User talk:Cyan

/archive

Time Cube featured article candidate

Place a Support vote for Time Cube at the nomination subpage!

DNA:Talk

[Peak:] Regarding DNA:Talk: the process that you defined was proceeding as well as might be expected, and I believe that the latest product of that process, namely T6.2, is also quite reasonable. Certainly it takes into account everyone's stated objections in a reasonable way. I was thus taken aback to see that you have proposed a new process. This seems not only to have taken us all the way back to Square 1, but to have set things up to make it likely there will be a perpetual cycle of changes. If it is necessary to revise the process, then I would propose that it be based on "all but one" agreement. (In this case, that happens to be the same as majority agreement, but "all but one" agreement is the principle that I think should apply.)

Since you are evidently well-versed in matters of Protection, I would like to ask your advice regarding another candidate for Protection. There is an anonymous user who has persisted in deleting material from the Race page that does not agree with his rather narrow POV. He has also shown himself quite adept at hurling insults at two of the contributors who clearly do not deserve it. The irony here is that I actually agree with the anon user that the article is in need of significant improvement; however, it is listed in Wikipedia:Brilliant_prose and deserves protection from anon's changes so far. Anyway, I have two questions: What is the appropriate way to get the page protected? Would you recommend a ban or protection? Thanks. Peak 06:44, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[Peak:] Re: Race: I have requested reversion/protection as you suggested, and would invite you to help. Please also see Talk:DNA on some ideas regarding a new procedure that will terminate within a fixed number of steps. Thanks. Peak 16:11, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[Peak:] You have already proposed two procedures, so it would, I think, be best if you could propose another one - hopefully one that is guaranteed to terminate reasonably quickly. If you are shy about nominating yourself as Judge, then I hereby do so. Alternatively, the decision about who is to be judge could be part of the new, new procedure.

I would also like to point out that if there is just one individual who refuses to accept the legitimacy of the new, new process, then that person can be excluded from the process, and we (as a community of N-1 persons) can agree to use reversion to enforce the outcome of the decision procedure. It's not ideal, but it's better than having processes that allow (and even encourage) the worst kind of "trolling" behavior. That is, if one allows everyone to have veto power over everything, then (since power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely) someone is eventually going to abuse it. That was really the point of my comments about the importance of "all-but-one" procedures. Peak 17:01, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Lebesgue-measurable function

Please check my recent edit to Lebesgue-measurable function for correctness. Thanks, Cyan 23:38, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Looks good -- thanks. It never hurts to remember to proof-read. Michael Hardy 23:42, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Nucleic Acid

What's the favor for, though? I don't think either you or I could possibly learn anything from it. Possibly Lir could learn something from it, and I guess if we really can't ban him, it would be nice if we could at least train him to behave better. One good experience with him under the watchful eyes of authority, though, is not going to change my attitude toward him. If Lir were to engage in a civil and reasonable dialogue with me as an experiment in good faith that he could build on and learn from, then I suppose the result, no matter if I think the same of him afterwards, could be a real diminution of the grief he inflicts on people who refuse to stop relying on his good faith. I could do this for the sake of others. But I expect he'd just view this supervised dialogue as an opportunity to show he can be reasonable and then go back to being unreasonable whenever it suits him. Why should I assist him in what would be a PR stunt? If he wants to show how reasonable he can be, there are plenty of other users with whom he can show this who are more eager than me to work with him. Meanwhile, I will work to help others by continuing to campaign to ban him. Not that I think he'll be banned in the current political climate. But if only we could instill a little fear of God in him perhaps he might decide to play more nicely. He must know that the political climate could always take a turn, and so he might like to get ready for it by establishing a good track record. You practice with him though. I don't feel like it.168... 05:06, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Re: Marking page It's alright. The wall of shame is there so I (and others if they care) can keep track of troublemakers. A lot of the topics I edit and watch are controversial so it's good to know who the trolls and biased losers are :) - Lord Kenneth 05:06, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)

.'. ur wikicookies! .'.

