Revision as of 19:21, 1 April 2005 editPsb777 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,362 edits →Arbitration← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:26, 2 April 2005 edit undoMatthew Stannard (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers3,050 edits →Arbitration Committee case openingNext edit → | ||
Line 459: | Line 459: | ||
] has officially been accepted. Please bring formal evidence to ]. Thank you. -- ]] ] 00:18, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC) | ] has officially been accepted. Please bring formal evidence to ]. Thank you. -- ]] ] 00:18, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC) | ||
I would not wish to cause any encroachment of freedoms to be extended in duration as a result of myself enjoining in an arbitration dispute. I would only wish to bring it more speedily to a close. I myself would undertake not to edit the artificial consciousness article if it meant that someone whom I had suspected of being a troll were also be bound by such an undertaking. I'm not sure that the[REDACTED] arbitration procedure has explicit provision for people who might come forward saying, "Hey, you missed me out. I should be banned from editing the artificial consciousness too because I am just as much to blame in winding up one of the parties as is one of the accused. Or would that automatically imply that the whole debacle had been a wind-up exercise rather than an exercise in common sense. (Because, ironically, if humans can't function with common sense on the topic or artificial consciousness, then how on earth might the automatons fare?) But I did it in the name of entertainment, honest gov, because I know that there are or could be some observers who would be amused by the irony of a prolonged[REDACTED] dispute on such a topic." ] 23:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:26, 2 April 2005
Note: Unless you specify that you will be monitoring this page, I will respond to you on your talk page instead of mine. But if you want a speedier response or any response at all, answer on this page since I will probably forget to check yours.
Gauss
Paul, I did edit the article to make it correct. Look at the page history, several months ago. It originally said that Gauss proved necessity and sufficiency (I'm assuming this is what "completely solved" and "determined all constructible regular polygons" means.) I changed it so that it correctly only attributes sufficiency to Gauss, but does not give him credit for necessity. I didn't feel Wantzel was necessary to mention, because it's an article on Gauss in general, not on constructible numbers, say. Revolver 01:13, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Apology received...don't worry about it. I've certainly made similar hasty requests. Better to be bold in making suggestions than never suggest anything at all. Revolver 03:14, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Welcome from RickK
Hi. Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Note that this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. You may want to visit Wiktionary to add dictionary definitions. RickK 05:02, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. Yup, it's not a dictionary! I'm still finding my way around. I'm not sure you will see this, for example! User:Psb777
Hey, Psb, I don't think my email is turned off. But anyway, you posted on my Talk page. What did you want to say? RickK 18:36, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
RCC
- I am/was a Catholic and have never come across someone called a "deacon" in the Catholic Church. I am not saying they do not exist - but if they do they just cannot be particularly common.
I am amazed that you would think deacons are not commonplace in the Catholic Church. See Holy Orders and the online Catholic Encyclopedia or any of many Catholic web sites. And read the canons of the Council of Trent. Michael Hardy 20:30, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
As you mention, the online Catholic Encyclopedia has little about the current role of deacons. That's because it was written nearly 100 years ago. But inquire at the nearest Catholic church. Michael Hardy 03:57, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Also see and deacon. Michael Hardy 04:04, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Hello, I already performed your desired move. You may want to see Misplaced Pages:How to rename a page. I also deleted Roman Catholic Church new. I will move your comments over to Talk:Roman Catholic Church and delete again. Should I also delete Was Roman Catholic Church? --Jiang 19:26, 24 Jan 2004 (PST)
It is certainly not true that "typically there is no usher". This varies geographically. In large Catholic congregations in the USA, typically there are ushers. Did you do that google search I suggested? It is commonplace for Catholic churches in the USA to call certain lay persons "liturgical ministers" if they assist in minor (or major) ways at liturgies: altar servers, greeters, ushers, readers, extraordinary ministers of communion, various others.
- The above undated paragraph was inserted by User:Michael Hardy well after I pointed out the regional differences in Catholic minister. Just examine the logs. Yet, here he is, seemingly pointing them out to me beforehand!
