User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

I know that this ought to be called Ellsworth's Paradox, but I'm hopelessly a humble pote, so I fall easy prey to an alliterative title.

This paradox is basically another form of Zeno's paradoxes. It has to do with, not just motion, but our "living movement", or in other words, our "motion through life". It divides time in much the same way that Zeno divided space in his "Achilles and the Tortoise Paradox".

“

We are all born* into life at some moment or point in time. Then at another later moment, or another later point in time, we all seemingly lose our lives and become forever motionless. Each and every day, every hour, minute, second, we approach nearer and nearer to that motionless point in time. Now each of our lives, our living-motion periods, can be halved, so that if we were able to know when that final breathless moment is supposed to take place, we would know the precise moment when we are halfway there. We each live to this halfway point in time, and then we continue on. At some point we come upon the moment that is exactly halfway between the middle of our lives and the end, and in a like manner we must always reach a point in time that is halfway between the previous halfway mark and the motionless end of our lives. Since there is always a new halfway point to live to, then there is no possible way we can ever arrive at the end. There is an infinity of new halfway points that we must continue on to, and therefore: We cannot die! It is impossible for us to ever reach that motionless point in time. Death is therefore an illusion, an impossibility. This proves that we are, all of us, immortal beings.

”

Footnote:

* "Born" is an arbitrary point in the timeline of our lives. Since motion, living motion, begins at some point in time while we are still in the womb, such a point in time, if it were definable, would be the best moment to choose for the beginning of this paradox. However, since this point in time is undefinable at present, then the moment we are "born", an easily definable moment, is the more precise opting.

Vanitas^{(^)}

If motion is impossible, then what about the flow of time? Excellent observation. :) Regrettably, your argument also means that we have never been born. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The flow of time? It is as the "flow" of the arrow from the bow to the target, except that there was no bow, and any targets that we can picture in our minds are of our own design, our own making.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  15:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Paradoc! Welcome to my Climax page! I had thought of the "never been born" idea but was unable to put it into words, into a detailed explanation. Can you?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  15:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That's covered by the Dichotomy: If time flows, the world must go from sooner to later. But to do so, the world needs to go from sooner to some time t inbetween. But to do so, the world needs to go from sooner to some time t2 before t ... → infinite regress. Which means not only movement is an illusion, but so is time! To quote Ford Prefect: "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." Paradoctor (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

V e d d y  Intedesting, or as Mr. Spock might say, "Fascinating!"

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  18:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read this letter about Wikipedia's future from Michael Snow and Jimbo Wales!

Just a quick note: Though I agree that consensus was against this particular edit, so your revert was probably warranted, RFCs on page content aren't really treated as processes that need to "close" before action can be taken. People are generally still free to edit the page while they're ongoing, even with regard to the content being discussed. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:33, 18 Mar 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the RfC does not have to close as a general rule, and hopefully that's not what I seemed to imply. In this case, the editor made the deletion against the obvious KEEP majority, so if the editor does not want the image kept, then s/he should wait for the outcome of the RfC before making such a change. If the majority was to DELETE, then the edit might be warranted before the end of the RfC. Doesn't this make sense? or am I out of line?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  04:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say he should've waited and only made the edit if/when consensus seemed to turn in his favor, whenever that happened (whether that were tomorrow, when the RFC ends, or sometime after). The "end" of the RFC isn't really relevant, in my mind, is the point I'm trying to get across. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:50, 18 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, and I see that I did place much emphasis on the end in my response. I shall reword it a bit.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  04:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It was really no big deal in this case; I was just pointing it out for your future benefit. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:02, 18 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Piper Halliwell Season 6.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

•  Done  —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  02:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Apostrophe (disambiguation) and ' (disambiguation)

In the article Olbers' paradox, I added a less technical description to the section Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). Can the Technical template be removed? Obankston (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It is definitely much better than it was, Obankston, and I thank you for that. In my opinion, it is still a bit technical, but I suppose some technical parts are necessary for a full explanation. I'll go ahead and remove the maintenance tag. We might see my removal reverted if others feel the need for even less technicality. Thank you for your improvements!

