User talk:202.36.179.65

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

School IP address Attention:

This IP address, 202.36.179.65, is registered to University of Canterbury and may be shared by multiple users of an educational institution. If the institution uses proxy servers, this IP address may in fact represent many users at many physical computers.

For this reason a message intended for one person may be received by another. Similarly an innocent user may be blocked for another user's vandalism. If you are editing from this address and are frustrated by irrelevant messages, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. In some cases you may temporarily be unable to create an account due to efforts to fight vandalism; if so, please read our advice on this situation.

Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking - if a block is needed, administrators should consider a soft block with the template {{schoolblock|optional comment}} as the block reason.

Note: In the event of persistent vandalism from this IP address, anonymous editing may be disabled for up to 1 year at a time. Abuse reports may also be forwarded to your school administration for investigation.
School staff who want to monitor vandalism from this IP address can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.


This IP address has been repeatedly blocked from editing Wikipedia in response to abuse of editing privileges.
Further abuse from this IP address may result in an extended block.
Notify an administrator • contribs • block • block log
If you wish to contribute to this encyclopedia, please create an account at home and log in with it here.

Due to persistent vandalism (see edit log), editing by anonymous users from your school, library or institution's IP address may be currently disabled. You continue to have full access to read the encyclopedia. If you are logged in but still unable to edit, please follow these instructions. To prevent abuse, account creation via this IP address is probably also disabled.

If editing is required for class projects, please have your teacher or network administrator contact us (with reference to this IP address) at unblock-en-l from an email address listed on your school's website. Alternatively, if you have no Internet access at home, you may email us using your school-issued email address, telling us your preferred username. An account will be created for you. Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken.

Thank you.


Contents

[edit] Warnings

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you.


How was what I said vandalism? if it doesn't match what you belive, it doesn't mean it's nonesense!! I was very polite and I said what I thought was a valid point of view.

Welcome to Wikipedia. I see you have been here awhile, but perhaps there is some information here you may find useful: click here

  • Be Bold with your edits but also be moderate, check out the policy on NPOV, or neutral point of view and remember to cite your sources. Proper Wikiquette suggests it is a good idea to make a suggestion first on the discussion page of a controversial article before making substantial edits, if you wish to avoid an edit war. We do not own the material we contribute, so be prepared to have your entries edited mercilessly— the thought "but it's my article" should never cross your mind.
  • When most of us start working on Wikipedia or its sister projects we think of them mainly as information resources, but Wikipedia is also an international community. It is a way for us to share and collaborate as we work towards the elusive goal of consensus. Check out the Community portal at the left of any page to find many opportunities to work together.

You should sign your entries on Talk (discussion) pages with four tildes link this:~~~~, and you can indent your entry in a discussion thread by putting a colon (:) or several (:::) as needed in the left-hand margin. If you put a space as the first character on a line that line will remain unformatted (not recommended).

Happy Editing. --Blainster 23:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)



[edit] Charles Saunders Peirce

For Philip Meguire: This article has been merged into Charles Peirce because it is an alternate spelling. I had previously moved your comments on it from the main Peirce article to Charles Saunders Peirce where it seemed more appropriate. But now since the article has been changed to a redirect, those comments are (much) less visible. Feel free to move all or parts back to the Peirce talk page. (When you click on the "Saunders" article you get redirected, but a link back to it will be displayed at the top of the main Peirce article, from which you can access the talk page.) --Blainster 18:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] edit summaries