A google search on the words "Catholic", "liturgical", "minister" (i.e., all three words but not necessarily in that order) suggests that it is commonplace to regard altar servers, lectors, and even ushers as "liturgical ministers" in the Catholic church. Many parishes have a "liturgical minister schedule" on their web sites. Michael Hardy 02:15, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Stan
Yup. Stan 14:55, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC) You alerted me to wikis' exiistence in a reference to U.N.C.L.E. in one of your newsletters. what do I have to do/have in order to have a wiki of my own?
Trophallaxis Stan 16:56, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
You send out unsolicited and opinonated newsletters. In knew something about trophallaxis that hadn't been recorded hitherto in wikipedia, and thought that perhaps you didn't know it either. Therefore I surmised that it might be news to you. quid pro quo. By analogy, your 'vomiting' your opinions on unsuspecting PSB newsletter recipients, invoked a reciprocal metaphorical self-referential trophallaxis by yours truly.
Incidentally, can you remember the other words that form the class of self-referential terms such as pentasyllabic - which has five syllables? I think there are about half a dozen words that fit this category.
A couple of jokes: (this one heard on Radio 4, so yo've probably already heard it). Guy gets stopped on the M25 for going too slowly. "But it's the M25", he explains to the traffic cop. "M25 doesn't mean you have to go at 25 m.p.h," retorts the cop, who then proceeds to inspect this driver's vehicle. On the back seat is a guy who's clearly in a state of trauma. "what's the matter with him?" the policeman asks the driver. "Oh, we just came off the B128."
And: A guy goes into a public library and asks the librarian for a Bigmac, large fries and medium Coke. The librarian explain,"You do realise this is a library." "Oh sorry", the guy replies, and then whispers, "I'll have a Bigmac, large fries and medium Coke."
Stan 17:25, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Please don't take me off your list. 217.44.157.197 Stan 02:01, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I don't think missspelt counts as a self-referential word. The test: If the subject on Just A Minute was 'self-referential' then would Nicholas Parsons allow the buzzer on 'missspelt' (with three esses) as a Deviation? I suggest he would, or at least would award a Bonus Point for a clever challenge. Stan 09:01, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC) - and of course you couldn't say miss-spelt properly without being done for hesitation! You can't have a word that requires hesitation in order to say it properly. How about he...sitation? You wouldn't allow that because you have to change the word to make it self-referential. Same applies to missspelt, plus the fact that you can misspell misspelt in - how many ways can you misspell misspelt, because they'd all be equivalent to missspelt? Stan 20:23, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Longest word?
Also see http://wiktionary.org/Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphioparaomelitokatakechymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon Stan 09:03, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Missphelt
I think you must give the reason missspelt should not be allowed Stan 20:32, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- It is mis-spelt and therefore refers to itself. Which is, by definition, self-reference. Paul Beardsell 05:57, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Self-referential grokking
Moroccan Cuisine
Exchange between me and User:Bcorr moved to Talk:Cuisine of Morocco. Paul Beardsell 01:30, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
sub.sub - primitive Godel machine?
Do you remember sub.sub, the program you wrote all those years ago, the 4GL to end all 4GLs? I wrote a timesheet package in it. It's essential quality, evident in its self-referential name, was that it called itself.
The Godel machine is, I think, intended to be a projection of the Turing Machine, if projection is the right term - I think, incidentally that a Turing machine is also a fiction.
Sub.sub had the capability of being anything, depending on what you fed it. Is that not a characteristic it shares with the would-be Godel machine, and therefore should we not introduce the notion of degrees of Godel-ness (or perhaps Godelidity, or even Godelacity) in the lead-up to the development of an an actual Godel machine? The term I propose is primitive Godel machine, which can be applied to anything that applies recursion or more advanced schemes to engender a synergy that could tend towards serendipity, i.e. lead to the production of an actual Godel machine. Stan 20:21, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The reason for strong reactions against Paul Vogel
Hi Paul. I wanted to give you a answer to your last comment on my talk page.