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  03:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the maintenance tag. I made a dedicated effort to simplify the use of technical terms, but there is a limit. The section can also be viewed as a real-life application of a number of concepts in cosmology and applied physics that people can use for further study. There are at least two technical flaws in the explanation I provided, so this is in the right place in the article as a non-mainstream explanation. (1) the cosmic microwave background radiation represents radiation leftover from the Big Bang, and does not necessarily represent the radiation representing the current average temperature of the Universe; (2) the cosmic microwave background implies a temperature that limits the amount of light, but the explanation does not calculate how high that limit is, so that perhaps the limit is so high that the nighttime sky would be bright.

The intensely technical part of the section mentions the cosmic microwave background, but only because the implied temperature is consistent with yet another different explanation for Olbers' paradox. Perhaps it should be in a section of its own. If I attempted to provide a less technical explanation for this section, the explanation would be more technical than the explanation I have already provided. If what I have provided is over the limit, then this would really be over the limit.

Obankston (talk) 06:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I see where an IP recently rm'd part of your edit, here. Do you think that was helpful?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  11:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The phrase removed was in parentheses, not irrelevant, but not conforming to Occam's razor. The person appeared to understand the section sufficiently to see that the phrase was the least relevant phrase in the section, so I view this as a peer review. I let the edit remain. Obankston (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I must defer to your judgement, then, for I am but an astronomy lover and not a cosmologist. I'll go give the reviewer a proper welcome, then, if nobody else has. Again, thank you, Obankston!

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  06:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Some crazy guy just deleted our verified work. Based on current size and percentage growth, future estimates show that the Baha'i Faith might overtake Judaism as the 6th largest religion in the world by the year 2050.^[1] on baha'i demographics

can you revert or undo that guy please? txJigglyfidders (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Rather than start what might easily turn into an edit war, why not open a discussion with the editor on the Talk page of the article?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  09:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Portal:Edgar Allan Poe/Did you know
Thanks. Saw this somewhere a thought to put it in. I'm more of a wikignome. (I know what that is) Isaee100 (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome Isaee100! I am usually more of a wikignome myself, infrequently involving myself with disputes. But I do like to go kicking some vandal butt. When I saw your edit, I just knew you weren't vandalizing, so I researched it and found the details. Thank you very much for your help to improve Wikipedia!

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  16:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Per your post at WP:V#The meaning of "verifiability, not truth" where you talk about the two discussions you previously "lost" I'd like to wish you good luck in future endeavours to help make Wikipedia better and encourage you to always fight for what you believe in. If you ever need another voice in a discussion feel free to drop by my talk page. I remember this one quote (dont remember from where, could have been a poli sci professor or could have been an episode of Law and Order or West Wing for all I know!)- (paraphrasing) "Yesterday's minority opinion, when discovered in the future by some court clerk can end up being the precedent for a whole new set of ideas and freedoms that sways the next court."Camelbinky (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Camelbinky! All we can do is "endeavor to persevere". < grin > [1] [2]

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  09:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Snowman (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

+wher-policy??--pl.note:i'v[[RSI]]>typin=v.v.hard4me!>contactme thruMSNpl.if unclear[sven70=alias (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sven. This is explained on the {{Skiptotoc}} template page. That template is a Talk page template. Think about it. Do we really want general readers skipping Algeria's lede paragraph? The sole reason for that template is so that frequent visitors to Talk pages can bypass all the many Talk page headers that can build up. It was never meant to be used in article namespace.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  04:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• PS I just checked out your User page, and I find that you probably consider this an accessibility issue? Please explain. Are you doing some serious editing to the Algeria article, and you plan to remove the Skiptotoc template when you're done? If so, then I suggest you use the {{Inuse}} template or the {{Underconstruction}} template along with the Skiptotoc template.

y[accessibility -iv red lead be4[canbe5+screens i/genral-iv bigfont>want say geo specifikli>lots ofklikin:/[any ideas?

