User:Grumpyyoungman01/Talk Archive 02

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Category:Australian people and Category:Lists of Australian people

I see the two lists as entirely separate. The former contains biographical articles that are mostly uncategorised by occupation, whereas the latter contains articles of lists of Australian people, such as notable sportspeople and politicians judges and the like. I'm not sure how you see these two categories overlap. A great deal of those articles in the Australian people category could possibly be recategorised by way of their occupation. Good work with cleaning up the Australian music categories also. They grow fast at times and it's good to keep on top of them. -- Longhair 06:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I managed to trim Category:Australian people by 30 articles or more tonight by removing the category from many articles where it isn't required. Articles that already contain categories such as Category:Australian singers or Category:Australian film actors don't require secondary categorisation within Category:Australian people. It's simply category spamming and unecessary filling up of categories. -- Longhair 10:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok I see what you mean now, the two categories are quite separate. When I focus too intently on something I really can't see the wood for the trees. We're cool on this now, it all makes sense. Thanks -- Grumpyyoungman01 12:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unity08 Interest?

Hi! You're one of about a dozen wikipedians who have edited Unity08 (which puts you in pretty rarified company :-)) and it occured to me that you might be interested in something in that vein. I don't want to clutter up your talk page but I wanted to let you know about my user page being used to talk about the intersection of wikis and the Unity Movement. Sorry to be a bother, but "a dozen out of hundreds of millions" seemed like a small enough group to think there might be some common interests :-)

- JenniferForUnity 02:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vic election

Thanks for your message. The article looks a horrible mess and the subheadings are hopelessly opinionated. I am in general opposed to articles which try to chronicle ongoing events - this is an encyclopaedia, not a blog or a news service. This one is obviously a playground for partisan editors and I don't think I wish to get involved with it. Adam 02:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look Adam. I think you have summed it up aptly, best not to waste time on something like that. Grumpyyoungman01 10:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's exam period at the moment so I don't have much spare time to help you with editing the page, but I can offer a couple of suggestions that will hopefully be of assistance. Firstly, the chronological structure doesn't work. It's horribly messy and invites POV. Sorting it by party (but not by topic) would be preferable in my opinion. Secondly the page is much too long. I would suggest limiting the article to cover only significant events such as campaign launches, and include only a brief summary of policies put forward. Hopefully these suggestions will be helpful. --bainer (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts Stephen, the article hasn't been altered considerably since my message on your talk page though. The consensus at the moment is to wait until after the election before taking a surgeon's knife to it, although how that knife will be wielded has yet to be decided. Grumpyyoungman01 07:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Valid argument, false premise, true conclusion

All whales are mortal

Socrates is a whale

Therefore, Socrates is mortal. PurplePlatypus 04:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, the Bible argument is itself another counterexample. If "everything in the Bible is true" is false, that does not mean everything in the Bible is false; it means at least one thing in it is false. PurplePlatypus 04:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Platypus, you are indeed correct, my bad and keep up the good work. Grumpyyoungman01 05:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:request for minor/uncontroversial deletion

I deleted the redirects. Cheers. enochlau (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Libertarianism dab page

Good job on the Libertarianism (disambiguation) cleanup! It's needed it for a while. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, I get a strange and perhaps perverse kick out of other people's to do lists :-) Grumpyyoungman01 03:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi mate, if you're a fan of Aussie rules, I suggest you take a look at WikiProject AFL (join by adding your name to the list of participants) and the Australian rules football portal. Also take a look at Category:VFL/AFL players and feel free to drop me a line with any questions, or on the WP:AFL discussion page. Cheers!

