User talk:Lambiam/Archive 16

; Archives
	Archive 1: January 2006 – March 2006; Archive 2: April 2006 – June 2006; Archive 3: July 2006 – September 2006; Archive 4: October 2006 – December 2006; Archive 5: January 2007 – March 2007; Archive 6: April 2007 – June 2007; Archive 7: July 2007 – September 2007; Archive 8: October 2007 – December 2007; Archive 9: January 2008 – March 2008; Archive 10: April 2008 – June 2008; Archive 11: July 2008 – September 2008; Archive 12: October 2008 – December 2008; Archive 13: January 2009 – December 2009; Archive 14: January 2010 – June 2010; Archive 15: July 2010 – December 2010; Archive 16: January 2011 – March 2011; Archive 17: April 2011 – June 2011; Archive 18: July 2011 – September 2011; Archive 19: October 2011 – December 2011; Archive 20: January 2012 – June 2012; Archive 21: July 2012 – December 2012; Archive 22: January 2013 – December 2015; Archive 23: January 2016 – December 2017; Archive 24: January 2018 – December 2019; Archive 25: January 2020 – December 2021;

Intuitionism

I saw the fact tag you added to intuitionism, and tried rephrasing the text some. There is a different description of Brouwer's philosophy at [1]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

/* Discrete frequency */

Hi, I saw you changed my (almost content free) version of the article to a new title. I just wondered where you were planning on moving with this. Discrete frequency domain doesn't seem to have much worth talking about either, and this wouldn't really give much insight to someone looking it up. The only time I can think of when discrete frequency domains arise is for for a periodic signal (which redirects to periodic function). So I wondered whether a way forward would be to add a section about fourier analysis there and turn discrete frequency domain into a redirect to there. Regards, Dingo1729 (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Incidentally, I'd probably dispute the statement that a discrete fourier transform goes from a discrete time domain to a continuous frequency domain. It goes from a discrete domain to a periodic domain. Which one we call time and which one we call frequency is just convention from engineers. But this is just quibbling. Regards again, Dingo1729 (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure which of our user pages to reply on so I took the liberty of copying everything to talk:discrete frequency domain. I hope that isn't a problem. Dingo1729 (talk) 06:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Short Fall

Thanks for your comments here - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Public_private_trust; at least they were direct rather than nebulous. Verily, a premise for retaining the article was based upon self-publication, however an attempt to revise the article was presumed pointless. In my own circles of contact, my notoriety is fairly established; however some of the content requires anonymity and publication under pseudonym is preferred, which is another hindrance to being admitted to mainstream consideration.

I have filed more than a few copyrights, trademarks, and patents in the past, sometimes with legal help, as the legalize qualifiers are full of idiosyncrasies that often frustrate a novice. I read in the wiki documentation that there was a process for seeking assistance in navigating the pitfalls and challenges, although my time was limited for such efforts. Those who are able to provide notability for the public private trust are being contacted.

My only disappointment is the length of time in history it took to bring the challenges of such an idea forward. Verily, an attempt to create an independent article on collective ownership was considered, as that topic of collective ownership is included under common ownership, within which the Public private trust may be included with a reference to my source as an extended proposition. While collective ownership may be directly related with private ownership, even proportionally when it is established by agreement, common ownership is an affront to private ownership. It was considered comical that deletion of the article was spear headed by one proclaiming to be a communist.

Common Ownership Versus Collective Ownership In political philosophy, common ownership refers to joint or collective ownership by all individuals in society. Common ownership of the means of production is advocated, or asserted, by communism and some forms of socialism. Common ownership differs from collective ownership. The former means property open for access to anyone, and the latter means property owned jointly by agreement.[2] Examples of collective ownership include modern forms of corporate ownership as well as producer cooperatives, which are in contrast to forms of common ownership, such as a public park available to everyone.[3]

GeMiJa (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sac vs. saç

Hi, in the tava article, you changed the Turkish spelling from sac to saç. I believe both spellings are used, but interestingly, in the Turkish WP, the article on sheet metal is under sac, not saç. Is this just to distinguish it from saç in the sense of 'hair'? I'd suspect that the pronunciation was saç regardless of the spelling.

By the way, are you in Turkey? I will be in Istanbul starting on Thursday for 10 days. I was last there 30 years ago, so I'm sure a lot has changed (starting with the prices!). If you have recommendations of good restaurants, unusual sights or museums, etc., I'd be interested to hear them. Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gyros

On a different topic, there is a merge discussion going on at Talk:Gyros. Your input would be very welcome there, as national feelings seem to have trumped logic and Wikipedia policy. Even though we have reliable sources demonstrating that the food and the name doner were borrowed from Turkish (and 'gyros' was coined later), there are editors who -- for reasons that they haven't been able to make precise -- insist that gyros, shawarma, and doner kebab should remain separate articles. That makes no sense to me. Of course, there are variations and differences (just as there are for pizza or creme caramel), but it's basically the same food and the variations (in my opinion) should be treated as part of a unified article. Currently, the articles are very redundant. --Macrakis (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

This permission does not give you any special status or authority
Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 15:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lambiam/monobook.css

I've removed this as it creates some seriously mess copyright issues. I know from the village pump that you find the text annoying but it needs to be there.©Geni 00:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. —Ruud 10:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gap Year

I see you have been fighting a spammer on Gap year. After I blacklisted one link, they persisted with another (which I also blacklisted). If you see them come again, please report them immediately to the spam blacklist, MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, and have the spammer blocked ASAP. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please help with this category?

Hi Lambiam, I'm glad I found someone who knows how to adjust categories! :)

Could you please nominate this category someone made for a grammar adjustment?:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category:Opposition_against_Islam

This category really should be named "Opposition to Islam", rather than "Opposition against Islam".

Cheers, Tryptobieno (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 12#Category:Opposition against Islam. --Lambiam 18:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sticky notes

So I take it you're interested in the Wikipedia:Sticky notes idea? Because I think they would be great. In line citations can be distracting if there's too many because they are mid-reading. Remember that I'm suggesting tiny post-it squares will instead appear on the far right margin of the text. I was thinking that clicking on the sticky note beside the text will temporarily highlight the relevant text.-Tesseract²(talk) 18:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is no doubt a brilliant, important feature. I will add to Wikipedia:Sticky notes. Let me know of any other thoughts, even regarding who we must persuade to implement this-Tesseract²(talk) 19:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop that

Consolidating individual notes is a stylistic decision; please do not ever do such a thing to an article on which I have ever worked. If provokes the multiple note plague, and makes it much harder to add additional sources or qualifications. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bottle of good wine!

So, @Lambiam, I certainly would like to make good my promise regarding the holy grail of MHP studies! If you like to email me off-wiki I will try to get something good to you. How or what depends on the logistic issues. Richard Gill (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arborsculputre

Thanks I've replied on my talk page. Blackash have a chat 00:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing my typo. Blackash have a chat 13:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey

Hi! I've been working on an article that has a Turkish component which could use some further investigation. Basically there are a few Turkish words and concepts that I'm in the dark about. Do you possibly have some time and interest to help? --Lou Sander (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup has been appealed to ArbCom

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, thought you might be interested -Aquib (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to Boolean algebra

Hi Lambiam. I expanded the lead of this article. Any feedback on this (bugs, improvements, etc.) would be very welcome. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jagged 85 cleanup: article stubbing

Hello. You are invited to take part in this vote concerning the clean-up effort in connectuion with Jagged 85's RFC/U. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]