Hi, I noticed a large number of edits to the Gottfried Leibniz page, but none of the have edit summaries. This makes it a lot harder to review the edits, especially when such a large number of them are made in such a short time. Please take a look at this article about using edit summaries, thanks very much! --Krich (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I submit that even when I do state an edit summary, that does not make it any easier, in any meaningful sense, to appreciate what I've done. When I want to see what someone else has done, I scroll through the version histories and compare versions side by side. I invite others to do likewise when thinking about my work.
Much of the material I find in Wikipedia on topics I know something about, strikes me as seriously defective. There indeed are errors and omissions that can be mended by anyone familar with, and who has ready access to, a serious university library. I am fortunate to be in that situation, but it would appear that many in the Wiki community are not. The breakdown of material by section, and the placement of facts among the sections, often requires nontrivial edits. But my main gripe is prose that does not read smoothly, that reads like the undergraduate writing I grade for a living. That especially dismays me given how often Google turns up something like "...based in part on text taken from Wikipedia..." It would appear that most public domain reference systems latch onto Wikipedia's coattails. Correcting the wide range of problems I find is not a straightforward affair, and results in edits that are impossible to describe easily and concisely. Again, I bank on Wiki's version management system.
I became a Leibniz fan a few years back upon discovering the only biography in English, Aiton (1985), which the Leibniz entry, as I found a few weeks ago, did not even mention. I soon saw that that entry required much work in several dimensions. It did not mention the two classic anthologies of L's work in translation, Loemker (1969) and Wiener (1951). Even though Leibniz has been dead nearly 300 years, he is the subject of much misunderstanding, bordering on urban myth. The article, as it now stands, devotes far too much attention to the dispute over who invented the calculus; a discussant said that the text in question should be moved to its own entry, because the dispute concerns Newton and Leibniz equally, and I completely agree. Most of Leibniz's manuscripts dated after 1690 or so, are still unpublished. The web site that describes the ongoing critical edition is in German (which I can piece through but nearly all Wiki readers cannot). Most of our present day understanding of Leibniz the logician and scientist is quite recent, and continues to evolve. I am also drawn to Leibniz because his polymathy resembles that of Charles Peirce, whose Wiki entry I've also rewritten.
Finally, the time I devote to Wikipedia is time on the fly, snatched from other activities. Often I work from a dialup connection that is far from the stablest. Family and work obligations mean that I have to sign out of Wiki on short notice. I trust you understand my situation.

[edit] Reply

hi, 202.36.179.65, thanks for the note,
which I will have to save for tomorrow,
as i'm already nodding off from excess
tryptophantasmagoria, pumpkin pie, etc.
Jon Awbrey 06:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Great edits!

