User talk:P0lyglut

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Note to visitors who may have beef with my edits:

  • if you are a student, chances are i despise you.
  • if you are a wikipedia addict (e.g. several tweaks every day or with some wiki awards or reverting watchdog), chances are i despise you.
  • if you are a OpenSource fanatic, chances are i despise you.

If you are one of the above (chances are you are all of the above) and have serious beef with whatever i was doing, chances are i don't give a flying fuck about you, and also will not respond to whatever shit you might have to say. Report me, lock me, ban me, or do whatever it is that you do.

the particulars Who might earn my respect on wikipedia:

  • people who have donated money.
  • people who contribute solid materials. (e.g. writing whole paragraphs or complete articles, especially on things that cannot be found on internet)
  • people who are knowledgable and loving.

Be sincere, regardless what's your nature, and i will hear you out.

Thanks.

Xah
xah@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/

Xah Lee 11:43, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] the Army of Wiki-morons

one is tired of the army of wiki morons. The nature of wikipedia is that, professionals usually refrain from contributing to the area of their expertise. Why? First of all, it would low down their status. A respected expert is not going to “contribute” to a avant-garde “encyclopedia”, for, they have written books and are paid to write. Writing for wiki certainly don't fit their professionalism.

But secondly, and most importantly, the motherfucking army of wikipedic morons is there to fight whatever insight or serious info professionals may contribute. These wiki morons, mostly consists of students, slackers, computing geeks... don't have fucking nothing to do everyday, and self-smug with a smattering of knowledge, think themselves as holder of justice et al, with full-fledged fucking wiki-rule this and npov that (and half of them openly have their OpenSource ideology to sell), will blow away or fuck up any expert's contribution in no time, even for subjects that are not controversial.

in a sense, this is unavoidable and a weakness of wikipedia, despite wikipedia's tremendous usefulness and the overall trust-worthyness. Wikipedia by itself is a massive of info, of which's utility and general benefit to human animals is far beyond any other commercial and professional encyclopedia out there can be. However, when it comes to deep academic subjects or when depth or seriousness are examed, wikipedia is a laughing stock.

I'm writing this for whoever may be reading my talk page. I do so despise the wikipedian fuckheads, though rather nameless.

See also: http://xahlee.org/PBooks_dir/books.html

Xah Lee 06:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Book

[edit] welcome to wikipedia

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them;

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

snoyes 05:38, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

thanks P0lyglut 21:43, 2003 Nov 26 (UTC)

Please have a look at Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Minor edits. Thanks, snoyes 03:02, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'll say it again: Please have a look at Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Minor edits. --snoyes 03:17, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

to snoyes: i've just read the link you suggested about the Minor Edit. Specifically, changing even a word should be considered major. Ok. Thanks. P0lyglut 03:32, 2003 Nov 27 (UTC)

Good call on the wu shu vs. gongfu terminology change. Patrick0Moran 07:26, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Please don't mark changes and additions of several paragraphs as minor edits, like in Unix. Thanks. --Shallot 19:33, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] on English plurality

Please tell me more about "criterions" being an acceptable alternative plural of "criterion". This is very much news to me. JackofOz 05:07, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

hi JackofOz. Please see AHD, websters, and or Merriem-Websters at dictionary.com and m-w.com. I have a thing about these English things. For example, i'd use programing, polyhedrons instead of the mainstream alternative, among others. Thanks. English is fascinating, in that there are tons of things that can be rectified, and i think this can be done thru us, with faster and faster results as the internet catapults us into a efficiency and massiveness of communication never imaged possible just a decade back. Xah P0lyglut 23:34, 2003 Dec 8 (UTC)

Cheers for that. I also am an observer of the changing face of English. Plurals from other languages are a real issue, though. On the one hand, just because a word is borrowed from another language, does not mean that we also have to borrow all the associated grammar. Once the word becomes a recognised word in the English language (albeit by adoption), from then on generally speaking we should use the standard English-language way of forming the plural of that word. But on the other hand, old habits die hard. Would you, for example, say 'phenomenons' or 'phenomena'? We say "mediums" for a group of psychics, but "media" for the plural of the other meaning of 'medium'. We use the word 'datum' for a single piece of information, but I've never heard of the plural 'datums', the original Latin plural 'data' still being considered the norm in English. JackofOz 23:03, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi JackofOz, i agree with your sentiment. Thanks. Xah P0lyglut 23:34, 2003 Dec 8 (UTC)

The principle should be "an English plural is never wrong." Personally I write criteria, phenomena, axes and theses, but if a student wrote criterions, phenomenons, axises and thesises, I would not correct them. It should not be a requirement to write good English that one knows how to form a Greek plural. (What, for example, is the correct plural of caucus?) Adam 23:26, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in a few minutes of web searching, I haven't been able to find numbers, so I was going on what I remembered. [1] has some numbers. Unfortunately, they are for server software, and Apache runs under multiple platforms. Of course, we could just use server software penetration instead of server OS penetration. As for OS's, [2] indicates that Linux's sales are growing. It may be that it is impossible to get a correct overall count of OS usage (e.g. Microsoft is reported as IIS on Linux because web requests to them first go through Linux servers). Anyways, if you can't find any numbers on server OS's, then server software could substitute. After all, it is easier to change and may more accurately reflect what people want to be using. (apologies for the rather incoherent writing style -- I think I'm getting a headache) Paullusmagnus 21:58, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I finally found a number: "41% of the internet-server market and 25% of general business servers" [3] unfortunately, the source is likely to be pro-Linux and it doesn't cite anything else, but it's the first place I can point to a number at all. Paullusmagnus 15:16, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the findings... Xah P0lyglut 03:05, 2003 Dec 11 (UTC)

The content you added at Encarta was well-needed, thank you for that :) However, the review/editorial style text doesn't sound very encyclopedic, but more importantly doesn't hold well with the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Please try and keep a neutral point of view in future.

By the way, did you see my response to your concerns on the Dvorak keyboard at my talk page? I wasn't sure exactly how I could act on your concerns.

