User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (11)
Old talk in archive: User talk:Dysprosia/Archive -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (2) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (3) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (4) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (5) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (6) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (7) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (8) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (9) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (10) (most recent)
Licence[edit]
Please add the licence information by the picture Image:Water molecule dimensions.png becuase i want to use it in the german wikipedia.Thanks for your help!--80.171.23.185 16:58, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Done. Dysprosia 01:49, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- A very big thank from me!--80.171.23.185
Hasse diagram[edit]
- I think you miss the subtlety of the point I added at Hasse diagram. The fact is that one need not define the structure of the diagram in terms of a cover relation, but can bypass this and just do so in terms of the relation itself and omit self-loops.
I think you're the one who's missing something, and it's not very subtle. If one did what you propose, then the Hasse diagram for the partition lattice would look like this:
(and that's just the strict inequality, without the "loops")
... rather than like this:
That is why the cover relation is used.
- Perhaps it is more common to define the structure in terms of a cover relation, and perhaps it is "better" in some way to do this, but do you think it is best to leave the point out about bypassing the cover relation entirely - as it is possible to do so, is it not? Dysprosia 13:59, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
No, it is not, unless you want the diagram to become much too crowded, needlessly, as above. Michael Hardy 20:15, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Ok, I think I've found the problem. Presumably in your "over-crowded" diagram you ignore the requirement of only representing an edge between a vertex and its immediate predecessor, this, of course, is necessary also.
That's what the cover relation is!!
I still think that having to write it in terms of introducing another relation is a little cumbersome.
You mean calling it by a different name, the "cover relation", rather than saying "only representing an edge between a vertex and its immediate predecessor", is what makes it too cumbersome for you?
- I have something in mind for the page - it would be nice to be as explicit as possible and perhaps introduce why we use a cover relation because of this, but I'd be interested to know what you think. Dysprosia 22:18, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Of course it is!!!! (Come, come, Michael, you need not use gratuitous exclamation with me.) Have you not realised that maybe I want to add to the article why we use it, instead of jumping in and introducing another bit of terminology to sweep some of the dirty details under the carpet? Doing that makes the text less expressive, in my mind. Dysprosia 22:29, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- OK, I've edited the article so that it first says what the thing looks like as a drawing on a page, and then defines the cover relation as a translation of that idea into more abstract language. Michael Hardy 22:31, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- That's not what I have in mind or am intending. I have to leave right now, but I'll try something a bit more explicit in the article on my return. Dysprosia 22:35, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I've just rearranged it a bit, putting the long discussion after the easy part. Michael Hardy 01:54, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- That seems to me to be a little odd - should we not motivate (and also mention) the ideas and concepts before we use them? Dysprosia 01:57, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Any objections to putting it back the way it was? Dysprosia 12:21, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I'd rather not, since the definition and examples seem so simple and easily understood; I would not want to give the impression that the topic is a lot more complicated than it really is, by implying that the definition and examples cannot be understood without all that other material coming first. (This is not to say that there should be no other material, of course.) Michael Hardy 22:38, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Adding Category:Disambiguation to Template:disambig[edit]
- confused* Did you remove my comment from Village Pump, or did it just get lost in the wikness?
I put it there with the hopes that someone could edit the protected page and actually put it in, or at least have more than just you and me discuss it. 8-} (relevant comments added on my talk page) --ssd 05:33, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I haven't touched the village pump in a while? There has been a vandalbot going around, with lots of things being blanked/reverted, so it might have got lost there. Let me have a look. Dysprosia 05:34, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, I see what's gone on. Temporarily, to avoid the village pump getting too full, maintainers will move out certain topics elsewhere to keep the pump slim. I didn't move the content out - check the edit history of the page if you want to know. If you think that was in error, try reposting the block. Dysprosia 05:37, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I've tried looking in the history. It's such a mess, if you hadn't copied my block, I would have to rewrite it from scratch! Ugh. Mind if I copy your comment back when I copy the block? --ssd 05:45, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
categories in templates[edit]
I would appreciate your opinion on this topic in Wikipedia:Village pump#Should templates be used to add articles to categories?. I've tried to present a mostly balance argument. I'd like to see more participation in this decision. (but I'm probably just not patient enough.) --ssd 11:35, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Sure. Maybe not tonight though :) Dysprosia 11:40, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Category:Integers[edit]
Hi, dysprosia! I notice you're adding numbers to Category:Integers. Wouldn't these be more suited to something like "Notable integers", or is the implication with categories that something is implicitly interesting by virtue of it existing? (I'm nearly expecting to visit this category and see a list of all integers ... ;-) — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 08:17, 2004 Jun 19 (UTC)
- But then a lot of pages describing "non-notable" integers would be uncategorized? Perhaps one can make a subcat of :Integers with notable ones, but then one has a fragmentation between the notable and the "non-notable" ones?
- I'm basically duplicating in categorization what is under List of numbers.
