User talk:Lysdexia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]]

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).

[edit] Username

Lysdexia, I simply love your username! JFW | T@lk 13:46, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been using it for almost a decade starting from IRC.

I like it too --WikiSlasher 11:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

does anyone has -> does anyone have (auxiliary infinitive!) did changed -> did change (auxiliary infinitive!) Don't put adjectives at the end of a sentence after a noun phrase for it's awkward.

I hate people because they never correct grammar, of English- or French- and Spanish-speakers. lysdexia? 23:37, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have truely no idea of what you are talking about. Do you have a link ? SweetLittleFluffyThing

truely -> truly; no I don't. lysdexia 18:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematical beauty

Numbers aren't beautiful; symbols are pretty and expressions are beautiful. And Galileo was as wrong as Kepler. lysdexia 01:36, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The beauty that mathematicians find in mathematics is obviously altogether different from any esthetic charm anyone finds in symbols or expressions. Michael Hardy 19:34, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say mathematics. lysdexia 18:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Electromagnetic spectrum

You added a {{dubious}} tag after the spectrum. Is it the continuous spectrum you don't agree with, or is it the discrete spectrum above it? I made the continuous spectrum using data about some kind of actual measurements of vision, and some matrices that I hope were correct. The discrete spectrum is a bunch of random colours, with random people's opinion on what frequencies different colours have, and the discrete table at electromagnetic spectrum is even completely different from the discrete table at colour, so I have no problem with the discrete table being considered dubious. Κσυπ Cyp   11:08, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It could've been the gamma with the continuous. lysdexia 18:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] your messages on my talk page

I noticed that you left some messages for me on my talk page, and I thought I'd address them here. First of all, you called my usage of "U.S." idiotic; however, I'd refer you to Wikipedia:Manual of style#Usage and spelling, where it clearly states that U.S. is preferred. So, to sum up: please don't be obnoxious about the grammar on my user page; if you're going to, be right about it; and even if you are right, which in this case you aren't, don't be unpleasant about it.

Second of all, you referred to another user as being a source of "mindless raving nonsense". I'm unaware as to what, if any, dispute you may have with said user, but I find it distinctly unenjoyable. Please don't place your hostility on my talk page--I've spared you the burden of removing it yourself this time. I would refer you to Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

If you wish to communicate with me further, please use courtesy towards both me and other editors.

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:02, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Even though it's preferred, it's idiotic, so I'm not wrong. Rightness has nothing to do with usage or consensus, even in a language's style or spelling; it must be backed up by independent reason. "U.S." is an indefensible spelling. Did I attack him? I attacked his nonsense. lysdexia 18:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Lys, language is usage and consensus. That's all it is. There is no official authority that decides what language is correct or incorrect. The only recourse one has is to follow some agreed-upon standard. In the case of Wikipedia, that standard is the Manual of Sytle. Following that standard on Wikipedia is quite defensible. If your intent is to change the usage and consensus here at Wikipedia, you are, in my opinion, unlikely to succeed. -Rholton 16:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] My sig

How can my sig be a patent violation? I don't understand. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 11:15, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's an animated GIF. So you didn't read that article about GIFs being deprecated? Lysdexia 18:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The GIF patent has expired in 2003. This is 2004. I don't think there is anything to get upset about using GIFs. Hu 06:47, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

[edit] Data plural/singular?

• http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutgrammar/data
• http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=data
• http://johnaugust.com/archives/2004/data-is-singular
• http://www.johnquiggin.com/archives/001442.html

And if you could possibly try not to insult people in your edit comments that would be fantastic. AlistairMcMillan 01:25, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Data's used as an adjective, so it may look like it's [almost] always a singular collective noun. Data also contends with bit as the unit in phrases, so datum isn't used. The plural shouldn't be used as a collective noun (data = givens; Lexicographers don't know this, but data really means tokens. That's what they [don't] get for neglecting English sheerness (purity) when translating from Latin.), unless it's a name, which it's not. which people? lysdexia 18:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Domain Name System

See Wikipedia:Requested moves. Gdr 09:01, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