I've come across your prose via your work on George Santayana and really appreciate your contributions across the board on the philosophers. I can also appreciate the comments of the other responder above re: lack of edit summaries, so to that end you might consider using the preview button more often before saving your work. This would relieve you from including summaries at every step and allow you to post more general summaries like "expanded and extended, numerous copyedits", etc. If you created a login then we can also communicate much easier as well. No need to reveal your academic affiliations ;) Regards, --Hooperbloob 12:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your appreciation. Keep in mind that I am an amateur philosopher, and that while I have an American education, I do not live and work in the USA. While I love Santayana, I've read little of his work. I rewrote the Santayana article with confidence mainly because I own a copy of Persons and Places, and have read McCormick bio closely. Noote that the Santayana entry does not say much about his ideas, because I am NOT qualified to speak to those ideas. For instance, I happen to own a copy of the Prometheus Books edition of the abridgement of The Life of Reason Santayana prepared at the end of his life, and find it pompous and opaque. But I made sure that the entry included a good bibliography of the primary literature, a good selection of the secondary literature, and a link to Herman Saatkamp's Stanford Encyclopedia article. Hence I invite readers of the entry having access to a good university library to draw their own conclusions about Santayana's ideas.
Likewise, I approach Peirce with some confidence because I've read Brent (1998). Ditto for Leibniz and Aiton (1985). I earn my living in a more prosaic field that assures me of plenty of students. (At the university where I teach, academics who teach unpopular subjects are threatened with layoff.)
N.B. The Peirce entry has been invaded by the writing of Job Awbrey, whose take on Peirce is, the put it charitably, idiosyncratic. Most of the description of Peirce's philosophy is now from a thesis he did not complete.
The preview feature of Wikipedia has caused me no end of trouble, including the loss of large numbers of edits. It does not interact well with a dialup connection subject to random interruption. What I have begun to do is to download large chunks of HTML to my desktop, and to edit it there at leisure.
Wikipedia is surely read by university students around the world. Hence Wikipedia articles should be, among other things, invitations to discover university libraries. My Wiki writing includes my 5 cents worth; the "neutral point of view" is a mythical creature in my view. But I feel a deep obligation to point readers towards other writing I think respectable. Unlike some free spirits floating around the Wiki world, I have no quarrel with the historical and interpretive work of A-list academics, and my writing very much relies on what such academics have written.
Many in the Wiki community strike me as having a form of tunnel blindness, as valuing process over results. A similar mindset fuels the bureaucratic acid eating away at the typical public sector university around the world. There is much bad writing in Wikipedia, resulting simply from the lack of editorial review. The reason why books and magazines read smoothly is because someone like my spouse makes a living by rewriting copy submitted by the person whose name appears in the byline. I have taken on that rewriting task for parts of a field of inquiry I love deeply--philosophy.202.36.179.65 19:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I just stopped by to say thanks for the Rucker edits, but I stopped to read the discussion here. Wikipedia is what it is and isn't what it isn't. I often think of the origin story, which is that Jimmy Wales was trying to make an online encyclopedia written by experts and peer-reviewed. After 18 months he had completed I think 22 articles. In the meantime he started up Wikipedia and let it go--and now it's close to having a million articles, all of them freely available to anyone with an Internet connection. It's true that many of them are amateurish, which is not surprising given that it's written by amateurs. We do what we can (you, me and everybody) to make it a little better because it's really a pretty remarkable project--sometimes I think it's not unlike helping Gutenberg set type. I appreciate your adding rigor where you can to Wikipedia, but I wouldn't be too disdainful about process--it's the Wikipedia process that has allowed a zillion unpaid, largely untrained individuals to produce what is surely the largest reference work in history. It's got a long way to go, and God bless you for helping to take it there. Nareek 02:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great edits!

Beautiful commentary on Leibniz.

Thank you!

Dr. Gabriel Gojon 06:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions on Rudy Rucker as well. Nareek 02:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: non existing "vol 2" of Loemker text

The Boyce Gibson Memorial Library at the University of Melbourne has, "Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm;Loemker, Leroy E (tr & ed) Philosophical papers and letter, Vol 2, Category: 5 Barcode: 17124 Status: ON-SHELF". However this volume seems to have a different date. The copy I looked at was softback published by D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht-Holland14 in 1976. Best Regards, Sholto Maud 10:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poincare references

just wanted to drop you a line and say thank you - and to remind you that since most of the debate is going on at the bottom of the talk page, it will get more easily noted if you add it down there.... welcome to Wikipedia! --Alvestrand 10:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Georg Cantor

Hi 202,

it looks like you're doing some great work on bios of mathematicians. I have some quibbles with some of your characterizations at Georg Cantor; please see the talk page there. BTW it would be much appreciated if you would register an account; it's somewhat frustrating trying to discuss technical issues with an IP address, as one never knows if the contributor will be using the same IP address next time. --Trovatore 23:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Milton Martin

This may seem like a silly question, but do you have any idea of the ethnic background of the above? Cheers, Fergananim 19:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Have you though of getting an account?

