User talk:Leibniz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] The off-side rule and Landin

Hi Leibniz, nice to see your addition on the history of the off-side rule! Where did you get this information, the source would be interesting in the article too? (You can answer here.) --TuukkaH 16:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It is in the Landin article linked after the quotation: see page 160, left column, third line from the bottom. Leibniz 17:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't more specific (I thought you had read Talk:Off-side rule). Although the article can be seen as the introduction of the term, I didn't find it discussing the origin of the term, football or not. --TuukkaH 17:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Since Landin is English, I assumed a cultural reference to offside in football (i.e., soccer) is obvious. If you really want to be sure, you could mail him and ask nicely; see [1] for his email.


[edit] Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Recognition

I notice that the page Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Recognition overlaps quite a bit with List of animals (Borges). It seems like the pages need to be rewritten so that the contents do not overlap much or one of the pages should be deleted. What do you think? --Pierremenard 19:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that they should be merged. Leibniz 20:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proof by Assertion

I brought this up because Proof by Assertion was often used by my lecturers to shape a bigger argument without getting bogged down in detail. Non-obvious things could then be analysed in more detail later. It might be worth mentioning in this context, as it applies to the other forms of Mathematical proof given. What do you think? Stephen B Streater 21:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are mixing the logical fallacy of proof by assertion with leaving out unnecessary details, which one does nearly all the time in proof (for human audiences). I hope your lecturers were clear that they had not actually proved everything, but left out bits as "exercise for the interested reader". Leibniz 21:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes - we had a different definition to "Proof by Assertion" from the one given here. Basically, a one step proof. Stephen B Streater 21:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
That should not be called a "proof". Leibniz 15:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
It's a joke. Stephen B Streater 15:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technical Analysis

Hi Leibeniz

Hope you are well. I noticed you made some changes to the recent entries that I made, and I can see your point.

When I initially read the Technical Analysis section, one of the points that came across was that there was no real evidence supporting the merits of using technical analysis. I did some research and found a series of investors who have out performed the market consistently using technical analysis with the Renaissance Technologies seemly having achieved the best results. I have no desire to advertise their hedge fund, but thought it would be useful if readers had some evidence of success through use of technical analysis.

Possibly I should move a toned down version of the suggested ammemdments to the Criticism section?

All the best Dary

Welcome to Wikipedia, Dary I see your point about the track record of that firm. However, I do not consider isolated examples to be of the required significance and objectivity for an encyclopedia. The kind of hard evidence I would like to see (for or against) is things like articles in peer-reviewed economics journals, with references.
Thanks for the welcome to Wikipedia and guidance as to what type of articles / references can be submitted.

[edit] Günter Grass

You have indeed caught me reading too quickly. I misunderstood the following sentence from Spiegel: Grass wurde mit 17 einberufen und kam vom Arbeitsdienst zur Panzerdivision "Frundsberg," die zur Waffen-SS gehörte. However, the sentence before this one did give me the impression that Grass had not been an anti-aricraft auxiliary: Der "Blechtrommel"-Autor war nicht wie bislang bekannt lediglich 1944 als Flakhelfer ingezogen worden.

This information came across on Spiegel's English-language site as: From the middle of 1944 until the end of the war in the spring of 1945, Grass served in the Frundsberg tank division of the elite military outfit. Previously, he had contended that he was a teenage helper of an anti-aircraft unit.

You may be in position to clear up this (minor) question about his service as a Flakhelfer prior to his induction into the Frundsberg Division.

Sca 22:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Just trying to get the facts straight. The ratio of facts to verbiage on GG in the last few days has not always been favourable. Leibniz 22:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, in the German Wiki article, it says: Zuvor hieß es in den veröffentlichten Biografien des Schriftstellers stets, er sei 1944 Flakhelfer geworden und danach als Soldat einberufen worden. But that doesn't clear it up, either.
Sca

[edit] Tony Reed

I am the artist that this article addresses. I don't care whether I have an article on this site or not, but apparently at least one fanatic does. I don't challenge deleting the article so much as I suggest blocking the account of the user. After actually reading the article, however, I propose that it be changed. There are some things that Qabbalah wrote about me that are not completely true and some notable things that were left out. Also, there's some personal information posted there that I prefer not to be accessable to the public. How did he get my wedding photo? I certainly agree that the pages dedicated to my albums ought to be removed or merged. The same with Cafe Graffiti which was not notable except, perhaps, as a side note. I will be happy to change it myself, but I don't know how so you'll have to bear with me as I learn.

Not that this matters, but.. RE: WP:MUSIC, There are two "notable" credits - 1. I toured South America and Mexico with Elegant Machinery - 2. I have been played on "Alternative" stations owned by Clearchannel (Something I regret, but it qualifies) Also - It is important to note that I have sold enough copies of my first two albums to earn a gold record, but I refuse to join the pathetic agencies that masquerade as unions, so I don't qualify.User:TonySReed

  • You are officially a sockpuppet. Leibniz 20:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Zalewski

Hi, I don't know if you're new to patrolling new page or the deletion process, but you might find it useful to read Wikipedia:Speedy deletions and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Biographies that don't assert the notability of the person can be "speedy deleted", saving time on the process for everyone involved. Thanks for your contribution nonetheless. Equendil Talk 19:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I thought someone could argue that being "7=4 Adepts and co-chiefs of Thoth Hermes Temple" asserted notability. You never know with these occultists. Leibniz 20:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emfazie Hoax

Great catch on the Argusto Emfazie III hoax. It's hard to believe this article has been around since February 2002, and you're the first one to really dig into it. I've added my findings at the AfD discussion, so hopefully this mess will finally be cleared up. Again, nice work! --Satori Son 20:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doodoocaca

FWIW, I am an administrator with nearly four years experience, bureaucratic rights on two other Wikia projects, six features and a slew of original articles to my credit. The article at Doodoocaca was not a speedy deletion candidate, was selected by other users as being worthy of consideration for a project dedicated to Flash animation and was nominated in bad faith by a user with a history of same. I have taken the time to restore my work. Please discuss this with me on my talk page if you have any other questions. Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 04:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but my nomination was hardly in bad faith, and I take serious issue with the allegation (without proof) that I have a history of bad faith nominations, when that is not the case. I listed my opinion in the AfD, and whether you agree with that or not, that's what the AfD process is there for. MikeWazowski 04:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Never mind; sorry to have been a bother. I've apologized to Mike and the article has been sent back to AfD. Thanks for your diligence. Looks like this goof was entirely mine for adding this in the first place and that you were entirely justified in nominating it. - Lucky 6.9 05:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I was accusing MikeWazowski of trolling which was unjustified. Sorry about the flare-up. - Lucky 6.9 00:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/e/i/User_talk%7ELeibniz_97ff.html"