Threads: I keep a limited number of threads open on this page and may move a fresh posting to the sender's Talk page. (added Nov 2010 ) Cuddlyable3 07:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Please see the comment in the discussion page about the table of polynomials. Amoss ( talk) 02:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Your animation Image:Kochsim.gif has been nominated for Featured Picture. Beacause it has recieved some complaints over size and aliasing, I wonder if you might be able to upload a larger, anti-aliased version. It certatinly is interesting, and I would love to see a better version. J Are you green? 21:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I have added notes to the image description that may interest you. Cuddlyable3 19:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
To do anti-aliasing, just render it 3x as big as the final image, and shrink it down (e.g. with bi-cubic). Of course to do "perfect" anti-aliasing you'd need an infinitely large initial rendering, but it doesn't need to be perfect. A separate comment, there's too much white space as the bottom. — Pengo 15:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I have replaced the big image with one that A) shows only the points along the finite Koch curve that I have been using in these animations, without connecting them with straight lines, and B) has a finer time resolution. I find it interesting that A) the thinning out of points density during the zoom can always be hidden by storing a higher iterated curve. (Mine has 4097 points which was adequate for the original 200x100 pixel illustration.) B) The subjective effect of the continuous zoom is not linear! We have self-similarity in shape but I think we need the time scale (or the zoom ratios) to be exponential to get a smooth zoom. Cuddlyable3 10:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Another of your animations is at FPC, if you would like to comment. thegreen J Are you green? 01:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
At right is my new animation of a 2-millenium old algorithm. Bring popcorn and lean back to watch this little movie.
Cuddlyable3 16:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the image, but the caption and animation seem to imply that:
Neither of those are true. Each layer's black + vertical hatched regions total a constant area A (except for the base layer, which is special), and the right-hand region is eliminated by multiplying a [0,1)-distributed random point by the width of the slice xi.
I tried to edit the caption to clarify the second point, but the first is pretty hard to fix.
Also, the fact that the distribution tail is, in fact infinite, is not clear from the graphics. It's asymptotic to, but never quite reaches, the X axis.
Sorry to complain, but to illustrate it accurately, you have to demonstrate:
71.41.210.146 02:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Eh, even though your images didn't make it to Featured, I still think you deserve one of these.
![]() |
The Graphic Designer's Barnstar | |
Awarded for two very-near featured images, and several other very good ones. Temperal xy 21:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC) |
Hello there, I saw your excellent diagrams under Linear feedback shift register and would like to submit a request for something similar for the above page. If you can also find a way to work Galois LFSRs into the text then great, my brain's tired right now and just mentioning them in the lead section would be a tease. Thanks. -- Regregex ( talk) 20:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello there, thank you for offering to help with any need to make contacts in Norwegian. At the moment there's no urgent need to do anything special unless you would like help with forwarding abuse reports to your network administrators there (Students can always create an account elsewhere and use it at school to edit). If so, you should take a look at Wikipedia:Abuse reports. I can help with the initial report but you would want to coordinate with the investigator / contactor. You could also volunteer to become a Norwegian "contactor" in general (see Wikipedia:Abuse reports/Volunteers)) if you have the time to do so. Regards – Zedla ( talk) 04:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Where does the quote.."War does not determine who is right — only who is left" come from? CadenS ( talk) 12:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. There's error with set of pictures illustrating "Multibrot" sets. For Z=Z^5+c there are picture of Z=Z^6+c, and for Z=Z^6+c there are actually Z=Z^8+c set picture. These sets are easily identifiable 'cos they have n-1 (for Z=Z^n+c) "branches" of the Mandelbrot set. I could fix the image descriptions, but the line illustrating natural number progression in powers would be broken. I wonder if you can create correct pictures for Z=Z^5+c and Z=Z^6+c in the same style? (Or maybe you have them even stored somewhere, and the error was introduced at time of uploading?) Oh, and the same error is with negative powers. There are seem to be n+1 "corners", so -5 and -6 are wrong. Thank you. -- 89.113.78.50 ( talk) 15:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I note that my edit has been removed and you say 'join you on the talk page' (is this now the right place?)
I am uncertain what was incorrect about my comments.
It is true that if you stack the slices of the multibrot then you will get a new thing which could be called the mandelbrot 'shape'. It is also true that the many sites which refer to '3-D' mandelbrots are no more than specialised colouring effects which generate an image with a '3d' appearance via shadowing. Therefore I use the phrase 'no more than a pseudo contoured variant'. I would be pleased to see how to amend this statement to be suitable for the article.
Also I would appreciate help with the statement 'the behaviour of the Multibrot as it drops from 2 to 1 to 0 and then to -1 APPEARS more complex than the behaviour above 2 and below -2. Salisbury-99 ( talk) 15:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
This has to be one of the finest examples of Muphry's law I've seen for a while. "Keaves"? Regards, 86.141.37.25 ( talk) 00:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello
Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. I'm not sure if this is the right way to respond - if not then please delete this post!
The image in question was probably my close-up shot of a colour Baird-style mechanical television system - one of only a very few examples known to be operating anywhere in the world. I took the photo myself, uploaded it myself, gave it the appropriate copyright tag (release to public domain IIRC) and then someone came along and deleted it. As you'll see from my Talk page it's not the first time it's happened to my contributions to Wikipedia and I'm frankly so peeved at the whole thing that I'm unlikely to continue contributing to the project.
