Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 17:00, 30 October 2006 (→More peanuts: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please get off of Misplaced Pages, your drivel and opinionated comments only anger most of us. You are NOT a productive editor, and you would best help Misplaced Pages by no longer being a part of our community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.220.37 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your comment. You shall judge a man by his foes as well as by his friends. (Joseph Conrad)

You haven't responded to the above comment, but have only made a mockery of my request. Your choice of language, unwarranted and non factual criticism of VALUABLE Wikipedians gives your overall worth here a negative. Neither you or your opinions help the environment.... You are not a good person, you are a horrible editor and pretty much a contemptible, self-righteous, bigotted and hateful individual. Either change or leave. Your biased and ridiculous opinions have only caused an environment of shame. Your refusal to formally respond to these messages only proves that you are a coward, and do nothing but add shame to this encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.220.37 (talk • contribs)

There is a time to archive; and then there is a time to archive.

Radian

How did you create Image:Pi-unrolled.gif? Radian could use one very similar. If I have the software I'd be happy to give it a shot. Cburnett 03:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I used 5 main applications to create that. If you want to do this sort of work, you need a vector drawing application, Photoshop or equivalent, and one or more animated GIF tools. I find GraphicConverter essential for all types of graphics jobs, not just this. And in order to properly manage and document the project, I must have a good screen capture utility. This latter is often useful for palette management. Of course, it goes without saying that I use a Macintosh. Um, you should be aware that this was a fairly advanced project. Animations are especially tricky. There are many ways in which to cheat the viewer into seeing more than he does. Also note that you need extremely consistent organizational skills; the image you cite consists of 45 frames, each its own graphic design. All must work together and -- essentially -- you have to be able to visualize in your mind, while working on any given frame, all 44 others.

I'm trying not to brag and I'm not trying to dissuade you from the effort; I only suggest that if you have to ask this kind of question, you may not be ready. But don't let that stop you! I was certainly not ready to do Image:Clay-torus-3a.gif; I put a huge amount of effort into this and it sucks. But I learned a lot. Next time will be better (although note Kieff's Image:Mug and Torus morph.gif has grabbed first place).

As for radians, I'm not sure you want anything like Pi-unrolled for that, you know, some sort of 1-unrolled. Sure, you can show what a radian is; but don't you want to show why? I think it's a bit misleading to explain to anybody what "1 radian" is; this is not very important. What's important are measures of angles such as 2π, 3π/2. π, π/2 radians. Why? John Reid 11:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The my point in asking was seeing if you had some sort of base graphics I could go from and if I had the tools to use them. I'm on linux so no photoshop but I could probably manage with gimp and inkscape.

The reason I ask is that while the ratio of circumference to diameter is pi, there are 2pi radians per circumference. Eseentially what I had envisioned was pi-unrolled.gif but instead with marks at each radius instead of diameter. Converting pi-unrolled.gif would be a much more trivial thing to do than recreating an entire sequence. In a jist:

• adding a few extra vertical bars (0 to 8 instead of 0-4)
• changing "pi" to "2pi"
• changing the wheel/disc to be like a pie with six slices denoating one radian and the last/seventh slice being 2pi-6 radians

If you'd be willing to share some of the base files, that'd be great. On second thought, I think I could decompose the animated gif into individual frames and go from there... Cburnett 00:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

See, that is exactly the wrong approach -- no offense intended. 1 rad is not the fundamental unit. This is the standard textbook treatment and it leaves the student confused. He can see at once that 1 rad is not an even 1/6th of the way around the circle; it looks like a stupid unit of measure, an indigestible bit of mustard, skid marks on your shorts. Why reinforce this poor presentation?

2π rad is the fundamental measure of angle: one full turn around a given point. Until the full turn has been made, there is no a priori reason to stop. Once it has, then a basic unit of angle has been established. A simple theory of angle is entirely possible in terms of turns.

The theorem π = C / D is elaborated to C = 2πr. This is a nontrivial development; the unit circle is now redefined -- doubled in size, in fact. This point cannot be lightly bypassed, there's a serious need to show both "unit" circles together, to discuss the meaning of the arbitrary unit. Confusion is possible even without the complication of the "bigger" unit circle; I have had to demonstrate to some students by actual experiment with dressmaker's tape that π is independent of the size of a circle.

Once the unit-radius circle is firmly established and the concept of the full turn of angle, then and only then is it meaningful to introduce radians. Once it is accepted that one full turn is equal to 2π radians, then this measure can be usefully subdivided: the straight line is π, the right angle is π/2, and so on. These are all rational angles -- angles that are useful for other purposes. The angles of an equilateral triangle are π/3 rad; those of a right isosceles are π/4 and π/2. One radian is an irrational angle, with no direct application suitable for the beginning student.

