate it in terms of a specific proposal, or reasons why another specific proposal should/shouldn't be implemented. Paradoctor (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"you intending to remove all of Steaphen's comment": Give me some time to read, ok?

"I am almost considering to call arbitration on your behaviour": See above. Paradoctor (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand you good intentions. That is why I reluctantly accepted that you edited my comments, addressed at other editors than Steaphen, but that is an aside, even though editing comments is usually considered not-done on Talk pages. And while I was stopped from "arguing" little was done to stop Steaphen. Anyway. I know that it was well intended, but I would have preferred a proper mediation request. So, no worries, but I was simply frustrated on Saturday. Ansgarf (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"no worries": Never do. ;)

"I know that it was well intended": That's good to hear.

"usually considered not-done": I learned that elsewhere, that's why I keep it restricted to that one section.

"little was done to stop Steaphen": I'm back, and I while I just paid my respects to the big white bowl, such fillips don't serve to keep me down. Cleared my sinuses, actually. ;) I believe you have seen my notice by now? Paradoctor (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW: I initiated arbitration on Steaphen behaviour over the last few years [[3]]. This might influence your work of commenting out parts of last weeks talk pages. I don't think it would be necessary to do all that work at this stage, not just because it happens a few days late. Ansgarf (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"arbitration on Steaphen behaviour": I noticed. If you want my advice, I'd say retract it at least temporarily. Besides having a nasty habit of backfiring, they are generally awful procedures.

"all that work at this stage": I'm a glutton for punishment. Besides, if my approach doesn't work, it will establish without a shred of doubt that there is a problem with at least one editor, IMHO. If it does work, it will save us the much bigger amount of work going through arbitration. Paradoctor (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I know I that it might back fire. When Steaphen threatened arbitration last week to stop me from commenting, I thought that it might very well backfire on him if he did.

I am well aware that I might get reprimanded for not dropping the stick, and enjoying a bit too much to point out basic mistakes in Steaphen's reasoning. But it is worth a try I reckon. It got an endorsement with reservations from Paul August, so that that is not too bad a sign. Ansgarf (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh, I think it is way too easy to gang up on obnoxious dissenters. Remember my reaction to the last mediation attempt? I'm not too proud of it. Anyway, if you feel it's worth it, go ahead. Worst that can happen is they hack your machine to say rude things to your wife. ;) I think I'll get back to reading. Paradoctor (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I conscientiously didn't include Jim, Gabbe, or Paine, etc, to not make it look like a group trying to exclude an obnoxious editor, although I wouldn't keep them from making their own statement. And of course, it will be an obvious response to portray it as an "witch hunt" of the "brethren". No matter how it ends it will be used to prove Steaphen's point. Which gives us the freedom to go either way.Ansgarf (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Gaylord - Book publishing industry - a unit of measuring an amount of books

I've started a discussion at Talk:Gaylord#Book publishing industry - a unit of measuring an amount of books which you might be interested in, because it includes your edits. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, replied there. Paradoctor (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: Grandfather paradox

No problem. --Imagine Wizard (talk • contribs • count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 20:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Negative heaps

As per your request at: Talk:Sorites paradox#Original research on accepting the conclusion, I’ve found a ref that discusses negative heaps of sand (or rather, negative number of hairs on head). How does it look?

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. Paradoctor (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Internet connection

An "up to 10Mb" cable connection. Though I don't know what the speed actually is. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I'm afraid you need a better setup or a faster computer. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Lest I forget, you can monitor your bandwidth usage via Windows Task Manager#Networking. Paradoctor (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I can stream HD tv without waiting to buffer, so I'm quite happy thanks ;) OrangeDog (τ • ε) 21:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Evil genius

Descartes Meditations. See Evil daemon, and "Descartes' Epistemology, section 3.2" from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Descartes' argument is flawed in that it assumes its conclusion, starting from suppose there were this evil genius who was trying to deceive me. --Bejnar (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Maxwell's demon#My_Suggestion_for_Solution

Why am I wrong? --Chetvorno^TALK 05:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Not you, your explanation. ;)

