User talk:Gadykozma/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!
Jrdioko

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Contents

[edit] Thanks

Hi there. Just wanted to thank you for your expansion and correction of box-counting dimension. I started that page quite a while ago when I noticed the gap, but I didn't have the background to do a really thorough article. It looks much better now. Isomorphic 04:29, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It was fun! I actually wrote a scientific paper about the box-counting dimension (you can find it on http://arxiv.org ) so writing the wikipedia entry was easy.
BTW: I am supposed to put answers like this here or on your talk page?

[edit] Topics lists

Hello. I added coupling (probability) to the list of probability topics. Could you help add to the list of Fourier analysis topics? Michael Hardy 16:57, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I populated it quite lavishly. Did I overdo it? I was not quite sure what is the (main) purpose of this list. To allow people to track changes easily? As a kind of "see more on this topic"? Gadykozma 17:24, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Hebrew Bible, etc.

OK, I've changed the Merge tag to MergeDisputed and left notes on all three pages to see Talk:Hebrew Bible. Thanks for the pointer. -- Beland 04:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Your RFA question

I don't know where the rules have moved off to -- someone complained the beginning of the page was too long, and "poof", they were gone. It is certainly irritating. Anyhow, adminship is granted to all users who receive 80% support, and to some who get up above 70-75% depending on bureaucrat opinion. Generally, unless sockpuppets are suspected, or unless there seems to be some other funny business (false allegations, etc.), 80% is the threshold. Most opinion is that a neutral vote doesn't count against the 80%, but that someone on the cusp (75-79%) is less likely to get in if there are a lot of neutrals. It's very dependent on the human judgment of the bureaucrats when the vote is close. No one that I know of has ever complained that the bureaucrats promoted improperly, and I can think of only one or two admins who have been promoted with less than 80% of the vote. If you have more questions, I suggest raising them at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Thanks for asking. :-) Jwrosenzweig 20:40, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This should be there if anything is, if you want my opinion. Gadykozma 23:43, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree. Someone has just added the important details back to the intro, at least important in my opinion. Maybe you could give it a look and see if anything else needs to be added in your opinion? Thanks for calling attention to the omission. Have a good day, Jwrosenzweig 13:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Didn't see any change. We are talking about Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, right? Gadykozma 14:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The relevant change is in the second paragraph of the Rules section, by adding a parenthetical explanation in the sentence, "Bureaucrats may choose to extend this where the consensus is unclear (because consensus is subjective, bureaucrats have some discretion, but the threshold on this page is roughly 80% support)." --Michael Snow 17:02, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Occupation of Palestine

Please see my question at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Occupation_of_Palestine#Tally: Rephrasing the question -- Jmabel 01:23, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Am not interested in reading the page or getting involved in the resolution. I will just police the area around the page and say: "Move along people nothing to see, come back when everything has settled down." Take it to the mailing list wikien-l. Christopher Mahan 16:35, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Riesz-Thorin theorem

Looking up, whom you are discussing with, is always an interesting experience on Wikipedia. You have a fine writing style on mathematical topics, naming especially Riesz-Thorin theorem as an example. Some other authors of mathematical articles here are all up for "correct" and "stringent" formulations, with the end result, that even with having some mathematical background, it is hard to follow the article. Perhaps I manage to translate your article for the german Wikipedia. Pjacobi 15:08, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Yes, I also look up people I argue with... fun.
  • Thanks for the complement! I also think the math section is too "axiomatic". I'll return to you if I ever start a more orderly campaign against this...
  • If you need any help/clarification, don't think twice before asking.

