User talk:Leibniz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] The off-side rule and Landin

Hi Leibniz, nice to see your addition on the history of the off-side rule! Where did you get this information, the source would be interesting in the article too? (You can answer here.) --TuukkaH 16:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It is in the Landin article linked after the quotation: see page 160, left column, third line from the bottom. Leibniz 17:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't more specific (I thought you had read Talk:Off-side rule). Although the article can be seen as the introduction of the term, I didn't find it discussing the origin of the term, football or not. --TuukkaH 17:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Since Landin is English, I assumed a cultural reference to offside in football (i.e., soccer) is obvious. If you really want to be sure, you could mail him and ask nicely; see [1] for his email.

[edit] Pribor-3B meroka assault rifle

Hi there!, Why is the Pribor-3B page being deleted?, Im trying hard to find offiial information about it and it is extremely hard to find.

User:Jetwave Dave 17 August 2007, 20:08PM (UTC)

Because without sources it falls foul of WP:V. How do you know it is not a hoax or something made up by Counterstrike fanboys? Leibniz 19:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Becouse there are real images of it in the Tula State Arms Museum amongst Korobovs inventions

If anyone wants to discuss the so called 'Pribor-3B' at the German A. Korobov talk page.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winky Bill (talk • contribs) 19:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Jetwave Dave 18 August 2007, 21:00PM (UTC)

[edit] Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Recognition

I notice that the page Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Recognition overlaps quite a bit with List of animals (Borges). It seems like the pages need to be rewritten so that the contents do not overlap much or one of the pages should be deleted. What do you think? --Pierremenard 19:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that they should be merged. Leibniz 20:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proof by Assertion

I brought this up because Proof by Assertion was often used by my lecturers to shape a bigger argument without getting bogged down in detail. Non-obvious things could then be analysed in more detail later. It might be worth mentioning in this context, as it applies to the other forms of Mathematical proof given. What do you think? Stephen B Streater 21:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are mixing the logical fallacy of proof by assertion with leaving out unnecessary details, which one does nearly all the time in proof (for human audiences). I hope your lecturers were clear that they had not actually proved everything, but left out bits as "exercise for the interested reader". Leibniz 21:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes - we had a different definition to "Proof by Assertion" from the one given here. Basically, a one step proof. Stephen B Streater 21:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
That should not be called a "proof". Leibniz 15:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
It's a joke. Stephen B Streater 15:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technical Analysis

Hi Leibeniz

Hope you are well. I noticed you made some changes to the recent entries that I made, and I can see your point.

When I initially read the Technical Analysis section, one of the points that came across was that there was no real evidence supporting the merits of using technical analysis. I did some research and found a series of investors who have out performed the market consistently using technical analysis with the Renaissance Technologies seemly having achieved the best results. I have no desire to advertise their hedge fund, but thought it would be useful if readers had some evidence of success through use of technical analysis.

Possibly I should move a toned down version of the suggested ammemdments to the Criticism section?

All the best Dary

Welcome to Wikipedia, Dary I see your point about the track record of that firm. However, I do not consider isolated examples to be of the required significance and objectivity for an encyclopedia. The kind of hard evidence I would like to see (for or against) is things like articles in peer-reviewed economics journals, with references.
Thanks for the welcome to Wikipedia and guidance as to what type of articles / references can be submitted.

[edit] Günter Grass

You have indeed caught me reading too quickly. I misunderstood the following sentence from Spiegel: Grass wurde mit 17 einberufen und kam vom Arbeitsdienst zur Panzerdivision "Frundsberg," die zur Waffen-SS gehörte. However, the sentence before this one did give me the impression that Grass had not been an anti-aricraft auxiliary: Der "Blechtrommel"-Autor war nicht wie bislang bekannt lediglich 1944 als Flakhelfer ingezogen worden.

This information came across on Spiegel's English-language site as: From the middle of 1944 until the end of the war in the spring of 1945, Grass served in the Frundsberg tank division of the elite military outfit. Previously, he had contended that he was a teenage helper of an anti-aircraft unit.

You may be in position to clear up this (minor) question about his service as a Flakhelfer prior to his induction into the Frundsberg Division.

Sca 22:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Just trying to get the facts straight. The ratio of facts to verbiage on GG in the last few days has not always been favourable. Leibniz 22:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, in the German Wiki article, it says: Zuvor hieß es in den veröffentlichten Biografien des Schriftstellers stets, er sei 1944 Flakhelfer geworden und danach als Soldat einberufen worden. But that doesn't clear it up, either.
Sca

[edit] Tony Reed

I am the artist that this article addresses. I don't care whether I have an article on this site or not, but apparently at least one fanatic does. I don't challenge deleting the article so much as I suggest blocking the account of the user. After actually reading the article, however, I propose that it be changed. There are some things that Qabbalah wrote about me that are not completely true and some notable things that were left out. Also, there's some personal information posted there that I prefer not to be accessable to the public. How did he get my wedding photo? I certainly agree that the pages dedicated to my albums ought to be removed or merged. The same with Cafe Graffiti which was not notable except, perhaps, as a side note. I will be happy to change it myself, but I don't know how so you'll have to bear with me as I learn.

