User talk:Sean Kelly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Reed School colors?

Sean, do you have a reference for your comment about Reed's school colors? It's a great anecode, even so. JesseW 01:48, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See the discussion at Reed College Sean Kelly 17:39, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Style guide italics question

Hi, Sean. About your proposal at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, I wanted to fill you in a little bit about Wikipedia customs. I moved your post to the bottom of the page, where new discussions normally go. Changes within Wikipedia are more often discussed than voted on. And it's usual for people making proposals to give their rationale. Hope you're enjoying Wikipedia so far. Maurreen 06:11, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And yes, your test worked, and it was fixed by speedy deletion. If you create an article in error and want it deleted, you should mark it with a {{delete}}, then it will not get lost. andy 12:27, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See answer on my talk - I notified the developers to the problem. andy 22:00, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematics not an art?

Hi Sean. In the Mathematics article, I noticed that you changed: "Some say that mathematics is not a science at all, rather an art" to simply: "Some say that mathematics is not a science at all" with the edit summary of "woa woa... math is definitely in no way an art". While you may not consider it so, I can assure you that very many mathematicians (myself and the many mathematicians that I know, included) do consider it to be an art. See for example: Mathematical beauty. Or do a Google search on "mathematics as art". Regards, Paul August ☎ 19:01, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

I would agree that Mathematics is artistic, but not an art. Things that are artistic are beautiful, pleasant to behold, and consonant, like mathematics. Things that are art are created, in the physical world, and exist to be appreciated, all of which mathematics is not. Do you share this distinction?
Secondly, the passage as it was originally given is misleading. IMHO, to the average person, "Some say that mathematics is not a science at all, rather an art" would not convey the idea you and I (and the many mathematicians that you know) share, which is that mathematics is beautiful. --Sean Kelly 21:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No I'm afraid I don't share the distinction you make above. Mathematics is no less "physical" than poetry and, in the opinion of many mathematicians, no less artful. I'm not so interested in arguing whether mathematics is or is not an art, rather I'm trying to make you understand that, whether they are right or not, many mathematicians regard it as such. Paul August ☎ 23:05, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

I could see something like, "The way you write your proofs is an art," or "Making connections between polytopes and the sphere packing problem is an art." But these sentences describe the pleasure we get when we think about their aesthetics, not their nature. Their nature is not to please, but to be valid.
Well either way, I will stop babbling and accept your point that most mathematicians consider mathematics an art. It just give me goosebumps is all. --Sean Kelly 13:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Testing

  • Out my signature --Sean κ 08:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Again --sean κ 08:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Again --Sean κ. 08:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Again _Sean κ. 08:49, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Again — sean κ. ☎ 08:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Welcome to the WikiProject on Beer! We're just starting out, so there's alot to be done. – ClockworkSoul 12:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hog' s Back Brewery

Hog' s Back Brewery cannot be speedy deleted, but you could try Wikipedia:Votes for deletion instead if you wish. --Henrygb 00:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Belgium Brewery...

It looks like we have two pages with the same content...we should merge one to the other (and I don't have a preference which way). New Belgium Brewery and New Belgium Brewing Company Wikibofh 23:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Nah...I created mine after yours...:) No worries we can do whatever is best. Wikibofh 23:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your message and support. I do apologize for making the mistakes. I usually do the four tildes and summarize my actions, I just forgot. Thanks again for the message. I will watch my actions more carfully in the future. Mcfly85 23:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:TS

Thanks for your support (and vote) for my "Developed Solution" at WP:TS. I too think it's the best submission (with bias, obviously) but with 12 votes compared to 42 for the winner I don't think anything can come of it. I do like the chosen submission though, and I'm happy as long as we get some form of standardisation for the templates. violet/riga (t) 23:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beer image request

In April you listed a request on Requested pictures for a picture with 5 types of beer in it, because all the pictures are of only one beer. Are there the individual pictures that could be combined into one image that would fulfill this request? (I don't have the individual pictures but I might be able to assemble them into one picture if we did.) RJFJR 20:47, May 15, 2005 (UTC)


Public Domain Beer images of high quality can be downloaded here: http://www.washjeff.edu/capl/category_list.asp?cat=sub&id=20

[edit] Smalltalk justification?