Giles —Preceding unsigned comment added by G1MFG ( talk • contribs) 14:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I have started an AfD for the article Radio navigation aid at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio navigation aid. -- Eastmain ( talk) 01:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I've started a discussion about your comment over here. -- Sean 15:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Reference Desk Barnstar | |
Thanks for answering my marketing question on the Miscellaneous Reference desk! -- Ye Olde Luke ( talk) 23:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC) |
...are to be commended for your demeanor at the sometimes contentious RDs. Keep up the good work - the desks need a voice such as yours. hydnjo ( talk) 00:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
You seem to know a thing or two about Laser pointers. Please tell me can Green pointers blast baloons or burn paper etc. I read they do, but practicaly they don't seem to...kindly reply on my talk page
Jon Ascton (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Belated thanks (likewise, wishes for a Happy New Year) for providing the helpful video clip on my recent RD query. It was especially thoughtful of you to indicate at which point in the footage I'd see the p.g. in action. It certainly illustrates the point I'm trying to make, that this term is being made to serve indiscriminately for improvised guns [presumably] made of pen parts vs. a manufactured device intentionally designed to resemble (i.e. disguised as, made to be mistaken for) a functioning pen. I'm inclined to move the discussion to the Talk:Improvised firearm page and pursue the discrepancy there. -- Cheers, Deborahjay ( talk) 09:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I hereby award you this ASCII art barnstar for your masterful picture of the shelf bracket on the WP:RD.
/\ /**\ _______/****\_______ *.******/^^\******.* *.***( () )***.* *.**\,./**.* /**.**.**\ /*.* *.*\ /.* *.\ ' `
SteveBaker ( talk) 01:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Re "Roof-alanche". Damn, for a moment there I thought I had managed to be quoted in the media! :-) 220.101.28.25 ( talk) 15:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Ape shaking head.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ( ESkog)( Talk) 17:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Ape shaking head.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ╟─
Treasury
Tag►
belonger─╢
08:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Has this section of the talk page guidelines been deprecated, or has there been some discussion where it was decided it doesn't apply to the desks? Long sections are difficult for those with slow connections, as well as for me. Obviously the iPhone does scroll, but the only way to scroll in an edit window is very slow. I thought it was generally considered good practice to break up all long sections on all pages, as per the guidelines. Is there something different about the Desks? 86.177.121.239 ( talk) 19:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thanks for deleting that bit from the 'driving backwards' question. it was a bit pissy of me.
--
Ludwigs2
18:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Your response was brilliant. :-D AlmostReadytoFly ( talk) 13:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey. What did you mean when you said, "KJV Bible, (a book that IMHO is not an entirely good one)"? DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 12:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi , I just wanted to ask a question about a picture uploaded in the Galois LFSRs example in the Linear feedback shift register page. Isn't the tap with the number eleven supposed to be 0?Or i just don't understand how it works? 94.71.1.225 ( talk) 14:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
A comment you made at the RD may have been indirectly mentioned at AN/I. Just thought you might want to know. Regards, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi -- Could you review the discussion at Talk:Graphics Interchange Format#Link to original GIF sample image? Basically, we would like a link to the original 3x5 image file, so people have an actual file to compare with the textual representation in the article. For a visual representation of the image in the article, it should be possible to use {{thumb}} to blow up the 3x5 image to an easily visible size. -- Elphion ( talk) 22:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Cuddlyable3, if a user asks you to not move posts to their talk page without responding to them, and your reply is to do just that with that very message, because of your self-declared user talk page policy, is clearly disruptive editing. Your user page policy, "My policy is to keep my page open for any new contact or old friend with ideas on how I can help contribute to Wikipedia. Please be prepared to identify yourself to me, if asked, and do not bring conflict. WP:RPA is applied here." doesn't even indicate that this would be the action you were planning to take, so your justification is incorrect, and would have been unacceptable anyway. The block is only for 24 hours, but further instances of such uncooperative, disruptive behaviour will lead to swiftly escalating blocks. Fram ( talk) 16:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
You have been
blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your
talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from
this list instead, or mail unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org.
Cuddlyable3 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The complaint from Franamax said "What is not OK is to just move the message without responding to it or indicating you are the one doing the move.". I moved the message WITH a response that you appear to have overseen. Actually two responses, the small text that I added above the message, plus my edit summary. Both are signed. Be assured that I shall continue to remove disputive, abusive and threatening posts from my Talk page. I maintain it only for the purposes clearly stated at the heading. Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 17:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are trying to WP:LAWYER your way around the concerns raised here by claiming you responded. Noting that you were moving the post is not a response. Communication is essential to editing in a collegial fashion, your methods seem like an attempt to stifle communication rather than enable it. Your personal talk page policies are inconsistent with the projects policies. You need to consider the possibility that they are doing more harm than good. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Hello Beeblebrox. You have communicated to me twice in 9 minutes using two different channels. My talk page policy has been as stated for years and I think your claim that it violates Wikipedia policy is wrong. You won't enjoy hearing that I am laughing at your supposition that prefixing anything with the obsequious "I would like to ask you please" is what politeness consists of. No one ever posted those words to me. Your example doesn't demonstrate anything relevant to the post by Franamax who knows exactly what my page policy is, since I told him earlier. As I read it, he decided to taunt it to see what would happen. If he doesn't like his own text on his own page then he can delete it. Since you dismiss explanations so easily as WP:LAWYER I would like to ask you please not waste my time further with your ill disposed interpretations such as that me moving a thread is allegedly "stifling communication". Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 20:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Cuddlyable3 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Franamax has explained [3] that his approach to me was affected by an assumption of bad faith about my talk page style. This information, and my handling, is understood better. I would like my short block to be lifted. That will not prejudice the other issue on which Franamax hopes for some meaningful communication. (I hope I used this template properly and thank Looie496 for help in my first faltering attempt.) Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 15:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
That does not address the reason for your unblock. It also misrepresents the situation: Franamax has not "explained that his approach ... was affected by an assumption of bad faith". JamesBWatson ( talk) 15:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I hope neither of you, Cuddlyable3 and Franamax, will mind too much if I ask for the clarification that you, Franamax, have offered to provide concerning
the "conduct" issue with which this all (most recently) started. (I am sort of following this, and am curious to know, and haven't gotten a very clear sense of it from the discussion here of things since that issue arose.)
