User talk:Adraeus/Archive002

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Microsoft 2 Atheism and page protection 3 Talk:Atheism 4 Pandeism - 1833 5 More Talk:Atheism 6 Question about VfD policy 7 Check out the vfd 8 Names and Surnames 9 a fallen saint 10 Clan Ramsay 11 Sockpuppets on poll

[edit] Microsoft

Please check your facts before editing Microsoft - the company is traded on the NASDAQ exchange, not the NYSE. I'm only mentioning this because it's the second time I've reverted this change recently. Rhobite 18:54, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

And I never claimed Microsoft traded on the NYSE. The problem is that NASDAQ provides less reliable information than NYSE due to various influences inherent to the structure of NASDAQ. Also see: Optimal Listing Policy: Why Microsoft and Intel Do Not List on the NYSE (PDF)

When you write "NYSE: MSFT" in an article, that means MSFT stock trades on the NYSE. This is pretty much the standard way of saying what exchange a stock is listed on, used on many investing sites and in other Wikipedia articles. To be honest I don't really understand your other concerns - are you saying the data on NASDAQ's web site is less accurate than the data on NYSE's web site? Where did you hear that? Even if this is so, it does not justify writing articles that inaccurately state that a stock trades on the NYSE. If the NASDAQ data is truly inaccurate, let's solve that problem instead of introducing other problems. Rhobite 23:28, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

You can't fix NASDAQ, and linking to the NYSE isn't an automatic declaration of what company lists where. Apply your logic to other cases to see why it fails. Adraeus 23:31, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We could link to some other quote site from Template:nasdaq, if we feel nasdaq.com is inadequate. I don't think there are any problems with nasdaq.com, but I'm interested in hearing more - do you have a source for your claim?

We should not erroneously claim that Microsoft trades on the NYSE. Yes, writing "NYSE: MSFT" is an automatic declaration that MSFT trades on the NYSE. That is how every reader will interpret it. Read any article in any investing publication (Forbes for example). After the name of a company, they say the exchange it trades on in parentheses: e.g. "Standard & Poor's Equity Research upgraded Lockheed Martin (nyse: LMT - news - people ) to "hold" from "sell" and raised the target price." [1]. They wouldn't say "nasdaq: LMT" or "amex: LMT", because Lockheed Martin trades on the NYSE. We should adhere to this standard. Please give me another case where my logic fails. Rhobite 23:53, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an investing publication. Wikipedia is an academic reference. External links are references. External links are not claims of fact. Do you know how to think objectively? I suggest you attempt separating facts from inferences because your entire argument is based on a subjective interpretation of what something might imply. Adraeus 23:57, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, clearly you have your opinion and I have mine. It would be nice if you didn't resort to personal attacks. It's disappointing to see that you continue this behavior even after your month-long ban. I brought this up on Template talk:Infobox Company; please continue it there, if you can act with civility. You will not receive any more responses from me if you insult me again. Rhobite 00:10, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Don't kid yourself. I made no personal attacks. Again, think objectively. Adraeus 00:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism and page protection

I think my remarks were pretty appropriate in context, for the reasons I've outlined there. If you sincerely believe I've displayed a low degree of civility, you might try applying a similar degree of scrutiny to some of your own recent edit summaries and talk page comments. Alai 22:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Atheism

On review, it appears to be a policy problem. Too many strong POV's, and no effective method of determining the truth other than endless debate and revert wars of attrition. I agree w dab mainly, I don't think weak atheists are atheists, and atheism isn't a natural state, but thats just my opinion. As far as what needs done, I think you making a modest amount of noise (like w a RfC) is a good idea. Don't push too hard, or something might break. The answer is a long needed policy change to assist w POV differences, an answer other than democracy (most people are usually wrong ;) I'll keep looking into things. If your bored, you can always read User_talk:Sam_Spade/Theoretical_Biases#Of_God_and_Logic. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 00:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pandeism - 1833

• I just found conclusive evidence of the use of the term "Pandeism" dating back to 1833 [2], being used by Godfrey Higgins, a follower of John Toland, the creator of pantheism.[3]. The term is used in a book written by Higgins called the Anacalypsis. -- 8^D BD2412^gab 10:52, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
  • Sorry about the "Wikipedia" joke in the Higgins article... couldn't resist (but it was funny). -- BDAbramson ^thimk 00:21, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