Hello. You requested a justification for Smalltalk on the PL template—I wrote my justification in the edit summary, but as you (obviously) thought it inadequate: I see legacy apps written in various flavors of Smalltalk consulting at various banks (off the top of my head, Chase and Washington Mutual). I thought to myself, if COBOL isn't a historical language, why is Smalltalk academic? Plus Extreme Programming was first practiced at Chrysler Comprehensive Compensation, which to my knowledge is still running, though it stopped active development in 2002 or so. --AllanBz 06:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "please place pictures better"

Just a reminder that the location of "floating" images relative to other text and other images is entirely dependant on the width of your browser -- you might find that when you resize the browser window (to simulate the view of people with different graphics hardware and preferences) or change the font size, then floating images will rearrange themselves on the page. It can be difficult to get (or to expect) exact layout of graphical elements on the web, where the users' browsers are given so much control of how the pages are shown. Ojw 23:14, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory

Hi Sean, can you explain your vote comment over on Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory? "The author of the proposal has no idea what conspiracy theory means?" I quoted from Wikipedia's own article Conspiracy theory when formulating the proposal. "Conspiracy theory" is being wielded as a language weapon against some subjects but not others on Wikipedia. Because of its double meanings, the phrase "conspiracy theory" is at best ambiguous while at worst it extremely pre-discredits a subject by connoting that the subject is unworthy of being taken seriously, which seems custom made to discourage an objective analysis of that subject (it appeals to gut reaction thoughts, not deep thinking and analysis). All of which should be the anti-thesis of an encyclopedia. If something is factually debunkable it should be debunked with facts, not intentionally ambiguous and subtly discrediting language. Please explain your opinion logically. zen master T 05:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

At least one encyclopedia is not actually avoiding colloquial words and phrases. The way "conspiracy theory" works to discredit a subject is by people, such as yourself, repeatedly referring to theories as literally a theory of people conspiring, the secondary definition "dubious theory" comes along for the ride. If there is a subject you don't want to discredit you simply don't repeatedly harp on the literal definition. "Conspiracy theory" is obviously a POV device when people go to such lengths of illogic to defend it's usage. Many words and phrases have duplicitous meanings, but only "conspiracy theory"'s secondary definition pre-discredits and even discourages an objective analysis of a subject, which is custom made to appeal to readers' gut reaction thought of "oh this subject is unworthy of being taken seriously, then I won't even read or deeply think about the article". If a subject is worthy of an encyclopedia, it should be presented neutrally and encourage deep thinking and logical analysis. To repeat, if a theory or allegation is factually debunkable it should be debunked with facts inside the article, rather than merely discouraging an objective analysis of the subject by using word games in the title. zen master T 17:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
There are discussions already ongoing on talk pages for many of the articles under the proposal. My main point about "conspiracy theory" titles is that many of them have more factually cited non-dubious evidence than other neutrally titled articles. This title discrepancy amongst arguably equally dubious articles on Wikipedia forms a pattern (aligned with the same POV). An encyclopedia should treat the existence of an allegation or theory neutrally, all debunking should take place within the contents of an article. The flat earth theory article is titled Flat Earth, but allegations from nobel prize winning scientists about AIDS and biowarfare are instead titled discreditingly and discouragingly as AIDS conspiracy theories. The POV exists and works precisely because the masses are misreading the phrase "conspiracy theory", which I surmise that the POV pushers want to happen. 9/11 conspiracy theories should be retitled simply as 9/11 controversies. zen master T 18:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Like all pro "conspiracy theory" apparent POV pushers before you, you completely ignore the secondary definition which both discredits and discourages an objective analysis of a subject. In terms of ease of propagandization, it's very convenient there exists this phrase "conspiracy theory" that can be used to discredit anything which is literally a theory of people conspiring. Appealing to people's gut reaction thoughts about the worthiness of a subject must work a lot better than going to the lengths it would take to actually factually debunk that same subject, or even more ominously, it could be an attempt to obfuscate the truth under subtly discrediting and discouraging duplicitous language. If it can be established that there is evidence AIDS was bioengineered then it logically follows someone conspired. But first and foremost titles should not conclude anything about a subject. A title should be solely about presenting the existence of a theory or allegation neutrally (if it's worthy enough for inclusion). You keep trying to argue "conspiracy theory" is literally or objectively true which is impossible given the multiple definitions and negative connotations. Please stop endlessly repeating that same core falsehood in a myriad of ways under different user accounts. When making a logical and factual case for something, even if showing something is generally considered debunked, words and phrases that have duplicitous "negative connotations" should be discouraged in an encyclopedia, and from titles especially. An encyclopedia's place is not to subtly suggest to the reader that a subject should not be taken seriously, instead, any conclusions about a subject should follow from facts presented inside the article. An encyclopedia should want readers to actually know all the specific facts about why a controversial theory or allegation is false, rather than the reader being tricked into concluding they don't even need to think about a subject because it is unworthy. Read Wikipedia's neutrality policy on why Flat Earth is titled the way it is, your suggestion of "Flat Earth conspiracy theories" for the society does not jive with it. zen master T 21:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
The negative connotations with "conspiracy theory" are much worse than all the other words you list because "conspiracy theory" discourages an objective analysis of any article titled with it. If any of those other words you list are being used in titles those articles should be renamed as well. As my proposal notes, I am not against the use of "conspiracy theory" inside an article, the proposal is simply about declaring "conspiracy theory" as not being appropriate nor neutral enough for a title only. "conspiracy theory" as language does not convey pristine nor even merely sufficient clarity of thought. zen master T 22:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I wonder whether it's a good idea to move trolltalk out of discussion pages...

