User:Kosebamse/stuff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Kosebamse on Wikipedia

This user is a WikiSloth.
Wikipedia:Babel
de Dieser Benutzer spricht Deutsch als Muttersprache.
en-4 This user speaks English at a near-native level.
sv-2 Denna användare har kunskaper på mellannivå i svenska.
no-1 Denne brukeren kan litt norsk.
Search user languages

I am a German with a Norwegian username and a focus on the English Wikipedia, where I have also been an admin from mid-2003 until 7 February 2006 (see below).

I wish to keep personal details out of Wikipedia. If you know me in real life, please respect my desire for privacy and keep that knowledge out of the Internet. Thanks. (If you need to contact me privately, please e-mail me through the link on my user page.)

As a concession to the perennial anagram mania, be it known that "Kosebamse" is equivalent to: "Meek Basso" (which seems to characterize me in a way), "Be As Smoke", "Smoke Base", as well as a lot of other nonsense.

[edit] Editing

I usually adhere to a one-revert-rule. I do sometimes revert other peoples' contributions, but normally try not to re-revert except in cases of obvious vandalism.

[edit] Biases

I am a moderate deletionist. Otherwise, I try to keep wiki-ideologically neutral, and when in doubt, err on the side of common sense. Not so Wikipedia-specific attitudes that I am inclined to subscribe to: existentialism, skepticism, Zen, Old European (and proudly so), and common sense.

[edit] Mottos

I already have three mottos on my user page, but if I were to add another one, it would be something along the lines of "When you write an encyclopedia, consider the reader's needs, not your own."

[edit] My law

I have had the honor to phrase a possibly significant observation about the social dynamics of Wikipedia. See User:Raul654/Raul's laws (# 10).

[edit] Admin? No thanks.

I have requested removal of my admin status on the English Wikipedia, which I have held for about two and a half years. The reason is that I thoroughly disagree with the ways of the community these days, particularly the excessive legalistic nitpicking that has replaced good will and common sense. It is my belief that these developments result from a failure to adhere to a few basic principles:

  • to be open and warmly welcoming, not insular,
  • to be focused singlemindedly on writing an encyclopedia, not on Usenet-style debate,
  • to recognize and praise the best work, work that is detailed, factual, well-informed, and well-referenced,
  • to work to understand what neutrality requires and why it is so essential to and good for this project,
  • to treat your fellow productive, well-meaning members of Wikipedia with respect and good will,
  • to attract and honor good people who know a lot and can write about it well, and
  • to show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who if permitted would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here.

Which is what Larry Sanger wrote in his farewell message in 2002, and which is as true today as it was then; the only slight amendment that I would add to adapt his message to 2006 would be a reference to bureaucratic minds obsessed with process instead of content.

I will continue to contribute to the encyclopedia, but I don't want to be perceived as one who identifies with the ways of the madhouse.

[edit] Vandalism

My userpage has been vandalised seven times until now. I consider that an accumulation of compliments by people who wish to acknowledge my decent attitude.

[edit] Bragsheet

My bragsheet - (click [show] to view):
 

[edit] Kosebamse privately

[edit] Works I hope to see published during my lifetime


Weep o mine eyes - (click [show] to view):
 

[edit] Great moments

[edit] Kicking the bucket in the high arctic

From User talk:Bishonen:

[edit] Ballooon landing on main page

Well! well! well! What a surprise! Congratulations. Giano | talk 06:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