Can you enlighten us as to why you felt "Services" was better? From RFC-1034 on, the name has been "System". What gives? Noel 18:17, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Domain Name Service would be more in keeping with our naming convention of singular nouns, at any rate. I agree; "System" is the more correct name. -- Wapcaplet 18:55, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I put this at the above page:

Hi, the article is mostly about the carrying out of the domain name resolution, and services has always been used for that effect. The system is the drawing out of how a service works. So the new revision describing the service as a system is wrong. lysdexia 18:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ah, but DNS is more than just the service of offering resolution of domain names and IPs. See RFC 1034 and RFC 1035 for details. DNS, the Domain Name System, is more than just the service offered by a server. It is also a proper noun, a name.

The article should be Domain Name System, with a section on a DNS service or server (e.g. a server running BIND). If the article currently describes just the service aspect, then the article should be expanded. --BenM 08:01, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Talk pages

Hello. Just a note on the use of talk pages on Wikipedia - please do not delete comments by other people from talk pages. I'm referring to this edit. See Wikipedia:Talk page for preferred policy on this. Thanks! -- Wapcaplet 15:38, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't say the preferred policy, or one about this. lysdexia 18:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It does say "Archive rather than delete", and "Don't misrepresent other people". I think many other Wikipedians will agree with me that deleting comments is a fairly egregious misrepresentation. Besides, it's just sort of rude. Please don't do it. If you disagree with someone (and you seem to have no shortage of disagreements with people), please, simply post your own comments, rather than removing someone else's. -- Wapcaplet 20:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That was about the page getting too long. If they agree so, I've yet to read it. Are you saying that the talk pages can't be edited like the articles to remove plain mistakes? lysdexia 20:36, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I know the policy currently doesn't explicitly forbid deletion of comments; this is a wiki, after all. "Wrong" comments often provide a basis for discussion, however. In this particular instance, the discussion would be fairly short (see Theresa's recent addition), but in general it is through conversation with other users (particularly those who misunderstand a subject, or who simply hold a dissenting opinion) that articles are improved, made clearer and more neutral. Outright deletion of comments, even if they are wrong, stifles that conversation. -- Wapcaplet 00:24, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

lysdexia - just to let you know, I have moved your recent comment left on my User page to my User Talk page. It hasn't been deleted. - Scooter 07:30, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Let's keep it nice and friendly

I saw this on your contributions list:

• don't redirect this, dumbass; it's a program (Get a Mac!)
• stupid
• Brits don't know grammar...
• more dumbasses who can't capitalise right...
• crappy punctuation
• Data is plural! Apple cannot both has and be a they! Damned illiterates!

I am sure that everybody appreciates that you correct mistakes in grammar and spelling. However, I think some people may take offense from the way you summarize your corrections. Would you have liked it if I had summarized an edit with "Which idiot has come up with this crap?", thereby referring to you? You can simply summarize as "sp(elling)" or "grammar", or maybe something like "grammar (participle had no subject)" if it isn't obvious why you corrected it. -- Han-Kwang (talk) 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, your example is about content, which is different. I wouldn't like it if it were wrong, which would depend on what was changed and why. lysdexia 18:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Whether it is content or form, you do call people names such as "Damned illiterate" and "dumbass" because they make spelling errors. From the history of those pages it will be quite clear who you are referring to. And since you ask, I think it's quite inappropriate for you to call someone a dumbass given the edits you recently made in the laser article. Han-Kwang (talk) 14:56, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] TI-84 Plus Silver Edition

You wrote a Pages needing attention message on TI-84 Plus Silver Edition, but I don't know what attention it needs. Why did you put the message on?? 66.245.122.28 21:39, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's too short and clumsily written? lysdexia 18:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Birthday paradox

You seem to have been attempting to correct punctuation by putting periods at the ends of sentences. But two of the periods you added, at the end of "displayed" TeX, were in the middle of a sentence, not at the end. Also, although in the normal use of TeX, as opposed to its use on Wikipedia, it makes no difference whether the period goes inside or outside of math mode, but on Wikipedia there is a difference in appearance on many browsers between this:

.

and this:

Michael Hardy 20:46, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Secret Message