Measurement is a reversible process: You gain information about the measured system, but you lose information about the state of the device recording the measurement. The energy "consumption" you talk about is not relevant, energy transfer is part of ordinary isentropic processes, like adiabatic compression. The step that would violate the second law is the resetting of the recording device from an unknown state into a know setting, i. e. erasing the memory. This process is called information erasure, and is irreversible by Landauer's principle. See arXiv:physics/0210005, page 2, center paragraph in right column. HTH, Paradoctor (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Working together

I enjoyed our collaboration on the Liar paradox. I'm particularly impressed with our result, which (paradoxically ;-) is greater than the sum of our individual contributions. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. You talk paradoxes, you talk my language. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Quantum LC paradox

You added it to the List of paradoxes. The article that references it doesn't make sense to me and seems to include explicit mistakes; can you defend or reword the description of the paradox there? Thanks, –SJ+ 06:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea about the physics involved here. But, as formulated, calling it a paradox is justified. I'm leaning out of the window here, but the paradox may arise from an inadmissible idealization similar to the one in the two capacitor paradox.

This would be WP:OR, as I couldn't find any relevant uses of "quantum LC circuit paradox". I sprinkled a few {{cn}}'s over the affected pages, and will nuke it sometime in the future, provided nobody digs something up. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Death by laughter / Nanda Bayin

A cursory search doesn't turn up anything definitive (even the external link on the Nanda Bayin page only says he reigned until 1599, rather than dating his death), but from what I can find, the history of Myanmar points to the deposement of the king before his death, while the trivia implies that he died as king. It's not clear, but either way I'm more inclined to trust the scholar/book referenced on that page than the trivia collection referenced by death from laughter. Up to you. --Firien ^{need help?} 08:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I added the other source. If it turns out to be a historical misattribution, it would still merit mention. Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Nicely reconciliated, thanks :) --Firien ^{need help?} 09:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rr

Template:Rr has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Chinese Room MedCab case

Hi Paradoctor, there's a MedCab case concerning the Chinese Room article that you probably should be aware of. PhilKnight (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Paradoctor (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Paradoctor, thanks for your participation in this whole can of worms that I opened. I've added an RfC to the Chinese Room talk page as PhilKnight suggested. Sorry it's taken so much of your time! Reading glasses (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, it's for a good cause after all. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

RSN posting

FYI: [4] Dlabtot (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. BTW, is this a spurious notification? Paradoctor (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Fermi Paradox Reversion

The author was correct. You can see who he is here: http://pt.linkedin.com/in/plimamonteiro . You may check the whois for the site to find he is the owner. If you still have doubts about authorship PL Monteiro will disclose his real name in the Catch 22 profile. After all, it is public information who he is through the whois for the domain.

Unfortunately, it seems you did not read the actual post I linked to. It does not deal with fact per se, instead it tries to convey to the reader, different technological approaches to Nature that result in widely different possibilities and endeavors. Accusing it of being unreliable is ludicrous...

I was a bit confused on how to contact you. Here you say to respond in my talk page. There you put a link to contact you here. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Please let me know your opinion as soon as possible. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I would revert the reversion because here in Wiki I've learned one has to take responsibility for one's own edits. On the other hand, I respect opinion diverse from mine, do not want to incur in anyone's "wrath" nor pick up fights I don't really need. A comment on my present comments, would be very much welcome. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering the author name is correct and the linked post is an allegory, of interest to those discussing these issues, and conveying ideas hard to express otherwise, it seems your objections are refuted and therefore I'm putting the paragraph back in. Unfortunately, I was unable to get your feedback on this. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Begone, evil spammer!

I like that revision summary. I wish that was auto inserted when ever someone reverse vandalism. Thanks for keeping Wikipedia clean of spammers. --Triesault (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

War against breathless modifiers

Nice. Keep up the good work. --John (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

New WP:RS Dispute

Again I am pushed to a whole lot of things I really, really don't like. If you have a moment of your time to put into careful reading would you give me your opinion on this: Competent Independent Writers and WP:RS? Please check also Sagan's Talk page and the Noticeboard. Links provided. Thanks in advance. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to decline, for the same reason Ningauble did: TL;DR. When people say this, please do not see this as unwillingness to deal with the subject matter, but rather as a challenge to your style of argumentation. Can you make your case in a single sentence?

