User talk:Starx

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello "Starx" and welcome to Wikipedia. A few tips for you:

Thanx for the welcome, those link will come in usefull --Starx 01:20, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. Nice work on the vandal patrol.  :) RickK 03:45, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Heh, I left a message on the talk page for 65.50.150.251 to let him know I was reverting his advert links. I then go to clean up the list and found it all done already. You're fast. Thank you.  :-) SWAdair | Talk 04:30, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting my page!! :0)--Plato 20:49, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Berg Photograph

Starx I have no problem viewing it, but I can easly see how it could be too much for someone. Safer to have it inline as it is now.

sorry, but your comment is not very consistent. You seen to think it should not be directly visible, but nevertheless voted to have it fully visible. Are you sure of your vote ? SweetLittleFluffyThing
viewing inline means the picture is fully available to see directly. This is the case at the clitoris article (the clitoris photo is visible)
viewing with a link, means you only see a link, and when you click on the link, you access the picture. Currently the case for the head (the head is not visible).

SweetLittleFluffyThing

No biggie :-) I was just a bit perplex :-) ant

[edit] Interwikis

Hi Starx, the bg:,de:,fr:,pl:,ja: etc create links between articles that are discussing the same subject but in different languages. For more details, please look at InterWiki. --webkid 00:20, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Shawn Mikula

I don't see what I can do except list him on Vandalism and vote against all of his listings. RickK 20:15, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Where is he listing them by the way? They're not on VfD. RickK

[edit] VfD

Response to comment at User talk:Cyrius#VfD-removal.

Your concern is appreciated, but yes, you are missing something.

Because of the sheer enormity of the VfD page, it was recently decided that VfD listings that have run their 5 day course should be moved to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old. There, admins can deal with them more easily than on the main VfD page, which gets a lot of traffic and therefore a lot of edit conflicts. Since older discussions tend not to get much traffic, moving them usually doesn't pose a problem.

The notice that this happens is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion#Decisions in progress.

If you're looking for something from May 11 or earlier, and don't find it on /Old, it has already been dealt with. -- Cyrius|&#9998 04:26, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Shawn Mikula's vandalism

No, no, I understand exactly what's going on. My claim is that, since he claims that the material he submits is not released under the GFDL, then the Mikula page has to go too (i.e. that he can't decide that half his contributions are GFDL and half aren't). Snowspinner

Unlikely. He denies being Mikula. His claim is that unless the links to Mikula are maintained, he does not give permission for the articles to go into Wikipedia. Snowspinner 02:19, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I'll understand if you want to put it back. My reasoning remains, aside from everything else, that the account raising the issue shouldn't exist due to block evasion, the articles shouldn't exist due to refusal to comply with the GFDL. Furthermore, Votes for Undeletion does not, as I am reading it, specifcy a ten day period on the page. So I think the debate should stay terminated, due to excessive destructiveness. Snowspinner 03:19, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

For me it's less an issue of trust regarding the GFDL and more one of principle. Copyvio is the worst possible thing that can happen to Wikipedia - far worse than vandalism, in that it could cause hundreds or thousands of people to suddenly be liable in a massive lawsuit. I don't think we can afford to let people change their minds more than 0 times on whether or not their content is released under the GFDL, little yet more than one - it's just too dangerous for Wikipedia. Consider the number of articles that could be forcibly deleted on the grounds that they're derivative works of somthing that someone decided wasn't a part of the GFDL. Especially with this user, since we've already set the precedent of saying that some of his contributions were not GFDL, I don't think we can take the risk. Snowspinner 03:37, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Starx, you and your little cronies are not competent nor qualified to edit my expertly written articles. Read Wikipedia:The_perfect_article for yourself. Face the facts, buddy, you're out of your league. You can try as you will to keep the articles here biased and dumbed-down, but understand that it only reflects poorly on you and the other ignorant admins involved. At some point, you will realize this, and you will understand that that's what I've been telling you all along. So, go along now, and play with your other buffoons in your little self-created buffoonland. At some point, you will face reality. Just the thought of it keeps me laughing. 193.255.207.252 18:41, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

