User talk:Fwappler
|
|
| Contents |
Point of View
Being instructed by the commensurate relation {{Reproducibility:what instructs]]:alike| Physics and Lexicography (among others); with the commensurate certain je ne se wha'tya'ca l' endurance to observe and to (consider to) commit ViceVersas. Envisioning myself accordingly as one among Wikipedians.
May We ask correspondents to observe the like ... totally selfproclaimed orderliness of {{This:User|Space]] ?!
How that's Viewed
Frank W ~@) R:{Albany high energy physics group:Frank W ~@) R}? -º¡º
Are there any other blue squares ?
Nice article on cushion. I'm sometimes amazed at what we don't have. Writing on knitting needle, I discovered we have neither needle, pin, sock or jumper -- astounding! (I created the last one... but it's stubbish) -- Tarquin 11:30 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)
Oops, thanks for catching the Edward VI error. I of course meant to type in 1537 instead of 1547. But it's been a long day here in Canberra.
Arno
Hello, Frank. I've always wondered: Do you try to write in such a way that it will be difficult for most people to understand you? This certainly has its purposes (and I've always found you interesting, at least to a degree), but I don't think that it belongs in Wikipedia. -- Toby Bartels
As to: I've always wondered: Do you "try" [...]
- I've rarely wondered whether an encyclopedia might benefit those who readily try not to understand as much as those who readily try to imagine being understood.
- I've never wondered that before, since it's not the sort of thing that one would normally compare. I'd say that an encyclopædia is most useful when:
- The reader tries their best to understand;
- The writer assumes that the reader isn't going to try very hard.
- That is, as writers, we should try to be comprehensible with a minimum of effort on the reader's part, just in case.
- I've never wondered that before, since it's not the sort of thing that one would normally compare. I'd say that an encyclopædia is most useful when:
As to: I've always found you interesting [...
- Regrettably (and I may not even begin to comprehend the magnitude of my loss) I can't recall having found you instructive.
- I'll take it as a compliment that you seem to imply that this is a great loss -- I only know that some people have found me instructive (on USENET I mean, where we met).
- In any case, I try to be easily understood (even though I don't always succeed), since that helps in being instructive. And I'm not going to come out and say that you do try to be hard to understand -- still, I wonder. -- Toby 20:03 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)
- Regards, Frank W ~@) R, Jan. 9th, 20:35 (PST).
What does "Hunmin jeong'eum haerye" have to do with this? Are you being serious, or are you trying to irritate me (and other members of this project)? You give the impression of willfully misinterpreting what other people say. And please don't create self-links: "Jerry Seinfeld in Seinfeld" on the Seinfeld page itself. -- Tarquin 19:32 Jan 6, 2003 (UTC)
As to: please don't create self-links: "Jerry Seinfeld in Seinfeld" on the Seinfeld page itself
- How ougth We to distinguish, or even to emphasize, that the linked entity referred to "Jerry Seinfeld in Seinfeld", not to "Jerry Seinfeld in Wikipedia"? Specificly,
- Seinfeld: [...] features clips [...] of Seinfeld delivering a standup routine
- Is it reproducible that the reference is strictly to "Jerry Seinfeld, the character appearing and scripted in Seinfeld", or not possibly instead to "Jerry Seinfeld, the overarching comedian which may have drawn on the whole of in Wikipedia"? In the latter case, at least as an POV, ought We not give this particular instance the recognition of providing a link Seinfeld?
As to: What does "Hunmin jeong'eum haerye" have to do with this?
- In My view, the making of the article by that name provides an instance of Make "Wiki" explain. Thereby it appears to illustrate its meaning, about which You had asked.
- Also, that was the first article to appear when I searched Explanation.
As to: You give the impression of willfully misinterpreting what other people say
- Far be it from me. I wish to impress by carefully interpreting what wikipedians write, and, to the best of my ability and resources, ask Us about may not have understood right away; allowing all to do equally well.
- Best regards, Frank W ~@) R, Jan. 6, 12:28 PST.
No, it wasn't a joke. Your use of the verb "instructs" is, frankly, bizarre. I don't understand any of your response below. Your excessive linking and quoting makes things very hard to follow. What does " Make Wiki explain." mean? --- Tarquin 13:31 Jan 6, 2003 (UTC)
As to Your use of the verb "instructs" is, frankly, bizarre.
- (Instance of my use of instructs , acting as verb may be found on this page and in refeences therein.)
- I'm sorry that my use of instructs , acting as verb can be characterized as frankly, bizarre; especially since I'm under the impression that instruction , acting as noun which appears in Encyclopedia ought to be commensurate.
- Can You provide instances of whether and how We have or ought to observe instructs , acting as verb instead, please? Otherwise your characterization would appear, frankly, bizarre.