Here are your WikiCookies:

Missing image
Wikicookie.jpg
Image:Wikicookie.jpg

Missing image
Wikicookie.jpg
Image:Wikicookie.jpg

Missing image
Wikicookie.jpg
Image:Wikicookie.jpg

Congrats and Peace Profound, Optim 13:08, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Cyan invited me here from somewhere else. Actually, Cyan proposed an email exchange and I inquired if there was a reason to speak in private.

I am testing the opinion that identity has little place in wiki publishing. At most it is a convenience for identifying voice and stance in written dialouge, but it tends to get in the way of organizing subjects in an opus.

Superimposed on an educational document is a dynamic experiment in mob democracy. Cultural evolutionary trends within internet culture make such an expression likely, but in large part, the purpose of the project seems to be to maintain the hope that humanity can keep an open channel within itself as much as it is to actually construct the educatonal opus. Mostly I see people acting out the usual deep seated patterned reactions that drive an over-amped society. At best this thing might serve as a proving grounds for development of lingual conflict management approaches.

As far as I see, the project is a mirror of the insulting, abusive, demeaning mannerisms our culture has developed for law enforcement. The project seems to mirror the badly broken authority relatioships of a culture where domestic violence is rampant, reeling from untold millennia of recurrent intergroup and interpersonal violence and the multigenerational trauma that inevitably follows. A constant atmosphere of edginess, of identifying and disparaging wrong-doers betrays an exited, fearful group whose H/P/adrenal axis is scarred by unexpected and repeated threatening stimuli. The overstimulated HPA is often associated with a concurrent stimulation of endorphin/dopamene-driven behaviors, a product of upregulated neuron populations resulting from painful stimuli and the post traumatic catharsis it produces, along with behavioral/cognitive habits related to cyclic seeking driven by the neurochemical products of the overcharged HPA - habits that flush bursts of corticotropins, others related to avoidance strategies and behavior driven by the sheer momentum of the chemical processes involved. In the social arena, the dopamenergic-associated pain-avoidant strategies express as a range of behaviors, ranging from "make nice" or contrived politeness; the gamut of pleasure-seeking behaviors; sometimes pathological pleasure seeking in social dominance, submission, or rejection; creative activity in general; and the general overcharged processing of information of all sorts.

It makes a fine engine for something that once cost millions of dollars in salaries for scholars to produce; the non-membership basis seems useful to avoid elitism; and it promotes the liberation of knowledge otherwise sequestered by power groups. But it is only what it is and it is mostly people praying to their own creation for life itself, fearful of loosing a place that has not yet yeilded the overdriven measure of satisfaction they expected.

Besides contributing whatever I might to the document, as quietly as possible as far as associating any serious contribution I offer with any present identity, all the while teaching anyone I can the tools for resisting and retraining abusive authority. If anything, I hope that people who troll-hunt and advocate for bans as opposed to advocating affirmative processes, if reputation is what they consider a perc of working here, I hope they get paid far less than they expect. I hope alliances and friendships built around identifying "problem" identities tend to dissipate. I hope the community will produce a number of complaints of abusive power similar to the proportion in which banning and agressive behavior by people who associate an identity with status is present in the process.

Forget the childhood stuff that can leave people edgy; if you have ever been kidnapped at gunpoint you might consider distancing anyone and everyone from the mere concept of kidnapping to be as important as you would adding a version of the word to the game that people play while trying to write this opus. Likewise, categorizing people ... responding to person at all in a dialogue otherwise about subject and process ... insulting and outcasting ... these all mirror pathological social behaviors which, to one who has seen them on the loose, in force, have little appeal in collegial social processes. In resisting and re-training abusive authority, escape-and-evasion, demonstration of exagerated in-kind but sham behavior, genuine appreciation of the role of appropriate authority, and the development of specific plans for better dealing with the problems that confront authority all can have their place. In this context, resoect for legitimacy of authority is best defined as respect for authorship. In editing, respect for authorship is best expressed as a genuine effort to answer for oneself the question, "what is this author trying to say."