What is the secret message you placed in my talk page? I simply cannot decode it. --wshun 15:54, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Summaries

While you may be quite accurate in your spelling and grammar corrections, do you think you could refrain from putting “[sic]” in other peoples comments on the talk pages and from putting things like “learn English” in your edit summaries? Doing so makes it look as if you are making personal attacks and (though Ill admit this is probably fairly irrelevant) irritates me enormously. Thanks for your time! Iain 11:44, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] editing archived talk pages

Please don't modify Template talk:Disambig/Archive1, especially not someone else's comments. If you wish to talk about it, do it at Template talk:Disambig. --Joy [shallot] 21:40, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And please don't add "[sic]" into other people's comments. It's neither fair nor polite. --Joy [shallot] 10:36, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiLove is a concept which has made this community and this encyclopedia survive and flourish. I recommend its use when editing here. The difference between parsing and emitting error messages and the tolerance that love and respect imply is that the vast majority of the writers wrote their contributions here in good faith. If everyone wrote absolutely accurately, then your contributions would not have to also include parsing and correcting. Since there are one hundred thousand wikipedians now, I suppose that your talents will come in handy, but some forbearance and forgiveness would help a great deal. Ancheta Wis 02:02, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy

I agree with the others. Please at least keep your editorial comments to yourself. Maurreen 07:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sic

If you want to fix a spelling error, please do so, but adding [sic] all over the place is not helpful and will be reverted. Angela. 18:12, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

• Agreed. There are far better uses of your time and talent than the addition of numerous [sic]s and bracketed intended-punctuation on a bunch of old talk pages. Besides, all those brackets are far more distracting than the occasional misspelling or imperfect hyphenation. -- Wapcaplet 06:41, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "His or her" to "One's"

Please be careful when replacing pronouns with "one" or "one's"; I have noticed several instances in which such a replacement was grammatically incorrect or confusing, or led to an alteration in meaning. Consider:

• "...each player bids for his or her partnership." to "...each player bids for one's partnership." [1] (whose partnership is the player bidding for?)
• "...a Scandinavian person who might happily take all their clothes off in a mixed sauna..." to "...a Scandinavian person who might happily take all one's clothes off in a mixed sauna..." [2] (whose clothes is the Scandinavian person taking off?)

The Gender-neutral pronoun FAQ has a note on this, and there is a related usage note in the dictionary. In the cases above, in order to correctly use the "one's" construct, it would be necessary to rephrase the sentence to a form such as "...to play, one bids for one's partnership" or "...in Scandinavia, one who might happily take one's clothes off in a mixed sauna..." But in my opinion, it may be better to rephrase to avoid the pronoun completely if possible ("...each player bids for partnership"). -- Wapcaplet 16:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The grammar was right as the noun-referent was already given in the same sentence! "One" doesn't mean "anyone" or "someone". It is the gender-neutral pronoun in English, which may be definite or indefinite, the live equivalent of "such". Linguists don't understand. lysdexia 04:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another appeal for civility

Hello. This is my first run-in with you, but it seems others have taken similar exception to your less than civil editorial comments. Calling people "fools" and other untoward appellations in your edit summaries violates wikiquette, not to mention common courtesy. I therefore ask you, once again, to keep your comments civil (or to not make comments at all, if you cannot stop yourself from insulting others). Please see Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks for more detail.

It's somewhat amusing that your latest "fools" edit actually introduced inaccuracies; turquoise the mineral is not necessarily equivalent to turquoise the colour, which is why we have separate pages for each topic. Most of your punctuation changes were also needless or in some cases incorrect: For example, the use of semicolons to separate items in the list is correct usage and there was no reason to change them to commas. Also, if you're going to use em dashes, insert them as an HTML entity (see Wikipedia:Special characters). In other words, — rather than —. This is necessary because some browsers will not translate the character correctly, and when such a browser edits or views the page, the dashes will be replaced by question marks. Thanks for your consideration. -- Hadal 19:19, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They were not untoward; they were true. I changed back your achromatic edits to turquoise, as you didn't understand what the hues even meant. They were accurate descriptions of the stone, so step off. Where did I wrongly use commas? Which browsers can't read dashes? lysdexia 04:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] [sic] and so on