• general readers skipping<dey candecid4emselfs,no[=not av2skip]?
• serious editing>2muchtypin o/wp:([+her:nonoledg
• ta4reply+tb:)--pl.note:i'v[[RSI]]>typin=v.v.hard4me!>contactme thruMSNpl.if unclear[sven70=alias (talk) 02:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sven, if i understand your words correctly, you are concerned about accessibility both for you and for general readers? How about your use of user subpages? I use subpages for several editing reasons. If you want to just read an article, you can copy the article to one of your personal subpages and alter the article in whatever way makes it easier for you to read. You can also use subpages to edit, but when you're done editing and are ready to copy the article back to the "live" namespace, you must be careful to add any new edits that took place while you had the article on your subpage.

If you want to make a lot of edits, then try using the {{Inuse}} template along with the {{Skip to toc}} template in the "live" article. This way, there will be little chance of edit conflicts, and when you're finished editing, you can remove the "Inuse" and the "Skip to toc" templates.

I hope this helps. If you have any questions about the above, please do not hesitate to ask.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  19:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

`Current G20 Leaders` Template is G20 leaders section, but not the countries section. Blizzardstep0 (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Manual of Style on images discourages the use of images. At least confirm that the gallery complies with WP:IG. Personally, i agree that for a city article, it doesn't improve the article. It would be better to improve the text. It might help where it's a particularly visual subject such as architecture or art.. --Merbabu (talk) 05:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Then there is the other side of the coin. The MOS discourages the indiscriminate use of images. I agree that too many images spread throughout an article, any article, not just city articles, distract the readers. But the standard for "too many" is very subjective. So I think that the use of a gallery, which substantially reduces the number of images spread throughout the article, is helpful here in the Jakarta article. Placing the gallery near the end of the article enhances the readers' focus upon the text of the article. So please proceed and do what you think is right. I shall do my best to agree with your wishes. And thank you very much, Merbabu, for taking the time to discuss this!

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  06:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• PS. I thought it was an excellent idea to move the "Issues" section to a more appropriate part of the article. Excellent move!

Chris Pine's English Ancestors in the Family Tree

1. ID: I036054
2. Name: John Newdigate
3. Sex: M
4. Birth: 1461 in Harefield, Middlesex, England
5. Occupation: Squire of Harefield
6. Event: Fact 14 AUG 2008

1. ID: I066710
2. Name: Thomas Townshend
3. Sex: M
4. Birth: 1533
5. Death: 1591 in Bracon Ash, Norfolk, England
6. Occupation: Squire of Margate Hall
7. Event: Fact 14 AUG 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.216.237 (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry IP 68+, but if Chris' name is not on the tree, then how does anyone (including yourself) know it's the right family tree?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  13:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

his mother's parents in her wikipedia are the same in the family tree

       /Louis Goldfarb
    |       /Max Goldfarb b: 1906 d: 1965
    |       |       \Yetta Saporsnikova
    \Living Gilford
            |       /Jefferson Benjamin Trice b: 1890 d: 1981
            \Marguerite Gwynne Trice b: 1918 d: 2003
                    \Pearl Guinn  

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.216.237 (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The article on Chris Pine states that his maternal grandparents were Anne Gwynne and Max M. Gilford. Please point out where these names are on that tree. Sorry, I do not see them.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  14:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The article on his mother Gwynne Gilford was born in Los Angeles, California, the daughter of actress Anne Gwynne (born Marguerite Gwynne Trice) and attorney Max Gilford (born Max Goldfarb). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.216.237 (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

c.v.sandeep kumar born in repalle on 25th august 1993.his father is chintala srinivasa rao and mother chintala saritha and sister c.sindhuja.his elder brother is ram chran teja a film actor ,his father chiranjeevi is a mega star in telgu film industry.for sandeep chiranjeevi is big father.c.v.sandeep kumar father is richest person he owns a house in hyderabad in jubille hills and a guest house in bangalore.even c.v.sandeep kumar will soon act as hero in telugu films.currently he is doing is inter final year.he will soon get married with anjali after3 or 5years.anjal is a daughter of rayalseema indudtrilist g.reddy.g.reddy is close friend of c.srinivasa rao. anjali is a class mate of sandeep from childhood onwards.