The issue seems to be that Cuddlyable3 must not engage in anything that might in any way by anyone at any time be construed to constitute a "personal attack" on
User:SteveBaker. A comment by Cuddlyable3 was removed from the RD talk page by Franamax which seemed to me at worst a slightly humorous and very mild comment regarding Steve. (Certainly much less offensive than a lot of comments I've seen made by Steve to/about a lot of people, myself included, not that that matters here but still). However, given the history of this issue apparently, Cuddlyable3's comment was deemed unacceptable by Franamax and was removed entirely from RD talk.
Could what is unacceptable on Cuddlyable3's part be more clearly defined, Franamax? And how long is that restriction on Cuddlyable3's interaction with/about Steve meant to last? Thanks,
WikiDao ☯
(talk)
20:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
(cuddlyable3)...to commit to two things. First, he would agree not to comment on the grammar employed by other editors on Talk pages or on the Reference Desks. Second, he would avoid contacting or commenting on SteveBaker. (I would support a narrow exemption to the first condition for good-faith requests for clarification in situations where an error of grammar renders a passage utterly incomprehensible; such an exemption would need to be applied extremely sparingly, as such genuine cases are exceedingly rare. For the second condition, there would be an exemption for threads where SteveBaker comments on Cuddlyable3 first, thereby opening the door;...
The quote provided by Cuddlyable3 comes from
this diff, a comment made on this page by
User:TenOfAllTrades last month. Is that in fact the basis of your present administrative engagement with CA3, Franamax?
The specific basis for that action (the removal of text referring to SB from RD talk and the warning that CA3 will be blocked if further such references are made) is what I have been asking for clarification on. Your comments above, Franamax, had led me to believe that the basis was your own perception of a pattern of harassment by CA3 of SB. That it was "harassment" in an actionable sense was not clear to me from the specific text deleted from the RD, but then I understood that it was an administrative perception of a larger pattern of behavior that was actually being acted on, of which that text was just a part.
I'm still just getting a sense of how things work here at WP in general, so, again, thank you for the clarification. I'm finding this process right now to be interesting – and, I trust, not too unduly "influenced" by any of the sort of "disbalance" Jack
was describing having perceived around this issue in the past...
WikiDao ☯
(talk)
20:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I reported [8] verbatim a statement by SteveBaker that concerns an identifiable team of people, and I am one of them. My post that was deleted [9] [10] cited another statement by him. Both statements are properly sourced and relevant to the context of the discussion about "Where is Steve Baker". Therefore I as an "honest messenger" have no qualms about reporting them. HOWEVER it is unfair that I should isolated to bear the brunt of resolving whatever issues arise from SteveBaker's vigorous prose. THEREFORE if you know of any admin contacting SteveBaker in connection with those vigorous statements, or any clarification that SteveBaker has given about them, (or is willing to give now), then I shall be relieved to regard my involvement as over. If not, I see a rocky future ahead where Franamax may even convince [11] the community that WP:NPA is not a BLP problem because Wikipedia editors are allegedly not living persons. Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 21:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The number of animations running on your talk page can slow down some web browsers and make it difficult for them to load this page.
This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider
archiving. once your block expires. You don't have to, but it would be nice if you did.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
19:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Reference Desk Barnstar | |
For having provided (according to your calculations) more references (counted as links) than any other contributor to the Miscellaneous Reference Desk (over the course of this past year 2010 CE). And, for counting up all the references provided by every other contributor to that page for that year, too. Well done. WikiDao ☯ 21:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
Hi!
You have added Template:ImageLicenseFreeUse on the file. The image ends up in Category:Free use licensing Wikipedians which is a category for Wikipedians and not files.
As I understand it by adding this template you agree to Template:GFDL and Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0. Is that correct? -- MGA73 ( talk) 13:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Giant Snowman 02:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
user:Mwalcoff has deleted a question, including your response, here. This removal may be discussed on the Reference desk talk page, here. Buddy431 ( talk) 05:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of
your recent edits 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. Thank you..
Diff. As I mentioned directly before, is there any reason you think these kinds of contributions help us create a better encyclopedia?
Nimur (
talk)
21:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Cuddlyable3, I see that you proceeded to make reversions at WP:RD/Miscellaneous after my note at the associated talk page. If you do so again, I intend to remove your editing privileges for a time. The edits you are reverting cannot be construed as vandalism by any definition, rather they reflect the outcome of the consensus process of discussion. (And I'm still trying to figure out the bit where you accused yourself of vandalism, although you certainly did include a confusing link [12] [13] - am I reading something wrong there?) Seek consensus on the relevant talk page that you should be permitted to include your "editable" link as an experiment, and abide by that consensus. Please. You may refer my statements here elsewhere for external review, i.e. at WP:ANI and also at WT:RD, but for now I must insist that you respect consensus. Franamax ( talk) 17:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I though it's better like that. Can you revert it? SWF lash 14:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Seeing as you seem to be the only one wants to continue the arguments surrounding the maths reference desk page; I shall move your talk page comments to my archive. It's nice to see that you're such an active editor. I've been reading some of your talk page messages. Fly by Night on Tour ( talk) 22:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your input on the Zondervan Talk page. However please review the financial issue again. Jsharpminor writes "tens of millions." You can't find that term in either source he supplied, unless I missed it which I'm willing to take lumps for. While the mention of financial issues has sourcing, the comment "tens of millions" doesn't. Again, he's trying to generate criticism for the sake of just generating it. Why exaggerate the source? Basileias ( talk) 12:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, a friendly reminder to remove the listing from WP:3O once you've provided a third opinion :-) I've already done this one for you. Thanks, Mildly Mad T C 11:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Don't panic, I didn't report you for anything. I did mention your name, though. :) Toward the bottom of the page there's yet another debate about hyphens and en-dashes, within the section called "Request of 1RR and strict WP:BRD at Mexican-American War article". I find that debate to be an extraordinary waste of time, but I think the core problem is a lack of clarity on when to use which. I expect the average citizen doesn't know, but someone who's an expert might. So I've suggested (and been ignored so far) the idea of having some kind of specialty committee to sort these things out and clarify the rules, rather than having these constant lame battles. I made the assumption you might be an expert on this subject (or at least might know more about it than I do, which automatically makes you an expert in my eyes), so if you're willing, please add your ideas to that discussion. Try to avoid the muck in the process. :) ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I asked a question at the reference desk, got two answers, but got blocked so I cannot reply. Maybe here, but I would prefer email. Thanx. Heyboowemissyou ( talk) 22:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:Cervix2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes
copyright very seriously.