Please stop adding [sic] and other critical marks to talk pages.[3] As mentioned above, these edits will be reverted. -- Wapcaplet 03:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Again, please discontinue your insertion of [sic] into talk pages.[4] You are wasting your time; I, or someone else, will revert them. -- Wapcaplet 01:55, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • This behavior is becoming very trollish. Are you unable to contain/control yourself in making these edits? A talk page should never have to be reverted. You shouldn't be editing other people's comments. And "[sic]" is almost never a useful addition to talk or to an article. Also, what's with you changing some parentheticals to square brackets (apparently if they are short thoughts rather than complete sentences?). I'm not familiar with that convention, and I'm sure it's not WP standard. -- Chinasaur
  • Another thought: could this account be being used sometimes by a robot editor? --Chinasaur 08:24, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• It's not even conventional English, according to the bracket article. -- Wapcaplet 05:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You've had ample warning. I have listed you on Requests for comment for your conduct on talk pages. -- Wapcaplet 17:46, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't troll, you are wasting your time by obscuring mistakes, and "square bracket" is a tautology. There are bows (), brackets [], and braces {}. Brackets are used for semicontinuous speech, bows for discontinuous speech, and braces for whatever. lysdexia 04:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plurals and repeating your changes

You changed the plurals “discs” [5] and “viruses” [6]; both of them are actually correct.

More seriously, you repeated changes to other users’ signed comments, calling the original reversion “vandalism”[7]. I am drawing your attention again to Civility and No personal attacks, and I am warning you that your name could easily appear on Requests for comment iff you carry on like this.

Susvolans 17:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My plurals were right. Virus is not an English word, but Latin. lysdexia 04:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

If you are going by Latin, well then, read Plural of virus. Not only was "virus" never pluralized in latin, but neither "virii" nor "viri" would not have been a proper pluralization of it in any case. Also ask google. Latin scholars, people who only rely on a dictionary, and general internet consensus agree on "viruses". The persons online who say "virii"/"viri" usually also say "boxen" and "mouses", are those correct plurals? 64.162.11.125 10:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I've already been referred to that on flickr, and wasn't convinced. Whether or not it had another ending has nothing to do with following a standard. I've also seen no evidence that Latin forms can't overlap—or be homonumic. By the way, you wrote a double negative to support me. If virus is too uncountable, then maybe everyone should change the term to virarius? :D Or use start using English again: bane, baneling, banekin, etc. Boxen and mouses are okay, because an official distinction between antennæ and antennas has already been drawn. lysdexia 23:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

If we are to go on strictly Latin terms: Virus is (as far as can be determined by limited usage of the word in known Latin texts (unless you have a secret source)) not a masculine noun, but neuter (the fact that it would overlap with the plural of vir had no bearing on the case). If it would have had any plural in Latin it would have been vira or virua'. In absence of concrete proof (like, plural examples in Latin texts), the general Wikipedia attitude is one of consensus. Since by far the plural used online and in wikipedia is viruses, I would suggest you play nice with others. At the very least, do not replace viruses with viri in established positions. 64.162.10.14 23:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

What are those based on? I'm assuming a second declension, and one not to look like the feminine noun. What is the problem? Do you think that people won't understand what viri means? lysdexia 14:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Vandalism

Your "correction" of comments on talk pages constitutes vandalism. If you continue you will be blocked from editing. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 04:49, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page you will be blocked from editing. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 05:07, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have never vandalised a page, corrections to comments are not vandalism [as other users earlier suggested I do], and so you are a liar. Ye cannot even get the editing standards straight, basing all of yer complaints on feelings rather than what is right for the page. Your complaints are worthless, and I did nothing wrong. lysdexia 04:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop attempting to correct user pages

Lysdexia, it took a lot of restraint for me to keep myself from marking up your RFC response with corrections. It is littered with run-on sentences, mismatched subjects and verbs, incorrect capitalization, awkward expressions, and even a misspelled word ("wilfully"). My point, I guess, is that you have no business correcting others, especially on stylistic issues where there is no single correct approach. Please stop making corrections, especially to user pages. I'm posting this to your talk page as well as your RFC. Rhobite 05:36, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

It is not, and it is you who doesn't understand how to write or spell. You support corrupted and popular language only, and it is all you know. lysdexia 04:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Did you use this network as a sock puppet?