In a project that invites authors to correct each other's incoherence about every subject in the universe, an answer to such a question might not cohere nearly as quickly as one might expect. Personal comfort, or even the ability to function, can require adjusting the expectation to express instead as a preference or hope.

You may delete this anytime, of course. I might be back to "discuss this" or at least to see where it goes. Expect nothing from me I don't declare, and check that if you will.

- User:antiterrorist Jan. 24, 2004 (A sock-puppet whose password I hope to soon blindly replace with random keystrokes so it will never be accessible to me again. Of course, that could wear out the list of "cool" handles for wikipedia, and accelerate the inevitable Yahooization564 of handles, and so be it.)

I'm sorry you feel that way. All I can say is that my own opinion, about both society in general and Wikipedia in particular, is rather different from yours. If you have any specific concerns, I remain happy to discuss them here. -- Cyan 16:25, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Specifically, my concern is that processes here, though overtly directed toward writing an encyclopedia and inexorably moving in that direction, are symptomatic of widespread inflamations of portions of the central nervous system affecting drive, cognition and behavior. I suspect (based in part on your academic performance, and in part on your personal mannerisms) your opinion and world view is guided by a somewhat stable life experience, psychologically at least, that leaves you no reason to explore mass psychopathology. For a person whose life experiences, including personal, professional, childhood and adult, have exposed them to pathological authority, and who has developed a reasonable description of the neurobiological etiology involved, interesting or useful discussion involves assessing and developing therapuetic approaches to the psychopathology, moreso than navigating the murky circumstances created by hominoids suffering limbic inflamations. -AT

"...processes here ... are symptomatic of widespread inflamations of portions of the central nervous system affecting drive, cognition and behavior." Wikipedia does not have a CNS per se, so I presume you are talking about one or more humans. Do you have somebody or a group of somebodies in mind?

From what you write, it seems you are interested in the "mass psychopathology" of... sysops? Wikipedia power structure? ... something, anyway. Perhaps such an investigation would be interesting, provided the investigator keeps track of his confirmation bias. -- Cyan 18:56, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"be polite, not crass, or we'll block your ass" - :) Secretlondon 22:11, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

The edit to The Wall seems POV interpretation at best, and somewhat Michaelesque at worst. Just my view of it. Pakaran . 04:41, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It seems ok. If similiar edits are made by that anon to music-related articles, I'm going to start thinking "michael" though. Pakaran . 04:45, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understood your comment on my talk page, but I take it you were agreeing with Mav and not being ironic in that regard. I do take your procedural point and agree with it as a rule of thumb, but in this case I think it could be valuable that Jimbo will be exposed to more of the ongoing evidence that the rules and procedures are flawed. It would be a problem that Lir will seemingly have a leg to stand on when he complains to Jimbo if it were ambiguous which of us, being unreasonable and antisocial. Perhaps I'm fooling myself, but when one looks at the histories, I don't think it's ambiguous at all. If Jimbo acts in a reactionary and doctrinaire way, it will go badly for me and I will be sad about that, but I don't really mind martyring myself for this cause.168... 18:44, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Your post from Requests for Admin:

- I was wondering when this would show up. Functionally, 168's protection changed nothing, as I was about to do so anyway. I have some simple questions for 168 that will determine my view of this matter. 168, if you were given the chance to change your actions with respect to protection of DNA, would you? If so, how? -- Cyan 03:26, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

At the moment I see no reason to regret my action or anything truly wrong with it. I suppose you might be able to persuade me otherwise, but you'd have to try.168... 04:42, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You have invited me to attempt to convince you that protecting DNA was not the best possible action for the circumstances in which you found yourself. Very well, I will give it the old college try.

First, I must state your position as I understand it. You feel that Lir is a vandal, making harmful changes and then being deliberately difficult on the talk page. You therefore feel justified in treating him as a vandal, reverting his edits and protecting the page. This is your position as I understand it.