If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the
image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on
copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.
Please add this information by editing the
image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a
request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is
a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the
Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Sfan00 IMG (
talk)
09:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Frogs...hopping mad? Ha! DMacks ( talk) 12:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
:-)) Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 13:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
here.
I assume you know your way around an unblock request template. I am blocking this account for your response at User talk:Franamax, following their raising of that same concern on your talkpage. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 12:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
You have mail. Bielle ( talk) 17:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
User:Jpgordon has deleted a comment you wrote on the reference desk [14]. It is being discussed on the talk page, if you'd like to discuss it. Buddy432 ( talk) 05:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
-- Belchman ( talk) 23:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Cuddlyable3, if you continue to discuss things like you did at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Mercantilism vs protectionism and Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Blocking User:Belchman, you will get blocked again. When things were deleted, or you were blocked, it was not "Jayron taking very good care of himself", it was your unwillingness to follow basic civility policies. If you feel that a deletion was unfair or incorrect, bring it to WP:DRV, don't use it to make negative comments about another editor. Fram ( talk) 14:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
And since you just continued going after Jayron32, posting three times to a discussion that was already closed by an uninvolved editor as "heat exceeded light long ago here. This is not a productive discussion-", and before that changing another person's comment in that same discussion, I have blocked you for a week. Fram ( talk) 07:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
You have been
blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your
talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from
this list instead, or mail unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org.
These abuses have no place in Wikipedia:
None of the above will be changed by blocking me. Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 09:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Now both Jayron32 and Fram are having memory lapses about how they did what they did, we are lucky to have diffs that can't lie. Fram's deletion conceals both my page and its history, that he uses to count the contributions. Fram says that the contribution by Baseball Bugs that Fram also deleted was "minor". Is that supposed to mean "unworthy"? When Baseball Bugs posts to my page and the post is sensible, as it was, then no third person may delete it. But to Jayron32 and Fram, BB's post is merely collateral damage. Access to my deleted page, which I have asked for and been denied, will reveal that I was interrupted in the process of scanning the Ref. Desk archive. Anyone can do that because it's publically accessible. I became a humble recipient of The Reference Desk Barnstar (scroll up to see it) when I showed objective results. The first result showed Jayron32's contribution of references at RD/M to be among the highest, which likely gave Jayron32 satisfaction. That is understandable but I and many others cautioned that the measurement does not assess the quality of answers. The software I use may be improved but it would lose all credibility of objectivity if I allowed it to be biassed by anyone's feeling of being flattered or attacked by its output. @Fram, if you want AGF then stop hiding the page you deleted and it will be seen to be not just about Jayron32, it doesn't even contain the word "mistake", and it has a portion still under construction. An aside to Franamax: if you cannot write better things than "On it's face, the page was designed solely to disparage other editors." then it would be nicer not to see your posts at all. Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 22:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The Wikipedia data mass has been a suitable object for Data mining. Please read that article or you probably won't understand what I am working on. I have identified the Ref. Desk archive as fruitful to study because
Here's why I look into the distribution of Ii, Tt, Ss and apostrophes:
Some interesting questions are:
This is ongoing OR. I shall not publish results or code until I am ready so don't ask. Neither Jayron types who mock disruptively [18] nor Canadians (whom I know as admirable people, from my visits to their lovely country Canadia) have special significance in the statistics. If you read this far then thank you for your attention. Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 10:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I find your post above, in which you suggest that you were compiling evidence of users dissenting from traditional spellings in text on the Reference Desk for purposes of a scientific study of the evolution of written English, to be disingenuous. It is clear to me that your purpose was to mock or harass editors with whom you were involved in petty disagreements, by picking on minor typographical errors or grammatical infelicities in their posts. This is uncollegial, inappropriate behavior and you should not return to such practice. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
[19] :) . Count Iblis ( talk) 21:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
You have been blocked for two weeks. Again and again dragging up the (distant) past, personal attacks against the same users, in general a continuation of the type of behaviour that lead to previous blocks. Specifically, two incidents, this edit and the lack of a complete response to this question about it (no explanation of who you are referring to when you say "whim of an immature (acting) editor" or why you would choose such language), and the discussion at User talk:Franamax#Oops. If you can't stop going on about these editors and events, you will get blocked for longer and longer periods. Either take it to accepted forms of dispute resolution (an RfC for user conduct, a DRV for deleted pages) or drop it completely. Fram ( talk) 08:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Your fifth post after the end of your previous block, and it is obvious that you are not willing to drop the whole thing at all. [20] Excalating block length from the previous two week block to this one month block. Fram ( talk) 13:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
You have been
blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your
talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from
this list instead, or mail unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org.