Lysdexia, according to Ben Brockert who has posted comments on User talk:83.31.20.78#Attribution [8] [9] you have been using 83.31.20.78 IP as a sock puppet. Are User:Brockert's accusations true? Did you or did you not use any open proxies in the 83.31.0.0/16 network?

Any other IPs I need to add to my daily watchlist? —Ben Brockert (42) 23:06, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

I have not, and have no idea what a sock puppet is. Add Ben Brockert to the list of incompetent liars. lysdexia 04:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "timesening"?

Temporisation, French Latin for "timesening", is

If I had any idea what the word "timesening" means, this might help me. The Oxford English Dictionary does not list this word. Michael Hardy 00:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is the direct translation of temporisation. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive or constructive. Where did you learn English anyway? Don't linguists give a damn about accuracy, that they would forgo corruptions into English? lysdexia 04:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Giving a damn about accuracy is not the problem; the problem is that I don't know what the word means, except insofar as it is explain by saying that it means "temporization". It's as if you expect the inclusion of this word to help the reader understand. "Timesening" looks like a gerund derived from the verb "timesen". So what does "timesen" mean? Is my ignorance of what "timesen" means an occasion for you to wonder where I learned English? Michael Hardy 19:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Break it apart. All the Latin endings are mapped to English's, so they mean the exact same. lysdexia 23:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poor Wikipedian

I have been looking through your previous edits. Do you add value to Wikipedia? I think the project would be better off without you.

I do, and you're a groundless liar. lysdexia 04:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oh boy, look out...

You'd better hope you don't have a publicly available phone number, because that anon is gonna be calling you next (for this diff).--chris.lawson 15:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't, thanks. But he can save some work before frustrating himself when he looks for Autymn D. C. lysdexia 17:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar at Black Body

You reverted an edit at Black Body calling it vandalism. It was certainly not that, and it seems to me that the edits you reverted were to the correct verb forms. The Sun emittS something since "Sun" is a singular noun, right? Am I missing something? --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 15:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Read my last edit summary! lysdexia 15:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I do think you should explain that better. Methinks Kevin is right. Why do you keep reverting to an ungrammatical version? Lupo 15:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It is grammatic. lysdexia 15:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I should be clearer. We are disputing this statement. Therefore, repeating it without justification does not help to resolve the conflict. For instance, I might reply by saying "It isn't grammatic." Where would that leave us? Can we agree that the verb forms "emit", "absorb" and "depend" are all used with plural subjects? For instance "Those people emit a foul order", "The cars absorb a lot of light", and "We depend on the kindness of others". If we can agree on this, then you must be claiming that "The Sun" and "The Earth" are plural. Is this what you are claiming? If so, I think it is in need of justification. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 16:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I have copied this to Talk:Black body, perhaps we should continue the conversation there. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 17:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Subjunctive mood only applies to the "if" statement. It is not customary to use the subjunctive in mathematical proofs (and in any case it sounds ridiculous). — Dan | Talk 23:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It's self-evident and called for for the specific proof. The other uses of the subjunctive refute your lige. You have abused your power, lyging about me again, blocking me with the reason "User's only edits consist of trolling and disruption over several months". I have never trolled; my only disruptions were to get the truth across thick and clueles skulls, like yours. I was just about to put an important construction tag to rework one of the articles, but I can't now because of fools like you! You should be banned for disrupting Wikipedia. lysdexia 06:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to revert something that is clearly and obviously grammatical to something which, though it could arguably be considered grammatical by some stretch of the imagination, sounds a lot more stilted, awkward, and unusual. And calling editors who disagree with you "vandals" is inappropriate too. Please don't persist in your present quest. It's the hallmark of a clever troll to try to sneak in edits that are not outrageously wrong, but which get people riled up. You're dangerously close to the line here. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It is irrelevant how weird the edit is if it's better and truer. I had already stated my reason for my edit, so editing over with absolutely ignorant "reasons" is vandalism. You should learn what a troll is, as you are clearly yet another person who doesn't know. Moreover, you, the other users and admins are violating the Wikipedia guideline of "assuming good faith", whatever that means. I get all the blame because ye assume that I'm doing something wrong, even if it's not, but am correcting everyone! lysdexia 06:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wrongful block