Not until the calculus is the true value of the radian -- as opposed to the turn -- revealed. Until that point, one is essentially putting something over on the student. The average student can be presented with rational radians as angle measures, legitimized with use. The bright student will ask why radians instead of turns and the tutor must beg off with a promise to explain in 10 years.

I agree that radians are infinitely superior to conventional degrees; I make a point of demonstrating that these are rooted in ancient superstition and the accident that a careless (or optimistic) observer records that the periods of year, month, and day appear in the ratio 360 : 30 : 1.

Note that Euclid mentions neither radians nor degrees; his fundamental unit of angle was the right angle. I begin from this point when teaching geometry and I develop the measure of a straight line as two right angles, the sum of angles of any triangle as a straight line, etc. I introduce radians only when a student's school curriculum demands it.

I realize this community lacks respect for expertise and experience but I do indeed tutor math to students of all ages; it puts food on my table and a roof over my head. My students tell me that my explanations are lucid; their increased ability to tackle more advanced math bears me out. I understand that you have been beaten over the head for years with one-radian diagrams such as Image:Radian cropped color.png; they are not "wrong", merely misleading and confusing.

If nothing else, you've provoked me to consider an effort. Alas, I fear it will be another animation. It will have very little in common with Pi-unrolled, though. Let me screw my thinking cap on -- after I get some of my paid consulting work out of the way. John Reid 08:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Pi-Unrolled

Re: Now I have a question. I see that a block of text is required of FP's. Who writes such a thing? Where is the text stored? Pi is a technical subject; I'd rather not see this botched. John Reid 12:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• You can do this at Misplaced Pages:Picture of the Day. Ask Howcheng (he's in charge) for a date, and you can write it, following the format. NauticaShades 15:59, 22 October 2006 (UT

GFDL

I think you meant to put that snippet from my archive on User:Stevage's talk page? I agree with you - once someone has added their work to WP that cannot revoke permission. Other GFDL sites may have picked it up, etc. I agree that such a position is completely unworkable as you say and was arguing that position with Stevage. -999 (Talk) 16:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just stated my opinion: GFDL is irrevocable. IANAL. John Reid 09:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giano

Please see my comments on the impending ArbCom decision here. Newyorkbrad 01:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Still without endorsement of everything you've ever said and done, but I find the issues that have been raised concerning the ArbCom's proposed one-week ban against you to be sufficiently troublesome that I intend to bring them to the attention of User:Jimbo Wales pursuant to the Arbitration Policy unless you would expressly prefer for me not to do so. Please let me know. Newyorkbrad 22:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just hope nobody block wars over me. Nobody should need to block me to enforce a ban I shall respect scrupulously; nobody should unblock me, either; instead, have a chat with the idiot child who blocks me and try to make him see reason.

If you want to beef to Jimbo, go ahead -- but what's the point? The substantive issue here is who controls our community? You and I think we do; that is, we are self-governed and our trusted servants, well, serve us. Taxman and Fred Bauder seem to think they do; that we are governed by an aristocracy. I don't think that fiat action by King Jimbo really aids the forces of self-government.

It all boils down to this simple point and all the rest is just wordsmog: Do we work for them or do they work for us? Banning me isn't going to stop me from asking this question until I get a definite answer. John Reid 09:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, but it now seems you won't be able to take an enforced week off after all. Enjoy a happy week of editing, and keep asking your questions if you wish, although I still think you're more likely to get buy-in and meaningful answers if you moderate your tone a bit in doing so. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. As usual, my thinking is idiosyncratic. I think the proposed ban was ridiculous on at least 3 different levels but I think it's shameful that ArbCom should listen to us yelling from the peanut gallery. This is rooted in my belief that the office must be upheld regardless of who holds it or what he does with it. The recourse appropriate when an office of trust is abused, foolishly used, or not used properly is not to back-seat-drive the officer but to remove him from office.

This is why I objected to any attempt to "reverse" Taxman's promotion of Carnildo; Taxman was the officer on the spot and he made a call -- and that's it. He gave me at least to understand that this was not an isolated incident but that he felt he was acting rightly; so I say he should be removed but I think ArbCom is the wrong vehicle for that. Fred and the rest at ArbCom are in the hot seat on this particular RfArb and if they decide to ban me for a day, week, or year, that's it. If you feel they're abusing their office to do so -- more particularly, if you feel there's a pattern of abuse -- then remove them.