And because you continue posting the same thing that got you blocked in the first place, I have now revoked your talk page access as well. Fram ( talk) 14:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I have reinstated your talk page access to give you the chance to discuss a way forward, if you want to. Note that continuing to address other things will get your talk page access removed again, this time for the full duration of the block. The only purpose of this talk page during your block is to make unblock requests or to discuss how to avoid further blocks. Fram ( talk) 06:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Since you are again discussing (in an extremely negative way) the very same issues that got you blocked the last few times, I have now blocked you indefinitely, as it has become clear that you just can't leave it alone. The ref desk talk page discussion Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_88#Spelling_corrections.3F contain enough examples of your continued disruptive attitude towards this and towards some editors involved with this. User talk:APL#Yeah, you're right of course... [23] only makes it worse. Fram ( talk) 10:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This user has been
blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. |
Threads: I keep a limited number of threads open on this page and may move a fresh posting to the sender's Talk page. (added Nov 2010 ) Cuddlyable3 07:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Please see the comment in the discussion page about the table of polynomials. Amoss ( talk) 02:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Your animation Image:Kochsim.gif has been nominated for Featured Picture. Beacause it has recieved some complaints over size and aliasing, I wonder if you might be able to upload a larger, anti-aliased version. It certatinly is interesting, and I would love to see a better version. J Are you green? 21:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I have added notes to the image description that may interest you. Cuddlyable3 19:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
To do anti-aliasing, just render it 3x as big as the final image, and shrink it down (e.g. with bi-cubic). Of course to do "perfect" anti-aliasing you'd need an infinitely large initial rendering, but it doesn't need to be perfect. A separate comment, there's too much white space as the bottom. — Pengo 15:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I have replaced the big image with one that A) shows only the points along the finite Koch curve that I have been using in these animations, without connecting them with straight lines, and B) has a finer time resolution. I find it interesting that A) the thinning out of points density during the zoom can always be hidden by storing a higher iterated curve. (Mine has 4097 points which was adequate for the original 200x100 pixel illustration.) B) The subjective effect of the continuous zoom is not linear! We have self-similarity in shape but I think we need the time scale (or the zoom ratios) to be exponential to get a smooth zoom. Cuddlyable3 10:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Another of your animations is at FPC, if you would like to comment. thegreen J Are you green? 01:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
At right is my new animation of a 2-millenium old algorithm. Bring popcorn and lean back to watch this little movie.
Cuddlyable3 16:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the image, but the caption and animation seem to imply that:
Neither of those are true. Each layer's black + vertical hatched regions total a constant area A (except for the base layer, which is special), and the right-hand region is eliminated by multiplying a [0,1)-distributed random point by the width of the slice xi.
I tried to edit the caption to clarify the second point, but the first is pretty hard to fix.
Also, the fact that the distribution tail is, in fact infinite, is not clear from the graphics. It's asymptotic to, but never quite reaches, the X axis.
Sorry to complain, but to illustrate it accurately, you have to demonstrate:
71.41.210.146 02:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Eh, even though your images didn't make it to Featured, I still think you deserve one of these.
![]() |
The Graphic Designer's Barnstar | |
Awarded for two very-near featured images, and several other very good ones. Temperal xy 21:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC) |
Hello there, I saw your excellent diagrams under Linear feedback shift register and would like to submit a request for something similar for the above page. If you can also find a way to work Galois LFSRs into the text then great, my brain's tired right now and just mentioning them in the lead section would be a tease. Thanks. -- Regregex ( talk) 20:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello there, thank you for offering to help with any need to make contacts in Norwegian. At the moment there's no urgent need to do anything special unless you would like help with forwarding abuse reports to your network administrators there (Students can always create an account elsewhere and use it at school to edit). If so, you should take a look at Wikipedia:Abuse reports. I can help with the initial report but you would want to coordinate with the investigator / contactor. You could also volunteer to become a Norwegian "contactor" in general (see Wikipedia:Abuse reports/Volunteers)) if you have the time to do so. Regards – Zedla ( talk) 04:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Where does the quote.."War does not determine who is right — only who is left" come from? CadenS ( talk) 12:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. There's error with set of pictures illustrating "Multibrot" sets. For Z=Z^5+c there are picture of Z=Z^6+c, and for Z=Z^6+c there are actually Z=Z^8+c set picture. These sets are easily identifiable 'cos they have n-1 (for Z=Z^n+c) "branches" of the Mandelbrot set. I could fix the image descriptions, but the line illustrating natural number progression in powers would be broken. I wonder if you can create correct pictures for Z=Z^5+c and Z=Z^6+c in the same style? (Or maybe you have them even stored somewhere, and the error was introduced at time of uploading?) Oh, and the same error is with negative powers. There are seem to be n+1 "corners", so -5 and -6 are wrong. Thank you. -- 89.113.78.50 ( talk) 15:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I note that my edit has been removed and you say 'join you on the talk page' (is this now the right place?)
I am uncertain what was incorrect about my comments.
It is true that if you stack the slices of the multibrot then you will get a new thing which could be called the mandelbrot 'shape'. It is also true that the many sites which refer to '3-D' mandelbrots are no more than specialised colouring effects which generate an image with a '3d' appearance via shadowing. Therefore I use the phrase 'no more than a pseudo contoured variant'. I would be pleased to see how to amend this statement to be suitable for the article.
Also I would appreciate help with the statement 'the behaviour of the Multibrot as it drops from 2 to 1 to 0 and then to -1 APPEARS more complex than the behaviour above 2 and below -2. Salisbury-99 ( talk) 15:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
This has to be one of the finest examples of Muphry's law I've seen for a while. "Keaves"? Regards, 86.141.37.25 ( talk) 00:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello
Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. I'm not sure if this is the right way to respond - if not then please delete this post!
The image in question was probably my close-up shot of a colour Baird-style mechanical television system - one of only a very few examples known to be operating anywhere in the world. I took the photo myself, uploaded it myself, gave it the appropriate copyright tag (release to public domain IIRC) and then someone came along and deleted it. As you'll see from my Talk page it's not the first time it's happened to my contributions to Wikipedia and I'm frankly so peeved at the whole thing that I'm unlikely to continue contributing to the project.