  • No as a matter of fact I did not! allthough I was going to. Very intelligent human beings such as Raul and myself though can comminicate by telepathy, so I will take the credit for it being there just the same. Have you removed the pretentious text though? "Gently slipped away, guided by angels, into a better world" is the way I would express it Giano | talk 12:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
You do realize the pretentiousness comes in the very first sentence, and will thus appear ON the Main Page itself? I you want to change it, you'll have to do it here, not just in the article text. Oh, I forgot, you can't, can you? Upcoming Main Page text is protected. Only us admins can edit it. And, let me see, you aren't one, are you? <cough>MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA<cough>. Bishonen | talk 10:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC).
Don't worry I'm sure one of your peers like Orane would do it for me. Giano | talk 12:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations and best wishes for the article being on main page, and all the attention that brings. Perhaps "lost the fight, epic and enduring, as all must in the end, against that most bitter of enemies, foe to joy, widow's grief and orphan's warder, death?" Or, to make the expert editor happy, "Kicked the bucket." In fact, I think, "Andree kicked the bucket on White's Island in 1897" will be great. Geogre 12:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I liked the first one better, however "lost the fight" just doesn't strike the right note, does it? Perhaps "succumbed to pitiless cruelties of nature" would be more apt? Note the poetic overblown redundancy! KillerChihuahua?!? 12:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Apt schmapt. I declare we have a consensus for croaked. Bishonen talk 14:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC).
I'm not sure. How about "...in which all three expedition members labored in futility to push up the daisies that (alas!) would never bloom in their cruel arctic graveyard." —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • .....when their last soft breath was lost on the glacial breeze which enshrinined them for eternity in their sarcophagi of ice. Giano | talk 17:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • "...then did Fama, with her mournful trumpet sound the passing of these noble men and valiant heroes." Geogre 17:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
      • and the world was then still, as only sobbing sounded across the frozen tundra Giano | talk 17:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Um, given the frigid fate of our three heroes, who was sobbing exactly? The polar bears? I think not - they would have been most relieved. Perhaps "...and the world was then still, the silence broken only by the gentle sighing of the Hyperborean air, the groaning of the ice, and the padding of polar bears." -- ALoan (Talk) 18:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Forgive him.....he is British..they have no romance in their souls, they see not the beauty in having their bolox frozen off. Giano | talk 19:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The horrors

From User talk:Scientizzle

Dear Vile Anathema:

I am here to offer puerile, yet amazingly accurate, statements about your parenthood, personal hygiene, intelligence and/or sexual practices. For your breakage of the Wikipedia caused me, for several fraught moments, to be without guidance as to which band is teh suxx, who is uber-ghey, and which celebrities, both male and female, suffer from firecrotch. Additionally, I was unable at a crucial moment to accurately articulate which variety of Pokemon spawns the "Wigglytuff" The vacuum created in my life by the absence of this information caused me to experience an utter breakdown, during which I spoke in polysyllabic words and manifested unwanted signs of intelligence. You are personally responsible for this horror, and I fully intend to bill you, in full, for the cost of the necessary therapy and medications which will be required for me to recover from this highly-traumatic incident. Did no one ever tell you it's not nice to break the intarweb?

You, sir, are full of lose and pleh. May ducks roost uneasily in your underthings. Insincerely, Gladys J Cortez 01:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: Troutslap!

This is my favorite response so far...Thanks! — Scientizzle 01:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I am panting with relief at the information which you were so kind as to impart to me on my talk page. (Also: yAy! i GOt my 1irsT B@RnST@r!!!!! (Ok, actually that looks like "....got my first PORNSTAR", which...You know, that would be almost as good. Almost. :) )) Fer serious, d00d...thanks! Gladys J Cortez 02:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sir, I salute you, and hereby offer to bronze what's left of the trout once everyone, including myself, gets their whack at you. I laughed really loudly and long at the AN/I on all this. total Awesomeness! ThuranX (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

[edit] Definition of scientific theory in a nutshell

From Intelligent design:

"This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science, is about how and where to draw the lines around science. For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:

  • Consistent (internally and externally)
  • Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
  • Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
  • Empirically testable & falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
  • Based upon controlled, repeated experiments
  • Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
  • Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
  • Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word."


[edit] Miscellanea, random stuff, nonsense

Proceed at your own risk. Don't try to take anything here too serious.

[edit] Predictions about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Later comments in bold. Spoilers ahead.