[edit] A Picture

Thank you very much for your message. I'm not 100% sure I understand your point, but the picture is definately very interesting, quite intriguing, with different and unexpected identities laid bare, but still difficlt to recognise (especially for me, who doesn't understand Hebrew), a minority within a minority determined to try to reach out to everyone and make a strong point. I really like the picture acually. Unfortunately I probably won't be writing an article about (views of) the occupation any time soon, because I have very little time right now, and I'm not really enough of an expert on the topic, although I'm actually reading up on it. I'm just generally appalled by the NPOV quality of the Wikipedia articles on the Israeli-Palestinian problem. The Palestinian views are just very consistently removed or neutred beyond recognition. Of course that reflects the general bias among Wikipedians and the US media, with the added effect of a number of dedicated POV zealots, who are probably all acting in perfect sincerity, which makes it all the more frustrating. Still, it is a big problem if the Palestinian views are not heard, because then it is impossible to understand them. That's bad for all of us, and the only ones to gain are those who gain from further war and violence. - pir 00:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer. - pir 00:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] From the VFD

... Camp David 2000 Summit between Palestinians and Israel. If, in the course of negotiations, you are presented with an offer, the correct strategy would be to a) give a counter offer, or b) start the intifada and call for millions of martyrs? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This discussion is irrelevant but I really cannot resist. Humus, Go to http://www.gush-shalom.org/generous/index.html (if you can't read Hebrew, you will at least see the maps) and tell me if you would have accepted such a fractal country. Gadykozma 11:53, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This might be the English version, I didn't check. http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/offers.doc Gadykozma 12:22, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I thought today it is obviuos that (b) is definitely a wrong answer. Surprised to see someone even trying to justify the unjustifiable: terror as a way to achieve political goals. As for the "fractal country", see e.g. Vanuatu. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:11, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Humus hi. In Israel at this point I would either say "let's agree to disagree" or "let's separate as friends" [נפרד כידידים]. Life is too short to discuss politics, and definitely this is not why I'm on Wikipedia. My finger slipped. I'm sorry. Please accept my sincere apologies. Gadykozma 09:39, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. I wasn't going to discuss politics either, but here I am. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:04, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thank YOU!

RE: Irismeister hi. The VfD of Occupation of Palestine has terminated long ago. The only reason the page doesn't have a proper "archival" notice is that nobody could agree on how it ended. Anyways the page lives, so please direct all your edits there. I reverted you without checking what you wrote. Thanks. Gadykozma 19:56, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank YOU! I already did so. Here it is, just in case (please delete as needed):

[edit]KEEP ARTICLE, END OCCUPATION AND COME INTO SENSES irismeister 18:39, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC) (first we occupy, then we delete article on occupation, then what?) When the occupation will end (it's really a matter of when) we'll see about this occupation of Palestine page being deleted. In the mean time, what's the point in deleting a page on occupation, when occupation continues? Are we believing our own lies? Poor us!

[edit] The Partisans

Just wanted you to know, that removal of your edit in Partisan page was not directed at you: it was just this page was once object of constant edit wars (about which partisan forces (Russian, Polish, Yugoslavian, Italian, French...) were significant and which were not), so the rule adopted recently (maybe it would change, but you would have to discuss that first in talk page) that none will be included. Szopen 08:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Missed your response

Sorry, I missed your response on the Belligerent occupation article. I've responded there now. Jayjg 22:27, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Your "Occupation of Palestine" Redirect+Protect

Gadykozma, have you had a chance to read the rules you cited to me?

  • You have Redirected and Reverted Occupation of Palestine more times than I can remember.
  • You Redirected it despite the fact that it went through a VfD and Redirect was not approved.
  • You have Protected an article in which you were involved.
  • Your Protected Redirect makes it very difficult for others to see what happened (the history is gone, the Talk is not directly accessible).

Besides violating the rules, you are trying to impose your own view on a highly controversial article. All in all, it would be best if you showed some Good faith and reverted yourself. HistoryBuffEr 18:06, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

You must be confusing me with someone else. Throughout the history of this page in all its incarnations, I only edited it three times. Twice to redirect (today and yesterday) and once to revert. I did not protect this page — I am not even an administrator. Gadykozma 18:17, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You are showing up as the last editor in the article's history. If the Protect was done by someone else, apologies, s/he didn't leave any notice or trace.
However, there is no doubt that the last Redirect was done by you.
P.S: The original Talk and history cannot be accessed as you said in your reply (on my Talk). The Redirect goes to Israeli-Palestinian conflict and there is no original Talk or history there. Due to several redirects to several articles forth and back, the old history is gone somewhere. HistoryBuffEr 18:46, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

[edit] What is it with everybody today?