Thanks :) Dysprosia 01:45, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've just deleted the misspelt images. Dysprosia 06:47, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You asked on the village pump for your account to be cancelled. If you still want this, I suggest you contact a Wikipedia:developer. If you just want to change your username, please see Wikipedia:Changing username. Angela. 21:49, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Hello! So happy to hear that you enjoyed the articles on Rosicrucians! the articles on Rosicrucians and AMORC will be updated soon and continue being updated for as long as I have something to add. I had a visit at your personal web site and I enjoyed it, it has many interesting sections such as the one about English word usage. With Best Wishes for Peace Profound, Optim 19:06, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

just want to say thanks for the many quality math articles you contributed. I enjoyed them extremely. Xah P0lyglut 14:06, 2004 Jan 7 (UTC)

Thank you -- I'm glad someone's reading them. Michael Hardy 21:57, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Garuda

You're welcome! I've put an image of a Balinese depiction of a Garuda on the talk page of this article. Meursault2004 15:40, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi, on your question, I would imagine it would be the same as reverting any other page. Which one did you have in mind, what needs to be done with it, etc.? - Hephaestos|§ 13:39, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I would if I could, but I was working from a description, not the source. - Nunh-huh 23:17, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese Phoenix

Glad you like it! And sure, you're welcome to use the image on your site. prat 08:53, 2004 May 18 (UTC)

[edit] Caryatids

Yes the photo is by me, and yes feel free to use it with credit to me (and maybe a link to my website). Adam 23:23, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Helicoid

P0lyglut, I'm glad you liked my cross-cap article. By the way, I expanded the helicoid article you started, and there's one question: what is a trace of a line? Could you define trace (geometry)? --AugPi 01:39, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There is no specific thing as "trace (geometry)". I just found out that a page in MacTutor links to your web page. That's awesome. But, wait, your site also links to MacTutor! LOL. --AugPi 05:56, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


[edit] re: 'Digital commons'

P0lyglut,

Please can I ask that you make the effort to explain what you think is wrong with that paragraph from the Tragedy of the commons article, before you try deleting it again. It is usual to extend that courtesy, especially when there is a difference of opinion with another contributor. So far you have done nothing more than assert that it is 'propaganda'; you have also, unfortunately, used inflammatory words like 'moron' and 'shit' in your edit summaries — I'm afraid I don't find that attitude very helpful.

You can either give your explanations on the Talk page attached to the article, or else you can do it here if you prefer. Thanks. R Lowry 03:49, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm on your side on the whole tragedy of the commons thing, I just think you are going about the issue in the wrong way. You might want to look at Wikipedia:Profanity and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Attacking other Wikipedians using profanity is not a good way to get your viewpoint heard. anthony (see warning) 12:08, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You've given it a rest for almost a year, and now you're at it again. Saying "Fuck Wikipedia addicts" isn't going to win you much support around here. Are you going to start revert wars here like you did on Christianity? This is a public resource, not your personal blog. If your opinion differs from that of the rest, discuss it on the entry's Talk page, please. OwenX 11:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Xah's note: on the issues of the article “Tragedy of the commons”, is that, now and then some OpenSource morons will come in and say that wikipedia is a counter example, or that OpenSource is counter example. Perhaps these assholes should also add that Sperm Bank, womanizing are all counter examples. Xah Lee 18:09, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

P0lyglut, these people may very well be morons, but why do you consider them to be "assholes"? We may not agree with their opinions, but at least they don't engage in revert wars, mark their edits with "Fuck wiki addicts!", or refer to everyone else as a "fuckface". If I had to choose between morons and sociopaths, I'm not sure which I'd pick; thankfully, I'm too busy to engage in senseless revert wars with you. Go knock yourself out--edit Christianity and Tragedy of the commons to reflect your own, personal opinions, and screw the rest of us. OwenX 23:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Snowballing

Re: "Removed ridiculous guesses" - if I'd thought it was remotely within the bounds of etiquette I could have justified the 'guess' by saying "Adambisset and his partner enjoy snowballing because..." but I'm not sure that Wikipedia articles are the place to profess sexual predelictions. That's why I made a generalised statement giving a reason why a couple may enjoy the practice. I won't revert the edit if it offends.User:Adambisset|Adambisset]] 01:47, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your response :-) Adambisset 11:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Manifold

There isn't much point you adding material several times to this page. If you want to add something, it needs to be more carefully written, for one thing. For example, not Frederic Gauss; it's Carl Friedrich Gauss, as you can easily check on this site. Also there are other places which explain some of these points. Insisting will only waste everyone's time. Charles Matthews 19:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Xah's note: Charles Matthews is a serious contributor to math articles. This event Charles referred to was that one day i added some "Easy intro" to the manifold page. The style and content being contrary to the mainstreaming mathematicians morons, it is being almost universally condemned. They reverted back, citing that it is bad content and “incorrect”. I have made some sketchy record of my argument on the talk page, see:

http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/t2/cmaci_ciska.html

To see what i have to say about manifold, see:

http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/mathterms.html

Xah Lee 17:36, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wind turbines picture

See my user talk Leonard G. 05:44, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Image tag

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

  • Image:Dvorak_keyboard.jpg

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status?

You can use {{gfdl}} if you release your own work under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{PD-self}} if you wish to release your own work to the public domain, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, and so on. Click here for a list of the various tags.

If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the image from, and I'll tag it for you. Thanks so much. Denni☯ 04:23, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at Wikipedia:Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

[edit] Tsunami page

I found the image on the Tsunami page to be very informational, and not asinine as you claim Brownman40 07:59, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would also like to request why you call it that way.
-Henk Poley

Xah's note: round 2004 dec in the Indian Ocean Tsunami disaster page, there is a image drawing showing a iconic picture representing a person and a scaled ruler of 10 meters, as to give the reader a sence of how high is a wave of 10 meters. This image, is in conjunction in the article that talks about arcane things understood only by seismologiest. i deleted the image, and people reverted it back a couple of times. Now the image is not there. Observe the moronicity of wikipedians, majority rulez. Xah Lee 22:52, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

[edit] MathWorld

Hey, I saw your edit to MathWorld and the ensuing discussion on the talk page. I seem to think there is little chance that MathWorld has large errors since it's also published in hardcopy by the CRC Press (you can read about this dispute at the MathWorld page on wikipedia) which is well respected and has a vested interest in protecting it's reputation. If you could, would you please provide me with some example URLs on MathWorld where there are significant errors so that I may verify them? I have some qualification to verify them myself and for all others I will ask other mathematicians who are greater than I to help verify. If it turns out you're right then all that is needed is a toning down in the wording to confirm to NPOV (yes, I already read the dispute on this at Talk:MathWorld), but if it turns out there are no such examples perhaps the section ought to be eliminated. In any case, thank you for contributing and I hope you'll work with us to make wikipedia the best that it can possibly be.