R o gerthat ^Talk 01:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colloquial

Hi Grumpy, I intentionally removed the use of colloquial, as the name 'Green bridge' is not a localised term, or in any other way is it 'colloquial'. The name 'Green Bridge' was the original name of the project, used everywhere, but then replaced with the new name. The term colloquial confuses the reader as to where the name Green Bridge comes from. It makes it appear that it was a local variation or term, which it is not. Can you provide a comment/reason you reverted my change. Thanks Rimmeraj 13:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC) PS: adding the reason for your revert to the edit summary would have been great. Defn of Colloquial

Hi Rimmeraj, you are correct that by wiktionary's definition "Green Bridge" is in no way a colloquial term. I was using "colloquially" as a synonym for "commonly", the internet does not back this definition and nor do real dictionaries. I never considered the possibility that I did not know the correct meaning of colloquial.

I wasn't sure why you removed "colloquially" in the intro so I was unsure of what edit summary to put in, sometimes no edit summary is the most informative edit summary, or something, I just made that up then. I also thought that it was superfluos to say "before official naming" after "originally known as" just to fill up the rest of the edit summary. Grumpyyoungman01 20:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Grumpy, thanks for clearing this up, "commonly" reads great. Rimmeraj 23:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

And thank you for bringing it to my attention and thereby indirectly improving my vocabulary. Grumpyyoungman01 02:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

portmanteau?, that is a new one for me. you have returned the favour, I had to look that one up. Rimmeraj 06:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SVG or PNG for diagrams

I noticed that you've uploaded several diagrams that are JPEGs. Take a look at the page on Preparing images for upload. Does this program you're using have a way to export PNGs or SVGs? These are much preferred for non-photos. Thanks. Dylan Lake (t·c·ε) 02:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dylan, thanks for the message. I copy and paste the diagrams to paint.NET as bitmaps and from there I have been saving them as jpeg, but in future I will save them as PNG, there is no SVG option. Grumpyyoungman01 02:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:are "I'm entitled to my opinion"s days numbered?

I've seen your argument maps before and you've done a good job with them. I'm no expert on this matter, but since you asked, here's my opinion on this article. It's referenced, so that's good. I don't really see much problem with the image, but I think that you could calm quite a few seas without losing information if you used a topic that was less contentious, as suggested by one editor. I don't think the other editors seek deletion of the article - they seem to want you to clarify those issues they raise. But you never know, and if they do seek deletion, it will probably be straight to WP:AFD seeing as it's going to be a contended deletion. As I said, I'm no expert on this topic, so I'm not sure how well-known this particular fallacy is. If you can find alternative references to support you, then that will be even better; if this fallacy is restricted to discussion by just a few authors, you may wish to clarify this in the text of the article. enochlau (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The article is fine. It's the diagram which violates NPOV, bigtime. The argument structure is valid, but the particular topic used is highly contentious, and is in fact asserting a particular point of view (which I personally argue is incorrect). I would be happy to debate the oil issue, but could you just change the image please as requested? Thanks! --Bhuston 12:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice Enoch, I think it is good to have an opinion from someone who isn't an expert. I'm not an expert either, just a uni student, we covered this fallacy in a first year informal logic subject taught by Tim van Gelder. Grumpyyoungman01 21:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bhuston, you say that the image is highly contentious, but like the other editors who have claimed so on the talk page you have not given any reasons in support of the proposition "The US invaded Iraq to steal its oil" and if there are no reasons in favour of that, only objections against, then by definition it is not a contentious proposition. Something can only be contentitous - and you say this is highly contentious - if there reasons on both sides of a debate.

Now I am not aware of any reasons from the other side of the debate, but if you, or anybody else would give me one reason in favour of the contention "The US invaded Iraq to steal its oil", then the image would clearly violate NPOV. Consider an analogy to the flat Earth theory, the proposition "The Earth is flat" is not contentious because nobody can provide reasons to support it.

Quoting from the NPOV page: "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly." - No conflicting views have been identified.

"We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."" - This is more of a grey area, but the very nature of argumentation in informal logic means that pages dealing with fallacies and other argument patterns necessarily break the letter of this guildline, if not the spirit.

"By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There are bound to be borderline cases where we are not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles was the greatest band is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion." - This is more explicit and seems to suggest that NPOV has been violated, but again the category is informal logic. If that argument map were to be placed on any other page, such as Reasons for the Iraq War, then it would definately violate NPOV.

