User talk:Schneelocke/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While I think the BFG9000 is encyclopedic material, I'm not sure about going into ammo details. It would be much better if that kind of stuff could be relocated to a comprehensive Doom guide at Wikibooks. Fredrik 18:06, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to change the article. :) -- Schnee 20:55, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Who named Kaprekar numbers?

I noticed that one of the references you added to the article on Kaprekar numbers is by Kaprekar himself. Would you happen to know if Kaprekar named these numbers after himself? Anton Mravcek 21:22, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

I unfortunately don't know, but given the fact that he named his article "On Kaprekar numbers", it may well have been. I'll try to see if I can find a copy of that article in my university's library. ^_~ -- Schnee 21:49, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for helping with the categories :) By the way, you might not want to add pages to the general Mathematics category - we don't want a glut of pages to bog down that page - think of it more as an introductory, or parent category. There may be support to show pages in subcategories later, so I've heard. Thanks Dysprosia 23:18, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

No problem. :) I'm just learning about the whole category thing, so the first couple of edits I made included more than just the most specific categor(y|ies), but I know better now (and will fix articles with too many category links as I come by them). -- Schnee 18:05, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] User Friendly

I have just written the Erwin (User Friendly) article. I am curious if we should put the character articles inside of the User Friendly article, rather than as seperate pieces. It seems to me this would keep the User Friendly group of articles much neater, with less linking, and we wouldn't have to worry about disambiguation or anything. Let me know whay you think --Kd7nyq 08:32, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't know - I personally think it's nicer to have separate articles. My philosophy is "one article for one thing (and vice versa)", kind of; I don't like glossary pages really (unless they just contain short introductions to topics discussed in-depth in separate articles), and I think it makes reading the articles much more pleasant, too. -- Schnee 18:05, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] chemical elements

Schneelocke, there seems to be a mistake in some element's table images in wich the number of neutrons are not those of the most abundant naturally occurring isotope (is one more); see copper, nickel, zinc and maybe other elements. Guillermo 14:52, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. I don't have time to take care of this myself ATM, but I pasted your message to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements, so maybe someone else can check. Or feel free to modify the images yourself - this *is* Wikipedia, after all. ^_~ -- Schnee 18:05, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hermann Rauschning

Hi, I put some substance to Hermann Rauschning. If you have any details on him to flesh out the article some more,... Thanks.WHEELER 14:12, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. -- Schnee 14:21, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mersenne

Hi, sorry about the Mersenne thing, I read it wrong. I just assumed it was equivalence. That's a very strange kind of thing, any 2 out of 3 implies the other 3. Are any of the 3 known at all (1,2 => 3; 2,3 => 1; 1,3=> 2)?, or is nothing known at all? Revolver 09:35, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

One thing I don't understand about this, some things I've read (just at the moment) suggest that it's a kind of "criterion" for being Mersenne prime. How can this be? It would give a sufficient condition, of course, but not necessary (e.g. if it were true, then even if you check the other 2 conditions, and each is false, this tells you nothing.) So, maybe this is getting somewhere, but it's not (or wouldn't be) a "characterisation" of the Mersenne primes? Revolver 09:47, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, the NMC is just a conjecture, not a proven theorem (for now, at least); there's a page at http://www.primenumbers.net/rl/nmc/ tracking progress made on it. -- Schnee 12:02, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm just saying...even if it WERE proven, not just a conjecture, it STILL wouldn't be a "characterisation" of Mersenne primes. It's a partial result, at best. It would give sufficient but partial necessary. I didn't mean to imply it wasn't interesting or useful, just that I object to some websites and articles implying it's a "characterisation" of Mersenne primes. Which, incidentally, the wikipedia article doesn't do. Revolver 13:38, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Stop the Slander

Dear Schneelocke your edits of ISR are on the verge of slander. International Star Registry has never been charged with fraud and clearly states on it's website that it is a novelty gift. Making a charge of fraud is a serious offense especially when it is not true. Please feel free to call 1.800.282.3333 and ask the sales person if International Star Registry is officially recognized by the IAU before you pass judgement on them.