From what I understand, you want to use Monteiro's self-published work as a reliable source. That will only work if you can show that Monteiro is an established authority on the subject. That you feel his work makes sense is not relevant, neither is my opinion on the merit of Monteiro's work. It's a drag, but in a work anyone can edit, WP:consensus is the only possible way of ensuring that we get a useful product. HTH, Paradoctor (talk) 02:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have marked you as a reviewer

I have added the "reviewers" property to your user account. This property is related to the Pending changes system that is currently being tried. This system loosens page protection by allowing anonymous users to make "pending" changes which don't become "live" until they're "reviewed". However, logged-in users always see the very latest version of each page with no delay. A good explanation of the system is given in this image. The system is only being used for pages that would otherwise be protected from editing.

If there are "pending" (unreviewed) edits for a page, they will be apparent in a page's history screen; you do not have to go looking for them. There is, however, a list of all articles with changes awaiting review at Special:OldReviewedPages. Because there are so few pages in the trial so far, the latter list is almost always empty. The list of all pages in the pending review system is at Special:StablePages.

To use the system, you can simply edit the page as you normally would, but you should also mark the latest revision as "reviewed" if you have looked at it to ensure it isn't problematic. Edits should generally be accepted if you wouldn't undo them in normal editing: they don't have obvious vandalism, personal attacks, etc. If an edit is problematic, you can fix it by editing or undoing it, just like normal. You are permitted to mark your own changes as reviewed.

The "reviewers" property does not obligate you to do any additional work, and if you like you can simply ignore it. The expectation is that many users will have this property, so that they can review pending revisions in the course of normal editing. However, if you explicitly want to decline the "reviewer" property, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC) — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The collapse issue seems to be because your system is not compatible with the

"new section" button at the top of the page. I don't know how to fix that, unfortunately. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

^_^ Sorry about the edit comment, that was just for my own amusement, as in "another two sections now collapsed by default". I never imagined that people read these on user pages. But thanks for trying to help me, even tough I'm apparently a lost cause. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Plato's beard

Don't know if you're still around, or permanently retired...but could you expand Plato's beard a bit?Smallman12q (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

can you tell me if this is a paradox???

Well I made this paradox. can you tell me if this is a paradox? Here goes:

"He is bad at everything." This is a wrong sentence because if he is bad at being bad, he can't be bad at everything (as he should be bad at everything, including being bad). But if he is good at being bad, then again he isn't bad at everything as he isn't bad at being bad.

This becomes a paradox. Is this a paradox or not??? (You can see this same message on the discussion page of List of paradoxes). --Lm34gt45 (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:Infobox for craters

Re:Infobox for craters

You may be interested in this discussion Bulwersator (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	The highest form of wisdom is often paradoxical. Your contributions to Paradoxes in Wikipedia are therefore quite valuable. Keep it up! Kgashok (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Ethical paradox of nihilism

Hi Paradoctor! Regarding [5], are you aware that access to the PDF is restricted? I wanted to consult the article but am asked for credentials. --Chealer (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Replied on your talk page. Paradoctor (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to see you come back, doctor. Thanks for your treatments. I hope you slept well. --Chealer (talk) 12:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you. :) Paradoctor (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Dingle reference

Hi, I'm getting quite into the twin paradox and Herbert Dingle and saw on his discussion page that you had a copy of this paper: "A misunderstood rebellion the twin-paradox controversy and Herbert Dingle's vision of science", which I can't find anywhere else online. It would be amazing if you could send me a copy!! My email is lctp1986@gmail.com. Many Thanks, and keep up the good work! ~LP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.197.121 (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to events in June and July: bot, script, template, and Gadget makers wanted

I invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June. Registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in the registration form.

This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, teaching, and socialising, primarily talking about ResourceLoader and Gadgets (extending functionality with JavaScript), the switch to Lua for templates, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Labs.

We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!