  • You realize what you sound like don't you? Ad Hominem attcks are more often then not taken when the logical bases for your argument is non-existant. BTW, all of your vandalism was reverted within 5 minutes. You do understand that pages have a history right? And that any content you delete is instantly recoverable? Anyway, get a life. --Starx 18:53, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
    • That's all very good and nice, but do not resort to slander. I have not vandalized any pages. If you want a scapegoat, sorry, but I'm not it. About getting a life, ahh, I love the irony of it. Pubescent buffoon. It's clear to me who's been spending far too much time on the internet. Maybe you should find something more productive to be doing with your time, eh?193.255.207.252 19:01, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
      • Again refer to my comments on the effectiveness of ad hominem attacks. BTW, something is not considered slander when it is the truth. You are a vandal, pure and simple. --Starx 19:07, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
        • prove it. --193.255.207.252 (the vandal)
          • Why, it's obvious to everyone capable of looking through a history. That's good enough for me. --Starx 19:10, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
            • Is "everyone" just you, cause that's the only person I've heard making the accusation? You have no proof, and you're just downright pathetic. Come on, DJ, think of some proof. You've got none. You only have suspicions, and that's nothing. 193.255.207.252 19:14, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
              • Please, in every discussion you've taken part in someone has called you a vandal. Be it snowspinner, RickK, Texture... I don't need proof because I'm not asking anyone to adopt my belief. The evidence is all there for anyone who wishes to make their own judgement. --Starx 19:23, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
                • To my knowledge, you're the only person who has ever falsely accused me of vandalism. 193.255.207.252 19:25, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
                  • Knowone has falsely accused you of vandalism, they've all been fair accusations. --Starx 19:31, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
            • By the way, is that true that you came out of the closet recently? Congratulations! Am I going to find this info on the internet, or do you plan on making it more public? 193.255.207.252 19:16, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
              • See above about the ad hominems. Your comments don't bother me, everyone reading this is perfectly capable of reading into them. Though I must say your originality is somewhat lacking, I got over the gay joke thing when I was 12. --Starx 19:19, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
                • It wasn't a joke. That's what I heard. So you're saying it's not true? That's fine. But it's just strange that people should be saying that then. 193.255.207.252 19:21, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
                  • Your not exactly a reliable source. --Starx 19:23, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
                    • Enough of this silliness. I have work to do. 193.255.207.252 19:29, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
                      • Yes, it is silliness. But then you have been driving the discussion so feel free to drop it. Go back to your own website, you are unwanted here. --Starx 19:31, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

<<Indent reduced for readability.

You presumptuous ass. Why would you say such stupid things? First, you have no idea whether I have a website or not. And second, what makes you think I care whether I'm wanted here or not? Do you really think that's ever stopped me before? 193.255.207.252 19:49, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Someone as intelecually arrogant as you cannot possibly be without an online presence. And I know for a fact you do not care whether you are wanted or not, if you did you'd already be gone. --Starx 19:54, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
    • Starx, there comes a point when you should stop feeding the trolls. There's some relevant quotes I could apply about wrestling pigs and fighting monsters, but I hope you see my point without them. -- Cyrius|&#9998 20:11, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

Starx, try not to take it so personally. You have no idea who I am just as I have no idea who you are. The internet makes us all anonymous, which has its pros and cons, and which means that you should stop holding a grudge. I'm sure you don't believe this, but I fully intend not to harass anymore. Yes, that's right, I've taken off my 'Top Troll' badge and am now just a regular joe. My apologies if you took things personally. --User:208.183.105.4