The argument that I muster against such a position is simply that the best action for the sake of your reputation must take into account Lir's standing in the community. Few people enjoy dealing with Lir during conflicts, as he is... easily offended, shall we say, and apt to be retributive. (You may have noticed his edit summary of 02:45, 5 Jan 2004 on the DNA article, which is typical of the emotions-first approach Lir takes to editing here.) But for all that, there is not a consensus that he may be treated as a vandal. Certainly some editors feel that way, but others do not. In short, there is a significant, although perhaps not overwhelming, segment of Wikipedians here who accept Lir as an editor.

It's generally considered important that sysops not to use the special privileges they have in conflicts, particularly not conflicts with non-sysops. The principle is that sysop privileges are intended to serve the purposes of the community at large, not the individual sysops. Thus, when I protected DNA, I did it on behalf of the community, and likewise when Snoyes unprotected it. I can assert these things without fear of contradiction because neither Snoyes nor I were deeply involved in the editing of the page, nor had either of us expressed strong views about the text during discussions on the talk page. Your protection, on the other hand, is not such a clear-cut case. You have clearly stated a view on what should be written in the article, and the protection you undertook to perform favoured your preferred version. The thesis that Lir is a vandal could be a justification, but it is not universally accepted, and this is the source of the damage to your reputation.

This damage is not a huge deal: enough people find Lir to be a pest that your actions may be viewed as justified by a significant portion of the community. You will almost certainly not lose your admin privileges over it. Nevertheless, the action was not above reproach; you've generated a certain amount of distrust, and similar actions in the future are now more likely to cause people to distrust you.

Now, having made that argument, I must suggest a course of action that would have been preferable, in the sense that no shadow of a doubt about the propriety of the action could have accrued to you. This course of action is simply to treat yourself as a non-sysop for the purpose of this conflict. Non-sysops in conflict must request protection from a disinterested sysop, and this is the course of action available to you which was above reproach.

(I do not require a counter-argument; if you haven't been convinced by the above, then it is likely we shall not agree about the propriety of your action after any amount of back-and-forth, and I can live with that.) -- Cyan 05:33, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have searched extensively for community support for Lir and met with nothing but silence. Perhaps I didn't search in the right way or in the right places, but I feel very strongly that I have done due diligence in this regard. While I'm inclined to trust your take on the community, because I see you get around, nevertheless I feel it is reasonable to take a position of skepticism regarding your claim that Lir has people who want him here who are themselves people who are wanted here. I am very much more skeptical as to what my reputation might be at this moment and how my protection of DNA might have changed it. That said, you might well rid me of my areas of skepticism if you showed me where to look for the evidence. Regarding the distinction between you protecting DNA and me protecting DNA, I certainly see it, and I think you draw the line in a reasonable place. The rule however seems to me to draw the line somewhere else--seemingly it says that if you have had any connection with the article ever, you are not allowed to protect it. That struck me as absurd and a principle that manifestly was not conformed to, most obviously because I knew you had made at least one edit to the DNA page and so were bound to have a preestablished preference for the status quo version. So I inferred that precedent existed for sys-ops using their judgement as to what is allowed when. I also inferred that there is precedent for direct democracy and for creating custom here by just doing things that haven't been done before. I am also not aware of a clear hierarchy of rules or of grades of rules or indeed of any rules here that are actually enforced except for the rules against vandalism and offensive names. I think we have something not so distant from anarchy going on here, and at the very least a fluid system of rules and government. When I see bad things going on, I feel like it's reasonable and indeed best for the community to just do what I think is right, irrespective of convention. I think if people scrutinize what I did, it does not represent a bad example. But I accept the reality of PR. If my action becomes a bad example, then I will feel bad about that. I just don't see it as having become that yet. Yet I made a remark to you before about martyrdom. I figured scrutiny of my action would bring more scrutiny on Lir and a realization of the cost to the community of tolerating people like Lir--"good people being driven to bad things"/"good people being driven away by the bad". I figured ultimately I might be run out of town, but even if that happened, I would have made some kind of dent in the community consciousness. Also I figured, if I'm ridden out of town for that, then good riddance to the town. The town has problems. It needs a system of driver's licenses and drunk driving laws more than it needs a clampdown on the police.168... 06:09, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In the block log, you will find evidence of both views of Lir. I don't think anyone actually defends Lir's behavior; rather, there are those who think he must be accorded respect as an editor because of due process, and those who would circumvent due process out of frustration. In short, custom decrees that it isn't for any one of us to decide when a contributor has become more of a burden than he or she is worth; that privilege has always rested in Jimbo and his designated agents. So when you treat Lir like a vandal by protecting the page against him, you violate due process. -- Cyan 06:24, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: Lir is tolerated because he hasn't been banned by Jimbo. Well, I have not been banned by Jimbo. Therefore I should be tolerated.168... 06:28, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No, no, Lir is tolerated because he was banned by Jimbo, but then had a long email correspondence with him, following which Jimbo specifically unbanned him. Hence my previous comment that to my knowledge, Lir is the only person specifically allowed by decree to edit Wikipedia. -- Cyan 06:31, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What specifically is the "due process" I violated and how did I deny Lir respect as an editor? I didn't ban or block him, which I think is what you said people objected to as a violation of due process. If I denied Lir respect as an editor by protecting the page, then I did the same thing simultaneously to everybody who might have wanted to edit or revert it, and you have done the same in the past. I don't think there is a due process, just a rule about who can do the protecting when, which is somewhat subject to interpretation. 168... 06:54, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