Hi, I've noticed you have done a lot of good mathematical edits. Have you though of creating an account? That way you become a name rather than a number, which helps other wikipedians, you also get a watchlist which allows you to see if pages your interested in have changed, and you can create new pages and join Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics. --Salix alba (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I second Salix Alba's suggestion. If you are concerned about anonymity, well, as long as your username is sufficiently random, then in fact having an account increases your anonymity, because otherwise your IP address betrays information about you. For example, I can tell which country you are from by using the WHOIS query links at the bottom of this page. The population of that country is about 4.1 million, out of a total world population of about 6.5 billion, so I've narrowed you down to 0.06% of the world population, which means I've obtained about 10.6 bits of information about you just from your IP address :-) Dmharvey 11:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help. Come Back to Charles Peirce

Your comments back in January 6th about Jon Awbrey's idiosyncratic interpretation of Peirce was good. It has only gotten worse. But now there is a rebellion against him and he is outnumbered. Please come back and help us cut his nonsense out of there. From remarks above, it appears you know good writing. We could use you. --MengTheMagnificent 04:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] not every module has a basis

The concept of a basis only makes sense for free modules. Modules which are not free don't have bases. Moreover, even some free modules don't have bases, see invariant basis number for details. -lethe talk + 04:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to I'll Be Missing You

Your recent edit to I'll Be Missing You was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 02:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Fermi paradox, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 05:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] July 2006

Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, such as those you made to Relation (mathematics), it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Also, make sure to use an informative edit summary for such edits. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you. Jon Awbrey 02:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Anon, how about making an account? (Note that it does not require any personal info/email, etc). You're hanging around long enough that maybe settling down to a user name would be better both for your and for others. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page 1988 on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to May 3, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rklawton 14:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This IP is for a university network - clearly someone living in the halls of residence is vandalising these pages. Don't blame us all because of one person!

[edit] Aug 2006

[edit] Anon, make account :)

Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style tips

There should be no links in section headings, so

==Category theory==

instead of

 ==Category theory==

Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style, again

Anon, please do not add links in section titles. That's the style, see WP:MoS. So, instead of

== Partitions, equivalence classes, quotient sets ==

one should have only

== Partitions, equivalence classes, quotient sets ==

Also consider making an account. You will be more effective in contributing that way. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deceptive edit lines

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Jon Awbrey 18:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It is considered deceptive to add some content and delete some content, when the edit line mentions nothing but the addition. It is a nuisance to other editors to delete material without an accurate edit line, and it may be considered vandalism when persisted in repeatedly after being advised to desist. Jon Awbrey 19:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed content from Anthropic principle. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. 1568 05:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- - GIen 05:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. MER-C 06:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] October '06

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Nayland College. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. SMC 08:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page World War II on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Martinp23 09:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scapa Flow

Nice edit! I've just moved my aerial image placing, in the edit box, to reduce the effect of overlapping the following section with different resolution monitors. It will not affect the screen view. Richard Harvey 21:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

I'd like to invite you to make an account. That way your edits will be connected with a single entity (your account name) and not with a possibly changing meaningless number. Also you will have the ability to watch pages. Anyway, have fun! --MarSch 12:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To the editor of Anne Morrow Lindbergh‎ and other articles

Thank you for working to improve Wikipedia. Each publication tends to have its own "house style" and Wikipedia is no exception. I wanted to draw your attention to Wikipedia's style guides. Particularly, to start with [1] which suggests that place of birth and death should not be merged into the dates of birth and death. Also, the heading (in front of the first subtitle) should be a summary and introduce no new material, so duplication is normal. Thanks, Notinasnaid 18:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] April 29th

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. --Alf melmac 08:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] May 2007

The recent edit you made to Interstella 5555: The 5tory of the 5ecret 5tar 5ystem constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks – Gurch 07:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. Academic Challenger 00:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] June 2007

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to St Paul's Collegiate School, you will be blocked from editing. -gadfium 01:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] July 2007

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to New Zealand, you will be blocked from editing. Careless hx 04:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.
You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continued deletion of material. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Daniel Case 04:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Helen Clark, you will be blocked from editing. Kuru talk 03:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] September 2007

Please do not add "fact" tags indiscriminately. Not every sentence in Wikipedia needs a source citation. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for policy on the situations where sources are needed.--orlady 04:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Steve Downie, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. JForget 12:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--Ed (Edgar181) 10:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)