  • I haven't taken anything personally. In fact all in all this has been an amusing diversion. I hope you've learned that you'll get more done by playing by the rules. I still think you're Shawn Mikula though. --Starx 23:08, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm glad to hear you're not taking it personally. Believe me, there was nothing personal in it. And yes, it's better to play by the rules. I guess I was a little overly-excited when I first stumbled on this site a week ago and let an old trolling habit (one formed on Yahoo messageboards many years back in my younger days) get the better of me. I know better now and will keep my bad habits in check. Thanks, for your patience. Hopefully I'll yet contribute something worthwhile here, and maybe even have the opportunity to have more positive exchanges. Until then, take care. --User:66.4.225.3

[edit] Global warming, biggie size

Starx, I don't think you read the Pro-American sentiment article closely. The article says, not that the sun will consume the earth (which is what's supposed to happen the last time I checked our current cosmology), but that it will die (in some unspecified manner. But, not to worry, good old Yankee ingenuity, backed by the wonderful invisible hand of the marketplace, is on the job, which of course is why the United States is so beloved by so many throughout the world. Dpbsmith 21:31, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cosmology/shmosmology, it's turtles all the way down

Well, I did say "the last time I checked..." I do try to find out what our shared-reality creation myths are once a decade or so. Hey, when I was a kid, the continents didn't drift. And I don't mean "we didn't know that they did drift," I mean "we did know that they didn't drift." It was in the textbooks. That crackpot Wegener had been thoroughly discredited... :-)

[edit] Edit history of "Pulse-density modulation"

I regret to say I couldn't figure out how to do what you requested. Rollbacks seem to leave the edit history in place. So, I did the next best thing (I hope) which is to delete the page and re-create it. Biggest problem is that this means it's no longer linked as one of your contributions, but you should be able to fix that by making a negligible edit to the page. I've preserved the original page, with its history, in hopefully an inconspicuous place so I can move it back if needed. Dpbsmith 22:23, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pythagoreans, etc.

If Euclid was around after pythagoras, then the fact that he knew of the irrationality of the square root of 2 is not surprising, considering it was during pythagoras' time that it was first proven. Do you have any sources? Cause there are plenty documented sources saying it was, in fact, a follower of pythagoras.

So you and I both agree that it was known to the Pythagoreans and therefore to Euclid, who came later. And we both agree therefore that it is ignorant nonsense to say that it was not done until the middle ages. Right? As for sources, I've read some of Thomas Heath's books, but it's been a while, so I cannot cite chapter and verse. On another matter, why do you keep deleting my assertion in the article that the conventional algebraic argument is not the one that the Pythagoreans used? Michael Hardy 21:41, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] You are being abusive

It is abuse when you attribute to me the statement that the irrationality of the square root of 2 was not discovered until the middle ages. I am not the one who wrote that. I am the one who wrote that that is NOT true. Nor did I say it is ignorant nonsense to say that the Pythagoreans used a certain method; I wrote only that that is an error. Your reading comprehension is terrible. You need to get clear about what I wrote and what was written by others before you start demanding that I take responsibility for things that were written. Michael Hardy 02:35, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Why was this there?

It was there because DanP blanked a couple of sections of the article unless I left it in. See article's talk page for background. Thanks for deleting it. We'll see what happens next. Alteripse 01:59, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Newdow

No problem. –Andre (talk) 01:41, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar (in irrational number)

From the article: (because none of its prime factors is 2)
Factors is plural, so shouldn't it be are instead of is? --Starx 01:51, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No. "Its factors" is the object of the preposition "of". If I wrote "Not even one of its factors is prime", obviously it would be grossly wrong to write "are". Similarly if I wrote "Just one of these factors is prime", would you say I should have written "are", when I'm writing about only one, on the grounds that "factors" is plural? Traditionally, "none" is singular. Of course, recently many people have used "none" as plural, but even so, there can hardly be a grammatical objection to using a singular "none". (And somehow the misspelling of "grammar" in the edit summary doesn't inspire confidence either.) Michael Hardy 23:25, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

... and also, when you say "because factors is plural", I almost fear that next you'll write something like "One of these are correct". I actually hear people say that from time to time; it's as if the fact that these is plural means that the phrase one of these is plural. Obviously the phrase one of these is singular and should be followed by is, not are. Michael Hardy 23:58, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)