Giles —Preceding unsigned comment added by G1MFG ( talk • contribs) 14:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I have started an AfD for the article Radio navigation aid at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio navigation aid. -- Eastmain ( talk) 01:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I've started a discussion about your comment over here. -- Sean 15:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Reference Desk Barnstar | |
Thanks for answering my marketing question on the Miscellaneous Reference desk! -- Ye Olde Luke ( talk) 23:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC) |
...are to be commended for your demeanor at the sometimes contentious RDs. Keep up the good work - the desks need a voice such as yours. hydnjo ( talk) 00:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
You seem to know a thing or two about Laser pointers. Please tell me can Green pointers blast baloons or burn paper etc. I read they do, but practicaly they don't seem to...kindly reply on my talk page
Jon Ascton (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Belated thanks (likewise, wishes for a Happy New Year) for providing the helpful video clip on my recent RD query. It was especially thoughtful of you to indicate at which point in the footage I'd see the p.g. in action. It certainly illustrates the point I'm trying to make, that this term is being made to serve indiscriminately for improvised guns [presumably] made of pen parts vs. a manufactured device intentionally designed to resemble (i.e. disguised as, made to be mistaken for) a functioning pen. I'm inclined to move the discussion to the Talk:Improvised firearm page and pursue the discrepancy there. -- Cheers, Deborahjay ( talk) 09:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I hereby award you this ASCII art barnstar for your masterful picture of the shelf bracket on the WP:RD.
/\ /**\ _______/****\_______ *.******/^^\******.* *.***( () )***.* *.**\,./**.* /**.**.**\ /*.* *.*\ /.* *.\ ' `
SteveBaker ( talk) 01:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Re "Roof-alanche". Damn, for a moment there I thought I had managed to be quoted in the media! :-) 220.101.28.25 ( talk) 15:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Ape shaking head.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ( ESkog)( Talk) 17:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Ape shaking head.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ╟─
Treasury
Tag►
belonger─╢
08:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Has this section of the talk page guidelines been deprecated, or has there been some discussion where it was decided it doesn't apply to the desks? Long sections are difficult for those with slow connections, as well as for me. Obviously the iPhone does scroll, but the only way to scroll in an edit window is very slow. I thought it was generally considered good practice to break up all long sections on all pages, as per the guidelines. Is there something different about the Desks? 86.177.121.239 ( talk) 19:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thanks for deleting that bit from the 'driving backwards' question. it was a bit pissy of me.
--
Ludwigs2
18:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Your response was brilliant. :-D AlmostReadytoFly ( talk) 13:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey. What did you mean when you said, "KJV Bible, (a book that IMHO is not an entirely good one)"? DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 12:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi , I just wanted to ask a question about a picture uploaded in the Galois LFSRs example in the Linear feedback shift register page. Isn't the tap with the number eleven supposed to be 0?Or i just don't understand how it works? 94.71.1.225 ( talk) 14:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
A comment you made at the RD may have been indirectly mentioned at AN/I. Just thought you might want to know. Regards, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi -- Could you review the discussion at Talk:Graphics Interchange Format#Link to original GIF sample image? Basically, we would like a link to the original 3x5 image file, so people have an actual file to compare with the textual representation in the article. For a visual representation of the image in the article, it should be possible to use {{thumb}} to blow up the 3x5 image to an easily visible size. -- Elphion ( talk) 22:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Cuddlyable3, if a user asks you to not move posts to their talk page without responding to them, and your reply is to do just that with that very message, because of your self-declared user talk page policy, is clearly disruptive editing. Your user page policy, "My policy is to keep my page open for any new contact or old friend with ideas on how I can help contribute to Wikipedia. Please be prepared to identify yourself to me, if asked, and do not bring conflict. WP:RPA is applied here." doesn't even indicate that this would be the action you were planning to take, so your justification is incorrect, and would have been unacceptable anyway. The block is only for 24 hours, but further instances of such uncooperative, disruptive behaviour will lead to swiftly escalating blocks. Fram ( talk) 16:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
You have been
blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your
talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from
this list instead, or mail unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org.
Cuddlyable3 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The complaint from Franamax said "What is not OK is to just move the message without responding to it or indicating you are the one doing the move.". I moved the message WITH a response that you appear to have overseen. Actually two responses, the small text that I added above the message, plus my edit summary. Both are signed. Be assured that I shall continue to remove disputive, abusive and threatening posts from my Talk page. I maintain it only for the purposes clearly stated at the heading. Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 17:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are trying to WP:LAWYER your way around the concerns raised here by claiming you responded. Noting that you were moving the post is not a response. Communication is essential to editing in a collegial fashion, your methods seem like an attempt to stifle communication rather than enable it. Your personal talk page policies are inconsistent with the projects policies. You need to consider the possibility that they are doing more harm than good. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Hello Beeblebrox. You have communicated to me twice in 9 minutes using two different channels. My talk page policy has been as stated for years and I think your claim that it violates Wikipedia policy is wrong. You won't enjoy hearing that I am laughing at your supposition that prefixing anything with the obsequious "I would like to ask you please" is what politeness consists of. No one ever posted those words to me. Your example doesn't demonstrate anything relevant to the post by Franamax who knows exactly what my page policy is, since I told him earlier. As I read it, he decided to taunt it to see what would happen. If he doesn't like his own text on his own page then he can delete it. Since you dismiss explanations so easily as WP:LAWYER I would like to ask you please not waste my time further with your ill disposed interpretations such as that me moving a thread is allegedly "stifling communication". Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 20:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Cuddlyable3 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Franamax has explained [3] that his approach to me was affected by an assumption of bad faith about my talk page style. This information, and my handling, is understood better. I would like my short block to be lifted. That will not prejudice the other issue on which Franamax hopes for some meaningful communication. (I hope I used this template properly and thank Looie496 for help in my first faltering attempt.) Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 15:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
That does not address the reason for your unblock. It also misrepresents the situation: Franamax has not "explained that his approach ... was affected by an assumption of bad faith". JamesBWatson ( talk) 15:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I hope neither of you, Cuddlyable3 and Franamax, will mind too much if I ask for the clarification that you, Franamax, have offered to provide concerning
the "conduct" issue with which this all (most recently) started. (I am sort of following this, and am curious to know, and haven't gotten a very clear sense of it from the discussion here of things since that issue arose.)