As for your comment about my tone: You're not alone; everyone thinks I should have spoken differently; even I do. However, you are no more helpful than anybody else from Fred to Tony and on down. Let us agree that I'm an uncouth idjit who doesn't know how to express himself politely. Frankly, I just don't see a nice way to say to anybody: I think you have abused your office. Do you think you did so? Will you do the same again? I also want to hear from all the other b'crats: Do you think Taxman abused his office? Will you do the same as he did? Educate me. You ask the question nicely. Please show me how it's done; I'm sure you'll do better than I have. John Reid 03:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have several comments here. Your thinking is indeed idiosyncratic, but not, of course, incorrect for that reason alone. Here are my reactions, for what they are worth.

First, I argued strongly against the proposal to ban you based on your comments on the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard because I thought that comments made by a good-faith user, on an administrative board during a stressful time, were not an appropriate basis for a ban. You obviously are a person of some principle, and I thought that the precedent that would be set by this particular ban would be a bad precedent indeed, which is also a point of principle. I hope you can appreciate what I had to say on that basis, rather than thinking of it as some kind of bleeding-heart intervention on behalf of yourself personally, which I am sure you would scorn. My arguments were made out of concern for precedent, coupled with the practical effect that enforcing this ban would have had in creating new causes of dissatisfaction rather than trying to heal the old ones, which is the only valid reason for being that this arbitration case ever had, if it had any at all.

Second, I don't believe that my advocacy for the arbitrators to change their votes on this issue displayed any sort of disrespect for the arbitrators' position or the arbitration process. I agreed with you and with a number of other editors that the proposal to ban you was unwise, unwarranted, and incongruous, although I would not quite use your word "ridiculous." I give the arbitrators, including those whom I've disagreed with on other issues or votes, the courtesy of presuming that they want to render decisions that are wise, warranted, congruous, and non-ridiculous. Therefore, I stated my position concerning the ban - on the /Workshop page and the /Proposed Decision-talk page, where they invite editors to make proposals and comment on the proposed decision (although not usually at the length found here), in the hope that the final decision would be improved in this respect. And after all, you were the editor who observed most strongly that there was a disconnect between the discussion on /Workshop and Fred Bauder's proposed decision, and thought this was a serious problem, so I don't see why it is disrespectful for me or anyone else to point out perceived fallacies or incongruities in unexpected aspects of the decision and suggest changes. It's not as if I were lobbying the arbs to death or threatening them with adverse consequences for voting incorrectly. In fact, I had a very civil talkpage conversation with one of the Arbs who disagreed with me. As for your comment that those of us who comment on an ArbCom proposed decision represent "the peanut gallery" from the arbitrators' point of view, that is the sort of comment that I can only imagine would have you going absolutely ballistic if it came from anyone else. The ArbCom has been given the power to decide; all of the rest of us have the power to discuss; and it's no disrespect to the arbitrators or their process to suggest that the discussion should have some weight, although never dispositive weight, in the decision-making. And it's not as if I went outside the process to effect a change; the decision not to ban you after all was based on a motion by a duly selected arbitrator and supported by others; that's part of the process, not a deviation from it.

Regarding "tone," the starting point I suppose is that you did feel more strongly about the resysopping decision than I did. I thought that it was very arguably an error of judgment, made in good faith; you thought it was an outrageous, blatant, willful disregard of consensus and community standards (although I gather that in your mind, the need for consensus stops somewhere between the bureaucrats' discretion and the ArbCom's shores). But even assuming I felt as strongly as you and many others about September's decision, and concurred that the decision represented an "abuse of office," rather than a mistake, I do think there are ways to express the same thoughts more calmly, and I think if you go back and reread the debates in the light of day, you'll find others who did express the thoughts more calmly. In any event, on a pragmatic level, the combination of the outcry at the resysopping based on 61% support, coupled with the actual finding of fact by the ArbCom (which is going largely unnoticed but which I think represents a significant victory for those who were aggrieved in September) that at 61% there was no consensus, makes it highly unlikely that this scenario will repeat itself anytime soon.

I've been too long-winded so I'll stop here, but I hope this clarifies some of my own idiosyncratic thinking. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

How is it possible to be too long-winded on a talk page? The bit bucket is bottomless; no worries. I've been accused on occasion of going on too long -- and in the Real World, with justification. Here, it's only because I touch-type.

Of course, you didn't object to the ban for personal reasons. Why, I never had so many friends before! Everyone argues for his principles. And that's an excellent thing.