- Thanks, HTH Dysprosia 08:20, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- But if they weren't notable, wouldn't they not have articles anyway? Hmm .. never mind, I think I just answered myself. Some categories/lists just sound a little bit strange at first glance (such as "List of people" - that must be a long one...) — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 08:32, 2004 Jun 19 (UTC)
- :) I'll make a cat for just notable integers afterward anyway, I think I just want to get them all under one thing first... Dysprosia 08:34, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your note about transgender topics. Actually, I was not sure whether to use the term transgender for people who have decided to live their lives in the role of another gender or not - people like Billy Tipton, Harriet Stokes and James Barry. There is also female soldiers like Deborah Sampson, Hannah Snell and Mary Anne Talbot. Where would I link people like Jennifer Miller? I was not sure where to ask. Still "Transgender-related topics" sounds a bit impersonal for biographies. Yes, I know this may be complex matter. My only defense is that English is not my native language (in which there is no gender-related personal pronouns anyway). - Skysmith 11:53, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks. I understand situations such as Stokes, Barry, and the like, but it has been argued (by others than myself as well) that Tipton was not merely a woman trying to get into a male-dominated field but was in fact transgendered (I can't quite say transsexual, but it may well have been the case).
- However, transgender behaviour does include flaunting traditional gender roles/cues &/c, so Jennifer Miller could probably be described as transgender for this purpose.
- HTH Dysprosia 08:00, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Do we have a policy that mandates the retroactive use of the correct pronouns and names for TS/TG people? I've got a bizarre fear that someone will e.g. revert [1] on NPOV grounds. Morwen - Talk 11:46, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- We do, of sorts - Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and Sexuality/Terminology says to use self-identification. There seems to be a trend by some however to use the pronouns of the birth gender for pre-transition and then switch, but I really don't like this usage as it fails to acknowledge pre-transition self identification, nor any broader transgender feelings either. Thanks for changing the pronouns on that article, by the way... Dysprosia 11:53, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Of course, for both counts. For the latter, though, in some cases, it just doesn't "work", if you understand what I'm saying? Dysprosia 11:58, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I don't quite follow you, but nevermind... The last person I expected to argue against correct use of pronouns is now doing so at Talk:Patrick Califia. Morwen - Talk 12:34, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Already saw it in RC :) I mean to say, that the use of splitting pronouns can read more awkwardly than just explaining that they are trans* to begin with, and using one pronoun for the rest of the article Dysprosia 12:36, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Calculus[edit]
Currently that is quite a horrid article and I would like your help in improving it. See that talk page for more. Thanks, - Taxman 02:30, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
- I'll have a look when I have a chance, thanks :) Dysprosia 02:31, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
sydney suburbs[edit]
hi dysprosia,
i think it would be better to go for (suburb), nsw, rather than (suburb), australia, for reasons I outlined in my talk page. i moved the talk to talk:list of Sydney suburbs for a wider audience/discussion. this is the format followed in the us articles, and it also makes sense for australia since there are so many duplicate (suburb), australia in different states and i'm often not aware of the towns in other states. i have been switching all them to use the , nsw version over the last few months. --clarkk 05:07, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- ps, can't talk now, but i'll get back to you if you leave me a message on my talk page, cheers. clarkk 05:08, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- pps, thanks for all your hardware on the category tags! ;-)
- No problem, I enjoy doing work like that. Dysprosia 05:11, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Small point, and please correct me if I'm out of date, but wasn't the latest decision to put the category links near the END of articles? see your edit. At least they don't need a Hasse!!!? - Robin Patterson 06:08, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree with that decision, as there was no consideration of people bringing up the benefits of having them up the top. I won't start changing tags at the bottom to the top, but I choose to add cat tags at the top. Dysprosia 06:19, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
vfd update[edit]
hi dysprosia, apologies if I messed up the vfd page - didn't know if it was working in the slowness. Please do try to save my voice phenomena comment - really dont think they should delete that. Let me know if you sorted the prob. thanks 6am
No problem, my comment is:
- Keep! Just because some people think this is crazy doesn't mean that it isn't a documented field of study. The article has since been rewritten to be as subjective as possible.
Hiya.. do you think that link that I removed from Slideshow and you added back in is appropriate? Seems a little odd that an encyclopedia article should link to one random piece of shareware - and it makes me suspect that the whole reason the anon created the article in the first place was to advertise that piece of shareware.
I was in the process of cleaning it up, and copy/pasted what I done since I got an edit conflict. I hadn't checked the link yet. Dysprosia 06:03, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Ha, I was just about to say "it's much better now that there are a bunch of links, I guess. Although I'm a little dubious about linking to anyone's little shareware project still," when I noticed that you'd removed them all. Nice one! —Stormie 06:07, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
- I thought it would be more appropriate to link to articles about slideshows, rather than advertising slideshow software :) Dysprosia 06:11, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Slideshow[edit]
Great cleanup there. I really like the way you brought in PowerPoint's critics. If I could remember the title of it, I'd have linked to a New Yorker PP-skeptical article that I read that made the point that I reported (bulletted lists shut down analysis while making everything bite sized). Geogre 18:11, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks :) Dysprosia 11:40, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)