When protecting Wikipedia from vandals, you can put on your sysop hat. If you observe an edit war but are a neutral party, then you can put on your sysop hat. If you're in a conflict with another user, you should not put on your sysop hat. That's the guideline. Now, is Lir a vandal? If yes, then you can just protect against him without violating the guideline. If no, then you can't. If the question of his vandal status, as a matter of due process (i.e. arbitration), has not yet been resolved, and you treat him like a vandal anyway, then you are violating due process. I assert that the question of Lir's status has not yet been resolved via due process, ergo I think treating him as a vandal is a violation of due process. -- Cyan 13:55, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I see your argument now. But first of all there are two due processes as I understand them. One is that sys ops have the authority to issue temporary blocks without Jimbo. The other one has until now has depended on Jimbo, but is in transition to a committee-based system. Anyway, as I said before I didn't block Lir from Wikipedia. But I've conflated a couple issues by offering "vandalism" as my excuse for protecting a page. I don't actually know that vandalism officially is an excuse to protect a page. Perhaps it isn't. If it is, because I have authority to issue temporary blocks, and because blocks are only issued for vandalism, therefore I have the authority to decide what is vandalism and what isn't. Are there rules pertaining to temporary blocking (and thus to the assignment of "temporary vandal" status) that say what relationship a sysop is not allowed to have with the page that is being vandalized? I don't think so. I think I stumbled into a gray area, accurately assessed it as such, and behaved both reasonably and--though this is unknowable at the present--for the best of the community. 168... 16:50, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(I do not deny that I am stretching the definition of "vandal" and actually I specifically what I said I thought Lir was is a "kind of vandal." I think Lir is bad and I trust my judgement, which has been informed extensively by what others write about Lir. I am using the democratic process, such as it is here, to stretch our notion of "vandal" in such a way as to enable the current system of rules to deal effectively with people like Lir, which it manifestly and despite the complaints of many cannot deal with now.168... 16:59, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC))

my stupidity

Thanks for pointing that out. I guess that makes me look pretty stupid, only skimming over the page and missing the salient bit, huh? ;-) - snoyes 05:02, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ed's comment on DNA