I took up the issue to the Wikipedia mailing list ([10]) but, because I just joined and they're still moderating me, the admins there are taking forever to post each of my replies. That "Dan" has not said anything to justify his abuse of my account and reputation, and that the other admins I talked to have given me no feedback on my status, are unacceptable. I need to fix an article and reply to several talk pages soon. And I need action taken against "Dan" for not allowing someone to correct the pages with blatant mistakes. He is the one disrupting Wikipedia, and he lets the users call me names that they don't even know or grasp the meanings of. lysdexia 03:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Your block was perfectly logical. Your strident refusal to reconcile your particular definition of the English language with the one used by 99.999999999 percent of the English-speaking population creates an impossible conflict. This is the English Wikipedia, not the "Lysdexia's English Wikipedia." FCYTravis 19:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

My understanding of English was accurate. They objected because they were uneducated. Most English speakers don't know the difference between "was" and "were" for a singular noun, but that doesn't make someone who points out their wrong use wrong. I am the victim of ignorant and incompetent society, and the admins here don't give a damn because they don't know any better. lysdexia 07:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] on elision

you dispute-tagged it back on july 3. have you been back in a while? I saw you put a lot of work in before. not sure what you'r disputing exactly, so I can maybe help straighten it out. are there still lingering doubts about some of the content? Ish ^{(shoot some)} 06:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It should be on the talk page. I objected to exclusionism that cut out most of my work, and their reasons were weak and ill-informed. lysdexia 07:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedian admins are uncouth, illiterate, corrupt, backstabbing, obscurantist, ineducate, delusional, clueles, libelling, abusive, overstepping, hupocritic twenty-somethings, or descended from such:

I've sent the message below to User:Neutrality. I've also found out that the Wikipedia's mailing list's admin, most likely Gerard, banned my email address—this after correcting people from the list, and after unsubscribing me twice when I tried to post my reply to the main thread showing him wrong. He refused to give me an appeal or arbitration when I asked. One only has to read the list's messages in November and December, as well as the discussion in Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules, to learn how wretchen the Wikipedian admins are, from the many complaints against them for blind and POV blocking; they are happy to disrupt Wikipedia's editing process by foisting their fake understanding of the matter, yet call and punish others for their alleged disruption when they are trying to fix the former's mistakes.
I demand an unblocking, a mea culpa ("my bad"), reparations, and public actions taken against these corrupt admins. I want this taken to the top, if needful.

To Neutrality:

I need to call down Rdsmith4 and David Gerard, as well as anyone involved in my User talk and Black body talk pages who made claims against me and my work, to seek actions against their provable malice, and reparations for the time and credit lost that I could not make any edits. Rdsmith4 libelled me, based on his illiterate misunderstanding of the subject, and blocked me indefinitely leaving my account and pages to rot. The messages that I sent to the Wikipedia mailing list were met with alike ignorance of the subject, of grammar and meanings and English inflection, and the admins there wouldn't bother helping me either even after I refuted their claims. Moreover, Gerard refused to post my last reply to the list because it shows him wrong about his claims also. None of the admins I contacted by email (I told Rholton first; I forgot who was next--she was a blind pick and lesser known; DrBob was next; then Hermione1980.) replied, nor have they shown any hint of doing anything. Gerard keeps unsubscribing me from the mailing list so that I can't read its messages. All of the users I call violated policies manifold times, conspiring to keep me off Wikipedia: attacked me by calling me a troll, obviously wrong as they didn't even know what a troll is; the admin or admins kept blocking me without any warning or true reason or fitting length, as every claim made against me I refuted; the users involved denied my edits under fake understanding of the language, and when I reverted the page without breaking the three-revert rule Rdsmith4 still blocked me forever and has made no attempt to come to terms; none of the users assumed so-called "good faith" in my work, even when my deeds were /after/ I explained and justified myself so that they could not come up with objections other than to /tell/ on me to some ignorant admin; these users have disrupted Wikipedia by not letting me clean up articles, even reverting my edits several times when they had objectional facts they didn't understand but alongside formatting and grammatic corrections that they also reverted unwittingly, and leaving later [scientific] articles that I'd been working on with mistakes that only I could see and fix to rot, as I had no power to edit or object or appeal or punish.

