User talk:Noe/archive1

Re:Labyrinth

You probably confused me with User:Pavel Vozenilek who removed the link. My edit was adding a russian interwiki. Grue 14:36, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Standard deviation

Hello. Thanks for pointing out my clumsy typing; I've fixed it. Michael Hardy 21:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fictional References for Pi

Dear Noe,

Given its properties, Pi presents good opportunity to conjure up mystic constructs in fictional work; A nice source of thought experiment. I was a little concerned about introducing spoilers on the books. But, i agree that a few words are required to form a context.

nik.. . 17:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Years and Numerals

Dear Noe,

Please read and comment on my years and dates proposal, affecting years that are also numerals. +sj + 20:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was and Were

Hi Noe, I'll reproduce some of your initial message and then reply:

The first of these fossils were unearthed in 2003...

The subject of this sentence is the word "first." "Fossils" is part of a prepositional phrase and must be excluded from references to singular/plural. An easy way of working through this is to think of the sentence without prepositional phrases; it becomes: "The first were unearthed." Since "first is a singular noun, the verb must also be singular so the correct version is "The first was unearthed."

Suppose it was seven fossils, couldn't it be

The first seven of these fossils were unearthed in 2003...

In this case "seven" is the subject and is plural. "First" is an adjective. "The first seven were unearthed."

Not knowing how many, couldn't it be

The first fossils were unearthed in 2003...

"Fossils" is not part of a prepositional phrase and is now the subject of the sentence. "First" is an adjective. "The first fossils were unearthed."

I hope that helps. --Aranae 20:25, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

G'day from Oz

G'day, my name is Axel Skovdam and I'm an English speaking native from Australia, and I only know a few words in Danish. If you haven't already noticed my name is Danish, so my question is how do Danes pronounce my name in Danish (using IPA). – AxSkov (T) 12:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_famous_people_with_attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder

You seem to have some interest in List_of_famous_people_with_attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder; would you like to comment over there regarding my proposal to VFD? I haven't done so yet, but I really think the whole thing is outrageously speculative. Cheers, PhilipR 16:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The 5 $/?/DM/£, etc. issue

I agree that the issue of what information about 5-dollar notes should be included in the article on the number 5 should have a proper discussion. As this issue also applies to a few other integers, I think it ought to be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers#RFC: Numbers in Currency. PrimeFan 18:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New "Temperaments" emoticon image

Dear Noe:

If I am correct, you are the one whp created the simple emoticons of the Four temperaments. You had said something about anyone improving the image, but it is a great representation of the temperaments. However; I thought you would be interested in the new Five Temperaments image I just posted, along with the new article on the Five Temperaments. I of course did not replace your image, because this is a whole new separate theory, with some additions and changes added to the faces.Eric B 04:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

some answers

Hi Niels ... I think u asked that some muslim to explain some points for you ... I think these points that i have already wrote in the talk page could summarize the opinion of muslims , these points doesn,t directed to u but maby have some answers :

it should be assured that those pics are totally imagninary and doesn't represent the true shape of Muhammad simply because there is no way to know the True shape , and muslem refuse these pics .
majority of Muslims : including Liberal and Extreme fundamentalist Muslims think that these pics carry bad racist ideas about Islam and Muslims .
many muslims refuse the anger campaign against Denmark , but still think that the Journal use the "Freedom of Speech " to express bad intentions , Islamophobia , Racism .
Considering the Islam is the only religion that has borders for Freedom of speech , is totally wrong , and they give the Example of Catholic Churce and Galilieo case . The understanding of Freedom in islam should be dicussed deeply and expressing the different schools of islam about this issue , i,m working about that with other muslim editors .
the Comparison of this case with other cases like critics of the Woman roles in Islam , isn't totally true ... Personally I accept any one to critisize some bad woman rules , cause I consider these rules Epression of a islamic school not for Islam , but when the Insulting is directed towards teh major Character of Islam , then that is attack against all muslims and not against Fundamentalists . and that make majority of muslims feel upset and they are descriped as Terrorists as their Prophet himself is Terrorist , so they descripe the Cartoons as racist and islamophobic , they are not against Fundemntalism but against Islam itself as they represent all muslims by the Prophet of Islam .
this issue represent one of the critical cases that face the new world order , or what is called Globalization . when rules of different countries contradicts . How could we gather rules of Blasphemy in Islamic countries with rules of Frredom of speech in secular countries , that gives new challenges for formulating kind of rules suitable for the Whole world not for small region or country ... It is big challenge .
The muslim Anger has other side doesn,t been taken into account : they feel anger from disputed use of Law in Western Countries , as they complain and that is related to new Expression of Islamophobia after 11/9 and to the past history of competition between islamic Impire and Roman Catholic Empire .