Not that this matters, but.. RE: WP:MUSIC, There are two "notable" credits - 1. I toured South America and Mexico with Elegant Machinery - 2. I have been played on "Alternative" stations owned by Clearchannel (Something I regret, but it qualifies) Also - It is important to note that I have sold enough copies of my first two albums to earn a gold record, but I refuse to join the pathetic agencies that masquerade as unions, so I don't qualify.User:TonySReed

  • You are officially a sockpuppet. Leibniz 20:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Zalewski

Hi, I don't know if you're new to patrolling new page or the deletion process, but you might find it useful to read Wikipedia:Speedy deletions and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Biographies that don't assert the notability of the person can be "speedy deleted", saving time on the process for everyone involved. Thanks for your contribution nonetheless. Equendil Talk 19:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I thought someone could argue that being "7=4 Adepts and co-chiefs of Thoth Hermes Temple" asserted notability. You never know with these occultists. Leibniz 20:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emfazie Hoax

Great catch on the Argusto Emfazie III hoax. It's hard to believe this article has been around since February 2002, and you're the first one to really dig into it. I've added my findings at the AfD discussion, so hopefully this mess will finally be cleared up. Again, nice work! --Satori Son 20:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doodoocaca

FWIW, I am an administrator with nearly four years experience, bureaucratic rights on two other Wikia projects, six features and a slew of original articles to my credit. The article at Doodoocaca was not a speedy deletion candidate, was selected by other users as being worthy of consideration for a project dedicated to Flash animation and was nominated in bad faith by a user with a history of same. I have taken the time to restore my work. Please discuss this with me on my talk page if you have any other questions. Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 04:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but my nomination was hardly in bad faith, and I take serious issue with the allegation (without proof) that I have a history of bad faith nominations, when that is not the case. I listed my opinion in the AfD, and whether you agree with that or not, that's what the AfD process is there for. MikeWazowski 04:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Never mind; sorry to have been a bother. I've apologized to Mike and the article has been sent back to AfD. Thanks for your diligence. Looks like this goof was entirely mine for adding this in the first place and that you were entirely justified in nominating it. - Lucky 6.9 05:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I was accusing MikeWazowski of trolling which was unjustified. Sorry about the flare-up. - Lucky 6.9 00:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invite

 I notice you have expressed an interest in logic. Have you considered joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Logic? It is an effort to coordinate the work of Wikipedians who are knowledgeable about logic in an effort to improve the general quality and range of Wikipedia articles on logic topics. We at the project invite your participation and correspondence. Be well.

Gregbard 08:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re:Sock

I'll give you one guess as to who User:Winky Bill is, given his user account was created 20 August, and that his third edit was to create that redirect. That, and he gave himself the award User:Kfc1864 gave me this morning, apparently from the same user, that clearly didn't give it to him. I'm thinking about reporting him as a sock. Parsecboy 21:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That is why I mention him to you. The edit pattern looks extremely similar and he already has a copyvio warning. BTW I think that the Seattle-based IP vandal is someone else. Leibniz 21:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, he's also re-added the Pribor 3B to the list of Russian weaponry article. Well, the IPs that use the "Jetwave Dave will kick your ass" edit summaries are clearly Jetwave, but some of them might be another "friend" I've made, User:Labyrinth13. Some of them follow Jet's edit pattern, some follow Laby's. The odd thing is, they both show up as Seattle-based IPs. Who knows? Parsecboy 22:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I put a speedy delete on the redirect he created, that should deal with that sufficiently. Parsecboy 22:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Now I'm not so sure. I'm starting to think that Jetwave and Laby might be somehow related. I was looking over the edit histories of the IP vandals, and one that was in the range I had previously thought belonged to Labyrinth (65.102.18x.xx, he had used this well before I even came in contact with Jetwave) signed his name as Jetwave. Any thoughts? Parsecboy 22:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
That would support my conjecture it was one of your earlier acquaintances just signing as Jet to fool you. I think Jet is based in Britain, and I would be surprised if he could fake his IP address, unless there is some Vandal R Us server in Seattle. Also now we suspect he was reincarnated the moment he was blocked. To know more, we'd need a checkuser. Leibniz 22:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Jet is based in Britain, or at least the impostor email address was registered to the .co.uk domain suggests. I think you're right that it was in fact, Labyrinth coming around to say "hi", as this edit summary, which happened to be at the start of this mess. Parsecboy 22:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I wonder who is going to clean up the mess in the articles. Unverifiably kewl weapons evidently require a huge AFD to get rid of. Leibniz 23:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess the only thing to do is go through Jet's/Winky's edit histories and clean up every article they created. It'll probably take a while though. I may or may not start on it tonight, depending on how late I decide to stay up. Parsecboy 23:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "unreferenced", "fact", "cleanup", "merge"etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 11:48 18 September 2007 (GMT).

[edit] Montague grammar and semantics of continuations

I noticed this edit mainly for the messiness of the citation. On further inspection, the link was to a paper that doesn't seem to have been published anywhere. "Has been linked to" is a little vague. A lot of things have been linked to a lot of things. I don't doubt that Montague grammar has been applied in programming language semantics -- one of my teachers in college had some 40-page proof of the correctness of an algorithm used in garbage collection, based on Montague's work, back in the late 70s. I just wonder if an unpublished extended abstract is a good way to substantiate this? I'll leave it in for now, but given the stubbiness of the article, wouldn't it be better to focus on fleshing it out a little more before going into the more tangential treatments? Yakushima (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)