Read the article before you make threats. It says "[...] many in the astronomy community view organizations like the International Star Registry as frauds preying on people ignorant of how stars are in fact named" (which is true), but does not contain any actual allegation that they are frauds. -- Schnee 18:18, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hey Smucklocke,

Real convient of you to leave out "and the ISR has had violations issued against them for deceptive advertising" in your last posting here, which was written by you. It is available in the history section and is not true, I guess we now know who the fraud is, you Schneelocke. I would like to see you prove that charge. If you can put forth the legal documents that show this statement to be true than great, if not than this is borderline slander. Funny how astronomers and members of the IAU used the same exact concept for fundraising. I am not making any threats just prove your charges before you start writing. Also, I love the way you can read people's minds. I found this statement pretty unethical, "International Star Registry as frauds preying on people ignorant of how stars are in fact named." Do you know this is company's intention and how admirable of you to call all of it's customers ignorant. Your such an elitist I'm not sure why I even bother.

Well, don't - that means I don't have to revert your vandalisations of the page all the time. As for the "deceptive advertising" part... check out the extlinks. It *is* true. -- Schnee 19:48, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeah that is a real legal document on that site you linked to stupid. I see the education system in Denmark is truly lacking. Stick to your simplistic poems about wolves. I'll see you in the very near future.

Contrary to what you might think, I'm not from Denmark. -- Schnee 20:43, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry October 3, 1977, I should have figured you were a German, stubborn. Go use your parents car or something. I hear the economy over there is real good probably why you have so much time to edit.

Plonk. -- Schnee 13:54, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Otmar von Verschuer

I added a bit to Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer (I can't believe there wasn't a page for him before!). I don't know how much you know about him, but if you think I'm missing something (admittedly my bias is that I've studied him primarily from the perspective of someone who has studied Nazi science, so I tend to focus on his 'atrocities' stuff) please feel free. (and wow, those fake-o star names people sure are touchy, ain't they?) --Fastfission 22:55, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yup, they sure are, but I guess it's understandable when you realise that they're essentially making money from people's lack of understanding - groups like that are never quite fond of education, I guess. ^_~ Outside of that, I don't really know much about von Verschuer; I only noticed the article was lacking and wrote an initial stub based on what little information I had on him. It's great to see the article extended, BTW - there's a lot of nazis (like Dietrich Eckart, for example) that didn't have Wikipedia articles (or still don't have any), mostly those that aren't all *that* well-known, but who still are quite important. Thanks for working on those articles. :) -- Schnee 11:40, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Yehoshua Bar-Hillel

Hi, I noticed that you started the article about Abraham Fraenkel. Perhaps you could contribute something to the new article about Yehoshua Bar-Hillel, who was a student of Fraenkel's and co-authored Foundations of Set Theory? I started this article about my grandfather; a no-no, I'm aware, but I thought he deserved it. However I've never actually studied his work, I know it by reputation only. --Woggly 21:18, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with starting an article on your grandfather if he deserves it, I think. :) I'm not familiar with him myself, but I'll check it out. -- Schnee 14:10, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

what's with the zoophilia-bestiality reversions? why do you think anyone knows this word? Hayford Peirce 00:54, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, to equate "bestiality" with "fag." The 11th Websters clearly defines it and does *not* say anything about POV. It is a neutral word with a specific meaning.Hayford Peirce 00:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's not. It really is that simple. -- Schnee 00:59, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, bestiality is on the same level as sodomy. The two are used in similar legal and negative contexts. Zoosexuality or animal sex could be used instead. Guan aco 01:06, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, bestiality has two other definitions:

"The quality or condition of being an animal or like an animal."
"Conduct or an action marked by depravity or brutality."

Guan aco 01:11, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, that's what I mean. ^^ -- Schnee 01:39, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Unplugged

Question: did that album come out in 1998 or 1999? Krupo 18:24, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Heterosexual POV

What's so heterosexual POV about what I wrote at Star?? I asked any comments to go on Talk:Star. 66.32.244.71 00:34, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the Axiom of determinacy

Thanks a lot for the prompt creation of the Axiom of determinacy article (this was my first attempt to request an article in the Wikipedia). It is very high quality for a stub... BACbKA 09:28, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Heh, no problem. Axiomatic set theory is a topic I find quite interesting myself, so I had a personal interest in writing it, too. As for it being a stub, well, that mostly refers to the length of the article and the lack of a discussion of the axiom, its implications and so on. Anyway... thanks! ^^ -- Schnee 15:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Permission form