First, see Misplaced Pages:Conflicts_between_users#Paul_Vogel/65.125.10.66/24.45.99.191/216.99.245.171 for a little background
Also, I found the source of this quote that Paul Vogel is putting on various pages (including my talk page): It's here -- -- it's from a speech by Kevin Alfred Strom of the National Alliance. Here are some more quotes from the same speech:
- "One occasionally finds examples of real Jewish honesty. I know that will be startling to some of you, but it is undoubtedly true. In the last month, a huge controversy among Jews has emerged over a Jewish book which deals honestly with a central element in the Jewish tradition -- their belief in the inherent superiority of Jews over all non-Jews, a trait that imprisoned writer and thinker David Duke has christened 'Jewish supremacism.'"
- "The height of Jewish hypocrisy is reached when they condemn White people who believe in the White separatist ideals of, say, Thomas Jefferson or the National Alliance, as 'White supremacists' -- when the Jews themselves are the most thoroughgoing racial supremacists the world has ever seen."
- "I urge all of you to study these issues. An excellent way to begin is by reading Jewish Supremacism by David Duke. In this new work, Mr. Duke rips away the shroud of pretended morality from the ugly body of Jewish hate. He reveals the Jewish establishment for what it is: a maniacal racial cult based on hate, exploitation, and genocide of other peoples -- and a cult which is directing its considerable resources against the very survival of White European peoples."
All of Paul Vogel's edits that I've seen to a number of different articles are drawn from this speech. It is clear to me that his goal is to add specific text written by the National Alliance to Misplaced Pages -- not to add more info or points of view to articles. And that's exactly what he's done to the article I rewrote -- he'll be happy as long as those paragraphs stay in. I would urge you to edit the article and remove that text and see what happens -- not just as a test but because I think it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages, and I'm sick of fighting that battle. -- Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 05:48, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Copyvios and VfDs
Dear Paul, good morning! Thank you for your note about Goedel Machine. It was in the Copyvios and it was more than a week old. There was nothing on the talk or temp pages that suggested a permission. Since it was in copyvio, i dont think it ever lived in VfD. If you think its best, i can restore it and put it in VfD. My opinion is that there's no much point in this, because the article was of no encyclopaediac value. Cheers, Muriel 07:39, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hello! The Copyvios page is Misplaced Pages:Possible copyrights infringements and works like Votes for deletion. If you spot a copy-pasted article, you should substitute it by the boilerplate of copyvios (you will find it in the page) and place the article in question on the list. The Votes for deletion is for articles you consider not worthy of an encyclopaedia. The Goedel machine is eligible for the two! Even if not a copyvio (because the author allows the release in Misplaced Pages), it certainly does not belong here. But this is my point of view. If you think is "salvagable" let me know, and i'll restore it. Cheers, Muriel 07:28, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wot you need...
...is to become a sysop with the fantastical power to undelete. Stan 23:06, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Doctor
Woops! I overlooked your message earlier, Paul. Sorry about that. No matter. I see that someone has done the sensible thing with doctor already. Best -- Tony. (Tannin 10:43, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC))
- Double woops! The change (which I entirely approved of, bar some bad wording here and there that should be easily fixed) has been reverted already, and by your good self! I am a bit slow today. I'll slip over there and put a re-drafted version up for your consideration. (BTW: this isn't a topic I especially care about, and I'll not be troubling with any edit wars over it, even if it should happen that we don't wind up agreeing.) Tannin
Power corrupts
"Power corrupts, but absolute power is even nicer." - Oscar Wilde. The judicious use of power is a challenge. Become a sysop and enjoy. Also see my contribution on stupidity Stan 23:25, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
What devices does one use in order to not obtain too much power? Does one require a special power in order to do this? In my view, expression of the sentiment I mustn't be given too much power is exactly the correct prerequisite to have power forced on you. Did you ever read Charles Handy's Understanding Organisations and his (or rather not his, but he mentions them) notions of tripods and bibods in relation to political power. He makes the point that it is only tripods - who are naturally averse to having power - who should have it, and not bipods, who tend to abuse it. I must infer that you are a tripod born and bred! Stan 19:13, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
POV or not POV
I'm still puzzled by this concept and wondered if you could enlighten me.
Suppose I were writing 500 years ago in Ye Olde Wykipedia and I put: "Travel north and you will reach the North Pole" Someone else would have come along and changed this to: "It is claimed that if you travel north you will reach the North Pole." Fair enough - they wouldn't have wanted to be burned alive at what was claimed by church authorities to be a stake.