(from 122.164.229.98 who added this to the incorrect page)  —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  14:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to leave, so I will get back to you on this.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  14:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking over your paragraph that you replaced my User page with, I cannot make out what it is you are trying to tell me. I have made many edits lately, and I do not know which edit is the one you seem to be questioning. Can you link me to a page that shows where you need help?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  12:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

From Template talk:Expand list, 25 June 2010

Edit request from 83.221.140.244, 6 May 2010

{{editprotected}} An article like List of unrecovered flight recorders (perma-link) looks wrong because of this template. The problem is the indentation that is done with the colon ':' in the beginning of the template. You must insert a new-line character at the very end of this template to prevent this problem.

83.221.140.244 (talk) 09:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried adding the line break but for some reason that didn't stop the incorrect indentation. So I have removed the indentation for now, until we can work out the correct way to do this. Maybe a margin can be added to the div instead. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Martin. It appears that beginning the lede with a link, as is done in that article above, has something to do with the incorrect lede indentation that follows this template. It seems pretty weird, and I don't know if it's something about this template or something about Wikilinks that causes it. If you precede the link with regular text, the problem goes away.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  12:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Okay, I have figured out that the problem is with this template. Because the command at the end to add a hidden category to the article page is not within the <div></div> tags, this causes the indent-following on any article page that begins with a Wikilink. So the </div> has to be moved to after that hidden category command. I have done this in the {{Expand list/sandbox}}, so the code from that page can just be copied and pasted to the main template page. (The /doc page is included, and I've added the colon to indent the template as seen on the {{Expand list/testcases}} page.)
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  11:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Well done for working this out. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was a gnarly problem. I see you switched the {{#ifeq... to {{cat handler.... Good call – Thank you very much!

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  11:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Paige in Sense and Sense Ability.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Our policy on fair use states: Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. The multiple images of the character do not convey any significant information. We need one image for the infobox, that's it. You can undo the change again, but I'll nominate them for deletion. This wasn't a capricious editorial decision because I didn't like the images, I was following policy. AniMate 06:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion should be on the article Talk page. I will discuss it there, where I have already opened a discussion.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  06:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Paige in Sense and Sense Ability.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. AniMate 07:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Prue in The Painted World.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. AniMate 08:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Piper Halliwell Season 8.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. AniMate 08:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Piper in Just Harried.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. AniMate 08:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Paige in Sense and Sense Ability.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Piper Halliwell Season 6.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Piper Halliwell Season 8.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You might get a better response next time if you adopt a more conciliatory tone. Your posts on the Tesla talk page appear to be full of veiled accusations, whether intended or not. Your dismissive use of "overzealous Tesla fan" prohibits any argument, those not agreeing with you are only doing so because they are "overzealous" and can thus be ignored.

Why was it necessary to issue this warning "So please discuss it here and let's resolve this before reverting again"? implying, as it does, that you had already been repeatedly reverted. This was not happening, I personally had no intention of reverting you. Let me draw your attention to WP:BRD, if we follow that principle, you should have gone to talk on being first reverted. The fact that you chose to make the edit again without discussing first means that it was you who was on the edge of edit warring.

"If a RS can be found that tells us that Tesla was a most important "player", then the claim can stand as is." This would seem to have been a bad faith offer, you did not really mean it. Having gone to the effort of finding sources I then find that you dismiss them all as "I consider the book cited above and pretty much all of the links in the Google search to be fan-tainted". There are 512 results in that search, did you really look at them all, or are you, as I suspect, just dismissing them out of hand? What criteria are you applying to test for "fan-taintedness"? Do you have a reliable source which says Cheney has written an overzealous book? Did you ask at WP:RSN to get an informed opinion? Frankly, I don't believe you did any of this; of course you didn't, that would involve some real footwork. This would all have been rather less annoying if you had been honest up front and simply stated you were absolutely against the current article wording. If I had not thought you were open to persuasion, I would not have gone to the effort of finding sources and you owe me an apology for your gratuitous waste of my time.