They give an Example by the Anti-semistic rules , that condemns any deny of Holucost or review of number of the Victims , and they consider these laws contradicting with Freedom of speech . so when the matter is related to Blasphemy about Muhammad , westerners claimed that is freedom of speech . as some user here said tehre is no anti-semistic law in Denmark , but u know when u talk about ppl they don,t differntiate between denmark and Holland and Us .

it is so important to assure that anger against picturing muhammed generally or in this way is hurting for all muslims , and couldn,t be critics for islam . and that what most ppl ask for .

I personally a liberal muslim and i can agree with u about some critics relating fundemntalist muslims and some ancient explanation of Islam but there is no chance to make a musllim happy with seeing this Insult of Whole Islam by picyuring Muhammed . This recognization is so important .

maby not all muslims protest , but i can assure that most if not all muslims feel upset and feel that they r attacked , offcourse the reaction if defferent from person to person , but u cannot picture the prophet of islam as terrorist and u wanna them to be happy .. this thing should be understood ... this pics carry an idea of generalization that all muslims are terrorism and criminals .

other point u should take into account ... the middle east situation is so complicated ... especially right now ... tendenct for extremism and anti-terrorism war and iraq-invasion , dis-represeantation of ppl by goverments , pressure from usa on some arabic goverments , anger from america and also from geoverments ...

I think i need too long time to explain all this complex interferred things , after all of that teh danish journal comes to make all muslims terrorist and criminals and that was also chance for goverments to get some popularity in this time ... ur journal with disrespect insult muslims and throw a fire on Explosive matters ..and that is the result ...

u were away from these problems but the acting of the journal was stupid and unresponsible as i think .

about the pics , yes i can see them ..i feel nothing when i see them cause i know exactly that these pics couldn,t represent muhammad , no one can , obviously these pics mean that we have to learn about each-other , we have a duty to explain islam to Europeans away from extrimist's Explanations and reactions of muslims minorities in europe ... this issue also has deep roots : historical and sociological .. and also i find it hard to explain briefly .

at last i hope this crisis will calm down down soon .. Peace for now --Unfinishedchaos 18:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of board games

Your message was so polite I didn't discover from it what your own opinions are. I've recategorized: three ancient board games whose rules are unknown, three nineteenth-century race games which are playable, but gosh, they're boring (comparable to snakes and ladders), and two others: The Landlord's Game and Cross and Circle game, both of which are also cross-categorized in other subcats of Category:Board games. Is there any particular one of these which you objected to?

My general object is to clear out Category:Board games into subcats since it was getting way too big. (Ultimately I'd like to have something like the German Wikipedia's de:Kategorie:Spielkategorie, where each game is multiply categorized.) For this reason I was being WP:BOLD with my changes on the assumption that a few things would be really too optimistic and get reverted. —Blotwell 15:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaoshan

Responded to your question there. (unsigned edit by user:Lu Xun 22:19, 4 May 2006

0.999… remarks

Dear KSmrq.

You have removed some material from the Proof that 0.999... equals 1, calling it distracting crap. I think that is a bad idea. Many Wikipedia readers and editors will "feel" that 0.999... < 1, and if the article only provides formal (to them incomprehensible) proof that 0.999... = 1, and perhaps a couple of informal (and therefore actually quite dubious) proofs, it will not really help them understand anything better. To whom were those paragraphs distracting? To those in the know? I think not; I trust they will be able to see what is what in this article. To the lay reader? I think not; on the contrary. In what sense is it crap? Well, if you think it needs improvement, help us improve it. Will you re-consider, or explain, your deletion?--Niels Ø 15:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you remove discussions from your talk page, rather than archiving them; the suggestion at Help:Talk page#Etiquette has evolved over time, but I believe archiving is still preferred. Since you posted a message on my user talk page (in the middle, where it was hard to find!), I'm responding in kind this once; but in future, this discussion belongs on the article talk page. If you go there now, you will see quite a number of comments by me and others on improvements to the article, including comments on the most recent version that suggest overall satisfaction with having the offending material removed and new material added at the end of the article, which is how the article now stands. If your view is otherwise, it would be much more helpful to have a discussion where everyone can see it. Thanks. --KSmrq^T 16:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fibonacci

I gave up editing articles on Fibonacci numbers, the golden ratio and related subjects a while ago; it's too frustrating with all the nonsense so many people believe in and want to include.