But times have changed. It would be absurd for anyone now to claim that you could travel in any direction other than north to reach the North Pole. Therefore NPOV is time-dependent, based on the state of current knowledge.
Now when I have knowledge about something, surely it is more useful for my readers to know that something is true rather than just claimed to be so, i.e. this is an important distinction to make in a so-called encyclopedia. How do I make that distinction without well-meaning trolls coming along and changing all my certain truths into mere claims? The answer must have something to do with the authority of the original writer. Or is this a lost cause, and I have to accept one of the weaknesses of the[REDACTED] conception is that all its truths are mere claims, all part of the trend towards relativism wherein nothing can really be known by anyone.
If you know a better place to put my musings, e.g. village pump of something, then please indicate. Matt Stan 16:42, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
AI
Can it do the Turing Test? Is that really you, Paul. Matt Stan 02:08, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Prittle prattle
Have you encountered this fellow: Fifelfoo? I am interested in detecting instances of artificial intelligence operating within wikipedia, particularly if they've had their Godel or Turing machine components disabled. Do you think there is any inverse correlation between brain size and swat difficulty? Matt Stan 01:08, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Apologize!!! tkorrovi
Apologize!!!
Apologize!!!
See User_talk:Ugen64/Archive_1#Master_Editor_-_Artificial_Consciousness. tkorrovi is a troll Paul Beardsell 19:08, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Double bind
Paul wrote:
Paul Beardsell thinks people should have enough courage of their convictions so as not to hide behind a pseudonym. Of course, this may be impossible when who you are is considered more important than what you say. He can be e-mailed at <HisFirstName>@<HisSurname>.com
or
Paul Beardsell believes that he is not important enough to warrant hiding behind a pseudonym and can be emailed at <HisFirstName>@<HisSurname>.com Matt Stan 07:26, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Patent nonsense deletion
vote at Misplaced Pages talk:Patent nonsense Matt Stan 20:09, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Artificial Consciousness
If Tkorrovi begins to revert, don't revert him back. It's against policy to continously revert. :-) ugen64 23:09, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
- The only reason consciousness (artificial) is thriving is because tkorrovi's not editing on it :-). I should revise my statement to say: "don't revert more than 3 times". that's not currently policy; the actual policy says something like "don't revert repeatedly". Check Misplaced Pages:Revert for more details. ugen64 23:58, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
- He seems to be very happy guarding his frozen page. Perhaps he doesn't realise that it can't be reverted or developed, and he too is in a state of suspended animation. Matt Stan 00:34, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Actually he's been reverting things on the talk page, I noticed, making more insignificant unstatements, no doubt. See stupidity, and perhaps consider the conundrum of artificial unconsciousness. Can it exist? I still prefer simulated consciousness to artificial consciousness, and of course simulated unconsciousness would just be playing dead. Matt Stan 00:44, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Joke
Go to password length parameter. Matt Stan 02:10, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Bots and Betfair
ref your note about Betfair's attitude towards Bots, I was merely recycling what their stated opinion in Betfair forum was. They have now revised it to opening BF to bots and encouraging them. --Sjc 06:57, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
hehe your bots and my bots; I wonder how many other bots there were out there? Anyway, the text of the page was fundamentally correct, although now probably merits a small revision to reflect the status quo. --Sjc 08:20, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
very profitably :) To the extent I live a life of idle leisure and academic endeavour very comfortably :) --Sjc 11:53, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
chatbot
see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3520834.stm Matt Stan 08:06, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Research into dolphins in the Bahamas
See link: http://www.dolphincommunicationproject.org/dcp.asp#bah
libertarian?