  • Harry and most of the good guys will survive. It is a children's book after all, although one taken to the limits, and that is a good reason not to kill the heroes. (Good guess but not exactly difficult)
  • The veil is there for a reason, most likely serving as an entrance to the otherworld (quite possible that it predates the ministry, by the way). (Bad, bad Jo. This would have needed explaining) We may see an otherworld episode with our heroes (correct), possibly involving Sirius, James, and Lily, (half correct, as they visited him, not he them) and possibly an Orpheus and Euridice-like story with Harry and Ginny. (Chance missed, Jo)
  • Snape's other two memories will come into play. Before they start occlumency, Snape removes three memories from his mind and one memory (presumably one of these threee) is later seen in the pensieve; the other two may be as significant. (Prediction overfulfilled)
  • Harry's psychological deficits may be helpful in the final showdown. It would be a befitting end for the Dark Lord to succumb to his enemy's weaknesses rather than strengths. Particularly Harry's inability to control his temper and his poor performance at occlumency may turn out to be some surprising advantage. (Not such a bad guess, but it was a flaw of Dumbledore's plan - not of Harry's psyche - that brought about ultimate victory)
  • There will be victims on the good side, and their deaths will be heroic and heartbreaking. (Correct, but not difficult to foresee. Dobby's death was indeed a heartbreaking episode.) Obvious candidates are practically every member of the Order of the Phoenix (correct, but pretty obvious too), and particularly Hagrid and Neville. And of course Luna, Luna, and Luna. (wrong, wrong, and wrong)
  • There's more to the R.A.B. message than meets the eye. The language is strange, and the numerology (sevenses galore) is suspicious. (Irrelevant)
  • Fawkes will have a central role (well, at least his feathers had). His connection to Dumbledore (and Harry) is still poorly understood (and remains so), but his capability of being born again might become essential, perhaps for Harry to survive a trip into the otherworld (off the mark). And the question of his tail feathers is still enigmatic: the occurence of the "priori incantatem" effect at the graveyard is not the last that we have seen of that. (Quite correct, and it's interesting that Voldemorts intelligent use of several other wands contributes to his downfall)

The following are less serious, just some idle speculation:

  • The whole Horcrux story might be the greatest red herring of it all. It is getting very speculative here, but the real problem to solve might lie elsewhere (hint: Godric's Hollow, the missing day, Voldemort's wand). (Not a bad guess. Although Harry makes a decision to go for the Horcruxes instead of the Hallows, the latter would have been a very real possibility; and they have much to do with Godric's Hollow, too.
  • Figg might turn out to be not a squib after all. (Not really)
  • Goblins and giants will have a relevant role, and possibly also centaurs and house-elves, but muggles quite certainly (the muggle PM was not introduced without a reason). (Off the mark)
  • Kreacher's malevolence may lead to a crucial plot twist and turn out to be helpful for the good side. (Quite off the mark)

And this one is a bit over the top:

  • Taking the idea of red herrings even further, Voldemort might be one himself and the true enemy could be lurking where we don't suspect him (did I hear someone saying "Snape"?). (Off the mark. Snape's true loyalty becomes obvious in the scene at the frozen pond.)

One statement for the record: The idea that Harry's scar is a horcrux seems rather far-fetched (though intriguing, given the chance that in a final showdown Voldemort might have to undo his horcrux in killing Harry) (which he has to, indeed, but with quite unexpected consequences). However, Voldemort wanted to kill baby Harry and did not expect his curse to backfire. So, if that use of "avada kedavra" was intended to create a horcrux, he would have intended to leave it in a dead baby, which does not seem to make much sense. And if he had intended to use his killing of James or Lily to create a horcrux in Harry, then again, why would he try to kill him afterwards? (the idea of inadvertently creating a horcrux is a little over the top, though)

And another statement for the record: intended or not, the parallels between Ginny Weasley and Lyra Belacqua are rather interesting. Lyra's loyalty and courage, her strength of character, her aptitude at lying come to mind. It would be fascinating to read a "Ginny and her Death" chapter (chance missed, Jo). If the worst comes to the worst, I could even imagine her in a botanic gardens-like scene (although Harry is so far not portrayed as someone who would willingly part with his "subtle wand") (well, he is getting there in the course of the book. Some scenes from "The forest again" and "Kings Cross" are among the strongest writing that Jo has produced, by the way). Oh and by the way, I would give a Rowling library for a chapter by Pullman, just to set that straight... (amend that to "a Rowling bookshelf". That last book was quite impressive.)

[edit] Teletubbiepedia

...and I have been a part of it: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bulbasaur

[edit] Gallery

And now for something completely different...

Nutters (non-Wikipedian)

Nutters (Wikipedian)

  • Khranus (Dolphins have four brains)
  • Plautus satire: "On Wikipedia, there is a giant conspiracy attempting to have articles agree with reality."
  • Sollog (Predicts earthquakes, more or less)
  • Time Cube Guy (Time is cubic is cubic is cubic)

Fanatics and monomaniacs

Users of peculiar manners


[edit] More miscellanea

[edit] Links

[edit] Putinism

[edit] Sig

[edit] Subpages