One way of solving this problem is to replace false assertions NOT with correct assertions, but with those PLUS cited evidence and liberal explanations to back them up. Your assertion that the sequence was erroneously named after Fibonacci left me unsure whether you were saying Fibonacci was never aware of the sequence, or learned it from someone else, or discovered it independently but later than someone else, or what. That's nowhere near enough information to be convincing. When you give enough information, people will be sufficiently impressed and let it stand. Michael Hardy 20:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Continued on Michaels page]--Niels Ø 06:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khayyam-Pascal triangle

Dear Noe

I'm sending you this message to prevent Edit war. I added "or Kayyam-Pascal triangle " because by seeing this page at the first time I fell in doubt if it was that. I'm from Iran and we always call this triangle "Khayyam triangle" or "Khayyam-Pascal triangle". As you can see this in Persian(Farsi) Wikipedia[1] and tajik one [2]. And the other revalant languages(Such as Urdu, Pashto,Azeri,Kurdi,Uzbek,...) don't have this article yet. You also can watch Keeper Movie (The legend of Omar Khayyam)[3][4][5]. In addition you can have a look at its invention history. Khayyam had invented it sevral centuries before Pascal and applied it for the other applications. Pascal just showed new applications of this triangle in the absence of the knowing about khayyam invension. I think "or Kayyam-Pascal triangle " is strongly needed for removing ~~dis~~ambiguation for hundred millions people. ~~--81.31.160.22 07:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)~~--Soroush ^{?talk | ¤Contributions} 07:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply at talk:Pascal's triangle.

Today's featured article

Just wanted to let you know a featured article you worked on, 0.999..., was featured today on the Main Page. Tobacman 00:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object lesson

Hi Noe. I've deleted this article because it was a dictionary definition. If you want to write a dictionary, please consider contributing to our sister project Wiktionary. If you want to write an encyclopedia article about it, please get at least 3-5 sentences of material other than the definition to start it off. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can still visit Special:Whatlinkshere/Object_lesson even if it's deleted to see which articles link to it. Not many articles seem to link to it. Short stubs can be good, but in this case, it specifically fitted a speedy deletion criterion as it was basically a rewording of the title: "An object lesson is a lesson with objects." (such phrases tend to be bad definitions). To qualify as an article, it need a tidbit of extra information. See Wikipedia:Stub. -- Mgm|^(talk) 10:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A certain editor

Hi, Noe. We think alike: I posted a nearly identical query in the Village Pump. They advised me to go ahead and start a user conduct RfC, so I did (there's a link to it on his talk page), and based on responses from others I think that was the right thing to do. I purposely didn't frame the RfC in terms of the talk page guidelines, because (as the guy pointed out) they're guidelines and not policy; but he clearly stepped on WP:ISNOT and WP:CIVIL.

It's probably best at this point to avoid further argument, and just see if he continues to do that kind of thing; if so, it can be kicked up to a further level of dispute resolution. It sure is a funny kind of dispute - all my experience before has been with people who either are pure vandals, or are trying to be editors and clashing over content/POV/etc. This is the first person I've seen who refuses to edit articles, and even if (as it kind of sounds) he's avoiding doing that in order to be able to bait people with impunity, at least it means he's not messing up articles.

It's not impossible that it'll just die down anyway; right now he's not really doing anything except continuing this particular argument, and being the kind of person who always has to have the last word is very annoying but not really a bannable offense (and I must admit that I'm probably lucky it isn't). Right now, continuing to engage directly on the article talk page might just be magnifying the disruption. I'm gonna take a week or two off anyway to deal with real-life matters. But if the random posts get out of hand again, the record is there to show that a lot of other editors have tried to reason with him. ←Hob 02:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your note on the RfC - probably the place to post the IP-checking question would be Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. But I'm not sure it's necessary - the sockpuppet, if any, doesn't seem to have been used for any actual abuse (e.g. voting, or avoiding a block). What the other user mostly does is to engage in very long dialogues on the first user's talk page... so actually I kind of hope they are two separate people, otherwise it's pretty creepy. ←Hob 20:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]