I noticed that you contributed an image of M. C. Escher’s “Selfportrait” for the M. C. Escher article by permission. I have recently written several articles on his individual works and would like to illustrate them. The permission form at mcescher.com seems more geared towards print publications and I wonder if you could give me some advice on how to format a request with them. Thanks. Justin Foote 00:41, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I just wrote an email myself explaining to them the concept and purpose of Wikipedia and asking them whether it would be OK to include an image to illustrate the article, and they said yes. I guess you should just try that... -- Schnee 05:47, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Articles on DOOM people in Wikipedia

This issue is a bit complex, because there are some Doomers which are probably noteworthy enough to have an article, but it's difficult to draw a line. AFAIK, Lee Killough is the only article about a Doomer currently in Wikipedia. Both Randy Heit and Andrey Budko had articles, but wound up on VfD and didn't pass it. One problem with putting Doomers with Wikipedia is that, no matter how notable they are, it's like writing about friends, which gets in conflict with the no autobiographies policy (see also Wikipedia:Criteria for Inclusion of Biographies). There's a similar problem for WADs. Should Hell Revealed have an article? If it should, should every other megawad (or most megawads) have one?

I feel it might be a good idea to lay out a plan for how detailed we want to get with our DOOM coverage on Wikipedia... and reflect on how far we can go before people start getting annoyed :) - Fredrik | talk 16:14, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. I initially only wanted to include a list of "Notable COMPET-N players" in the article, but wasn't sure then where to draw the line, especially since I don't know much about the earlier days of COMPET-N and who was good / popular / important back then.

That being said, I think both Andrey and Randy do deserve their own articles, as do a couple of others; they may not be considered encyclopedic enough by some, but I think that conflicts with Wikipedia's mission to be the "sum of all human knowledge". Admittedly, not *everyone* and their grandmother should have their own article, probably, but people who play important roles in certain areas should, I think, even if those areas are relatively obscure. I'd just (re)create them and fight for them if they get VfD'ed; some people seem to think that everything that wouldn't be printed in Britannica, for example, shouldn't be on Wikipedia, either, but they often seem to forget What Wikipedia is not (most importantly, an encyclopedia in the traditional sense based on exclusion rather than inclusion).

And about Hell Revealed and other megawads - it's a similar thing as with players, I guess. There's no clear line that you can draw to distinguish between those that should be included and those that shouldn't; there's a large grey area, but I think it's still safe to say that *some* do deserve their own articles, especially those that are known to virtually every DOOM player.

Maybe we should start a Wikiproject for DOOM coverage. ^_^ -- Schnee 06:13, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, the issue does get kind of complex, it's kind of hard to tell where exactly you can draw the line, but I don't really have a problem with non-Doomers on Wikipedia doing so through the normal deletion processes, I think that works well as a system of checks and balances. Although a way to test the waters before overstepping our boundaries would certainly be nice :P Sarge Baldy 21:44, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

I think the problem is that there's quite a number of people who will argue that *none* of these people deserve an article, though. Getting an outsider's perspective may be helpful, but I wouldn't rely solely on that for the purpose of determining who should have an article and who shouldn't. -- Schnee 05:49, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection

Schneelocke, I'm unprotecting Clitoris, since it's been over a week. (Taken out of context, that sentence could be quite amusing, I suppose.) Anyway, cross your fingers. . .

I will. Let's hope for the best... -- Schnee 14:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of text from Abu Ghraib abuse article

I have no idea what I was thinking. It must have been a bizarre keystroke accident. Thanks for letting me know; I restored it now. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 16:24, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

No problem. I was just wondering. ^^ -- Schnee 16:42, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reporter without borders

Schnee, do you have access to the surveys where the journalists of the countries ranked are questioned by Reporters Without Borders? I'd like to summarize these surveys so the Wikipedia article can explain why RWB ranked the US below the top ten. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 15:14, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't, but why don't you contact them and ask? -- Schnee 16:17, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't do primary research. I just report what's already out there: primarily web stuff, but I've been known to type in stuff from a dead tree occasionally.

RWB's website says they sent a questionnaire to their "partner organizations", which I assume means people who think the same way they do. Absent any evidence that they use objective measures, I must assume they are biased. It's common knowledge that the US press has more freedom to criticize their own goverment than any other press in the world. That's just a fact.

