User talk:Fwappler

Point of View[edit]

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[edit]

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.

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[edit]

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:

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:

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| talk)

tools[edit]

One reason that List of physical tools was deleted was that it consisted entirely of red links. If you had produced a list of links to articles already on Wikipedia, it might have fared better. -- RHaworth 07:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, 'tis less bland to toil than to tool. Frank W ~@) R 15:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Thanks for explicating this reason. Is it, even among others, supposed to be recognizable when vieving the Deletion notice for [[List of physical tools]], or are Wikipedians expected to surmise reason in a cause as well ?

p.p.s. Which of your preference settings would allow you to recognize Dabber#Ink ball as a red link, similar (presently) to, say, Pineapple corer ?

The deletion log shows that it was deleted as {{empty}}. That is a good enough summary of the reason for and cause of its deletion. Red link checking is based on the presence or absence of an article - it does not extend to checking for labels within an article.

I get a feeling that your grasp of English is better than one might think but that you twist your words for the fun of it. What, for example, is the purpose of the two crazy links above that you have piped to "others" and "cause" respectivley. -- RHaworth 19:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of these crazy links you noticed ... wait a minute! Crazy!? I haven't even started yet to really beat my wife!

À propos: Is List of physical tools one of many articles that got deleted due to being mistaken as having "consisted entirely of red links"? Or would that be an exception, which explains why it should not be deleted?

On that prospect, I'm going to quote you at Talk:List of physical tools. (You didn't engage in this correspondence here, rather than there, just for the ... "diversion" of it, did you?)

Finally, besides merely my individual grasp of language, I'm looking forward to bettering that of Wikipedia as a whole, for instance by means of the articulated links that you noticed. (They're an improvement on the wikibriq proposal developed within WikiPEN.)

Specificly: the above articulated link "\[\[reason#::Grammatical number..Plural::|others\]\]" is to express the context that "others" in that instance was a short version of "other reasons" (since you had referred to One reason, i.e. presumably one reason of several reasons); therefore the reference to the Grammatical number#Plural of reason.

The other articulated link that you noticed, "\[\[cause#::User:R. fiend:: caused ::Wikipedia:Deletion:: of ::List of physical tools::|cause\]\]" encapsulates a specific instance of Causation, with "User:R. fiend" constituting the cause, and the effect being identified as "Wikipedia:Deletion of List of physical tools".

Hope this helps, Frank W ~@) R 06:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Germany is being replaced by a category[edit]

Hello! You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Germany page as living in or being associated with Germany. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, or one of the Bundesland-based subcategories, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Germany for instructions. --Angr (tɔk) 14:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for not having done so automatically. <tt>F</tt>rank <tt>W ~@) R</tt> 20:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein synchronisation[edit]

Can you pls have a look at Talk:Einstein synchronisation? --Pjacobi 21:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right...<tt>F</tt>rank <tt>W ~@) R</tt> 20:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzle globe[edit]

Since you created the Puzzle globe article, I though you'd be interested in this discussion :) Waldir ^talk 23:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too much honour: the pride and care that attaches to creatorship seems (these days) to be reserved to Knol.

And too little honour: after all, I consider my creation the (oh-so-transient) encyclopedic reference between [1] and [2].

<tt>F</tt>rank <tt>W ~@) R</tt> (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Water well[edit]

A tag has been placed on Water well requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ohmpandya (Talk) 21:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Water well[edit]

I have nominated Water well, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Water well (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Ohmpandya (Talk) 01:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Hello Fwappler! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1,095 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Fred McGriff - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Fork (topology)[edit]

The article Fork (topology) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Searching for "fork" in graph theory finds many different competing meanings, most of them different from this one, and none of them standardized in major graph theory textbooks. For instance, they include an induced subgraph in the form of a five-vertex tree (doi:10.1016/j.jda.2008.04.001), a vertex in an embedded graph surrounded by three 120 degree angles [3], a vertex of a tree with two children [4], a tree of height one (doi:10.1007/BFb0057951), etc. So by saying that a fork is this specific meaning we are misleading readers into thinking that it's standardized terminology when it isn't. And it would not make sense to turn this into a disambiguation page because most of those topics are non-notable and the title of the article is wrong (should be graph theory not topology). So I think the best thing to do in this case is delete it.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]