    Meh. I assumed it was just the way you write. Adraeus 00:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More Talk:Atheism

Since this is still unconventional and not often done, check if you agree with my refactoring. Covering up my own idiocy plays a minor role compared to not wasting other people's time with it. JRM · Talk 12:19, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

At first, I was wondering why you posted this, but after reading Talk:atheism I understood. Refactoring is interesting because it is extremely similar to my ideas about verbal concision in composition. Unfortunately, the same principles of clarity aren't promoted by Wikipedia to editors for effecting its articles. Regardless, nothing useful lost; although, I think Mel Etitis' ad hominem comments are completely out-of-line and his usership should be... refactored... He's a far better admin than he is a cooperative and contributive editor. Adraeus 16:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question about VfD policy

Isn't there some policy on discounting votes cast before a complete rewrite? The Pandeism article was rewritten as of 13:28, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC). By my count, there have been 7 votes to Delete and 9 votes to Keep since then (including votes cast before that date and later reaffirmed). Holistically, there have been 19 votes to Delete (12 cast before the rewrite) and 11 to Keep (2 cast before the rewrite). By the way, thanks for your support - this has been a tough time, and it's good to have a friend here. -- BDAbramson ^thimk 04:25, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

[edit] Check out the vfd

Either my computer has gone haywire, or the whole vfd has been massively vandalized. -- BDAbramson ^thimk 04:43, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

• Never mind, now it looks fine - I logged out and logged back in and it was all cleared up (but before it looked like the whole bottom half had been bolded and crossed out) - was it vandalized and then fixed right away, or was that just my computer? -- BDAbramson ^thimk 04:48, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

[edit] Names and Surnames

Adraeus, how do you feel about articles on names and surnames? The discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames is currently leaning fairly heavily towards deletionism. -- BDAbramson ^thimk 01:17, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

[edit] a fallen saint

Adraeus, your praise honors me and humbles me. And I truly appreciate it. Alas, the fact that the vote currently favors those opposed, and the lengthy comments critical of my proposal, are proof that I have not offered effective arguments, for which I am truly sorry. One of the things that drew me to Wikipedia is its NPOV policy, and the possibility that I do not really understand it, or that so many other active editors do not understand it, drives me to despair. If you think you can offer any cogent responses to any of those who are critical of the proposal, please do so. Perhaps you can succeed where I have failed ... Slrubenstein | Talk 01:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I doubt I can surpass the mighty standards you've laid before me. Thanks a lot, Slrub-a-dub-dub! ;p Now I'm too insecure to comment... Adraeus 01:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clan Ramsay

Hi! I just noticed your entry on Clan Ramsay listed on the Cleanup Taskforce page. Don't you think it would be better to merge the page on Clan Ramsay into the page on Ramsay? I think this would be especially beneficial seeing that the Ramsay page already contains a section for the Scottish history of the family. Ganymead 04:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

See Scottish clan for a list of Scottish clans. Each clan uses the [[Clan name]] format. I don't care either way, but if Clan Ramsay is merged to Ramsay, then the other clan pages should merge with their counterpart name pages accordingly. Adraeus

[edit] Sockpuppets on poll

Hi. You said on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate that you think some of the users voting "oppose" are sockpuppets. You should tell one of the developers on the #mediawiki IRC channel, and they may be able to do a sockpuppet check for you. Remember to ask them to check possible sockpuppets on both lists, since I recognise more users voting "oppose" than "support". - Mark 04:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I recognize everyone voting "support". Aside from RickK, I recognize no other user voting "oppose". Thanks for the information. Adraeus 04:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I recognise the following users voting oppose: violet/riga (from a past dispute), RickK, James F. (arb com), David Gerard (arb com), Evil Monkey (from IRC), Delirium (long time user), Angela (long time user, elected to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees) and Geogre (from IRC). Those voting in favour I recognise are SlimVirgin, Eloquence, BrokenSegue (I think) and Neutrality. - Mark 05:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)