If you want some POV, I think that the unlimited right to "protect sources" goes beyond the First Amendment into a sort of arrogance that makes the media into a fourth branch of goverment. But I'm not putting that into the article, because it's only my opinion.

I'm pretty good at distinguishing between opinion and fact, but if I ever trip up, please point it out to me. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 18:47, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The website states (quite clearly):

Reporters Without Borders compiled the index by asking its partner organisations (14 freedom of expression organisations in five continents), its 130 correspondents around the world, as well as journalists, researchers, jurists and human rights activists, to answer 52 questions to indicate the state of press freedom in 167 countries (others were not included for lack of information).

So... a) it's not only its partner organizations; don't try to obscure the facts. b) the idea that they exist simply to give the USA a bad name is absurd; they only exist to investigate press freedom in an objective and non-partisan manner. c) if you don't agree with their findings, feel free to conduct your own survey and do your own research. d) your opinion is *NOT* "common knowledge" - this is just the kind of arrogance I was talking about. Have you ever actually been to other countries and looked at their press and how free it is? e) For what it's worth, it seems that you're not really concerned with facts at all here; you're merely annoyed that the USA does not turn out the epitome of freedom you want it to be, so you attack RSF, claiming that they are "anti-american", "European" ("old Europe" again?), "biased" and stating that your own opinion is "just a fact". f) all this is not relevant for Wikipedia, anyway. Wikipedia is just the FACTS. And the FACT is that RSF is an internationally-recognized and -renowned organization that is known to conduct objective research and doesn't suck up to anyone, whether it's Cuba or North Korea or so or the USA.

And I think there's really not much more that can be said with regard to this. If you want to keep insisting that nothing is wrong and that everyone who criticizes the USA is anti-american/biased/a commie/a liberal/unpatriotic/..., then feel free to do so, but take it somewhere else. I, for one, don't want to deal with that crap anymore; I'm on Wikipedia to create an encyclopedia, and that includes keeping any and all POV and opinions out of it. And this goes for yours just as much as it goes for mine. -- Schnee 19:59, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe either of these extremes:

the idea that they exist simply to give the USA a bad name; or,
that they only exist to investigate press freedom in an objective and non-partisan manner

If you (or they) would explain their concept of press freedom and show how America has violated this concept, I'd be happy to put this into the Reporters Without Borders article, or even an article about freedom of press in America.

I have no idea what their "findings" are, other than the single number "4.0" in a table. That would be like me ranking AOL's Fellowship of the Ring with only 2 stars, while my friend gives it 4 stars. Nothing objective there, only a preference, right?

I'm not attacking RWB, just using the talk pages in an attempt to distinguish between opinion (especially my own) and fact. I have to state what my impressions are, to see if they are correct or not. Gimme a break, I'm trying to overcome my preconceptions here -- or confirm them by checking with my fellow contributors. I'm not putting anything into the article that I can't back up.

If "RSF is an internationally-recognized and -renowned organization that is known to conduct objective research" then why have they only been putting out their list for 3 years? I thought it took at least a decade to will international reknown. And if they conduct objective research, which journalists, researchers, jurists and human rights activists (other than their own partners and correspondents) have they queried? And what are the questions?

Better yet, what are the specific denials of press freedom they alleged for the US?

We've written, you and I, 20 to 100 times as many sentences about the article than the single sentence at their website (which I quoted at talk:RSF) alleging 3 types of US non-freedom of press. All I want are the details, so I can make the article accurate and unbiased. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 20:29, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Speed of light image

Hello there, could you supply Image:Blueglow.jpg with an Image copyright tag please? The current license information is somewhat shady. It is especially important to know if the original copyright holder allows commercial use, which is required for images on WP. Regards, [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:58, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that actually. I wrote an email last year asking whether it would be OK to use this image on Wikipedia, and got an answer telling me that it was. There wasn't any discussion on what exactly this would mean, though; it'd probably be a good idea to get back to the UMR and sort this out. -- Schnee 11:00, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mettitle.png

I noticed this image didn't have an image copyright tag on it, and it looked like a screen grab, so I added the {{freeuseunsure}} tag. You may wish to update this. Best, David Iberri | Talk 18:30, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Yeah, that's a screenshot; I updated the copyright notice accordingly. -- Schnee 18:38, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] User page unprotection