As to What does " Make Wiki explain." mean?
- Excellent, a question. (Also, therefore, as in Excellent question).
- What appears be an adequately good (at least) answer is viewed as in Hunmin jeong'eum haerye. (Also, therefore, my reply may Itself be addressing Your question.)
As to Your excessive linking and quoting makes things very hard to follow.
- I appreciate Your afforts to follow nevertheless.
- Having attempted to do so myself, I found that the link given below might more easily be expressed as 2 as denoting Two.
As to No, it wasn't a joke.
- Of course that's always understood, is it not?!
- Best regards, Frank W ~@) R, Jan. 6, 10:58 PST.
Are you using translation software to write here? You keep using phrases like "a neighbourhood, which instruct Physics as well as Mathematics?" -- this usage of the verb "instructs" is unusual. As you can see, several wikipedians are having problems understanding what you write, both in articles and talk pages. -- Tarquin 10:28 Jan 6, 2003 (UTC)
As to: You keep using phrases like "a neighbourhood, which instruct Physics as well as Mathematics?" -- this usage of the verb "instructs" is unusual.
- I don't know if that was meant to be a joke
- (if so, noting the apparent unusual use of "a neighbourhood" ought to be about twice as funny),
- if you're deliberately refusing to resolve
- articles [...] which instruct Physics as well as Mathematics
- and
- articles, e.g. about what is and what isn't a neighbourhood
- (which I seem to have expressed recently in Talk:Local coordinate system)
- or if you're plainly not understanding me, in which case I count on being able to
- Write in Wiki,
- and (thereby)
- Make Wiki explain.
- anyways.
- Each of these options involves as much as the notion of 2, which is apparently already articulated ...
As to As you can see, several wikipedians are having problems understanding what you write, both in articles and talk pages
- Indeed. Fortunately, Wikipedia instructs even them to be considerate and even rational in addressing such problems; since first and foremost they're Ours.
- Best regards, Frank W ~@) R, Jan. 6, 5:18 PST.
You've got me really confused, Fwappler. What language are you speaking? -- Zoe
As to What language are you speaking?
- I don't speak language a lot; instead express what I thought in writing -- usually Aleutian Denglisch.
As to You've got me really confused
- I beg your pardon. What's Your question?
Best regards, Frank W ~@) R, Jan. 5, 22:53 PST.
Interesting rearranging you've done here. I'm not sure if I'm writing in the right place. I get the impression that you don't understand what the Wikipedia project is about and what it is trying to achieve. Your use of English makes much of what you write here hard to understand. You should go see Talk:Duration -- Tarquin 21:27 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)
- Sorry, I noticed your statement only as of this writing. Hopefully my renewed rearrangement of correspondence indicates
- that you ```did apparently the right place; at the when I ought to have replied, I just seem not to have gotten past Zoe follow-up; sorry. And
- the principle about how to be writing in the right place on this page still remains.
As to You should go see Talk:Duration
- I had already replied to your kind notification from earlier the same day.
Frank W ~@) R, Jan. 9th, 19:38 (PST).
Regarding Chart, see what AxelBoldt wrote on Talk:Local coordinate system. You write above: "As to PLEASE stop writing everything" -- I don't if that was meant to be a joke, if you're misunderstanding me, or if you're deliberately taking my remarks out of context. -- Tarquin 14:46 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)
As to As to PLEASE stop writing everything[...]" -- I don't [know] if that was meant to be a joke, if you're misunderstanding me, or if you're deliberately taking my remarks out of context.
- Yes, and No, Tarquin.
- As to stop writing [... in { }]
- First of all I've valued your instruction(s), seeing my use of Talk:Markup being so directed until further notice; and I presume having thereby Your PLEA adequately Squelched. However,
- As to writing everything
- I couldn't help but observe and focus on the superlative presumption of your request; and, while I had to go to sleep, I attempted to gather instructions on whether and how there's no I in Wikipedia, phonemically or otherwise.
- Distributed instruction, you know ?
- May We not observe wholes by recognizing their parts, say: find out !?
As to see what AxelBoldt wrote on Talk:Local coordinate system
- How do We reconcile the presumption of a reader being one intelligible Wikipedian, albeit ever so ignorant of the subject, with said reader's selfproclaimed ignorance on what a commensurate relation is to start with ?! --- Do We lead by example?!
- Frank W ~@) R, Jan. 5, 13:05 PST.
Fwappler, PLEASE stop writing everything in { }. They have no special meaning in wiki markup & make everything you write in talk pages hard to read. -- Tarquin 13:54 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)
As to { } ... have no special meaning in wiki markup
- In my view, that's a terrible waste, or a terrific resource, of bandwidth. But strangely, even though Wikipedia knows about at least about Markup, Bandwidth and Resource Wikipedia itself doesn't seem to be too excited about this circumstance yet.
