User talk:Anythingyouwant

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anythingyouwant (talk | contribs) at 03:51, 3 March 2009 (→Cookie: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:51, 3 March 2009 by Anythingyouwant (talk | contribs) (→Cookie: r)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Covariant for the first and partial for the second?

Hi, I would like to ask why you have decided to make the first equation a covariant derivative and the second a partial derivative. Surely the covariant derivative (being manifestly "covariant") is preferable in any event, and should be put first, before ostensibly coordinate-dependent equations. This also has the advantage of simplifying the text, so that two forms of differentiation are not simultaneously being performed in the same set of equations. Let me know what you think about changing both equations back to the covariant derivative. Thanks, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As you may know, the covariant derivative of a scalar equals its partial derivative, regardless of the coordinates that we use. The situation is similar with the equation that expresses the field strength tensor in terms of the four-potential; we can change the covariant derivatives to partial derivatives in all coordinate systems.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Spacing

Thanks for the links...I guess people don't really care that much as the article itself doesn't show it...but it still bothers me when I go to edit the article. The little things...LedRush (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:McCain-Palin 2008 logo.jpg)

You've uploaded File:McCain-Palin 2008 logo.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Misplaced Pages's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Misplaced Pages policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 06:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: We'll agree about something someday

McCain's done a thousand interviews like the Couric one and always come out looking fine. It ain't the questioner, it's the questionee. In the computer field, presentations written by engineers are sometimes given by engineers and sometimes given by marketing types. You can always tell within a minute which is which. Same happened here. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thought you might like this column mentioning Couric/Palin from Camille Paglia - money quote: And let me take this opportunity to say that of all the innumerable print and broadcast journalists who have interviewed me in the U.S. and abroad since I arrived on the scene nearly 20 years ago, Katie Couric was definitively the stupidest. Heh. Paglia has written a lot on Palin - one of these days I'll have to work her into the "reception" part of the Palin articles as a liberal with a favorable opinion. Right now it seems uber-heavy on "conservatives" who have criticized her for some reason. Think that's left over from the campaign. Kelly 05:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

WTR, I've not taken a position on whose "fault" it was. What I have taken a position about is that Misplaced Pages should not have an article honing in like a laser beam on an interview where Palin did something poorly, while excluding and overlooking and tailoring to make sure we don't also cover something that she did well.

Have we got an article specifically about her vice-presidential candidacy? Maybe we could call it, "Sarah Palin's conspiracy to become Vice-President", and we could have a section on the Couric interviews.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be called "Trig Palin's conspiracy to become the son of Vice-President". :) Kelly 18:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with that point. It seems kind of silly to have an in-depth article about this single interview, when we don't have an article about her candidacy, much less other major events like her GOP convention speech or the vice-presidential debate. It's a weight thing. Kelly 17:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm okay with an article "Conspiracy to get presidential nominees to make last-minute vice presidential choices that don't quite turn out like they expected". You can write the McCain/Palin part, I'll work on the McGovern/Eagleton section ... Not sure who's behind the conspiracy yet, though, have to do some WP:OR on that ... Wasted Time R (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we need to expose that conspiracy before we get saddled with a Vice President that thinks FDR was on TV on 1929. Oh, wait... Kelly 02:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, just saw another blog using the photo you obtained. I see that picture everywhere. Kelly 03:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a nice pic, but the present pic at Sarah Palin seems more apt. I heard that Obama just had dinner with Will, Krauthammer, Kristol, Noonan, and the whole gang. Talk about a conspiracy!Ferrylodge (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh - all the blogs were buzzing yesterday that Rush Limbaugh had gone to D.C. for this get-together. Turns out he was there to see Bush. But that would have been a shock! The people you named above aren't even conservatives. :) Kelly 04:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Krauthammer is close, though. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess you're right - as close as you can get being a psychiatrist. :) Kinda neo-connish though. He sometimes goes off the reservation, but I guess Ronaldus Magnus would have accepted him into the tent. Kelly 04:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't have none of that going off the reservation, now can you ... I'm looking forward to McCain driving the reservation minders nuts the next year or two. He's spent his whole life thinking that lines are made for crossing. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, guess that's why he lost. Kelly 04:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep on thinkin' that :-) Wasted Time R (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously WTR, I do think that Palin is wonderful next to Biden. I mean, put aside the plagiarism, he's just a pompous ass. And putting aside personality and dishonesty, he's just arrogant and ignorant (sure, Article I of the Constitution is about the Executive branch, right). Palin hasn't come close to some of Biden's inanities, IMHO. I just hope that Obama stays safe and comfy (and that he was actually born in Hawaii!!!). Palin could be a lousy moron, and still look great next to that guy Biden. May he prove me wrong (and I don't think she is a lousy moron, though I can see how she might put you off).Ferrylodge (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that Palin is far more "clean and articulate". I remember a great quote, I think at National Review - if someone had an experimental television back in 1929, and saw FDR on it, they would have thought "Who is this guy, what is he talking about, and where is President Hoover?" Oh - did you see Camille Paglia's latest column? Money quote - And let me take this opportunity to say that of all the innumerable print and broadcast journalists who have interviewed me in the U.S. and abroad since I arrived on the scene nearly 20 years ago, Katie Couric was definitively the stupidest. :) Kelly 04:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