I also thought you might want to know about other upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC and our other events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 01:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:List of paradoxes/articles containing paradox not in title 2009-11-14

Talk:List of paradoxes/articles containing paradox not in title 2009-11-14, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:List of paradoxes/articles containing paradox not in title 2009-11-14 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:List of paradoxes/articles containing paradox not in title 2009-11-14 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding

Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office ^connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Just in case

In case you still look at this page : I ma writing the French version of Herbert Dingle =>fr:Herbert Dingle and I saw that you have Chang's article I am looking for. Thus, I shall be very grateful if you could send it to me (via my mail on my user page). Thank you very much in advance, --Cgolds (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Paradoctor (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Randy Quaid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cold Dog Soup (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Paradox (disambiguation) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * ''Paradox'' is a song from the [[4.3.2.1#Soundtrack]]soundtrack]] for the film ''4.3.2.1''

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Vacuous reference

Hi. When I first saw this redirect, I assumed it was a joke, but I thought I should check with you. Is it meant to redirect somewhere else (like vacuous truth)? Thanks TigerShark (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Honest, that was a mistake. Though I can understand how one could get the idea that it was meant that way. Fixed. Paradoctor (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

onto

It's been a long time, but as best I remember, my thinking went something like this. Unless one is a mathematician, the word "onto" will not sound like a mathematical word. For example, "star" has a mathematical meaning (in graph theory), but that is not the most common meaning. So (I thought) if someone wanted a reminder of what "onto" was all about, they would be likely to try "onto (mathematics)".Rick Norwood (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but if someone didn't expect a mathematical meaning, they wouldn't think to search for it in that context, would they? And if they did, wouldn't it be "onto math" or "onto mathematics"? You piped it in the mathematical(!) article where you wanted to use it, so it wouldn't have helped the reader. The parenthetical notation is a Wikipedia quirk. That you considered this sensible is quite understandable, considering that you were already an old hand by the time you created the redirect. Competence has its drawbacks. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Controversial (scientific)

Template:Controversial (scientific) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Magioladitis (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

your comment

Your comment of "ahem" on Talk:Monty Hall problem is not helpful and frankly, somewhat rude. Unless you actually understand Sample space and Event (probability theory), then you should refrain from such comments. There is a bona fide dialog ongoing, and your comment did not help advance it. Tweedledee2011 (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Further discussion there, not here. Paradoctor (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong - you've been put on notice because your comment was needlessly tendentious and is aimed at derailing a fruitful conversation. You might not see any benefit in that dialog, but I do and I aim to talk it to a conclusion so as to improve the article. Your interjections are clearly aimed at disrupting the flow of that conversation. Please stop it. Tweedledee2011 (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you take a deep breath and assume good faith on my behalf. More to the point, rather than posting here, address the concerns I raised on the matter at hand, ok? Paradoctor (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Stop interfering on Talk:Monty Hall problem. It took me days to bring that conversation to a conclusion and you are trying to delete my summation. It's not appropriate and it's cause for a complaint against you. Tweedledee2011 (talk) 09:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to go ahead. Paradoctor (talk) 09:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You are bullying me, please stop Tweedledee2011 (talk) 09:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Your behavior violates policy. If you think otherwise, there's always WP:ANI. Paradoctor (talk) 09:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

No - yours does. And if you revert me again on Talk:Monty Hall problem, you will be in violation of 3rr - see Wikipedia:Edit warring Tweedledee2011 (talk) 09:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

"Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring." Paradoctor (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You are not a honest broker here. Your hands are unclean and you are seeking to circumvent the rules to senselessly interfere with my summation to a long dialog. That dialog has run it's course, I've raised my concerns about the article and have clarified them such that if you leave that final post unmolested, the others who have been reading them can see the end of the dialog. Please STOP interfering. Tweedledee2011 (talk) 09:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You have been reported for a 3rr violation, here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring Tweedledee2011 (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweedledee2011 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Criticisms of the theory of relativity". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 20:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

That one

... you should have left untouched ;-) - DVdm (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. But I have no clue why. What did I miss? Paradoctor (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Because it was such a funny typo, if it was one in the first place :-) - DVdm (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to have ruined your fun. It's a genuine typo, though. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

LCcritic

You'll be interested in Wikipedia:Help desk#Dispute Resolution is a Sham. - DVdm (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I hope that this is merely an aftershock. If not, I'll take it to ANI, enough is enough. Paradoctor (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heinz Hoenig, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jump! (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done

Disambiguation link notification for February 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heinz Hoenig, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Romy and Gier (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done

Love it

Indeed it's fantastic, this. If you can find a way to make it turn up with the blue background in non-Firefox browsers, then by all means I'll take it! - DVdm (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

And got it!. Through a sheer hunch I simply replaced

   style=background:-moz-radial-gradient(...

with

   style=background-color:#0077BE; background-image:-moz-radial-gradient(...