You do realise that the Cheney book is already being used as a reference for the article and if this book is suspect then a lot more needs careful examination in this article than whether Tesla is "one of the most important" of just "an important" contributor. Are you going to check out the passages using Cheney as reference for "fan-taintedness"? I doubt it, any real work does not seem to be your forte, much easier just to decorate the articles with ugly {{fact}} tags.
(Unsigned msg from Spinningspark, (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2010)

Since you have chosen to bring a discussion that truly belongs on the Tesla talk page, I shall be glad to respond to you here. It is probably just our apparent black/white opposition that causes me to say this, but I feel it is you who are now being accusatory, and there is no "veiling" to it. Did you ever think it possible that I might actually have improvement of the Tesla article in mind? or are you thoroughly convinced that it is wrong to harbor any thoughts of AGF? You are so overzealous in your defense of your edits and reverts that you come here to my Talk page rather than to discuss the article where the discussion belongs. I suppose it is not easy for you to see all this. But I'm afraid Shakespeare comes into it when he wrote something about protesting too much. You protest way too much in your above tirade, which you didn't even really think important enough to sign. What really is your problem? Don't you want to improve the Tesla article? or are you too blind to see that it needs a great deal of NPOV improvement?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  11:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I posted here mostly to challenge your bad faith request to find sources for the article wording (and yes that is an accusation) rather than dispute anything about the article, the debate on the Tesla talk page is over. A {{fact}} tag means you are looking for a source, which you later explicitly stated on the talk page, when what you really wanted to do was delete something from the article and no presentation of sources would change your mind. I am not an "overzelous Tesla fan" as you put it, but even if I were, that jibe in no way is an answer to any of my points. Not signing was, of course, an oversight - another jibe of no relevance. SpinningSpark 13:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully, we have met the challenge together. At first, I did want to see reliable sources that used "most". Then after I asked for those, I then realized that any sources that used "most" were sources that allowed such weasel words, therby putting their reliability in question. It was then that I decided to get rid of the "most", not before. You see, Spinningspark, this is where AGF comes in. I never questioned yours, and I sincerely hope you will never again question mine. And for a certainty, it turns out that I agree that this conversation was better to take place here on my Talk page. Please forgive me for questioning that aspect of your actions. Thank you for your comments and for your continued efforts to improve Wikipedia!

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  13:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:PhoebeHalliwellSeason8.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi,
I'm looking at a page of yours from 2009, that refers to Dell Publishing, Murphy Books.
I have naturally never heard of Murphy or of Dell being part of it.
When I run a websearch, I get only one hit, this page.
So I go in to blow away the IP vandal, actual surname Murphy, and I find you wrote that.
So, whuzzup with the Murphy business? Varlaam (talk) 05:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

When you search the ISBN, and click on the Google link in the "Online text" section, you will get to this page. That will give you your answer. Hope you have the happiest of holidays!

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  08:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:R help has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, ἀνυπόδητος, for letting me know of this proceeding. It is with regret that I had to make the comment below.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  03:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Please forgive me, because I find this to be a very useful reference, and I fail to understand how anyone can make such a sweeping statement as "Unused" without actually knowing if it really is unused. Seems like I'm always coming across REDIRECTs that need Rcats, and if I'm not certain which Rcat(s) is appropriate, I go directly to {{R from}}, which redirects to {{R help}}, to find out. I view this reference as a handy shortcut for Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages, and this is why editor Dispenser created this page in the first place. His creation comment back in 2008 was "Should've created this a long time ago, would've made searching for the template much easier." Happiest of holidays to you all!  —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  03:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

In case I somehow misinterpreted you and you've somehow misinterpreted me: I took your comment negatively because, rather than answering my question, you seemed to indicate the answer was so obvious that I should have known it by reading a a low-level tutorial page. But maybe I rushed to judgment, and you thought you were answering my question. Or maybe you thought I wasn't asking genuinely. I don't know everything, and I expect sometimes you will know things that I don't. I hope you'll bear with me and help me by explaining them.