I am not wikilawyering to claim that I haven't violated NPOV, but I am claiming that I haven't not violated NPOV. In other words it is extremely ambiguous whether it has been violated in this instance. Grumpyyoungman01 21:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Grumpyyoungman01, as I stated, I would be happy to debate the matter, but I feel it is unnecessary, and this is not the proper place for this debate. The point is, you are using a diagram in an innocuous article on logic to promote a particular world view. And despte your defensive dancing, I think you know exactly what you are doing. You are a logician, as am I. Some of my best friends are logicians, thus I know from experience arguments with logicians can be lengthy and frustrating, as logicians can always "prove" they are correct. I really don't want to go there. So, please consider this carefully: If you will not consider modifying the image, I will nominate it for deletion as an NPOV violation. This is NOT the place for a debate on the Iraq war. Thanks for your consideration. --Bhuston 00:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] I'm entitled to my opinion

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article I'm entitled to my opinion, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:I'm entitled to my opinion. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Pop Secret 12:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melbourne meetup in planning

Hello, you've indicated that you're interested in future Meetups in Melbourne on this list, so I'm giving you this message to remind you that Melbounre meetup number four is currently in planning. If you haven't already, please go to Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne to suggest possible dates, times and locations. Thanks --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 03:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melbourne meetup

Greetings, person who is listed as being interested in future meetups in Melbourne. The fourth meetup will be held on 18 December, at Lower House in Fed Square (in the Alfred Deaking building, Flinders Street end near the Atrium: map), starting from 7pm. We don't currently have a separate location for discussion beforehand, but there'll be plenty of time to talk wiki over dinner. --bainer (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Green Bridge

Thanks for spotting this. I don't know why I missed the edit when it happened. I have added my own comment. Rimmeraj 11:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Victorian election campaign

An article that you created, 2006 Victorian election campaign, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Victorian election campaign Thank you. SkierRMH 08:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Grumpyyoungman01 10:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I actually dropped by to thank you for the heads-up on this. Even though I didn't support the delete, it's good to try to prod people into improving these things. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commons POTY identity confirmation

I confirm I am the same user as 203.87.65.3. Grumpyyoungman01 09:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging

When merging please remember to make sure that all the pages redirect to the target page. Thanks. JoshuaZ 08:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

yep, done. Grumpyyoungman01 08:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] proposed list deletion

[edit] List of Australians in politics

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article List of Australians in politics, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

See also talk:Lists of Australians. Scott Davis ^Talk 15:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fifth Melbourne meetup

The fifth meetup of Melbourne Wikipedians is being planned as a breakfast meeting in the city with Jimbo Wales (at a venue to be arranged) on Friday, 27 April 2007.

Jimbo has proposed breakfast as the one real window of opportunity during his tightly scheduled stay in Melbourne. Tbe precise time has to be sorted out with Jimbo, but the arrangements for the equivalent Adelaide meetup a few days before may give a good idea.

Feel free to edit the relevant page in any way that might be helpful. I feel like a bit of an interloper, not having attended previous meetups. If there's anything you can do to help, I'll be grateful. Please think about whether you'll be able to make it, assuming the arrangements are similar to those Adelaide is adopting (i.e. a block of time with people being fairly free to arrive when it suits them). Some indication on the page of your possible participation would be really helpful. Metamagician3000 06:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old Falconians

Hi Grumpy, thanks for very fair manner in which you treated my additions here. A previous editor was quite harsh! James Morrison definitely attended either Barrenjoey or Pittwater HS. That I have read. Reason I put other schools for Loane and Robinson is that former editor refused to accept. In fact, a huge number of boys went to more than one HS because father teacher, bank manager, forces officer (all subject to constant transfer) or in earlier days boys were often "parked" at NSBHS awaiting a place at a private school.(How times have changed - now they go to private schools because they cannot pass selection test!) That gives rise to the question how long is enough? It is informative here to know that the much celebrated Falconian Rear-Admiral Peter Sinclair in fact spent only one year at HS before becoming a 13-year-old midshipman entrant at RANC. Ditto Admiral Michael Hudson. The argument is that entry on the School Roll is sufficient. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.133.198.32 (talk • contribs) 13:18, April 2, 2007.