As far as I'm concerned, it's a matter of opinion whether there should even be a link on the page to Ed's comment, and my opinion is that really there shouldn't be. It seems like not so bad a compromise though, so I won't revert it. Do please tell me what Jesus would have done, were h/He in my place.168... 17:15, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually, in the religion I subscribe to, a very important principle is not to put up with any crap without a very good reason and to take the maximization of good for everyone into consideration. So you see turning the other cheek would have been sacrilegious. I hope in the spirit of tolerance you will respect that.168... 17:33, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's my own mix of beliefs which derive from my parenting, other experience and some intellectualizing. I haven't given it a special name. I guess you might call it "ethical living."168... 17:42, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, seeing as we are devout followers of kindred faiths, I will expect in the future that as we work towards compromises and make reference to posts or edits or any action the other has taken, we will naturally avoid addressing each other in a tone that suggests the other really ought to have known better.168... 17:58, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Already done and I agree. But I can't promise to never again encourage people to do better than to act on human nature. I'm afraid it's just my nature;)168... 18:21, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Impertinent

Okay...lol. Ilyanep 22:59, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/168

Mav doesn't like that I removed Ed's post and has brought it up for "scrutiny." It's in the bottom section of Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/168, in case you'd like to comment.168... 02:22, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

animated gif

I've just commented on the talk page, but it looks like a good use of the format to me, it's a good diagram. :) Thanks for asking my opinion (there's nothing I like better than to opine!). I also put it in a thumbnail using the new image syntax, which looks like it would be an acceptable workaround, I certainly have no idea how to resize an animated gif. Cheers, fabiform | talk 04:37, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC).

I hope you won't really leave. I'm getting tired of losing good Wikipedians, especially to the kinds of users who generally drive them out. Hope to be seeing you around here for many more edits, Jwrosenzweig 17:13, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Cyan, this would have to be the most ridiculous reason to quit that I have ever heard! Please reconsider. Ignore the dispute pages for a while and regain a sense of reality. It is really not worth giving up over whether something Lir said was true or not. Angela . 17:23, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

Consider: I pressed the issue by posting my suspicions, and I did agree to Lir's stipulation. Lir provided the reference in reasonably good order, clearing himself of my suspicions; he fulfilled his part of the bargain. It's not that I'm going off in a huff, it's just more important to me to be an honest person and stand by my word than to be a Wikipedian. -- Cyan 18:04, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Cyan, I'd say you were provoked and prodded into saying and doing something drastic out of frustration. You do have your own conscience to settle, but I think there are occasions when one can come to regret a bargain made (and how foolish -- Lir demanding you self-ban if he does the childishly simple action of telling you the name of a book -- the only thing more strange to me than his unbelievable request was that you, in irritation and haste, accepted). I think an honest apology to Lir would be all anyone expects of you at present, and all the best of us hope you will do. Please consider a return to us, at least, once you've taken some time away (if you do leave). This troll war is starting to reach larger proportions, and folks like Angela (and myself) will need all the good fellow editors we can find once the riff-raff are convinced (or forced) to leave us. Jwrosenzweig 18:10, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

May I add my voice to this -- please don't leave for good over this, pride or no. —Morven 23:04, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I hope you're just doing this for dramatic effect on the (overly risky, I think) hunch that the page reference will be wrong. You probably noticed in my posts that I don't think Lir has satisfied your criterion of verification. We have two theories about Lir that we are trying to distinguish. One is that he is woefully misunderstood by the people who say awful things about him. The other is that he plays dirty and can't be trusted. Actually there's the third theory that both are true. Given those, a test built on the supposition that we can trust Lir's representations to us when he makes his reply (as in, trust him that the book he has cited is a book he had looked at when he made his claim on Talk:Citric Acid Cycle, and trust him also that, as I think he subtly implied at the time, this was a book he encountered in effect by chance, as the one nearest to him, and was not one he searched out to provide counterfeit support for his claim that "Krebs Cycle" is prevalent) is not a test anybody would design to choose between those theories. What you literally told Lir was that you required verification. I don't think anybody could have taken you to mean by "verify" that you would settle for what seems merely plausible under the assumption that Lir is trustworthy. I don't think it was a gamble you made, I think what you did is to design an impractical test (unless of course you look up the book and find Lir is lying, which is possible...although he could always say "Oh, no, I meant this book," and keep you running in circles forever). Not to mention you didn't say how long a "self ban" lasts. So I don't see any dishonor in coming back anytime. As I hope you are planning to do anyway. 168... 23:34, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[Peak:] If your conscience ultimately requires you to self-ban, I would suggest you make it for 24 hours. Or if you can't wait that long, come back as PhotoCyan (Magenta is already taken) :-)