I always thought that libertarian ment no safety net, govt. services, or restraints on monopolies. I have voted libertarian before, and green, and even for Perot and Buchannen ;) , but from what I know of libertarian, its as stripped down as a govt. can get w/o anarchy. I on the other hand would like mandatory military service, mandatory health care, and a bare minimum of other services as well. There should be no hunger, homelessness, or joblessness in a civilized nation, nor should industry be allowed to pollute w/o powerful tax penalties as a decentive. Instead of removing all taxes, I'd rather eliminate income tax, and focus on carrot/stick taxes on business. I've taken this test and it says I'm mildly left and authoritarian, but essentially centrist. Sam Spade 03:29, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Chatbots
A couple of interchanges:
Lingubot said to me:
- "I must apologize. My memory does not consist of unlimited megabytes. If I had a few billion neurons such as you humans we might be able to carry on a much different conversation, not that I am jealous of the clump of Jello pudding in your head!"
From Ella: Q6: Is snow cold? Bot: Well that depends entirely on what the meaning of "is" is! Matt Stan 22:30, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Epistemology
What others say I can know, and what I know, make interesting comparisons. Are you proposing that there should be an epistemological component in the AC machine, or would the knowledge that the artifact possessed be an extrapolation/interpolation from the other engines, e.g. personality(=will?), attention, perception sub-components, etc., as required? Matt Stan 15:36, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
My comments on talk page
I'm sorry but why you deleted my comments and when it's obvious that they cannot be considered to be any attack by anybody? Tkorrovi 03:14, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
the "racism thing"
I just wanted to ask you to stop arguing about that. It is not worth the effort, I think. But obviously it's your problem. Pfortuny 11:26, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, I forgot: I just wrote the same thing to both of you, so it wasn't a one-sided comment. :) Pfortuny 12:13, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- My apologies, then. Pfortuny 13:39, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Flesh and Machines
Have you read Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks? See http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/brooks/books-movies.shtml Matt Stan 10:34, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
NPOV
The artificial consciousness article includes all views whatever are proposed, for and against, what still doesn't satisfy you Paul, why you still insist that article is not NPOV? Tkorrovi 00:00, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Answer why
Why you treat me like this, why you call me paranoid? Do you think that it is justified to offend the others? Would you promise to stop offending me unconditionally? Tkorrovi 14:55, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Virus?
I have re-organised my room, moving the computer away from the window. I did this because I had heard there are windows viruses. I'm not quite sure how they propagate, but the idea of photons coming through my window and somehow finding an affinity with my operating system was very scary. I must have done my move not quite just in time, because now there is evidence (which you have kindly pointed out) of the destructive capabilities of this virus, and in no other place than the sacred area of talk:artificial consciousness. I don't think there are any other outbreaks, but please warn me if you see any, and I shall keep the curtains drawn just in case. Matt Stan 18:59, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
I've also put the hi-fi units on a wooden trolley and topped them with the video projector. I can wheel the whole thing round the room (subject to the constraints of the spaghetti of umbilical cables) and adjust the orientation of the projector easily from the sofa with my toes. The computer screen looks on inanimately, waiting for the program that will enervate it into synthetic consciousness. Actually it's not waiting yet, or at least isn't aware, naturally, that it might be so enervated one day. When it is, we can sit and watch videos together and look each other in the eye/synthetic eye, each aware of the other's awareness and probably not much else, at least to start with... Matt Stan 18:59, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
Ability to learn
Ability to learn is, according to some experts, something that can be lost in certain people. The question is whether someone who has lost this ability should nevertheless be deemed conscious. I pick as an illustration someone who has had pointed out to them on numerous occasions that they make an elementary mistake in their written grammar but who nevertheless carries on making the same mistake. This might be taken as an inability to learn. When, extraordinarliy, the person who has shown this inability claims that an ability to learn is a pre-requisite of consciousness, one must arrive at the absurd conclusion either that that person is not conscious, or that an ability to learn is not a pre-requisite of consciousness. QED Matt Stan 20:27, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
- The latter. Paul Beardsell 20:31, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
The synthetic consciousness page is taking shape slowly. I'm wondering whether it might attract another contributor. Matt Stan 20:27, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
Talking of learning... Matt Stan 20:27, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
An interesting discovery, word order in some languages, doesn't matter. There is one in particular where this primciple has even been extended to URLs, which is quite remarkable. See http://ee.www.ee/ Matt Stan 20:41, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
G.W. Bush quotes on war crimes
Hello Paul. Thank you for helping me make clear the relevance and un-POV nature of the Bush quotes. I think that, however they reflect on the administration (since we can't know for certain how they will act in the future), they are an important part of the Abu Ghraib situation.