Cheers,

-08:26, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Error with Single-Handed Dvorak Keyboard Layout Images

Excuse me for saying this, but I think the single-handed Dvorak keyboard layout images you made for the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard article are incorrect. I tried using your images as an on-screen keyboard to type left-handed in Windows XP, and found that the keys didn't match up. So I looked up single-handed Dvorak keyboards, and I found this: Single-Handed Dvorak Alphanumeric Layouts, which does match up to the Windows XP single-handed Dvorak keyboard layouts.

- 15:22:47 21 April 2005 (UTC)

hi, don't know who you are... but that image is from a keyboard layout for Mac directly downloaded from the official site. dinternational org or com, around 2001. So, i think it is trust worthy. single handed dvorak is not popular and i don't doubt there are discrepencies. Exactly what you mean different? how they differ? the site you gave is not accessible. Xah Lee 15:41, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
Sorry, I made an error in my wiki, which is why the link didn't work. I fixed it. Here it is again: Single-Handed Dvorak Alphanumeric Layouts. Here's a few other websites I found with the same keyboard layout:
Intro to Keyboard Manual
Dvorak Keyboards
Dvorak Keyboard Layouts (from Microsoft)
Here's another, but on this site, they have the right and left reversed in comparison to the other few: Dvorak Keyboard
11:52 23 April 2005
interesting. Thanks for the note. Perhaps add these to the dvorak talk page and see what others say? i don't know much about singled handed dvorak. Perhaps there were revisions? Xah Lee 18:45, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
aside from which one being THE standard layout for a moment... i did some comparison, and noticed the one in wiki are actually not that different. The difference is that one has the number pad in 3 columns, while the Microsoft one has 2. Apparently, the one with 3 columns is more convient. So, i think it is a improved version in some way. Xah Lee 00:48, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
Where is the Dvorak Talk page?
The other major difference in on the left-handed keyboard layouts, where the numbers are on different sides of the keyboard. 03:20 26 April 2005

The dvorak talk page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dvorak_Simplified_Keyboard yes, the MS one has numbers split. That's why i think the current one shown seems to be a improved version.

[edit] request

Please stop putting your opinionated remarks on math articles and linking to a bad article considered for deletion. This is not helpful. Oleg Alexandrov 23:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Xah's note: There is a page on mathematician G H Hardy. This guy has written a pop book called “A Mathematician's apology”. On the wiki page, wiki morons being what they are, made a assertion of the effect that this is the best book about mathematicians ever. I deleted such fucking ass pop view, but pop wikipedians cannot have it. This is one of the event Oleg Alexandrov refers to. The other event, is that in the i think Euler article wikimorons wanted to say that he is considered top or so and so ranking of mathematicians. I have added a page Greatest Mathematicians that attempted to follow pop wikian's ferver. Xah Lee 17:13, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stalking

Dear P0lyglut. Could you please explain where I stalked you? Was it in G. H. Hardy where you remove some good words about a book, or was it in Leonhard Euler where I removed your link to the greatest mathematicians article, or later, when I corrected some text you insterted? Please note that I had edited those articles before you, as such it was normal for me to check those articles.

You are right about one thing, I decided to take a look at your contributions, and I fixed a style mistake you made in Gauss map.

However, all these together, do not charaterize as stalking, not how I see the term. (Well, I also voted your greatest mathematicians for deletion after I saw it linked in Leonhard Euler, but that's because it's a bad article, so that one does not count either).

Now, could you please explain what you have against the essay of G. H. Hardy? That would be much appreciated. You can write here, I will keep this on my watchlist. Oleg Alexandrov 20:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i only have issue on G H Hardy case. That is, if one deem my edit of his book to be opinionated, than one shouldn't add the uncritical remark about how great that book is either. Thanks Xah Lee 01:18, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
You have a good point. Usually on Wikipedia POV is bad. However, there is fine a distinction between saying bad things and saying good things. Not that one should pour excessive praise on some subject, but, mentioning a few good words on a book considered by very many mathematicians a classic, should be OK. And besides, as mentioned by the person who reverted you, there is good factual information in that sentence, it says that the book provides insight in the mind of a mathematician. So let that informative and a bit appreciative sentence be there, even if you personally don't like the book. Oleg Alexandrov 02:12, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to your question on my talk page

why did you revert my edits for rambling rose, bipolar coordinate, and Nonfirstorderizability? Xah Lee 07:48, 2005 Apr 30

In the case of bipolar coordinates, despite the fact that what you wrote seemed plausible and perhaps interesting, nonetheless, if we are to judge by the Mathworld article, an external link to which now appears in the bipolar coordinates stub article, what you wrote was incorrect.

If you don't know, please check up real math references before axing. I like to revert the article but am not sure to keep all the format, so it might just be plain text. Xah Lee 01:37, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
Relax, nobody is stalking you. In bipolar coordinates you wrote:
In mathematics, bipolar coordinate is a coordinate system where curves are specified as the locus of points to two fixed points.
Besides poor grammar, your statement is incorrect. One family of curves, in this case, ellipses, is not enough to give you a coordinate system in the plane. You need two families of curves. Oleg Alexandrov 02:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

In nonfirstorderizability, the article began with:

In formal logic, nonfirstorderizability is an expression's inability to be adequately captured in standard first-order logic.

You changed it to:

In formal logic, nonfirstorderizability is a term that denote the (presumed possibility) of an expression's inability to be adequately captured in standard first-order logic.

... and you called it a "clarification". But it does not clarify; at best it confuses. The sentence as it was written was perfectly clear. "Presumed possibility" is simply not correct. Also, it is usually better to write "A dog is a animal that barks" than "Dog is a term in zoology that denotes an animal that barks", i.e. it is usually better to write about the thing than about the term that denotes it. Generally, only if there were some special reason to write about the term itself should one do so.

i also added a paragraph at the end. Do you have any basis on the reason you deleted the entire semantic part of my writings? Xah Lee 01:37, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
I'm sorry -- I did not notice the paragraph at the end. I would say, however, that it is highly philosophically POV. Michael Hardy 03:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

In Rambling Rose you wrote:

Rambling Rose' is a flower with tech name R multiflord Thunb.