Hi, I unprotected your user page based on a request by UninvitedCompany, on the grounds that protection is generally considered un-wiki and should be reserved for situations in which it is seriously needed. I decided to unprotect because the history shows that your page has never been vandalized. I think any isolated instances can be reverted without serious harm; if vandalism does become a serious problem for you in the future, perhaps we could reconsider the question. --Michael Snow 22:25, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK (although the fact that it never was vandalised may well have been due to the fact that it *was* protected). Regarding un-wikiness... yes, I understand that. But at the same time, I also don't see why anyone except for me should be able to edit my userpage. Ah well. -- Schnee 22:40, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I understand the concern, I think it's just that "ownership" of one's user page is something that's treated as a social norm here, and enforced primarily by the "soft security" of being able to revert changes instead of the "hard security" of page protection. Lots of people watching Recentchanges are pretty quick about reverting unwanted edits to people's user pages. --Michael Snow 22:46, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The request was made on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, which would be the standard page for such requests. In your case, I went ahead and was "bold" about unprotecting because, as I stated, there is no history of vandalism on the page (granted, as you point out, it couldn't really be vandalized while it was protected). --Michael Snow 22:48, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ah, OK, thanks. ^^ As said above, I don't mind my userpage being unprotected; if persistent vandalism happens, it can still be protected again. -- Schnee 23:40, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In view of your comments above (with which I totally agree), I have both re-protected my user page and given you a reason to protect yours (my persistent vandalism). Cheers. Deb 17:29, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] No Problem =)=

No worries. I'm always glad to defend against ignorance and unfounded slander. Don't let Ciz get to you...he's just a troll with a stick where it shouldn't be. PMC 01:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That he is. FT2 filed a request for mediation earlier today, too, BTW; with luck, this issue will be resolved soon, one way or another. -- Schnee 01:49, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, that's great. I hope we either calm him down or get rid of him. Its a pity, because he might have been a valuable contributor, if only he weren't so emotionally attached. We'll never know, I guess. PMC 01:56, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Probably not. He made no other edits really, though, except for two on Sonic the Hedgehog and Miles "Tails" Prower that were also anti-furry POV edits (and that I reverted later on) and three on Adolf Hitler (as an anon user) that seem to have been a newbie test; if he had any intentions to contribute constructively, he could've done so all the time while also ranting on Talk:Zoophilia, so I doubt he really would have become a valuable contributor anyway. But yeah, you never know. Ah well. -- Schnee 02:40, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Your vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rune Mysteries

You cast a vote on this VfD, voting to keep. However, you should be aware that your vote came after the author of the original articles under discussion altered the subject of the VfD, adding 24 articles that were not his -- the message being "If you don't want these to be deleted, you have to keep mine too." (This answers your question of why Cyberdemon and Baron of Hell were included under Rune Mysteries.) This may change your vote. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:30, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for pointing that out! -- Schnee 15:31, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Moon navigator

Its completely redundant. The moons are linked to in the Neptune infobox Template:Neptune. Things should only ever be linked to once from a given page. ed g2s • talk 20:50, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As I said, please discuss it on Talk:Neptune (planet). -- Schnee 20:51, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You did, but there really isn't anything to discuss. The navigator has been made completely redundant by the footer box. Do you seriously see a need to keep it? ed g2s • talk 20:54, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You seem very persistent to roll back my edits, but so far you haven't given any reason to keep that navigator. ed g2s • talk 20:58, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're not providing much feedback here, such as a reason to keep a set of links exactly the same as those in the template right next to it. ed g2s • talk 21:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't care much about it, to be honest; I just think changes to an established article layout that's used on virtually all moon/planet pages shouldn't be changed just because you personally happen to not like it. Discussing the issue would just be polite, that's all. -- Schnee 00:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Did you know

Thanks for the interpunction fix. :) [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 22:52, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

No problem. :) -- Schnee 11:46, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Democrat organized union mobs

They were indeed demo mobs - don;t delete my edits again!

216.153.214.94 15:37, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Write about it in a neutral tone then (and see WP:NPOV for more on that). -- Schnee 15:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Schnee, if you're not familliar with the above user, take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence#Misconduct_as_anonymous_IP_216.153.214.94 ... just to let you know. --kizzle 20:31, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, looking! -- Schnee 21:24, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you don;t like the tone, changed it. Don;t delete it. 216.153.214.94 21:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)