...because that makes it easier for monomaniacs/trolls/troublemakers to shout "censorship!". (And by the way, I don't think "trollfood" is the correct terminology - the template should read "trolltalk").

In the case of 211.28 all attempts at discussion with him are indeed hopeless and fruitless, but there is one point about him that IMO needs to be discussed: what should the community do with him? He does not share our goals, he disrespects our rules, and he wastes the time of fair-minded Wikipedians. As long as he is allowed to edit, there will be trouble without end. Methinks we should find some kind of consensus what to do with him. RfC? RfAr? Kosebamse 15:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Linux edits

Tried my best to clarify my Linux edit, its all based on Linus' book Just for Fun. Nixdorf 10:46, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/211.28.*.*

The RFAr suggestion on Time Cube has been moved here. Please look at it, add evidence and suggestions, and sign your endorsement if appropriate. Radiant_>|< 09:06, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Please put your signature under "users certifying the basis for this dispute", since you've been involved in discussion and reversion. This is necessary because 2 people need to sign under that section for the RfC to not be deleted. --brian0918™ 17:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Mgw 02:55, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Linux troll

Yeah, I noticed him using a dynamic IP; thanks for the heads-up though. I will gladly extend the 4-day block to his IPs as well. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 17:33, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re; page move vandals

To fix it an admin can undo the move, it's not easy for a non-admin to fix it since the remaining redirect needs to be overwritten. Anyway, after some confusion with many people trying to fix it at once, it's ok now. No harm done. Shanes 18:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Table namespace

User:Omegatron/Tablenamespacespam — Omegatron 01:09, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beer Categories

It has been suggested by User:BrianSmithson that the Beer and brewery categories should be renamed. The proposal has been supported by User:Syrthiss, and supported and expanded by myself. The notion is that the regional categories should follow the format of "Beer and breweries in Africa" /Europe/Asia/North America/South America/Oceania. "Brewers and breweries" could also be renamed "Beer and breweries by region". And all the countries should also be renamed (and merged if needed) as, for example, "Beer and breweries of Germany", "Beer and breweries of Britain", "Beer and breweries of Poland". The word in each case would be beer rather than beers to allow for general articles on beer culture in each region as well as individual beers.

Comments, suggestions, objections and simple votes to Wiki Beer Project SilkTork 14:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beer & brewery notability criteria discusion document

A discussion document has been opened up. Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer/Notability Criteria. Please put in your views either on the main page or on the attached talk page. SilkTork 17:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brewery poll

Your vote/opinion on brewery notability is requested here: [1] SilkTork 11:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:InBev logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:InBev logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Anheuser-BuschLogo.png

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Anheuser-BuschLogo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 08:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:PopularMechanics InformationSuperhighway.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:PopularMechanics InformationSuperhighway.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ++aviper2k7++ 20:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Rubik float.png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Rubik float.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banach-Tarski image

Hi Sean!

I really like your illustration of the Banach–Tarski Paradox. I'd like to convert it to the SVG format so that it can be resized at will. However, I prefer to release my stuff under one of the Creative Commons licenses… would you be willing to license your image under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license (in addition to the GFDL) for the purposes of my derivative work? Thanks a lot! --bdesham ★ 13:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:AmBev logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:AmBev logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. βcommand 22:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:FullSail logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:FullSail logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:MillerBrewingCompanyLogo.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:MillerBrewingCompanyLogo.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:NewBelgium Logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:NewBelgium Logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)