Perhaps correct, at least if one fixes the typos and replaces the word "tech" with something more appropriate, and italicizes the taxonomic name. But the article as it stood was about a movie. These two topics don't belong in the same article. So maybe this article should be moved to Rambling Rose (movie) and a new article started titled rambling rose about the flower. Michael Hardy 22:25, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

before deleting a vandal's work, one better be sure. At the very least, hack only articles close to your knowledge. Thanks. Xah Lee 01:37, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
I don't think this discussion has anything to do with vandals. Michael Hardy 02:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bipolar coordinates

Xah, I thought you were on Wikipedia long enough to know that one should write (r1,r2) instead of (r1, r2), and that important concepts mentioned in an article should be links. I mean it is nice you contribute new articles, but a bit of attention to the detail does not hurt either. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov 20:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Xah's note: the issue with Bipolar coordinates article is that, a frequent math contributor Michael Hardy one day find one of my edit on a logic topic questionable. (who admitted he didn't even saw the edit i made at the bottom) He, then, apparently scrutinized my past edits and started a revert rampage. In this event, he reverted or deleted about i think 3 or 4 of my articles, almost all he don't know nothing about. (he just judged they being wrong possibly because of my writing style and other's reaction) One of them is the article Bipolar coordinates. He basically completely deleted it and inserted a tab that says the article needs info. (and later after some instant web research added a link to MathWorld entry that has stupid content) After several weeks, since i'm not familiar with wiki revert mechanism (and am not hot to learn it), i have started over with a small write of what i know about bipolar coordinates (i'm the original starter the article), but with much loss of other's contributions and nice formatting. Xah Lee 17:00, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Xah's note: another page Michael Hardy deleted my edit was the Rambling Rose page. Apparantly, he felt i'm a vandal even though he apparantly doesn't know anything about the subject. Michael Hardy was one of the person i have noted and respected on wiki, because of his large contributions to math articles. This was even noted on my user page. (now removed) I have even lefted a note of thanks on his page. (just noticed this recently. He may or may not remembered it when he suspected my vandalism) Xah Lee 17:00, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

That does not change the fact that you should put in more care when writing.
Besides, I do agree with Michael what what you wrote on bipolar coordinates was not of good quality.
So, a bit of advice from me. First, it is good to put more care when writing things. Second, it is good to tone down your talk (Talk:Perl).
I mean, we are all nice people doing good work and treating each other in a friendly manner, no? Oleg Alexandrov 17:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Linking to your own website

I've asked you about this before. Please do not link to your own website. There is clearly a conflict of interest if you add links to your own website. If you feel your links will contribute to the article, post your request to the talk page and someone else will do it for you, if they feel the links are appropriate. Dysprosia 08:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

advice noted. Xah Lee 19:52, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

Xah's note: i had run-in with the anonymous user “dysprosia” several times over different articles. I believe once is in Microsoft Encarta article, and once in the MathWorld article. (“dysprosia” is a wiki addict.) In the early life of Encarta article, it's basically slander by wikipedian morons with no real info. I inserted a large article of positive review. It is being cut down and down by wikipedian so a info-rich review at the end becomes bland no-info. I have made swearing at the wiki morons about this in the talk page. Fortunately, sometimes later someone has came in and added seriously quality info, and as of late ~2004 it is quite rich. Xah Lee 16:49, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Xah's note: The fight on MathWorld is that wikipedian internet morons wanted to insert their view and creeds while being ignoramuses. Basically i'm the first to really start that article with rare info. Months later, i inserted a paragraph about the quality of mathworld.com, that it being filled with fucking errors. But wikipedian morons don't know nothing about it. They feel differently just because they are morons and hear that MathWorld is a big book and OpenSourcy and thus can't be wrong. And, they are not shy about their no-opinions, and are willing to win by majority. Xah Lee 16:49, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I've made some sketch of the issue here:

http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/t2/mathworld_wikipedia.html

Xah Lee 16:49, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Violation on Christianity

You have been reported for a 3RR violation, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. In addition, your continued (bad) edits without any justification are contrary to Wiki policy. --Noitall July 8, 2005 07:07 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 24 hours for breaking the 3RR at Christianity as above. Thryduulf 8 July 2005 12:11 (UTC)

Xah's note: Folks, note that the anonymous user “Noitall” is Christian fanatic. He constantly use all ways to remove negative facts about christianity and insert positive items. For example, he wanted to insert a questionable stat that Christianity is the world's largest religion, in the intro, and delete the scholar and categorization about christianity. He uses all means to fight his way. He's past edits are often on topics related to Christianity, and he's been in edit war with others many times. Xah Lee 16:34, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • And Xah Lee is a proven nutcase. --Noitall 17:21, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Medusa

While I agree with you that Medusa should have the article about the Medusa of Greek myth (now at Medusa (mythology), in order to do that the disambiguation information currently on Medusa needs to be moved (not copied) to Medusa (disambiguation) and then Medusa (mythology)'s text needs to be moved (not copied) to Medusa and a disambiguation notice and link attached. Because the pages in question already exist and can;t be moved witha normal Move command, as far as I know, we can't do this without admin help. What you are doing to the article (erasing the content currently on Medusa and then originally creating a redirect to Medusa (mythology) but recently not even that, just leaving a comment to me where the article used to be) does not help the situation at all. DreamGuy 05:43, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

dear dream Guy, just look at the bottom line. After my edit, there is the medusa disambigation page, there's the the medusa redirect page, and there's the "medusa (myth)" page which do points out the disamb page. All's there and well. Thanks. Xah Lee 10:59, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
The bottom line is that you screwed up the page histories of the articles involved. While you may think your way makes sense, it doesn't actually work the way it's supposed to. Sorry, but we're going tohave to do things the right way. DreamGuy 13:42, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Xah's note: what this anonymous user “DreamGuy” doing is conformity. When i joined wikipedia about 200311, there's not much beaucratics. Today, everything's got a rule or policy: NPOV, no new research, copyright, naming convention, vote for deletion, and on and on. Most are not bad though, but independent thinking has been reduced greatly while the moron mass will use these rules to win their ways.