There, send this everyonther.

-Aut

lysdexia 08:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

From the looks of it, banning Lysdexia seems to be the best thing to ever happen to Wikipedia. -- some guy

Oh, I don't know. He seems quite refreshingly straight! He's now editing as User:69.108.175.213 BTW. Nfitz 01:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

She is back. Also known as Autymn DC, serial killer of the english language. Mathsci 05:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email

What was the email for? Did it have anything to do with Wikipedia? Aaрон Кинни (t) 22:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temporisation

I have proposed this article for deletion. --Brianyoumans 04:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Ascended master, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup. If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page. You have been left this message by PocKleanBot, an automated process that notifies editors that articles to which they may have contributed on more than one occasion in the past now need cleanup. If you have any comments or object to this message being left, please leave a message on PocKleanBot's talk page.

[edit] Moved from User talk:69.238.129.55

• User talk:69.238.129.55 (hist) (contribs)

Please coordinate changes to the established elements color standard with Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements. Femto 15:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The elementbox uses a different legend, tableimage.png, than the periodic tables which each use its own. The valences are redirects to the templates that best fit their series, and the leftover work would be to fit the barchart in the project with the hues that make more sense, to fit the series. -lysdexia 02:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If you insist on revert warring

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for evading the block of user:lysdexia. 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 replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}.

Femto 15:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: ":Read Wikipedia:Blocks#When_blocking_may_not_be_used. The evasion was not preventabil; the account is banned, not only blocked; and, as I said, it was wrong. The admin's reason was a bunch of liges and libel against my edits, of a subject he couldn't understand. The edits were not disruptive or trolling, and all were corrections or improvements. Also, the admin, and the admins on the mailing list, would not reply to the action or appeal, as they had no clue about the subject either.

And you are the onely one who insists on revert warring: You made the first revert, and the third. I gave the reason for the edits, and you ignord the fact that there are many other tables that use their own patterns. All of your deedits to the templates are in the wrong, ugly, work-destroying direction. -lysdexia 04:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)"

---

Decline reason: "Block evasion is blockable on-sight -- please either request unblocking from your first account, or contact the unblock-en-l mailing list, or contact a member of the Arbitration Committee to ask for an appeal. Sorry. Luna Santin 07:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I already said: I tried all of those without reply. I was banned from the mailing list because the admin wantd to cover up my reasons. The blocking admin refuses to reply. The Arbitration Committee would not reply."

---

Decline reason: "If you are unable to get anyone to unblock you, i it means you are not welcome here. Please do not create any more abusive sockpuppets. -- Yamla 19:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

I abuse nothing and use no sockpuppets. No one unblocks me because they are corrupt, abusive and liars and censors. Every one of my edits was a correction or improvement, and they would rather not be corrected when they see what a great difference lies between their kenth and the truthe. Admins are regularly allowed to break policies and rules that they enforce, and which I wraid in my (lysdexia's) posts after I was banned long ago, and their ilk don't mind because it's for their side. And following admins only block my IP only after I admit who my first account was, or that it was banned. That was after a string of my lone improvements to my pages. So, the only reason that none will unblock me is that they are ignorant scum who hate the truthe. All those in legal power are. -lysdexia 05:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I pointed you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements. Banned or not, those templates are not going to be changed without consensus there. Femto 11:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus how?? There are no labels on the templates that tell me what to or not to do. This is a wiki. Do you even know how a wiki should work? You are the onely person who doesn't want the new edits. Look at the improvements I made to the articuli, that weren't in the templates. -lysdexia 19:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Answer me. -lysdexia 16:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Answer what? How Wikipedia:Consensus works? I think you know that. Femto 17:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hilarious Claim

Taken from above:

"I abuse nothing and use no sockpuppets. No one unblocks me because they are corrupt, abusive and liars and censors. Every one of my edits was a correction or improvement..."