Intuition! - DVdm (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Glad you like it. And I finally found out why it didn't work as advertised. W3schools and pretty much everyone else use the old position-first syntax in their examples, despite it not being supported for the prefix-free function. It should work now in recent versions of all major browsers, for IE10 and FF27 it does definitely. If you want to extend support further back, just add the corresponding vendor prefixes. D00d, I'm l33t! Paradoctor (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you believe it? I only noticed the other two gradients when you splatted them. TFT notebook displays suck. Mine does, at least. Paradoctor (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

yes

Yes, I trust you that reliable sources would be needed for that. It is obvious commonsense, and is logically valid, but at present I don't know of a reliable source. I think the physics community has brainwashed itself into not seeing the obvious here, and of course Wikipedia will hardly buck that. But I was interested to see who would react and how.Chjoaygame (talk) 05:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hafele-Keating Reloaded

I just realized that an experimental test of relativistic length contraction is at most a few years away from being feasible. Solar Probe Plus will bring a satellite into the Sun's corona. This shows that it should be possible to send an experiment into a solar orbit with a radius of 5.9 million km, which translates to an orbital speed of .0005c. Put two rods into counter-rotating orbits, and they will pass with a relative speed of .001c, corresponding to a length contraction of .9999995. For 1 m long rods, this would mean a length difference of 500 nm, the wavelength of visible violet light. Using thermally controlled Zerodur, a handful of atomic clocks, interferometers, picosecond lasers and assorted gadgetry, this should be doable. Of course, there is nothing fundamental preventing us from using 1000m long rods, increasing the length difference to .5 mm. Paradoctor (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Ant on a rubber rope

I was thinking of keeping their contributions, but there was something in there that was struck across various (earlier) paragraphs, and that's just too difficult for me. Or maybe I'm a Pretenddoctor. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dogtor. Paradoctor (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice! But don't tell Dr. K. Or Dr. Blofeld. Drmies (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

reply

Thanks! :) I'll read that, it looks helpful! If I put a link that shouldn't exist feel free to correct it or ask me to fix it ;) Regards, Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση (talk) 05:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I can do that. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

URLs

Ouch I'm sorry, I'll use the page title or other suggestions in the info page you linked, thanks for giving me this link I'll read it. Bare URLs even in the footnotes create serious problems when printing a page or making a PDF because the Google Chrome browser has a software bug which seems to be activated by bare URLs on Wikipedia when using a large font size, enclosing the URLs in brackets was a suggestion I read on a Chrome user forum discussing the problem. You're correct it hides information, though, so I'll make sure to put the page's title instead of leaving it empty.^^ Regards, Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

No need to be apologetic, you're doing fine. I started seven years ago, and I still have to constantly look up things. Paradoctor (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

:-) Thank you so much^^ Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Roger Corman filmography may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{tr4c |1954 | ''[[Monster from the Ocean Floor]]'' | Producer<br/>Actor ("Tommy")) (uncredited)<ref name="imdb"/> | Directed by Wyott Ordung }}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

ERP

Hi Paradoctor, please could you stop re-adding those entries to the dab, WP:DABACRO explains why. Widefox; talk 00:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:VP/P

I hate myself for smiling. But seriously: there must be a better way of dealing with this, no? VQuakr (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Just posted on your page. Paradoctor (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Similarity

Hey, that image at First Crusade somehow reminds me of that of The Grand Wazoo (higher res for instance here). Check it out. - DVdm (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Uncanny. Could be a Sängerkrieg, don't you think? Paradoctor (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Sweet :-) - DVdm (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Bell's spaceship paradox

Please read carefully the comment I've added to the article. However, I agree it's not a place for putting everyone's (my) thoughts -- it would be quite confusing.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.135.197.217 (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please put messages regarding article content on the article's talk page. I did read your comment, and I removed it because it is not sourced to a reliable source. Verifiability is central to Wikipedia: "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 03:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Bottom message