Hi Again,

I think we should leave James Morrison where he is until another alumni list claims him. It isn't too misleading because of the note that HS hasn't been verified. I think we should include people who attended a school on an alumni list, no matter how short a period, it can always be said that "Also attended" or "graduated from" and link to the other alumni list. So I agree with you that entry on the school roll is sufficient. Grumpyyoungman01 01:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You placed your comment in an archive of my talk page and I subsequently moved it over, if you click the '+' (addition sign) on the top of my current talk page 'User talk:Grumpyyoungman01' then it automatically installs a heading that you put up the top and places the body of the text at the bottom of the page. I then get a funny orange box next time I log in saying "You have new messages (last change)".

On other matters, you must have a copy of the alumni list, or part therof, is it possible to send it to me electronically? If you are interested in my previous deletions and alterations to the list of Old Falconians, I suggest that you visit the history of the NSBHS page itself and look at previous versions. If you look back far enough you will see all of my edits and what I changed. You may find it handy. Also remember to sign your comments on talk pages by typing 4 lots of '~' (four tildas) after your comment. Grumpyyoungman01 01:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fallacy Page

Dear Grumpyyoungman, Thanks for your remarks re my emendation of the fallacy page--I have not attended sufficiently to WP style and formatting. Re formal representation, what you provide as examples are not generally counted (by logicians) as formal representations; rather, they're the kind of thing one would find in an informal logic text. "Formalization" here refers to the use of the tradition of formal logic (e.g., symbolic logic or formal syllogistic)--but the fact that this is what I had in mind does undersocre your point, viz., that my meaning was opaque! jbessie 18:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Joseph,

"Formalization" here refers to the use of the tradition of formal logic (e.g., symbolic logic or formal syllogistic)".

I'll grant that point and with that in mind I will attempt an edit of the introduction. I tried to formalise the first example and all I got was:

A - Eugenics is good, B - The Nazis were good

~B $\supset$ ~A, ~B $\models$ ~A

This is obviously not the same argument as that put forward in the example, for a start this is a valid argument whereas this is not a valid argument. I think the clumsiness of an attempt to use a symbolic syllogism to represent informal reasoning should be dealt with in the article. Can you think of a better example than eugenics? Grumpyyoungman01 01:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Typo in one of your images

In the righthand red box trips is spelled as "tripd". I noticed Stannered converted it to SVG, so it might need more than a little photoshopping. SteveSims 04:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Image:Traffic_congestion_straw_man.svg

Thanks for letting me know Steve, it also has another typo in the upper right green box: "If more roads were build (sic)". I spend a lot of time on them to make sure that no significant terms appear by themselves (logical structure) but they are all filled with typos. Grumpyyoungman01 05:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed those typos too (tripd and build), and was going to mention them here. Are they going to be fixed? —Frungi 00:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll fix them in the next three days, post anymore typos you find here as well. Grumpyyoungman01 01:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Grumpyyoungman01 - I saw the comment at Talk:Straw man and fixed the typos myself. Hope this helps, Stannered 09:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the SVG typos in Image:Traffic congestion straw man.svg. I just uploaded another version of the file in PNG format because I can't save as SVG. I made some other minor corrections in addition to the typos and changed the licensing to GDFL(I figured as the author I could do what I wanted and someone could only use the original licensing with the original file). Now no articles link to the svg one, just to Image:Traffic congestion straw man.png, so I am considering having an admin delete the svg version along with all of the jpeg versions of my other argument maps once I have converted them to PNG. I know that the SVG format is slightly more efficient, but I may make some minor corrections to them (for logical structure) as well as fix any typos.

I noticed as well that you placed a transparent background with the image, it looks much nicer so I will do the same from now on with my conversions. Grumpyyoungman01 09:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)