You vandalized a number of user pages, including mine, where you called me an 'illiterate shithead' based on two spelling errors and the fact that you don't like the way I spell my name. I still don't even know how you found my userpage. So much for your claim that you're not abusive and that you make nothing but productive edits. That is why you were banned, not because the admins are corrupt.--Thaddius 18:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

So what was the vandalism? It was accurate and adusive. I was banned because I point out where and how others are wrong, and edit over them. If the world didn't hate the truthe so much, they would ban themselvs. -lysdexia 12:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

truthe -> truth

themselvs -> themselves

illiterate shithead.Kyle McInnes (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

truth -> truthe

themselves -> themselvs

you lysdexia 14:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What source? And oh, that's funny, Wiktionary doesn't have an entry for 'truthe'. Perhaps you'd like to contribute to the project as you so often claim and add it? Kyle McInnes (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Why and how should Wiktionary list every word that's ever bene saide or writted in English? You don't even know what English is. The -ct- fitt in dictionary means that it's a current record. You will need to look throuh the broadder dictionaries at the bottom of their entries. -lysdexia 23:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

While you might think that wandering around at parties calling people 'illiterate shitheads' is acceptable in polite society, you edited my user page (not my talk page), without my consent, and attempted to insult me. That is vandalism and falls under Wikipedia:Harassment (I suggest you read that article cause you seem to misunderstand the term). I'm not going to sit here and explain simple terms to you. What's funny is you misspelled a bunch of words in your response there. --Thaddius 13:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It was neither vandalism nor harassment because the edits were helpful. Look up "purpose" in your link. And I misspelld nothing—you know nothing about English spelling. lysdexia 14:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Calling someone a 'shithead' is harassment, and falls under Targeted personal attacks in Wikipedia:Harassment. It doesn't matter what you say about it, it wasn't 'helpful'. It was insulting and unwarranted. I can't even remember coming across you beforehand, let alone saying\doing anything to you that could possibly lead to you coming to my page to deliver your 'help'\insult. It was almost as if you were looking or even, dare I say it, trolling, for users to attack. But no, you never troll, right? Calling me a shithead was meant as constructive criticism, right? All this to say there was a legitimate reason for you being banned. I'm merely posting here to remind the mods (and hopefully you) of your blatant misdeeds, which, too bad for you, are not open to interpretation. --Thaddius 23:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Still wrong, it was not repeatted and a'following, so it was not harrying or harassing. I would not write on your page if what you regularly write on Wikipedia didn't bother me; your spelling was shitheaded, so it wasn't "un"warranted. (You don't even know what "un-" means, either.) No, my criticism is clearly destructive, where the destruction be fair. I do no misdeeds. As for polisey, there is wee between the personal and impersonal. If I would call your edits shitheaded, would that make my insult slip around this law? The law is fluff. The no-attacks-rule—admins fraudulently accus me of personal attacks even when my attacks are impersonal—is harmful to Wikipedia's quality of content and contributense. That rule lets teen and mideld retards and academic shysters edit their popular delusions ontom Wikipedia, and the rule is only there to keepin Wikipedia's traffic up. You hav no clue how wrong the world is; for Wikipedia to pass off popular understanding as the truthe is a crime. (Cassiopedia's mission statement about objectivity sounds pretty good about now. I'll bet that you can't even say "objectivity", you giiberunt retard.) -lysdexia 23:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] unblock

For the record, the only 2 edits I bothered to revert were a personal attack and some strange tagging. Femto 15:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You revertd notises (notitia) to fix the shoddy writing on those pages. Your reversions were wrong. You also awkfully revertd my improvements to the background templates for the main periodic table, and bannd my IP for your own obscuranture. You would rather the table look like queer radioactive puke than follow a consistent pattern by group or valence, say. Compar the puke that is at Valence (chemistry) with the loveliness that I made, whose onely coherent record is at http://flickr.com/photos/-1. -lysdexia 22:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)