I think you're reacting negatively to my last comment, as if I'd said you'd done something wrong. Well, you spoke your peace on talk, as did others, and that's not wrong. I think I would have preferred that ArbCom had not listened, though, and gone ahead and banned me. There is a strong current of aristocratic feeling among our trusted servants and we need to squelch it; I think it does not really help to moderate unreliable or untrustworthy officials. Better for us to remove and replace them with ones who do not need to be moderated.

You still haven't satisfied my simple request. Please rephrase my question in acceptable form, preserving intent but making the expression polite. I want to see the way you do it. If there is some specific comment another made that better expresses my position, please copy it here. Thank you. John Reid 06:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Kelly Martin is thanked for her long and honorable service. As Kelly Martin and Tony Sidaway gave up their sysop and other rights under controversial circumstances, they must get them back through normal channels. Giano II may, if developers cooperate, be restored to access to the account Giano. He is requested to avoid sweeping condemnations of other users when he has a grievance. Jdforrester is reminded to maintain decorum appropriate for an Arbitrator.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, Thatcher131 14:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Oi

Você lembra de mim. Já tenho estado aqui, e tenho escrito a verdade da Wikipédia e o que vc fez comigo, mas me dieram um bloqueio por meus comentários. Somente quero dizer que vou voltar muito logo. Vc não sabe o que vai acontecer aqui – eu planejo escrever piores coisas. Vc tem que sofrer pelo que fez comigo – eu preciso obter a vingança que eu almejo. Os wikipedistas são fascistas – e têm que sofrer. A Wikipédia é uma merda, somente há penetelhos como você que não sabem fazer nada, excepto me foder. Hoje é um novo dia, sabe? Cada vez que vc ouve o idioma português já sabe o que é. Parabéns, vc me zangou – e vou te punir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oi amigo, como vai? (talk • contribs)

Estava brincado, moleque

You remember me. Already I have been here, and I have written the truth of the Wikipédia and what vc made with me, but me they dieram a blockade for my commentaries. I only want to say that I go to come back very soon. Vc he does not know what he goes to happen here - I plan to write worse things. Vc he has that to suffer for that he made with me - I need to get the revenge that I long for. The wikipedistas are fascists - and have that to suffer. The Wikipédia is an excrement, only has penetelhos as you that they do not know to make nothing, excepto to foder me. Today it is a new day, knows? Each time that vc hear the Portuguese language already knows what it is. Congratulations, vc irritated me - and go to punish you. -- The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oi friend, as goes? (talk? contribs).

He was played, moleque

{{markups}}

Hi, I found this gem when rummaging through departed User:Xiong's stuff. I used it a few times and even fixed a small mistake. I agree it needs work but it's useful. Why was it deleted? I see you left a notice on talk but the link doesn't point to any discussion of this. John Reid 15:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I was at a loss for a while as to what you thought this had to do with me, but I managed to find this.

Basically, notifying Xiong and voting to "userfy" the template was the extent of my involvement.

You will note that it was eventually userfied. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link; I've had a look at it. Doesn't seem as if this template started a war; I'm not sure why anybody wanted it gone. It's a useful tool, although I didn't understand the {{helpbox}} at first. That latter gadget is nonstandard; {{tnavbar-mini}} &c. are the standard tools for that function.

Can we bring this tool back to templatespace? Yes, I suppose we can always use it from userspace but that could be said for any template. There was very little discussion on the deletion. I'm not going to argue for undeletion on grounds of improper process but it does look as though the main reason this got deleted was that Xiong pissed people off, got pissed off, or both. I'd like to rewrite it to replace the objectionable "helpbox" with "tnavbar-foo", maybe clean it up a bit; but it will be substantially the same tool. Can we salvage this? John Reid 14:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

More peanuts

Peanut gallery! :-) Anyway, I note, with some surprise, that the motion to censure you (probably intended to replace the one to ban you) failed to gain support before the case closed, so I think you 'escaped' both ban and censure. Anyway, I was wondering if you were thinking of taking a week-long wikibreak regardless of the outcome of the case... There would be a name for that. Irony? Carcharoth 14:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha, ha, yes, that is the great joke of RfArb/Giano. A majority of arbitrators failed to get behind either ban or censure, so I'm officially vindicated. Now I think I really deserve a week off. I got a lot done recently; haven't I earned a break?