I made a few changes to my original entry and would like you opinion on it and on how it can be ameliorated:
In 2003, American president George W. Bush made some declarations on the subject of war crimes during public speeches. These may or may not represent the positions that his administration will take regarding the Abu Ghraib situation.
- War crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be punished and it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders." -George W. Bush, 3/19/2003
- I expect them to be treated, the POWs, I expect to be treated humanely, just like we're treating the prisoners that we have captured humanely. If not, the people who mistreat the prisoners will be treated as war criminals. -George W. Bush, 3/23/2003
- Given the nature of this regime, we expect such war crimes. But we will not excuse them. War criminals will be hunted relentlessly and judged severely. -George W. Bush, 3/28/2003
Space elevator
Actually, even Rei didn't seem too unhappy about the suggested changes (except for some aspects of point ii); although she commented in detail about all of them anyway. We could certainly try making the economics section closer to what there is in everything2 and see what happens. Wolfkeeper
Prurient
Excuse me, did you just argue that Misplaced Pages should NOT be prurient and then say that you restored the prurient material? User: Felix F. Bruyns
- OK, so I misused the word. Paul Beardsell 01:24, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Afrikaans and Flemish
Hello Paul, I removed the Flemish reference because of these reasons:
- As I understand it, Afrikaans is linguistically largely derived from the dialect of Zuid-Holland, which is a Netherlandic dialect
- Flemish as such is either one of two Belgian Dutch dialects (East- and West-Flemish) or generally a umbrella name for the kind of standard Dutch used in Belgium. As far as I can see, the Southern Dutch (= Belgian) dialects had little to do with the development of Afrikaans, as long before Van Riebeecks foundation of Kaapstad the southern Dutch Provinces had split from the United Provinces, remaining under Spanish rule — another contributing factor for the current many small differences between Netherlandic and Belgian Dutch.
- Except maybe for (geographically) fringe dialects such as Gronings or Limburgs, *all* bits of Dutch and Afrikaans are mutually understanding, and so singling out Flemish seemed random, especially considering points 1. and 2.
I honestly thought the Flemish reference was trivial. But, of course, I should've discussed it first before deleting. Cwoyte 11:58, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Please refer to my user talk page for further answers/solutions. Cwoyte 07:16, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Paul, I have moved the Afrikaans discussion, which Elf-friend has joined as well, from my user talk page to the talk page of the Afrikaans language article, so everybody who's interested can have a view and, if so desired, contribute. Cwoyte 09:14, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"Bowdlerism"
It's not Bowdlerism to delete nonsensical trivia about which movies an actress appears nude in. Should we indicate what color her hair is in those movies? RickK 22:35, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
You planning on going into every actor and actress's article and annotating them? RickK 23:25, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
Non sequitur. Reply on RickK's page. Paul Beardsell 23:27, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with prudery and has everything to do with making an encyclopedia, not a list of trivia. RickK 23:33, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
That is your opinion. Leave the article alone. I think best to continue this on the talk page of the article as is customary. This comment will be duplicated on your page. Paul Beardsell 23:36, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Orbits
- Paul, your suggestion of categorizing various types of orbital / suborbital flights by energy or delta-V is insightful, and will create a much better article. Go for it. -- The Anome 10:47, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Watch this space!
Does the space cover any particular territory and, if so, is it within the M25? Matt Stan 10:52, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Watching
Rest assured you're on my watchlist Matt Stan 16:09, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Types of intelligence
Talk:Theory of multiple intelligences#Other theories Matt Stan 19:36, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Data Management Wiki Committee
Thank you for your contribution to one, or more, articles that are now organized under Data management.
Because of your previous intrest, you are recieving an invitation to become a founding member of the Data Management Wiki Committee.
The members, of course, will form and solidify the purpose, rules, officers, etc. but my idea (to kick things off) is to establish a group of us who will take responsiblity to see that the ideas of Data management are promoted and well represented in Misplaced Pages articles.