The issue seems to be that Cuddlyable3 must not engage in anything that might in any way by anyone at any time be construed to constitute a "personal attack" on
User:SteveBaker. A comment by Cuddlyable3 was removed from the RD talk page by Franamax which seemed to me at worst a slightly humorous and very mild comment regarding Steve. (Certainly much less offensive than a lot of comments I've seen made by Steve to/about a lot of people, myself included, not that that matters here but still). However, given the history of this issue apparently, Cuddlyable3's comment was deemed unacceptable by Franamax and was removed entirely from RD talk.
Could what is unacceptable on Cuddlyable3's part be more clearly defined, Franamax? And how long is that restriction on Cuddlyable3's interaction with/about Steve meant to last? Thanks,
WikiDao ☯
(talk)
20:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
(cuddlyable3)...to commit to two things. First, he would agree not to comment on the grammar employed by other editors on Talk pages or on the Reference Desks. Second, he would avoid contacting or commenting on SteveBaker. (I would support a narrow exemption to the first condition for good-faith requests for clarification in situations where an error of grammar renders a passage utterly incomprehensible; such an exemption would need to be applied extremely sparingly, as such genuine cases are exceedingly rare. For the second condition, there would be an exemption for threads where SteveBaker comments on Cuddlyable3 first, thereby opening the door;...
The quote provided by Cuddlyable3 comes from
this diff, a comment made on this page by
User:TenOfAllTrades last month. Is that in fact the basis of your present administrative engagement with CA3, Franamax?
The specific basis for that action (the removal of text referring to SB from RD talk and the warning that CA3 will be blocked if further such references are made) is what I have been asking for clarification on. Your comments above, Franamax, had led me to believe that the basis was your own perception of a pattern of harassment by CA3 of SB. That it was "harassment" in an actionable sense was not clear to me from the specific text deleted from the RD, but then I understood that it was an administrative perception of a larger pattern of behavior that was actually being acted on, of which that text was just a part.
I'm still just getting a sense of how things work here at WP in general, so, again, thank you for the clarification. I'm finding this process right now to be interesting – and, I trust, not too unduly "influenced" by any of the sort of "disbalance" Jack
was describing having perceived around this issue in the past...
WikiDao ☯
(talk)
20:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I reported [8] verbatim a statement by SteveBaker that concerns an identifiable team of people, and I am one of them. My post that was deleted [9] [10] cited another statement by him. Both statements are properly sourced and relevant to the context of the discussion about "Where is Steve Baker". Therefore I as an "honest messenger" have no qualms about reporting them. HOWEVER it is unfair that I should isolated to bear the brunt of resolving whatever issues arise from SteveBaker's vigorous prose. THEREFORE if you know of any admin contacting SteveBaker in connection with those vigorous statements, or any clarification that SteveBaker has given about them, (or is willing to give now), then I shall be relieved to regard my involvement as over. If not, I see a rocky future ahead where Franamax may even convince [11] the community that WP:NPA is not a BLP problem because Wikipedia editors are allegedly not living persons. Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 21:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The number of animations running on your talk page can slow down some web browsers and make it difficult for them to load this page.
This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider
archiving. once your block expires. You don't have to, but it would be nice if you did.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
19:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Reference Desk Barnstar | |
For having provided (according to your calculations) more references (counted as links) than any other contributor to the Miscellaneous Reference Desk (over the course of this past year 2010 CE). And, for counting up all the references provided by every other contributor to that page for that year, too. Well done. WikiDao ☯ 21:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
Hi!
You have added Template:ImageLicenseFreeUse on the file. The image ends up in Category:Free use licensing Wikipedians which is a category for Wikipedians and not files.
As I understand it by adding this template you agree to Template:GFDL and Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0. Is that correct? -- MGA73 ( talk) 13:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Giant Snowman 02:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
user:Mwalcoff has deleted a question, including your response, here. This removal may be discussed on the Reference desk talk page, here. Buddy431 ( talk) 05:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of
your recent edits 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. Thank you..
Diff. As I mentioned directly before, is there any reason you think these kinds of contributions help us create a better encyclopedia?
Nimur (
talk)
21:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Cuddlyable3, I see that you proceeded to make reversions at WP:RD/Miscellaneous after my note at the associated talk page. If you do so again, I intend to remove your editing privileges for a time. The edits you are reverting cannot be construed as vandalism by any definition, rather they reflect the outcome of the consensus process of discussion. (And I'm still trying to figure out the bit where you accused yourself of vandalism, although you certainly did include a confusing link [12] [13] - am I reading something wrong there?) Seek consensus on the relevant talk page that you should be permitted to include your "editable" link as an experiment, and abide by that consensus. Please. You may refer my statements here elsewhere for external review, i.e. at WP:ANI and also at WT:RD, but for now I must insist that you respect consensus. Franamax ( talk) 17:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I though it's better like that. Can you revert it? SWF lash 14:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Seeing as you seem to be the only one wants to continue the arguments surrounding the maths reference desk page; I shall move your talk page comments to my archive. It's nice to see that you're such an active editor. I've been reading some of your talk page messages. Fly by Night on Tour ( talk) 22:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your input on the Zondervan Talk page. However please review the financial issue again. Jsharpminor writes "tens of millions." You can't find that term in either source he supplied, unless I missed it which I'm willing to take lumps for. While the mention of financial issues has sourcing, the comment "tens of millions" doesn't. Again, he's trying to generate criticism for the sake of just generating it. Why exaggerate the source? Basileias ( talk) 12:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, a friendly reminder to remove the listing from WP:3O once you've provided a third opinion :-) I've already done this one for you. Thanks, Mildly Mad T C 11:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Don't panic, I didn't report you for anything. I did mention your name, though. :) Toward the bottom of the page there's yet another debate about hyphens and en-dashes, within the section called "Request of 1RR and strict WP:BRD at Mexican-American War article". I find that debate to be an extraordinary waste of time, but I think the core problem is a lack of clarity on when to use which. I expect the average citizen doesn't know, but someone who's an expert might. So I've suggested (and been ignored so far) the idea of having some kind of specialty committee to sort these things out and clarify the rules, rather than having these constant lame battles. I made the assumption you might be an expert on this subject (or at least might know more about it than I do, which automatically makes you an expert in my eyes), so if you're willing, please add your ideas to that discussion. Try to avoid the muck in the process. :) ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I asked a question at the reference desk, got two answers, but got blocked so I cannot reply. Maybe here, but I would prefer email. Thanx. Heyboowemissyou ( talk) 22:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:Cervix2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes
copyright very seriously.