[edit] Talk:Perl

Your remarks may be given some weight if they demonstrated a respect for Wikipedia:Wikiquette. In particular (but among other things), please be civil and refrain from profanity and personal attacks. Buffyg 13:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Please stop linking your web site to the perl article. If you want to make criticisms, that's fine: please make them here where they can be reviewed under Wikipedia editorial policies. People have previously stated reasons why they don't think your cite should be included; you have responded with abuse and little else. This doesn't go a long way to convincing people who don't ascribe to the view that you are the "primary critic of Perl and its community of ignoramuses". Such linkspamming is against Wikipedia policy; it is even considered Wikipedia:Vandalism when someone links to their own pages. It is being reported accordingly. Administrative action will be sought if this persists. Buffyg 06:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List_of_idioms_in_the_English_language

In what way is "red light district" not exactly an idiom? Appears to be one to me. --Tagishsimon (talk)

idiom differs from other figures of speech or linguistical elements, such as similies, metaphors, analogies, allegories, allusions, jargons, slangs... There is no mathematical definition, but generally idioms need to be non-obvious, part of the language ... not slangs or jargons or euphomemes... idioms are in general not nouns. i'm not sure how "red light district" would be classified as... probably just aka. e.g. blowjob or humping (some secretary) would not be idioms. Xah Lee 01:14, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Perl

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Buffyg 14:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

As for your post to my talk page, I have elsewhere suggested what would be a more productive use of your time as regards the Perl entry: improving critical treatment of the subject via wikipedia collaboration. You can make something or nothing of this. By way of advice I can assure you that petty vandalism of the Perl site is received as an instance of the latter and continued behaviour of that sort is likely to lead to your being constrained to contribute less of the same. Buffyg 23:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfA support requested

You may recall that I provides a high resolution image of offshore wind turbines for your personal site.. I am currently soliciting support for Administrator status[4] and am requesting your comments there. Thanks, - Leonard G. 16:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for your support of my RfA, which I have formally withdrawn. The full text of my withdrawal and statement of appreciation is on the RfA page. Best wishes, Leonard G. 03:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bit Rate

You seem to have reverted my edits to bit rate without explanation. Can you please provide some explanation of why you did that? –Mulligatawny 16:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

sorry. I thought it is a better edit. For example, the reason CDs actually use far more bit rate than “CD Quality” music is because the CD actually need to encode the info, using some protocols that conforms to various standards or norms of the industry both in software and hardware, which includes overheads and redundancy etc. The alnernative explanation, going by some “because of advancing technology”, doesn't explain the gist. I feel the former is much better and to the point... feel free to edit back if you feel that's right. Thanks. Xah Lee 17:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I wasn't sure it was a great rewording myself. If it seemed even worse than before to someone else, then I guess it wasn't good enough. I'll leave it alone, at least for now. –Mulligatawny 02:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Schwartzian transform

I notice you've added a link to your own website as the first external link in Schwartzian transform. It seems to me like there would be a conflict of interest when you link to your own site. As sorting and Schwartzian transform are common topics, I would presume there exists a lot of more accurate and less ranty pages if we want to link to a HOWTO. I hope you find such a better page and put that in the external links of Schwartzian transform. --TuukkaH 08:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

in my opinion, that whole page is stinking stupid. The entire page should be deleted. Or, with content like “so and so is a somewhat well-known fashionable locution among xyz language cults ...”, that is, as a article on a social phonemonen. Nevertheless, i knew i couldn't fight & win with the MASSIVE number of coding monkeys, so i added my site instead as another reference/view point. Xah Lee 09:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry I don't quite feel you concerns. As I already implied, Schwartzian transform is a common topic (google for examples), and the article seems correctly scoped as "a technique in computer programming used to efficiently sort an array". As I see it, you can be motivated by your personal opinions but you shouldn't try to reason from them. "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;" (from NPOV). At least I'm interested if you find references of such. There has not been much activity on the article and nobody has yet removed my remarks that memoization is a more general solution to the problem. --TuukkaH 10:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Smith Corona

You created Smith Corona, someone else listed it for speedy deletion on the grounds that it's practically an empty article. I removed this tag instead of deleting the article, because you're a genuine user and not some fly-by-night bozo, but expand it some, okay? DS 19:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] User page

re this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:P0lyglut&curid=372911&diff=25694007&oldid=16231752. It is generally frowned upon to add obscenities to one's page, especially when you are attacking someone with them; no personal attacks. Also I saw your warning at the top, however something was unclear to me: I am a Free software fanatic. Do you despise me? --Maru (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of social network services

Hi. You requested a merge between List of Social network service and List of social networking sites. Do you mind if I move List of Social network service's information to the latter, then replace the former article with a redirect? Regards, --Perfecto 00:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

of course not! not at all! thanks :) Xah Lee 06:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-automated template substitution

what's the meaning of this? Xah Lee 04:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 27% for major edits and 91% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 32 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 20:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Ruler'N'Compass

I replied on my talk page. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikipedian fuckheads deleting articles

these days i seldomly edit wikipedia. However, i still spend several hours a day reading it. Perhaps a couple times a monht, i've started articles, but i've noticed some wiki fuckheads promptly deteletely them.

I'm noting here the pages i've created, so i have some basis to fight fuckheads that delete them. (deleted articles won't appear on your contribution list)

• Francis Brunn • Jacqueline Briskin • Davia Ardell • Taren Steele

i think there are at least one or two more, but unfortunately i forgot.

Xah Lee 01:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Fight Victory: Vendor Lock in

i'm glad that i've won a fight against the army of wiki fuckheads.

there's this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in which, wikifuckheads promptly asserted their Microsoft Hatred by enlisting Microsoft as a example and sole example of vendor lockin. I promptly added Apple Computer Inc example, and it is promptly erased. I inserted it back after a week or two, and my effor was erased immediatly again. (in general, i wait for a couple of days or weeks or even months to reinsert my effort, and don't do the so-called revert war with the wiki fuckheads)

So, this revert went on 2 or 3 times i think, and finally, someone else added to my Apple Vendor-Lockin example with legal cases, and thus set it down for permanent stay. Yay!

Fighting wiki fuckheads is hard, but it is rewarding to feel victory.