If you are willing to join the committee, please go to Category_talk:Data_management and indicate your acceptance of this invitation by placing your three tilde characters in the list.
KeyStroke 01:05, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)
Could you have a look at this?
Judging by your contributions to space elevator economics and the like, I was wondering if you might have a look at space activity suit, which I wrote a stub for. It's an interesting and traditionally underreported subject; if you can give it the once-over, it'd be really nice. grendel|khan 05:36, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)
History of Greenland
Could you explain your objection to "effectively detached"? "Less influenced" seems far to slight since the island was occupied by the U.S. throughout the war which attacked any Germans found in the area. The U.S. even printed the postage stamps for the island. Rmhermen 03:40, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
! was watching...
... the space as instructed, but it went blank. Should I construe from this that a very private affair is in progress? Matt Stan 10:38, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
He's back!
Matt Stan 01:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
NPOV label
Why did you add NPOV label to artificial consciousness article? You wrote your reasons for NPOV on article's talk page, these were satisfied, and the appropriate changes made, now also another user wanted to remove the NPOV label. For these reasons the NPOV label was removed. Now you did not write any explanation on the talk page, before adding the NPOV label. By the rules of Misplaced Pages, please write your reasons of adding the NPOV label to the article, on the article's talk page, otherwise the NPOV label should be removed. Tkorrovi 14:24, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The mediation thing.
Well. Looking at this completely from the outside it looks as if there is a certain shared pessimism about the counterpartys reasonableness around the Artificial consciousness page. Be that as it may, we have stages in our dispute resolution process, and before forcing any of you into an arbitration framework, we usually try mediation first. Even if none of you all think it will acheive anything, can I rely on your support in following the procedure in respect of trying mediation? -- Cimon 21:15, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for your response.
I choose to interpret your reply as being a positive (though reserved) one. Perhaps it is best we take further communications into E-mail. -- Cimon 22:19, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Misplaced Pages's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
- Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
- Multi-Licensing Guide
- Free the Rambot Articles Project
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
- Option 1
- I agree to ] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
OR
- Option 2
- I agree to ] all my contributions to any ], county, or city article as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)
Talk:Tax
Please see Talk:Tax for a response to your revert. Rhobite 07:09, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Revert: South Africa coup
I reverted your change because état also means government in French, as witness the term "L'était français." Thus, coup d'états are directed against government, not countries. You cannot have a country overthrow itself. That is why I reverted. Páll 04:10, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have replied on your talk page. Paul Beardsell 02:15, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Arbitration
An arbitration request was submitted against you at . It's unfortunate, but you didn't leave me other choice. Tkorrovi 13:19, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Grunt & the arbitration case
I am merely acknowledging that there is a problem that needs to be looked at; it is traditional arbitration procedure to render an opinion on the opening of a case as soon as there is any evidence to look through, and revise opinions as more evidence becomes available. There is also a typical waiting period of one week between the opening of a case and the rendering of any reasonably well formed opinions by arbitrators. Rest assured you will have an ample opportunity to respond to the charges against you. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 20:52, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
I have replied on Grunt's talk page. Paul Beardsell 04:38, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Fred Bauder and the arbitration case
Please see Fred's talk page for the message to which Fred replies below and my response to that. Paul Beardsell 04:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Tkorrovi has put a number of diffs in his request which I have looked at. Granted most date from May, 2004 but the last few date from December, 2004. I also looked at the article history and looked at recent comments directed at him. Whether he is good or competent editor I cannot say but you do seem to attack him personally in a rude way. And he does demonstrate that by the diffs he has cited. Fred Bauder 11:35, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Tkorrovi has established that there is enough of a problem that it needs to be heard. Any evidence you present will also be considered. Fred Bauder 11:32, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
I have responded again on Fred's page.