Peak 08:12, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please, please come back. Appologize to Lir if you like. We miss you. Pakaran . 03:19, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please come back! -Ann O'nyme 11:43, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please come back. silsor 05:19, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

"The attempt to silence a man is the greatest honor you can bestow on him. It means that you recognize his superiority to yourself." -- Joseph Sobran

Good luck with the silence imposed on you.

Hello, my colorful friend! If you are lurking, please know that I have continued the quest you began at talk:nucleic acid and am trying to get contributors to work together again on the nucleic acid article.

I know it's frustrating, and I have quit several times. I've also taken vacations, which somehow seems more satisfying than "quitting". --Uncle Ed 14:35, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Howdy!

Nice to see you in RC again! :) Have fun on your PhD work. --mav 03:47, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I'm glad you're back. I'm sure your wikipedia contributions don't aid your PhD at all, but which is more fun? ;-) Stewart Adcock 07:48, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Welcome back! We don't really mind if doctoral work drags you away for long stretches (hey, it's important, we understand) -- just promise to come back eventually! :) Hope to see you around long-term, Jwrosenzweig 21:24, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Nice to see you back. :) Angela . 03:37, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

St. Petersberg

That'll teach me to think that I understand a paradox. The external link is a great explanation, and I'm partial to the "utility limit" theory, myself. Seeing as the solution depends on what exactly "utility" is, do you think we should move it to the "Conditional paradoxes" section? Paullusmagnus 18:32, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks!

I can't believe you wrote Matlab code for me! That's crazy! Useful, but crazy. I may just have to acknowledge you if this ever becomes a thesis. moink 19:33, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

p.s. I don't usually admit real-life info about myself, but let's just say you and I appear to have quite a bit in common.

glad you're back!

don't leave us again! :) Kingturtle 19:59, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

welcome back... --Jia ng

Hi! Would you like to take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Votes for deletion#VOTE:_NEW_LAYOUT_FOR_VFD!? I think you thought it was a good idea last time it was suggested. BL 16:29, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

"insults"

Hi Cyan - I was calling myself that, not anyone else! - MPF 00:26, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! - doing so right now - MPF 00:45, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

hearsay

You're right. I've corrected the hearsay page. I do see how you could say that it would only be hearsay if the statement were being used to try to prove that NPOV is actually pointless. That's why I backed down from my original statement that it was "absolutely" hearsay. Maybe you're right. It definitely seems unfair to take a comment of mine out of context like that, though. Anthony DiPierro 20:09, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

White Flight

On the talk page for white flight, an anon asked if white flight occurred in Canadian cities, as well as US, saying he wanted to broaden the article to be less America-centric. I thought you might be able to help. Yours, Meelar 01:21, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yokozuna

Re Yokozuna, wrestlers are known by their stage name only (eg. "Tachiyama"). First names may be worth mentioning in an article on the wrestler, but not elsewhere. Jpatokal 03:24, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Blocking proxies

Hi, thanks for the pointer on blocking proxies. Alas, the thread raised as many question for me as it answered! I have posted a new entry at Wikipedia_talk:Bans_and_blocks as a result... Noel 15:39, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Principle of indifference

Hello, I've posted a comment at Talk:Principle of indifference, maybe you'd like to read it, or maybe not. BTW that's a great quote from E.T. Jaynes on your user page. Lots o' philosophical baggage contained in that one little phrase. 8^) Happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 17:13, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Diagrams for central limit theorem