Xah Lee 01:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Fight Victory: Mandelbrot set

There is the article on the math object Mandelbrot set http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set however, it consists of ignorant tech geeker talk about drawing pretty pictures. In as early 2005-06 i decisively made a change to the article.

but it got prompetly reverted by self-proud know-all tech geekers.

again, i was persistant, and every week or month i come back to deface it into the way i think the article should be. This revert war went on about maybe 5 times in a span of few months. (note: i almost never do revert, but give their says some time, then after a week or when i had time i come back to do what i do)

Now, look at the article today! A LOT of mathematics! Thanks to me. I have won another wiki war with wiki ignoramuses. Xah Lee 10:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paris Las Vegas

Thank you for your link to your pictures. But Wikipedia disgorges person site links. If you would like to share your pictures. Please upload them and release them under a free licence if you don't want to release them under a free licence you can release them under a more restrictive licence. Thanks, Ben 17:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Falun-gong suicide.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Falun-gong suicide.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falun Gong edits

I think I may have just accidentally screwed up a major edit you did while trying to reverse a minor one I did. If so, I'm very sorry. CovenantD 03:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This edit destroyed a lot of useful tidbits, which is really peoples time and effort thrown away. Please repair the damage you have done. In future, edit sections rather than the entire article, and keep track of the page history. Jayvdb 08:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes. The problem with that page is that there's a army of falun gong gangsters meddling with it with all sort of shit cashing on wikip sensibilities. The article has become a falun gong propaganda. Given the way it is, it was and is a perpetual fight and tens of changes per day is basically remain a fucked up garbage article. Given wikip's condition, there's no simple way to resolve it. I don't have time to carefully rewrite the article, or engage in the endless perpetual and going-nowhere arguments, and nor anyone who really wished a reasonable article. A solution i'm trying to do, is when i have time, simply go and post my gradual rewrite. This may offen some who tries to make it a good article but i think in the end it's effect is however does good effects getting rids of garbage. Any other solution you might have? Xah Lee 19:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, we won't let it become FLG advertising. As mentioned above, I've reverted your latest edit because it took out a lot of info I had been adding linking the Chinese characters to Wiktionary. Cheers, --Fire Star 20:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
For some reason I'm not getting "Editing conflict" warnings any more, so if somebody makes a change while I'm editing I overwrite their work without any notice. I guess I just need to stay away from articles that change very rapidly. CovenantD 20:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


On second review, I take back my aplogy. I see that you have a habit of going onto the Fulan Gong article and just reverting to whatever version you last edited, wiping out everybody else's work. Some of us have worked hours on that article and what you do is VANDALISM. The next time I see such action on Fulan Gong I will bring it to the attention of an administrator along with a full record of every time you've reverted everybody else's work. That is just reprehensible. CovenantD 15:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excuse me?

Regarding the weird message you left on my user page. I am not "anonymous", I am an administrator who has been here for over two years. You should leave messages for people on their talk pages, editing user pages without permission is considered vandalism. I'd suggest you acquaint yourself more thoroughly with the policy of WP:Civility before addressing me in that tone again. --Fire Star 23:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Note to readers: this anonymous user “Fire Star”'s incident arose from a editing conflict in the Falun Gong article. That article, is in perpetual edit fight on wikipedia. If i recall correctly, this “Fire Star” wants to add links to Wiktionary of all Chinese characters contained in that article. Apparently, he is non-Asian by blood and is having the hots of learning Chinese. As a reaction to a couple of reverts, i left a message on his home page on wikip. The result is the above. Xah Lee 21:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
note the section above this about Falun Gong edit dispute. During that period when i was involed (2006-04), the falun-gong article is a circus. It is extremely long and serves somewhat as a mouth piece for the cult. Every few articles will contain a “reference” to a “source” that is published by a company run by this cult. For example, it'll say how falung gong saves the world, then with a “citating” linking to a site run by the cult itself. As of now, it appears that the falong gong has branched out into multiple articles...

For more about the cult, see http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/t2/scientology_falun_gong.html Xah Lee 21:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the Unix Pestilence

on the Unix Philosophy page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy , there's a anonymous moron “Marudubshinki” who keeps inserting the following line into the article:

«Within a decade, because of the Unix Philosophy and resultant simplicity of the system, it was common for UNIX systems to outperform all other commercial operating systems with mean time to failure measured in months rather than hours.»

I think a year or half a year ago i took it out, he inserted back. This went on once or twice more. And yesterday, i delete it and he inserted back right away.

This moron wears some 70 badges and insignias on his wiki home page. And one of them says “Only the facts.” with some grand Latin inscription. One cannot believe, the degree of these fuckheads do on wikipedia.

Xah Lee 21:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Curry article

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. - Mike Beckham 10:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that this refers to the Adam Curry article. Which i did some editing on his incident of suing a tabloid for using his photos on his blog site. I made rewording of my edit due to the above complaint. Xah Lee 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vector field

Your change to that article was incorrect, not every vector field is a collection of n-tuples. Some vector fields are infinite-dimensional.

And a few style tips, which by now, Xah, you should have learned.

  • Don't be sloppy.
  • Variables must be italic, n instead of n.

Thanks. You can reply here if you have comments. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Oleg, i think you made a mistake. I edited the Vector Space article, not Vector field. As the article is, it's definition is incomplete. I don't know about infinite dimentional vectors, but the formal defintion there currently lack a definition of vectors. Xah Lee 15:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
You are right, it was vector space. But please stop reverting, use the talk page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inversion (geometry)

Would you mind visiting that article and modifying your contribution to an appropriate style? You've been here long enough to know how to do a good job. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How not to do things

You have long list above of people whom you despise, so you like to offend people. Well, for once, I'd like to talk to you in the same manner.

You are a very poor editor, one of the worst we have in here. Frankly, you don't give a damn about this encyclopedia. Grow up or get out.

Regarding this edit which is a very good representative of how you do things. You have been on Wikipedia forever, but almost any newbie has a better idea of how to write (more precisely how not to write) things. For once, learn proper style and proper etiquette. You seem to be mad at the world, maybe that's because you were never taught how to do a good job and how to relate to people.

You can reply here if you have comments. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] inversion in geometry

i would like to document this event while it is still fresh. On july 12th 2006 PST, i looked up the article “inversion (geometry)”. It turns out, the artcile is so fucking stupid that is is actually talking about reflection thru a point, all the meanwhile, chalking it up to big terms and jargons. The real inversion of geometry, is actually the content of the article titled “inversive geometry”. What a fucking moronicity. And, in the “inversive geometry” article, it doen't talk sphere inversion, nor about its significance in mobius transform, nor relation with stereographic projection.