Kbdank71's POV
Paul, this is just an outsider's point of view, but if you spent half the time responding to the complaint instead of complaining about why you can't respond, the case would likely be over. If you are innocent as you say, stop procrastinating and prove it. (or not, your antics are quite amusing) -Kbdank71 22:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, if I knew precisely what the charge was, and whether I need only respond to those identified as "statement", not "comment", then I would be in a better position to start. On the other hand, if I knew what the penalty which has already been decided was, I might just plead guilty. Because I am not confident it is worthwhile arguing the case. Anybody half awake who followed the links provided by Tkorrovi and read the context would not be accepting this case for arbitration. Contempt of court is sometimes apt, it just isn't allowed! I have made thousands of edits on scores of articles, often successfully fixing the edits of the likes of Tkorrovi, who has edited only one article, mostly to its detriment. My criticisms of Tkorrovi's edits have been taken wrongly by him as personal abuse - fixing his English led him to accusing me of racism! He is a troll, and I did not say so carelessly, nor does so saying amount to personal abuse. What was careless, perhaps, was recently criticising the head of the arbitration committee about his sloppy application of standards when approving Johannesburg as a featured article. And now he intends to sit in judgment of me despite my request that he withdraw. Why bother arguing my case? Paul Beardsell 23:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's an encyclopedia, not an experiment in democracy. You now have seven days to prove your side, or you can waste it like you have been. Complaining about the process is your right, I suppose, but it won't win you the case. Although like I said, I hope you do keep it up; I'm not on the Arbcom, so I can admit this is hilarious. -Kbdank71 04:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Raul654
Copied from Raul654's talk page:
I note you have given an indication that you intend to make known your opinion in the Tkorrovi vs Psb777 dispute. I find myself in the position that should you decide in some way in my favour I can keep quiet but that if you find against me then I will, in my own mind at least, point to a recent disagreement between us over the Johannesburg featured article debate where I criticised you. I ask therefore that you simply do not voice an opinion - I believe any juror would excuse themselves in your position. Paul Beardsell 00:03, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It has been well established that criticizing an arbitrator is not suffecient grounds to cause the arbitrator to recuse himself --[REDACTED] is not large enough to expect arbitrators to have had no interaction with parties. I'll recuse if I think I'm prejuiced in favor of or against you, which I do not believe I am. →Raul654 01:02, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
I cannot find where that has been well established. Perhaps you can provide a reference. Misplaced Pages is large enough. It isn't whether an arbitrator is prejudiced but whether the appearance or suspicion of prejudice is possible or reasonable. Whatever has or has not been established it should matter to you most of all whether I will be happy with you sitting in judgement on me. Paul Beardsell 01:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- No, you are wrong. The appearance of impropriety is *NOT* the standard used for recusals --[REDACTED] is not large enough for that. Arbitrators *do* interact with the community, and it is not uncommon for us to have interacted with the parties before. You have no choice in who will be arbitrating your case, nor does your happiness about it matter in the least -- the matter is entirely up to the arbitrators themselves. Arbitrators are expected to judge for themselves whether or not they are prejudiced. Previous cases that established this were (off the top of my head) the Lir cases, the first Netoholic case, RK, and 172. I do not intend to apply any special standard to your case. →Raul654 02:07, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Once before I have seen you unable or unwilling to address an argument cogently put. I have no confidence in your ability to judge fairly the dispute I am involved in and so I ask you to withdraw. Paul Beardsell 02:30, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
in prep
Arbitration Committee case opening
The request for arbitration involving you has officially been accepted. Please bring formal evidence to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tkorrovi vs. Paul Beardsell/Evidence. Thank you. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:18, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
I would not wish to cause any encroachment of freedoms to be extended in duration as a result of myself enjoining in an arbitration dispute. I would only wish to bring it more speedily to a close. I myself would undertake not to edit the artificial consciousness article if it meant that someone whom I had suspected of being a troll were also be bound by such an undertaking. I'm not sure that the[REDACTED] arbitration procedure has explicit provision for people who might come forward saying, "Hey, you missed me out. I should be banned from editing the artificial consciousness too because I am just as much to blame in winding up one of the parties as is one of the accused. Or would that automatically imply that the whole debacle had been a wind-up exercise rather than an exercise in common sense. (Because, ironically, if humans can't function with common sense on the topic or artificial consciousness, then how on earth might the automatons fare?) But I did it in the name of entertainment, honest gov, because I know that there are or could be some observers who would be amused by the irony of a prolonged[REDACTED] dispute on such a topic." Matt Stan 23:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)