<undent> - Oh, I almost forgot - there is an article on the VP debate, I don't know why I didn't run across it before. It needs some work, though. Although it mentions Palin's single gaffe (misidentifying David D. McKiernan as "McClellan"), it says not a thing a thing about Biden's multiple errors, such as his mythical Franco-American expeditionary force that drove Hezbollah out of Lebanon. Of course, I'd have to look again to see if his misstakes were actually reported by the leg-tinglers. Kelly 05:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

obama article probation

You may be interested in this discussion. JBarta (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

union busting

I don't really know if you have any interest or strong views on unions or union busting, but I know you've put a lot of time into making and improving Misplaced Pages articles. While I know we don't always agree, I thought your input on this article could be helpful as some of the conversations and disagreements there are longstanding and, because there are only 3-4 regular editors, getting new opinions is hard. I've nominated the article for peer review, but if you have time or interest, I'd be grateful if you could take a look and see if you can help make the article better.LedRush (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, but I'm spending too much time on Misplaced Pages as it is. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Unitary executive vandalism

If you get a moment, could you revert this vandalism: (I'm already on two reverts of vandalism on this article today, and I'm trying to steer well away from 3rr). Thanks, Simon Dodd (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I think the section header accurately reflects the bias in the section. I'm happy to keep that section header until we clean up the contents of the section.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediation request

I'm going to file a mediation request re Clarence Thomas per Samir's suggestion. I have to list the involved parties, and since you've been involved in the discussion on the talk page, I wondered if you had any preference as to being included or not (a filing party must list the parties to the dispute)? Simon Dodd (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, sign me up. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Clarence Thomas, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Misplaced Pages, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Simon Dodd (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Clarence Thomas.

For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 13:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Okay, thx.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarence Thomas

Hi Ferrylodge, thanks for your note. It looks like it's just one IP editing the page. As you said on WP:AN, I don't think sprotection is needed. Thanks -- Samir 23:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thx.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Notification

I've started a thread: WP:AE#Ferrylodge--Tznkai (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thx for the notification.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: connection between porn addicts and POV pushers

Trust me, I have the studies to back it up! Seriously, thanks for the supporting words at WP:AE. It's just another drama filled day at the I-P conflict. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. :)Ferrylodge (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup

I'm trying lol. Getting tired of the bureaucracy though...kind of defeats the purpose of[REDACTED] lol. Sometimes I confuse honestly/bluntness with civility. I'm used to speaking my mind than dealing with people who manipulate the system. Half the stuff that goes on here wouldn't fly in the real world. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's true that some Wikipedians are civil and dastardly at the same time. The hard part is figuring out how to respond to them while maintaining decorum.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just learned that I'm not banned from wikipedia. I didn't think I had much of chance after browsing through similar incidents with other users, but everything turned out all right I guess. Thanks for your supportive responses and I hope the abortion article issue gets settled eventually. Though I'm not really familiar with the arbitration process, am I in the clear for now or can admins like user:ChrisO block me if they disagree with the arbitration? Argh. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That particular article is subject to special rules: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." So, you've now been warned, which I guess means you'll be on pretty thin ice there, and you ought to be very careful. I don't know anything about Nableezy or about that article, but I do know there's a big difference between being anti-Israeli-policy versus being antisemitic. Misplaced Pages is a funny place; I had a quarrel recently at a physics article about what "antisymmetric" means, so I'm sure there are also a lot of views about what "antisemitic" means. Better to just say "I beg to differ" and "pardon me but I believe you're sadly mistaken" and stuff like that. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good lol. Will do the best that I can do...Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Can I get your wise opinion as an outside editor on Talk:BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant#NPOV_tag? Am I off base here? Thanks. THF (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, and backing away slowly. :)Ferrylodge (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

keep interpersonal comments off talk:abortion

Hey there. I'm writing because your last set of comments seemed a bit intense, and I'm writing to see if I can't deescalate the situation or see if there is something that we need to hash out. You accused me of being disruptive, questioning my admin conduct, and brought something up from a year and a half ago (something I would be curious why you keep bringing it up, and would like to know your specific concerns with the "Ouch?" image). If your concerns about me and my actions is that great, I strongly urge you to place your concerns before the community at WP:ANI. I always welcome review, especially if it's in any way regards to my status as an admin or my use of the tools. Comments on editor conduct don't really belong on article talk pages anyway, and I can't help but feel a little hurt and feel that your comment was uncivil, attacking me, and worked to poison the well, if it isn't leading towards a community discussion regarding my conduct.

To me, I felt like your initial comment drew the focus away from my image, and brought them back to something that was discussed and rejected just last week. Furthermore, the placement of your image next to my proposal could be quite confusing for people who are just coming in to the discussion. Having multiple proposals on talk pages in different sections is quite common. I honestly didn't mean to offend you by moving your image. My intention was to direct focus on the actual initial proposal, and to create a separate space for addition proposals. With the headline "Proposed image" and a thumbnail of your image next to it, it isn't hard to see the confusion, and I felt my first attempt to clear that up didn't quite do the trick. I really meant no offense. I apologize if our history, and your history with these topics, puts me on edge, but I am trying to act in good faith, and I'm hoping we can move past all that stuff. But if this is not satisfactory, I would be glad to discuss my recent (and past) conduct further at ANI, or another appropriate venue.-Andrew c 23:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In the future, it might help if you would not accuse other editors of "hijacking" a talk page section if that is not the case. I suggested a good faith substitute for the second of your two suggested images, and you yelled "hijacking" (while in the past you have posted the most irrelevant and offensive images which somehow you don't consider "hijacking.")

And you might try leaving another editor's comment alone, instead of mangling it to the point of incomprehensibility. You could have easily inserted your image on the left instead of the right. And you might ease up on the straw men, and the generally unkind and sarcastic tone.

I'm not planning on lodging any complaints about you. I haven't so far, and I didn't even vote against your adminship. In contrast, you've complained about me how many times?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

American Citizens Birthright

While it seems clear that anyone born on US soil is a "natural born" citizen regardless of whether or not their parents were legal residents, you may have some other information about that. If so, please let me know what it is. Roregan (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be virtual unanimity that a child born to a foreign ambassador in the United States is not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. I believe there is no dispute about this. Merely being born on U.S. soil does not automoatically confer citizenship. I've just added a footnote to nthe article on this point.