Of course, the truth is that I enjoy contributing, even when the going gets rough. It's a pleasure to improve the world, just a tiny bit. Editing is both cheaper and easier than distributing canned goods to the poor; it may also be a more enduring contribution to the public good. I have done much in my life, not all of it good; I sleep better knowing I've done something that's not all wrong.

But I do have plenty of Real World work to do; it's looking over my shoulder at this very moment. It may be sordid, petty, and eventually delivered to an ungrateful client who shelves it, there to gather dust and rot. But it pays the rent. John Reid 14:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well go and do some real world work, then! You've earned a break! :-) Just one more comment: "That effort begins in the morning" - from your earlier comment on my talk page under the heading "Peanuts" (thanks for the above link by the way, very interesting) - I wonder how long the night will be? Carcharoth 15:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha, ha, again. Let's copy that comment out:

This User talk:Carcharoth may have been copied and pasted from another location, possibly in violation of Misplaced Pages's copyright policy. Please review the source and remedy this by editing this article to remove any non-free copyrighted content and attributing free content correctly, or flagging the content for deletion. Please be sure that the supposed source of the copyright violation is not itself a Misplaced Pages mirror.

This RfArb has ripped the lid off of a lot of outdated ideas and unstated assumptions. This community and this project have staggered along for a long time on the strength of a lot of weak straws and as one goes, it takes the next in line. It's obvious that WP was founded in the early days by people with no political or organizational experience; more, by people actively hostile to proven techniques of management. In place of these, they substituted emphatic demands for good will and common sense. When those failed, they threw all sorts of ad hoc remedies into the breach; and like all who recapitulate development instead of studying their predecessors, they made the most basic mistakes and created some of the most brittle, oppressive, and opaque methods. Lacking leverage with which to enforce draconian standards, the whole effort degenerates into a pillow fight.

Assuming that we still want to build a project, we're going to have to reorganize. That effort begins in the morning, when the empty beer cans, spilled ashtrays, and butt prints in green ooze on the windows are cleaned up. But for now, it looks like the party is in full swing. John Reid 07:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Template:Copyend

Well, it might be easy to say that with that RfArb closed, the party's over and we can start to clean up. But that was not the party; that was just a fistfight in the parking lot during the party, which is still going on strong. Every new day sees an explosion of new policy initiatives, all trying to patch up the failing social fabric or at least nurse a private grievance. We are at the "zombie" stage of a party, where everyone is too drunk to realize they're too drunk to stand up. The older members, with experience and pickled livers, are sitting on the back porch, chugging straight from the bottle, alternately swearing undying brotherhood and waving pistols.

The next stage is the big fight, the one for which all previous broken noses are forgotten. This is the one that stops the music, that gets all the deadheads off the floor, that wakes up all the neighbors. This is the one that is so compelling it involves everybody at the party. At least for a moment, everybody stops drinking and gets some adrenaline in to combat the alcohol. The Cops come and there is a moment of clarity, after which some people go to sleep, some go home, some go to the hospital, some go to jail, and the party is over.

We have not yet come to this point. In order for it to be the big fight, somebody must get injured -- not offended, not scratched up, but seriously hurt. There needs to be a lot of blood and, preferably, a noise loud enough to be heard over the music and general yelling. The big fight is not a good thing in itself but in my experience, few really big parties held by ordinary people end any other way.

Here in cyberspace, it's difficult to hurt anybody seriously. You can annoy them greatly but this kind of vandalism is merely amusing. Blocks and bans -- considered our strongest remedies -- don't necessarily take anybody out of circulation for an hour. Even if a valuable, longtime contributor is hounded off the project, the party rolls on. Entire groups of editors stalk off, fork the project, party in their own places, and the main party rolls on. "Neighbors" threaten libel suits, Danny quiets them down, and the party rolls on. It's the exact same people doing the exact same thing with the exact same group dynamics as in the Real World; the only difference is that we all have pillows tied to our hands.

This party will probably roll until somebody figures out how to do serious, lasting, Real World damage to somebody else (WP:BEANS). It's just a matter of time. Then the nasty little red ticks in their loud suits and heavy wristwatches will circle their briefcases and loot the WMF treasury. After they've drunk their fill, we may, perhaps, as a community, have a moment of clarity. John Reid 16:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sweet <profanities deleted>! That is a scary scenario, and it sounds horribly plausible. You've reminded me of a page I once saw (but cannot find now) that postulated several possible endgame scenarios for how Misplaced Pages (ie. this party) might end. Did you ever read that essay (well, it sounds like it was an essay), and do you have a link for it? It might be on meta or in the Misplaced Pages namespace. Not sure. Carcharoth 17:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)