I wrote a note about these issues in the articles and in the talk page(s). And, i also added sections on sphere inversion as well as mobius transform and stereographic project in the article. However, wikipedian fuckheads deleted them.

i have always hesitated to contribute to math articles, or any subject matter i'm a expert of. Because, invariably some fuckhead will come in and have a fight with you and you cannot win because they are numerous and they form a political party while the contributor in question is often just a individual.

Fuck the motherfucking wikipedian fuckfaces Xah Lee 05:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Civility CovenantD 06:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Those fuckeads, which I guess in this case means me, actually bothered to do the rename (and fixing a lot of links in the process) of inversion (geometry) to inversion in a point.
Yes, all we fuckheads form a political party of people who can't stand crappy work, at which you excel. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
hi Oleg, i didn't look in detail at the current state of things (i.e. what are changed exactly), but i think the “inversion in a point” article should be renamed as “reflection thru a point”, and the “inversive geometry” should be renamed as “inversion (geometry)”. Also, the 3 chucks i wrote on sphere inversion and its connection with mobius transform and the gist of mobius transform being the circle inversion should be kept. (it was deleted) Xah Lee 07:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What I did was half-way through what you wanted. inversion in a point is a better name than inversion (geometry). Actually, that article is very irrelevant, for now I would not bother renaming it to something else.

For inversive geometry, I believe this is a better name than inversion (geometry) as that article talks not only about inversions but also about their geometry. We can discuss this more.

About the stuff you added. Could you please add it to talk:inversive geometry? Then I can help you copyedit it so that it looks good, then if you agree with my changes we can transfer it in the article. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you fine with this? I just fixed two math mistakes and a few grammar and formatting mistakes. We can put it in at any time. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the term “inversion (geometry)” is better than “inversive geometry”. The former describes what inversion is in geometry, and is a well accepted concept in geometry. The latter implies that there is a branch of geometry dealing with a particular concept or methodology (e.g. non-euclidean geometry or differential geometry), which is not true. PS thanks for the edit. I replied on the talk page there. Xah Lee 22:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You could go ahead and add the stuff from the talk page in the article. And note that Mobius Transformation is the wrong link. If you type it nicely, with small t and o with two dots on it you should get a blue link.

Let me think about whether the article should be moved. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: complex number page

I took a lot of time and patience a few weeks ago to show you how to write things properly.

What if you drop your stupid conspiracy theory with me following you around for political purposes and actually learn to do a good job?

See my talk page for more. Please write there if you have comments. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Complex Number page

For the record, the following was left on Oleg Alexandrov's guy's home page on 20060730:

«if you have a problem with my edits, please refrain from whole sale revert. Instead, edit. Because, wikipedia grows by piece-wise contribution, and that is the gist of its success. In my complex number edit which i spend quite some effort over 10 or so edits, i have at least corrected one technical error and added few info that are not there or ambiguous. I think you've been following my tail for some reason. (we first “met” probably over a year ago) I know what you want from me. You want me to prioritize the political or bureaucratical process over contributing content on wikipedia. That itself is questionable, but in any case should not be forced onto everyone. Xah Lee 09:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)»

There is this Oleg Alexandrov guy, who is like a ass. In the past coulpe of weeks, i tried tentatively to contribute to math articles, of which i'm a expert. First, i run into the circle inversion article. Then, run into problem with Oleg. However, this resolved amiably and ends up benefiting wikipedia. I take that as a encouragement. Then, i started to correct and add material to mobius transformation. Oleg did not revert my article nor participate in any editing or talk. Again, i thought my problem with Oleg is over. So i continued update the article piece-meal, gradually improving it. This is over some 15 or so edits over several days. In this process, many important facts are added. For example, the decomposition of mobius transformation into simpler isometries and circle inversion. Also, the foremost property of mobius transformation that it preserve angles. Also, i correct a technical error, that is the inverse function of the mobius transformation. This in particular, i made a emphasis in the talk page. All these went on without seeing Oleg's involvement. Then, i realized, that the Complex Number page is also amiss. For example, one of the most fundamental property that spurred the entire complex number field is because geometrically the rotation is expressed as a algebraic multiplication. The wikip page did not exactly mention this geometric intrepretation of multiplication in any explict way. I started by making a mention of this in the talk page, then someone suggested that i edit the page directly. So, i went ahead editted the page. After several edits, again i find critical errors on the page. For example, some improvment i've made includes explicit discussion about geometric interpretation for all complex number operations, i.e. addition, negation, multiplication, multiplicative inverse (complex inversion), and conjugation. The correction i made include, for example, in one place it says 1/z “corresponds to reflections combined with scaling.”, in fact it should be “a rotation and scaling and reflection around the real-axis.”

For another example, the existing section on geometric interpretation is badly phrased and ambiguous. It says:

«The sum of two points A and B is the point X = A+B such that the triangles with vertices 0, A, B and X, B, A are similar.»

But the two triangle can be similar in different orientations!

And on multiplication it says:

«The product of two points A and B is the point X = AB such that the triangles with vertices 0, 1, A, and 0, B, X are similar.»

This is rather a limited and round about interpretation. A vastly more powerful and clear understanding, is this explanation i did:

«If A and B are complex numbers in the plane, such that A has angle α and length a1, and B has angle β and length b1, then the product A*B is a complex number that has angle α+β and length a1*b1.»

So, i made these edits, and also there are some responses in the talk page. Then, this Oleg ass, went in in one whopping operation, reverted all my edits. His reason for revert was «revert text which is poorly written, without edit summaries, and which adds no apparent value. Please make your case on talk».

what a fucking attitude to revert everything? and “make my case on talk”? and “adds no apparent value”?

Then, after a day, he did the same revert to the mobius transformation page.

Sometimes i wonder, why am i contributing to wikipedia other than indicating i'm a slacker who's got nothing to do?

Xah Lee 18:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the Oleg Alexander character

This Oleg guy, joined wikipedia about a year after me, and apparently is a wikip addict, and have since been climed his slacker ladder to become a admin, and has been on my tail.