In any event, I do want to say that I don't by any means discard your answers; in fact, I listen very carefully to them, and learn from them. (For example, our discussion about R Help has made me realize that the corss-namespace redirect guidelines need improvement.) And I never discount someone with whom I disagree civilly in one discussion in all others. That wouldn't assume good faith, and it wouldn't be wise, because people who engage with me on the issues on which I work are often very thoughtful. I hope you won't ever think it not worthwhile to discuss something with me. If I can't change that, let me know, and I'll try to avoid prompting you. --Bsherr (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Please view my latest response to you at the Tfd. I agree that it's probably best to continue that conversation here, if you like.

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  15:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

To the point it's relevant to the template, it should be at TfD. If it's about our interaction, we can talk here. To that point, could we avoid the guessing game you've proposed there? Either the argument you're thinking you've said before isn't clear, or I'm stupidly not seeing it. Even if it is the latter, it's not very civil to try to humiliate me for it. I promise to continue to be direct with you; can you do the same for me? --Bsherr (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You asked me to educate you. One of the privileges I've enjoyed was to have once been a teacher and instructor. So I do have a little experience with these things. The item I mentioned was that one good reason to categorize anything is to get an accurate count of the cat target. There are other good reasons. Can you find one more?

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  15:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

But Paine, counting something is implicit in tracking something. That doesn't address the question. Why is it necessary to track or count this? --Bsherr (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't the best way to get a specific answer of the kind you seek be to find out who created the cat (and the Rcat to populate it) and ask them?

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  16:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, frankly, no. It would be to nominate the template or category for deletion, and notify the creator. --Bsherr (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You should probably look into the other avenues that are suggested to explore before nominating anything for deletion. You seem to feel that deletion is the "easy" way out, that deletion should be the first choice. If that is so, then you are very, very wrong. Deletion is almost always a last resort on Wikipedia. That is the fact that seems to be lost on you. And your ignoring this does not make it any less a fact.

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  16:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

PS. Your final response at the "R from move" Tfd says volumes about your true intent. You don't want to be educated, at least not by me. It seems you don't want to be educated at all. You just want to Delete, Delete, Delete. I checked your edits when this whole thing began, and you have done some really good stuff. Why have you begun such a destructive "Delete" mode of editing?

Paine, I'm not your pupil. We're all equals on Wikipedia. I expect you may think the way you choose to "educate" is fine, but I feel it demeans its recipient by suggesting he or she is wrong for asking questions because, if he or she had only thought about it more, he or she would realize it's a stupid question. I hope you'll reflect on whether you think you'd be grateful to be responded to in the way you respond to me. If, upon reflection, you understand why I might believe that, and decide that it's better to talk in a direct and forthright way, I am willing to be approached. But it's unfair to criticise someone as being unwilling to listen when, actually, the person is only unwilling to be demeaned. I'm here and at TfD if you change your mind. --Bsherr (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is the "mind change" that I sense you seek: You want me to disregard the fact that you asked to be educated, and treat you in a way in which I consider to be demeaning. You want me to believe that you want to be educated, but when I try to do so, either you misinterpret my effort, OR you practice lawyering by only asking questions that you already know the answer to. You want me to change my mind about when editors blatantly disregard policy and take things to deletion discussions without due process. You want me to change my mind about your own disregard for said policy by performing so-called BOLD editing, that is truly just disruptive editing after a Tfd has delivered its decision and has been closed. It's just not going to happen. I'm not averse to changing my mind when I can be shown to be wrong. All you have done in this entire process is help prove to me that I'm right.

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  19:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to change your mind about any of that now. Only your method of discussion. --Bsherr (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You lost me. I don't have a clue what you mean. I've tried to be civil even after you blatantly went against policy, even after you blatantly circumvented the Tfd decision and then pulled the OMGAGF card on top of that. Most editors either accept or reject my method of discussion based on its merit or lack thereof. None have asked me to change it. First time for everything, I suppose. It is what it is, Bsherr.

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  04:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I undid your edit to the move request at Template:R help. {{Requested move}} should be substituted, and was. It produces a transclusion of {{Movereq}}. Your edit mistakenly substituted that. --Bsherr (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Good catch!  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  23:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.