If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the
image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on
copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.
Please add this information by editing the
image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a
request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is
a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the
Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Sfan00 IMG (
talk)
09:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Frogs...hopping mad? Ha! DMacks ( talk) 12:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
:-)) Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 13:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
here.
I assume you know your way around an unblock request template. I am blocking this account for your response at User talk:Franamax, following their raising of that same concern on your talkpage. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 12:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
You have mail. Bielle ( talk) 17:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
User:Jpgordon has deleted a comment you wrote on the reference desk [14]. It is being discussed on the talk page, if you'd like to discuss it. Buddy432 ( talk) 05:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
-- Belchman ( talk) 23:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Cuddlyable3, if you continue to discuss things like you did at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Mercantilism vs protectionism and Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Blocking User:Belchman, you will get blocked again. When things were deleted, or you were blocked, it was not "Jayron taking very good care of himself", it was your unwillingness to follow basic civility policies. If you feel that a deletion was unfair or incorrect, bring it to WP:DRV, don't use it to make negative comments about another editor. Fram ( talk) 14:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
And since you just continued going after Jayron32, posting three times to a discussion that was already closed by an uninvolved editor as "heat exceeded light long ago here. This is not a productive discussion-", and before that changing another person's comment in that same discussion, I have blocked you for a week. Fram ( talk) 07:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
You have been
blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your
talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from
this list instead, or mail unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org.
These abuses have no place in Wikipedia:
None of the above will be changed by blocking me. Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 09:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Now both Jayron32 and Fram are having memory lapses about how they did what they did, we are lucky to have diffs that can't lie. Fram's deletion conceals both my page and its history, that he uses to count the contributions. Fram says that the contribution by Baseball Bugs that Fram also deleted was "minor". Is that supposed to mean "unworthy"? When Baseball Bugs posts to my page and the post is sensible, as it was, then no third person may delete it. But to Jayron32 and Fram, BB's post is merely collateral damage. Access to my deleted page, which I have asked for and been denied, will reveal that I was interrupted in the process of scanning the Ref. Desk archive. Anyone can do that because it's publically accessible. I became a humble recipient of The Reference Desk Barnstar (scroll up to see it) when I showed objective results. The first result showed Jayron32's contribution of references at RD/M to be among the highest, which likely gave Jayron32 satisfaction. That is understandable but I and many others cautioned that the measurement does not assess the quality of answers. The software I use may be improved but it would lose all credibility of objectivity if I allowed it to be biassed by anyone's feeling of being flattered or attacked by its output. @Fram, if you want AGF then stop hiding the page you deleted and it will be seen to be not just about Jayron32, it doesn't even contain the word "mistake", and it has a portion still under construction. An aside to Franamax: if you cannot write better things than "On it's face, the page was designed solely to disparage other editors." then it would be nicer not to see your posts at all. Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 22:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The Wikipedia data mass has been a suitable object for Data mining. Please read that article or you probably won't understand what I am working on. I have identified the Ref. Desk archive as fruitful to study because
Here's why I look into the distribution of Ii, Tt, Ss and apostrophes:
Some interesting questions are:
This is ongoing OR. I shall not publish results or code until I am ready so don't ask. Neither Jayron types who mock disruptively [18] nor Canadians (whom I know as admirable people, from my visits to their lovely country Canadia) have special significance in the statistics. If you read this far then thank you for your attention. Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 10:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I find your post above, in which you suggest that you were compiling evidence of users dissenting from traditional spellings in text on the Reference Desk for purposes of a scientific study of the evolution of written English, to be disingenuous. It is clear to me that your purpose was to mock or harass editors with whom you were involved in petty disagreements, by picking on minor typographical errors or grammatical infelicities in their posts. This is uncollegial, inappropriate behavior and you should not return to such practice. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
[19] :) . Count Iblis ( talk) 21:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
You have been blocked for two weeks. Again and again dragging up the (distant) past, personal attacks against the same users, in general a continuation of the type of behaviour that lead to previous blocks. Specifically, two incidents, this edit and the lack of a complete response to this question about it (no explanation of who you are referring to when you say "whim of an immature (acting) editor" or why you would choose such language), and the discussion at User talk:Franamax#Oops. If you can't stop going on about these editors and events, you will get blocked for longer and longer periods. Either take it to accepted forms of dispute resolution (an RfC for user conduct, a DRV for deleted pages) or drop it completely. Fram ( talk) 08:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Your fifth post after the end of your previous block, and it is obvious that you are not willing to drop the whole thing at all. [20] Excalating block length from the previous two week block to this one month block. Fram ( talk) 13:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
You have been
blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your
talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from
this list instead, or mail unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org.
And because you continue posting the same thing that got you blocked in the first place, I have now revoked your talk page access as well. Fram ( talk) 14:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I have reinstated your talk page access to give you the chance to discuss a way forward, if you want to. Note that continuing to address other things will get your talk page access removed again, this time for the full duration of the block. The only purpose of this talk page during your block is to make unblock requests or to discuss how to avoid further blocks. Fram ( talk) 06:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Since you are again discussing (in an extremely negative way) the very same issues that got you blocked the last few times, I have now blocked you indefinitely, as it has become clear that you just can't leave it alone. The ref desk talk page discussion Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_88#Spelling_corrections.3F contain enough examples of your continued disruptive attitude towards this and towards some editors involved with this. User talk:APL#Yeah, you're right of course... [23] only makes it worse. Fram ( talk) 10:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This user has been
blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. |