It appears, everytime i tried to edit math articles, he's there to revert. (i think this applies to computing articles too)

This moron, like other males, got a attitude bigger than his knowledge. He is apparantly a UCLA graduate student studying math. If i recall correctly, one time he tried to delete the bipolar coordinate article i started, or on the radial of a curve.

he is apparently a average guy, trying to do good in his normal way. So, he sees me as some oddity he don't understand, and is ready to ply his power for me to conform to his ways and views. So, in my edits to wikip, often i did not follow the newfangled TeX/LaTeX because they are too much of a bother and a pain to work with. However, i hoped other familiar wiht LaTex can improve upon my edits. I mean, after all, the success of wiki is its piecemeal growth nature. But Oleg don't understand this. He sees, that i'm something of a “troll”. So, he's reaction is to revert the page pointblank. Then he wants me to follow the one hundred and one wiki rules and priciples that has sprang up singe wikip became larger and larger.

y'see, i don't have a problem following wikip guidelines. However, one must understand, that wikip at heart should not become a bureaucratic process. For example, in some controversial articles, people simply use wikip's one hundred rules to fight their war. i.e. on the Falung gong article, the falung gong fuckfaces adds one myriads “facts” with citations to publications run by falung gong. So, if any one delete them, it's like you can't delete but contribute... and so on...

the bottom line is, whatever are the guide lines or rules, the real quality behind wikip or any society at the end lies on the quality of the people behind it, not the numerousness of the rules of how they are abided by.

So, for people like Oleg, in his innocent and unconscious and habitual power play, he should stop focusing on rules and individuals who's behaviors and cultural understanding doesn't seems to be what he is used to, but instead, focus on what is actually done and growth on wikipedia.

Xah Lee 18:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Just realized that Oleg made the following refutation to the message i left on his home page:

«In theory that's indeed how it goes. A user makes a valuable contribution, and other users take time to fix whatever style things are necessary, Wikipedia grows that way, and everybody benefits.

In practice however, there are some trolls who do crappy edits, not that they have not been told, and it is much simpler to just revert the whole thing rather than spend a huge amount of time hunting for that little golden nugget hidden in there (assuming that there is one, your edits tend to have not only style, but also content mistakes).

As far as your conspiracy theory with me following you around for political reasons, what if we just say that I had complex number on my watchlist for a very long time (like many other math articles), and that you are doing crappy work wherever I see you. I understand you may be more happy with your own explanation, but mine happens to be closer to the truth. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)»

i think that's a reasonable refutation, but still think his revert on my complex number and mobius transformation edits are wrong decisions. As we can see, he fell victim to the word “troll”, and have applied that word to me.

although wikip's math articles are in general extremely valuable, but often they are incoherent, chaotic, misleading, often just a collection of facts and snippets written by joe blow students here and there. Even if we take existing math literatures in print, there are still a lot problems in their presentation and style... This is a long and deep issue, not something i can easily express in few paragraphs here. Another major problem is math notation, and the primary harm is TeX/LaTeX. Personally, i do see many of these problems, from notation to the logics/formalism to writing style to treatment. Not every mathematician may agree with me (in fact, majority won't nor have they done any study on notations and semantics), but the problem as i see do exist and have been talked about. However, most wikip morons couldn't possibly see this. When i try to edit math articles, i do try to bring some of my views on these issues. However, the wikip morons could not possible see any merit of this. All they see is “troll” (meaning, whatever you don't like, or you are not used to.)

i may or may not try again to contribute to math articles. Of course, there is one way that will make most wikip morons happy. That is, for me to be a conformist, follow all their guidelines, play humble, carefully discuss with slackers, follow all traditions ... etc. (i'd prob be the biggest goddamn wiki admin long ago) Not that i want to play a cock, but each person acts on their self interests. This way of contribution is not in general something that gives me personal pleasure. I have a website xahlee.org that is predominantly of math materials and is visited by 6 thousand unique visitors daily and linked by thousands of edu institutions around the globe. Why should i fight on wikip in a way that displeases me like a dumb ass while i can work on my own website?

the above is the same reason, most professionals don't contribute to wikip in their area of expertise. To battle with Joe Blow is a insult one cannot help.

  Xah
  xah@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/
Look, just learn to write well, okay? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Child porn

Please talk on the talk page before you insert text like that, which has an incorrect tone. --mboverload@ 21:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

no disrespect to the above poster. What happened here is that there's this article child porn, which is basically entirely of Western perspective. I added two sentences to different section of the article. First, i added a sentence in the Age Of Consent section, stating that in Asian contries it's entirely different perception the the rest of the section all are Western-centric. (the tone i used is perhaps not the best). Then, after scanning the whole article, i realized the entire article is Western-centric. (a huge number of wikip article are in fact like that). Then, i added a sentence at the end of th intro paragraph that says something to the effect of “this article will primarily discuss Western point of view”. Then, these edits are immediately got reverted. I think the above poster are right that the tone in my first edit is not good, but i think the statement about the article's western perspective should stay. I'll try to insert that again in a few days if nobody has done so. Thanks. Xah Lee 03:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emacs

Please stop reverting the changes to the external links section. You are not helping the clean up by always reverting to the first list of links, even though 3 different users have already modified the links. Per External links guidelines, forums should not be linked. Also, this is the English Wikipedia, so chinese links that do not add to the article should not be inserted. Some items that give information should be used as references instead of external links. Remember, you do not own the article. Thanks for understanding. -- ReyBrujo 14:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. I'm wondering, if you would consider trimming the external links in the Perl page. Thanks. Xah Lee 08:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mobius transformation

On the Mobius Transformation page, you state that the given formula for the inverse is wrong. Are you sure? I am finding that in a program I am writing, the inverse that you give just doesn't work, wheras the original function (swap A and D, and take the negative of B and C) seems to work fine.

Paul Murray 05:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes am sure. You can check a printed reference. For example, Visual Complex Analysis by Tristan Needham. If i recall correctly, the invere function originally given on the page presumes that the mobius function is normalized. In your program, try a arbitrary mobius function, i'm sure it'll break. Xah Lee 06:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well.. I am less than convinced. I have just posted an applet that uses transformations (in yellow) and their inverses (in blue) at [5], and it all seems to work fine.

In general, since you can compose mobius transformations by means of ordinary matrix multiplication, the inverse of a transform will be an ordinary matrix inverse.

Anyway, have a look at the link. You need to reload the page a couple of times before it works, and I'm not sure how it will work with Explorer (I use Apple Safari as a browser).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/0/l/User_talk%7EP0lyglut_99e4.html"