Hello, I posted a comment on talk:central limit theorem about illustrative diagrams in response to your comment on my talk page. Happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 02:49, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for moving that Polish article rant -- I should have done it myself, but I was quite upset that someone had done it and wanted them to go to the trouble themselves. Which in the end made work for you: my apologies. Some days I lose a little faith in humanity. Thanks for doing your part to restore mine. :-) Jwrosenzweig 22:02, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. My spelling has been terrible this week. UninvitedCompany 22:06, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Some call me insane

I have spied tiger spiders on the prowl along my fence,
But the speed at which they travel makes a chase much to intense.
So you set your traps with care,
Scattering them here and there,
Hoping for a leg to snare,
And with eight the odds are in your favor.
Watch out! They can maim
Even with a leg left lame.
So some call me insane,
But danger is my middle name.

- The Last of the Big Game Hunters

Thanks, Denial of Service

Did look for a reason, Rjstott 04:51, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hello,

Please give your opinion here Talk:DNA/vote.

FirmLittleFluffyThing 06:09, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Really annoying?

Louis the 12.144.5.2 here,you said in your recent edit on Lord President of the Council that the Marquis/Woolton space insertion/omission was "*really* annoying" for reasons you'd elaborate on. As I see it,this was one that was particularly NOT meriting any alteration,since the visible link would go to a pre-existing article title anyway,that article having a space in its title so I avoided duplication by letting it be that way.So why not let the "Baron" reference that ISN'T an article alone?--L.E./le@put.com

Kils

Cyan, Kils would prefer it not to have the whole sysop history spread across Wikipedia. Let's respect his wishes in this instance.--Eloquence * 23:40, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

Off-topic

Hi Cyan, your conversation with The Trolls of Navarone was somewhat off-topic to the talk page of the blocking policy so I have moved it to User talk:The Trolls of Navarone. Hope you don't mind. Angela . 20:03, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

User:WHEELER

why did you protect this user page? Sam Spade 00:09, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Cheers :) Sam Spade 01:59, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Cyan,

 Any progress with De Finetti and negative mixing probabilities? This has

serious application. Peter (petercotton.net)

Wik

Sometimes the truth is not nice. Actually, I find "idiot" to be a very watered down description of Wik. Wik should have been banned months ago, but this community seem to not like dealing with trolls and vandals effectively. Instead of reverting Wik and calling him an idiot, maybe I should message his bot and request that we can form a consensus so that he can revert three times a day again without discussing the article? --"DICK" CHENEY 17:31, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Invitation

I fraternally invite you to add your name, to join the new community Wikipedians/Quebec. Thanks and welcome!
Je vous invite fraternellement à ajouter votre nom, à vous joindre à la nouvelle communauté Wikipedians/Quebec. Merci et bienvenue!
--Liberlogos 04:28, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Malicious Deletion Attempt

Hello. Sorry for the imposition, but I thought you might be interested to note that an article you supported in the past on vfd has been listed again under malicious circumstances - the 3rd such attempt in 7 months. Please feel free to review the discussion and cast your vote as you feel appropriate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Atlantium --Gene_poole 10:56, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hate Groups and NRMs

Care to comment on the dispute about Hate_group#Hate_groups_and_new_religious_movements?. That section is now in RfC. Thanks. --Zappaz 01:19, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

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

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

Option 1

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

Option 2

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

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit&section=new)| talk)

RFC pages on VfD

Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Quebec Wikipedians notice board

You are hereby cordially invited to join the Quebec Wikipedians notice board.

Vous êtes cordialement invité à collaborer au Quebec Wikipedians notice board. Circeus 19:39, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Bring back quickpolls

I think it's time that quickpolls be re-evaluated as a solution to short term disputes between users. What say you? --Ryan! | Talk 05:17, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

de Finetti's theorem

Someone has answered your question on de Finetti's theorem, and I suspect they've got it right. Michael Hardy 21:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:Cyan"