Hi there... I notice this red message here at the bottom of your talk page. If you want to avoid visitors accidentally moving it up—as I just did now —when adding a new section or when replying to the last mesage, you can put the message on top of the talk page but make sure that it always shows at the bottom. I boldly just did that. See if you like it, and enjoy experimenting with it. - DVdm (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Without you, I would've kept laboring on for quite a while. And now I found an even better solution. Paradoctor (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. Isn't HTML a blessing? Enjoy. - DVdm (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Albert Einstein". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --MelanieN (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of paradoxes may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * {{bl|Liberal paradox}} "Minimal Liberty" is incompatible with {{bl|Pareto optimality]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Terry Gilliam about the trilogy

You reverted the statement that Gilliam called The Zero Theorem the final part of the trilogy. But in the source given it says: "Calling it the third part of a trilogy formed by earlier dystopian satires Brazil and Twelve Monkeys, Gilliam says he sees the film very much as a warning against the perils of a digitised existence." I interpret this as Gilliam having said that The Zero Theorem is the third part of a trilogy, so I think the earlier wording was correct. Why do you think it is correct to say: "Gilliam has not referred to the film this way"? Mark in wiki (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mark in wiki: For discussing edits to a specific article, please use the article's talkpage. Heading over there right now. Paradoctor (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Thanks for editing Upstream contamination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.208.211 (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Gladly. BTW, please sign your talk page posts like this: ~~~~. Also, new talk topics are generally expected to be placed at the bottom of the page. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions. Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Universal rotation curve

Your recent editing history at Universal rotation curve shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. jps (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I am aware of the policy. If you think that is productive, please proceed. Paradoctor (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Memory Run, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Big Brother. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tr4c

Template:Tr4c has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.  Gadget850 ^talk 22:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be a scholar

…with background relating to Zeno and other such ancient philosophical work.

The Zeno's paradoxes has had an expert needed tag added. One thing I noted it needs, is that all the primary sources need to be consistently cited, so they can be followed: All the Plato and Aristotle mostly from same source, with each of those primary sources fully described (then individual passages cited in an identical short style in the references).

To get this started, I took the best occurrence of the classical citations appearing in the References section, and placed a copy of each in an Original sources section. Two of these are almost complete (Plato, Aristotle), two of them are very incomplete (Diogenes, Aquinas).

After this, there is a serious look needed at the lead, it seems. Most of it appears to be OR. That is, it is not sourced either in the lead, or in the main body of the text. I would propose a new section, "Sources and history", to open the article, with most of the lead content being copied there. I.e., the Parmenides stuff, and the Aristotle-same-as-Simplicius content should be moved into the main body and sourced. Only then can a lead re-write begin.

Can you do any of this? I am not a philosopher, but am a scholar, and concur with the stated issues that appear. (And the need for a scholar like you to turn this into a good article, enlisting whatever help you need.)

But all together -- the facts that the classical sources are a hodgepodge of styles and degrees of completeness, that the interpretations appearing throughout are not sourced, that page numbers are often missing -- this makes the thing a mess. And I agree, it is hard not to think that much is OR/plagiarised, so confident are the unsourced opinions.

Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

"appear to be a scholar" I'm not sure where you got the impression, but I'm afraid I'm not.

"Can you do any of this?" Sorry, but I'm currently not interested in this particular task. Don't hold back on my account, though. WP:WIP and all that. Happy editing! Paradoctor (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Endorphins may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * Around the same time, in a [calf (animal)|]] brain, Rabi Simantov and [[Solomon H. Snyder]] of the [[United States]] found<ref>{{cite journal |
• 'endogenes''}}, "proceeding from within") and [[morphine]], from [[Morpheus (mythology)|Morpheus]] ({{lang|grc|Μορφεύς}} / {{lang-grc|''Morpheús''}}, the god of sleep in the Greek mythology, thus '

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Calves...