Weiner, Myron. Migration and Refugees, page 252 (Berghahn Books 1998).

Ferrylodge (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The exceptions in your citation are noted and I believe I accounted for the diplomatic immunity exception that you pointed out. The problem I was seeking to correct was the notion that there is some question as to the American citizenship of a child born to illegal residents or, for that matter, people just passing through. (For example, Canadians transferred to US hospitals for high-risk deliveries give birth to American citizens.) While a number of countries, Ireland for one, have recently changed their laws so that simply being born on their national soil does not confer citizenship, the US has not done so. At the moment, there is no question that, with rare and very specified exceptions, being born on US soil DOES make one a citizen by birthright. Neither you nor I may agree with this, but there is no controversy there. Roregan (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that the section has now been trimmed to excise the bit we have been discussing -- reintroducing the inaccuracies we've been discussing. How about you proposing something that accommodates the actual facts of the issue, so we don't end up participating in a festival of reversions over something that is simply a matter of existing law?Roregan (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead paragraph currently says, "At a minimum, this clause of the Constitution means that any child who was born in the U.S. to parents who were citizens is eligible to hold the office of President upon reaching the required age." This is accurate, and I think it's okay for the lead, which is merely supposed to provide a brief summary. See WP:Lead. The best place to discuss this further would probably be the article talk page.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:UET

If you're feeling really ambitious, feel free to also clean up the talk page and archive all the chatroom discussion; don't know if you saw that Rktect was indefinitely banned for persistent use of OR, saving us the trouble of complaining about his talk-page abuse. THF (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll probably stick to editing the text for now.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

The RFC you started did not mention my proposal or even the idea of having an image of an abortion procedure. So I'm a little confused where my proposal stands now, as you have been the sole objector to it, and it is not under consideration in the RFC. Does this mean that you approve of my image and acknowledge that the issue of embryonic/fetal-centric images is a completely separate issue that requires additional community input? -Andrew c 14:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said at the talk page, I oppose your proposal because it exacerbates an existing problem with the article. If we can have a discernible image of the abortus, the existing problem would be solved, and I would then have no objection to your image. I might have mentioned this in the RFC, but I did not want to be accused of hijacking again, or have what I wrote edited at the talk page.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand where any of this is going. What is the purpose of the RfC? In your mind, under what conditions would there be approval for your image proposal and under what conditions would there be approval for my proposal. Do you think I need to likewise file a RfC before adding my image? Are we holding the view that consensus means something that every single person can agree with, that any one editor can essentially block an image, or are we going by majority rule? Because as the situation stands, you have been the only person to object to my image. So do you have the power to block my image? On the other hand, multiple editors have already objected to your image, so do each one of us hold the same power as you to block images? Or do we allow the majority to rule and essentially ignore your opinion on my image because it is the sole dissenting voice (and likewise see where the majority leads us for your RfC?)-Andrew c 02:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of this RFC is to bring attention to the fact that editors such as yourself have been waging a campaign for years to exclude from the abortion article the slightest description of what is aborted. So kick back and relax. I'm sure that by the time the RFC is over, you will have lots of support for the propaganda, whitewashing, POV and censorship that will probably continue at that article forever. Does that answer your questions, Andrew c?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

two friends dropped by at the same time

I imagine you never want to see the SP article again. We had just trimmed one of one editor's magnum opus when he and a friend dropped by almost at the ssme time <g> . The opus is still too long, but that person wanted to restore about 5K to it agan. And I trust my opinion on the embryo illo in Abortion works for you. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Collect, I've still got the SP article watchlisted, and will drop by there when I otherwise would. Please be careful about the slightest appearance of canvassing. Thanks. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Compared to Ikip canvassing 600 at a time, one heads-up is a drop in the bucket <g>. Collect (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Cookie

Its the Cookie Monster (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Why thank you Mr. Monster.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages

Archives