As to make everything you write in talk pages hard to read
- That's quite contrary to my intention, which is for my writing to be instructive; especially for ... (you know who? ;).
As to PLEASE stop writing everything
- Well, I hope I've written already enough to catch on (with those who are excited about wiki markup; please bear with me.
- Otherwise, of NECESSITY: I myself don't have the endurance to be writing always in any event.
- Best regards, Frank W ~@) R, Jan. 5, 2003
- p.s. My view of Chart has meanwhile disappeared, and with it the instruction I meant to convey in Talk:Duration; I may require it there explicitly.
Frank, are you deliberately inserting nonsense into Wikipedia? If so, please stop doing it. See Talk:Pluralis Majestatis; also, "Ümmerläuterern" is not a word. --Eloquence 12:24 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)
As to deliberately inserting nonsense
- In my view not at all; especially since Wikipedia:Wikipedia does have instructions concerning nonsense. However, I admit being challanged by the present absence of instructions concerning Allusions; and even more so by the apparent presumption to distinguish the notion of Wikipedia:Wikipedia as an encyclopedia as a whole, as reinforced by its potentially stupifyingly marvelous Wikipedia:Synthax, from the notion of s as apparetly only weakly linked and lonesome entities.
As to "Ümmerläuterern"
- that's a German "Wortschöpfung" -- (well, as I just found out, Wikipedia:Wikipedia knows this one already as neologism ... Super!) -- which alludes to Pluralis Majestatis by the bag-full. Btw., Wikipedia:Wikipedia first observed it in Talk:Bundesland, in a discussion devoted to different forms of plural.
- Wikipedia ist nicht der Ort für Wortschöpfungen. Wenn Du Deiner Kreativität freien Lauf lassen möchtest, empfehle ich de.talk.bizarre. --Eloquence
- Best regards, Frank W ~@) R, Jan. 5, 2003
- p.s. In my view, all my Wikipedia:How does one edit a page|writing takes far too long; I may have to ask for some technical relief from Wikipedia:Emacs ...
As to Memo to self
- observed in Talk:Duration having been observed by Tarquin 23:10 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC). Actually, that's not even wrong, since Distinct|to|for. Damn -- We're smooth! ...
Hello there Fwappler, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. BTW, nice work on EPR paradox. Cheers! --maveric149
Thank you very much for the nice and concise welcome.
It may still take a while for me to appreciate the style,
for figuring the technicalities in taking my first steps 'pedin'...
Best regards, Frank W ~@) R
Dear Fwappler (I don't know how to type that other name),
You responded recently on the talk page for glove. You twice expressed italicized concerns that we not forget the knowledge of the 1911 encyclopedia authors. I wonder, though, were they all knowledgeble? Here's an excerpt from the 1911 article on negros:
- Other characteristics appear to be a liypertrophy of the organs of excretion, a more developed venous system, and a less voluminous brain, as compared with the white races. In certain of the characteristics mentioned above the negro would appear to stand on a lower evolutionary plane than the white man, and to be more closely related to the highest anthropoids.
That doesn't sound knowledgeable to me.
best wishes,
Arthur 23:34 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)
Germans
I've for long (a year, actually) been itched by the way Wikipedia-links are done with often sloppy distinctions between nationality, citizenship and ethnicity (with regard to persons) and also between nations and countries. This is particularly obvious in the case of people or entities that are denoted as German. A link to the Federal Republic of Germany is often outright unhistorical and wrong, but this has until now been the most usual.
Therefore I'm considering an article on Germans, which I've started at User:Ruhrjung/Germans. I would wish to avoid too much of edit wars after having started to link to the article. In particular, I would not wish to see the current disputes over German-Polish matters automatically extend also to this article, why I kindly ask you for comments now, in advance, in order to try to find wordings acceptable to as many as possible of concerned wikipedians.
I look forward to your comments at User talk:Ruhrjung/Germans.
--Ruhrjung 23:49, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Automobile
Please learn how to use Wikipedia link syntax correctly. The edit you are making to Automobile is nonsensical. Since you've been here since January, I think you should have learned how to do it by now. —Morven 17:17, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- And again. I resent that you deliberately make work for everyone else having to clean up after you because you refuse to do things the way that actually works. —Morven 06:22, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Why do you think that < phi1, phi2 | psi1, psi2 > = < phi1 | psi1 > < phi2 | psi2 > is possibly wrong? We have 2 Hilbert spaces, the ones of Alice and Bob. It was a bad idea to delete this. Ulrich 13.07.2004
- Please see my reply at the discussion page of the article with that statement of mine in the Edit summary.
- Frank W ~@) R 06:26, 14 Jul 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 2000 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:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
OR
- 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:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
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§ion=new)| talk)