Just checking to see if you officially (for now, at least) withdrew the RM request at Calf (disambiguation)? First time I've seen it done that way, but if it went bye-bye, I'm not complaining. Montanabw^(talk) 07:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Your deletion of talk page edits

Hi. I don't think we have met before. I am new to the Calf and Calf (disambiguation) pages and most of the editors on there. Things are obviously very heated over there but I have not had time to look at the history, so the following is offered in a neutral way. Your mass deletion of edits from the Talk:Calf (disambiguation) page is a huge mistake (possibly actionable on this single instance) and could follow you around for a long time if you do not take immediate action. I strongly suggest you offer an apology to the community for your deletions before this escalates and sanctions are considered.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

While I realized meanwhile that I did indeed make an error at the beginning of this brouhaha, the reaction of "the community" has made me so angry that I'm beyond caring now. If this is how things really work here, then that is not an environment where I can contribute productively in the long run anyway. This is not the first time I encountered the mechanism at work here, but apparently I've reached my limit. Let them have their way. Paradoctor (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

These are very unwise words to posting. Please, an apology now will count for so much in the future if you intend to stay.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

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) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Paradoctor!

Happy New Year!

Paradoctor,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 23:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

A beer for you!

And a healthy paradoxical 2016. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 10:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Technological singularity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Horgan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

Stale page

Paradoctor,

I'm an infrequent user of Wikipedia. The stale page you found is stale because I ran into editing obstacles. That is, I was not able to format some sections like I wanted and was unsure how to handle some images. Then I ran into personal things that kept me from coming back to the page and asking for help. In recent weeks I've been thinking about returning to the project. Perhaps your edit it just was it takes to get me going again!

Are you able to help me with editing or should I ask elsewhere? How do it ask for help?

1200Flasher 19:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC) 1200Flasher

Welcome to Wikipedia. :)

Please sign your posts with ~~~~.

It's entirely ok to have stale pages. ;)

In general, help can be found starting from Help:Contents. The sections "Edit an article", "Stuck?" and "Help Menu" should be of interest for you right now. You could try Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user, and there is always the Wikipedia:Teahouse. Personally, I think my most important tip would be: collect links to pages with important or useful information. Many users put these on their user page. For you, that would be User:1200Flasher.

Since you are still working on the draft, I am going to undo my change, and will fix the reference error myself.

If, for some insane reason, all this doesn't get you forward, please feel free to let me know, I'll try to help. Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: James Denise McGowan (January 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:James Denise McGowan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Paradoctor, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Onel5969 TT me 00:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Onel5969:, I'm afraid I can't take the credit here. I merely fixed a reference error in the draft because it popped up in Category:Pages with reference errors. I think you better head over to Bill P. Hickey's place, seeing as my grief was rather short-lived. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dhirendra Verma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indian languages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Antón Losada

Hello Paradoctor, I'm AMPERIO, sysop (check) in Galician language wikipedia. I saw you added the template machine translation into the article Antón Losada Diéguez which is only half-true. Although I used the translation system provided in wikipedia to do it faster, I was reading every single word in order to correct weird words or expressions. I understand that I may have committed some mistakes, as English is not my native language, and that's why I asked User:Bgwhite to take a look at the article to fix those problems. I also saw that another user from Galician wiki added some information in the work's section and deleted some wikilinks without fixing the content, just deleting [[:gl: and leaving things such as [[Lois_Pereiro|Lois Pereiro]], because in our version we try not to use those wikilinks inside the article, btw I understand that he should have fixed that too. Please, check the article now, as Bgwhite has made some corrections and write me with an answer to try to solve the problem. Thank you, --AMPERIO (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

While I used the {{machine translation}} alias, the template proper is called {{rough translation}}. Either way, the point of it is to draw attention to an article requiring translation-related work, independent of how the initial translation came about. It is not intended to criticize the translating editor's contribution. If I worried about making mistakes, I couldn't work here. I've listed the article at WP:PNTCU, that might pull in some support.

What you mean by "the problem"? Paradoctor (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I just wanted you to know that it wasn't a complete machine translation. With the problem I meant to try to solve the mistakes the article has (maybe it's just a Spanish expression not used in English) . Obviously, I don't have any problem with you! --AMPERIO (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Nah, it's just that I'm not used to view the problem as a problem, it usually seems more like a reminder of my own mortality. Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, I improved the article A Nosa Terra, translating (myself) information from other articles we have on this page gl:A Nosa Terra in Galician wikipedia. Can you please check it? If you don't mind answer me in my talk page or it'll be difficult for me to follow a conversation. Thank you! --AMPERIO (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)