Glad to know you weren't including me in that criticism. It's just that you seemed to be using his conduct to invalidate a point with which I agree, and not engaging what I had said. If that wasn't your intention, sorry. As for "what is with everybody" I can't speak for anyone else, but in the last 72 hours I've been subjected to more personal attacks than in the previous year of working on Wikipedia. Normally, I try to assume good faith on everyone's part, but at the moment, with reference to Israel/Palestine, a broader range of articles relating to the Jews, and (unrelated and without the personal insults, just major unjustified deletions from articles) the history of Romania, I feel like I'm in a war zone, and I suspect a lot of others involved in the Israel/Palestine material feel the same way.

These redirect wars without sincere efforts to gain consensus are like nuclear edit wars. And I feel like one of the very few civilians, taking it from both sides. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:05, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] HistoryBuffEr's RFC against Proteus

You might be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Proteus. Regards, Jayjg 21:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Oop, I did it again

With apologies to Britney Spears... Gad, you might want to add one more bullet point to your http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gadykozma/OoP_mess chronology.

Gosh, I hope my 'tidying' didn't mess it up more. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 19:13, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Solar letters

Calling it Nakba evades the issue nicely, I think, but it's a difficult one. I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy on it, though I personally tend to go for "an-Nakba" etc. - Mustafaa 14:13, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not as far as I know, but it's a good idea. User:Dbachmann might be interested; I think he's been on something of a transliteration war lately. - Mustafaa 14:28, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

- Mustafaa 14:28, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks.

Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:54, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Transliteration

Transliteration#Issues in transliterating particular languages - any thoughts on making an Arabic page? - Mustafaa 00:32, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Deletion Policy

User:HistoryBuffEr is at it again. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Wikipedia:Deletion_policy--Josiah 18:21, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion for IZAK

Hi Gadykozma, please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence Thank you. IZAK 11:48, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Culture of Greece

Culture of Greece is this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

[edit] Palestine

(diff) (hist) . . Occupation of Palestine; 10:38:30 . . Gadykozma (Talk) (If we disambig it, might as well do it proper.)

Thanks! --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 15:53, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

I was under the impression that talk pages weren't allowed to be deleted from.CheeseDreams 21:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's frowned upon, yes. Gady 21:37, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] BC/BCE

The policy is to accept either, but to ensure that articles are consistent. (Incidentally, very, very few consistently use BCE/CE.) Of course, everybody understands BC and only a few understand, and even fewer actually use, BCE. This leads to inconsistent articles - even those starting with 'BCE' tend, in time, to get 'BC' added to them. All I've been doing is identifying articles that are inconsistent (using google), and making them consistent. All in line with policy. Ideally the policy would be a commonsense one that recognised the reality of what people use and understand - but since that will never happen, enforcing internal consistency in articles will have to do for now:) . jguk 23:07, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] CfD: Category:Advocacy

Please vote on Category:Advocacy. HistoryBuffEr created this category as a duplicate of Category:Activism, and fabricated a negative definition associating Advocacy with propaganda -- a definition that cannot be found in any dictionary. Then, he replaced Category:Activism with his new Category:Advocacy on Hasbara and Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Advocacy groups are already categorized under Activism so HistoryBuffEr's new category is essentially a duplicate, and contains a false definition. --Viriditas 10:10, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Manos

Hi! I noticed that you created a RFC for User:Manos. Since you seemed to need a second signee and I fitted in I took the liberty of signing up. Hope you don't mind :). Thue | talk 16:06, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Additions to Bible article

You might want to take a look at the recent anonymous additions to the Bible article regarding the occurence of YHVH in the Bible; it looks to me like it's the work of a Jehovah's Witness with a POV to push, and it's not particularly noteworthy, certainly not for the introduction. Jayjg 22:45, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also, Tetragramaton is getting messed up again. Jayjg 03:59, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Template:OoP mess

Can you please either vote to delete or vote to keep this? Though your intentions appear to be want to keep this template, I need a specific keep or delete. Right now the template will be deletion unless you make your vote specific. Thank you. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)