User talk:Silly rabbit/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

Adminship

Hi Silly rabbit. Would you be interested in candidating for adminship? I see you're doing a lot of good work, and having extra buttons may be of help. If you are interested, I'd be very happy to nominate you. Wonder what you think. You can reply here. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to do this, Silly rabbit, you would get my vote tooBilllion (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Oleg, Thank you for the generous offer. I'm not sure I want to go through the nomination process just yet. The tools might be useful sometimes, but I have no real need for them at the moment. I will let you know if I change my mind. Thanks, silly rabbit (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. :) I'd very very happy to nominate you at a later time, if you become interested in adminship. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Topology Expert

Dear "Silly Rabbit",

I am the creater of the page on local finiteness and have noticed that you have edited some things. Thanks for some improvements! I think that the page looks much better now. But also, I have noticed that you have removed some things. For example, I created a new section called "Exercises" so that readers can check their knowledge of the article. These exercises are also parts of the article in some way. Even if someone doesn't prove these facts, these are still facts and are useful enough facts to be presented. Could you please not remove them? Or at least tell me why you are removing them. I just think that, as I said, they need not be viewed as exercises but viewed as information. No one needs to prove them if they don't want to. These exercises are for the interested reader. Is there some rule in Wikipedia, that you are not allowed to add exercises to articles? Thankyou for your help once again.

Topology Expert

Note: Also, I am just posting this message as a temporary message. Am I allowed to do this on other people's talk pages? I am not intending this to be vandalism.

Topology Expert (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Silly rabbit replied to that on User talk:Topology Expert#Exercises in articles. Oded (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

A bit of the chronology is off here. It's not a big deal, but when I first removed it, I think I was under the mistaken impression that I had already removed the exercises section, citing WP:NOT. Apparently not, but the second WP:NOT edit summary and administrative template and reply on Topology Expert should have been a big clue not to re-insert the exercises. I think I made the mistake here of not giving a sufficiently descriptive edit summary on the first pass. Hopefully this is all a misunderstanding, and we can get past it. silly rabbit (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that Topology expert reads the edit summaries and even if he/she does see WP:NOT, it is not clear that he/she would follow the link and bother figuring out what it is about. Oded (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Silly Rabbit,

Please understand that my intentions are not bad. I recently created an article on local connectedness and am very happy with the changes you made. I think that you really improved the presentation of the article. I also don't mind that you have removed the exercises section on "Locally finite collection". Please don't delete this article. I am sorry that I was a bit misunderstanding at first but I will try to collaborate with you from now on. Also, I just think that with the article on "locally connected space", perhaps we could change the name to "Local connectedness and components" because this is a more appropriate name for the article. I added a section on components because I think that it is much related to the notion of local connectedness. I would like to have your opinion on this. Once again, thankyou very much for your help.

Topology Expert (talk) 04:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Circle article

I just wanted to introduce myself and say thanks for helping with the Circle article. My goal is to bring the article up to GA standard or better. It's a highly visible article for non-mathematicians and it would be nice to have a strong lead section for a general audience before delving into theorems. I'm currently researching topics for several other articles as well, so the pace of my contributions may be a bit slow. Let me know if you have any advice or suggestions on this projects. Thanks.--RDBury (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Integrable system

Hi, I readded the WikiProject Systems tag on the Integrable system talk page. Your welcome to discuss the scope of the WikiProject Systems on its talk page. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Derivation of the heat equation

Silly Rabbit, I can see that you contribute a lot to wikipedia, and I appreciate that you corrected my derivation of the heat equation.

I was curious though, for my own understanding of the problem, if what you found was a mistake in my derivation, or if you just like the integral approach better than the differential approach.

regards Johnsarelli (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonvandal

Just want to say gracias. Thanks for the assist, and keep up the good work! --146.95.25.173 (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

That is exactly why I made those edits and rmeoved people that a category that they did not belong in. You are the one who wants to keep biased, unsourced information included. 99.150.113.218 (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Politicians in ID category

Politicans should not be placed in ID cateogry, especially since none of them are sourced as ID advocates. If they took a political stance on the issue one way or the other, it is irrelevant to their notability. To place any politician that has expressed some support or voted in favor of intelligent design in the advocate category would mean you'd have to place those that voted against it or expressed opposition to it in an intelligent design opponents category. I am trying to clean the category of these very dubious inclusions. If you did this for every issue, you'd have to put every Congressman that votes pro-life into the pro-life activist category and every congressman that votes pro-choice into the pro-choice activist category. These people that I am removing deal with many issues and the issue of ID is one which none of them are notable for. 99.150.113.218 (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Perhaps you would try following wikipedia's policy and used only information backed up by sources and not just your personal opinion? 99.150.113.218 (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's obvious enough that they have a conservative agenda, and your failure to accept that clearly suggests that you are attempting to force a particular point of view by gaming the system. But since you will obviously not be satisfied until you see a direct quote, here is one:

• Alex Prud'homme (February 14, 1999). "Taking the Gospel to the Rich". The New York Times.:

“ He [Thomas S. Monaghan] also wants to promote his conservative agenda through Credo, a newspaper; WDEO, a radio station he owns, and the Thomas Moore Law Center, a new Catholic law firm supported by his Mater Christe Foundation. All are in Ann Arbor. ”

If you want some more, I suggest you try Google. Until then, removal of information that can obviously be easily sourced is a form of vandalism, and will not be tolerated. Thanks, siℓℓy rabbit (talk)

That's a very weak source. It doesn't claim anywhere that the specific purpose of the Thomas More Center is to promote conservatism. If it's so easily sourced, then you find a source for it. Removing information that cannot be sourced is a form of vandalism, and that is what you are doing. 99.150.113.218 (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it took me about 5 seconds, and Google. This group is pretty in-your-face conservative, so I don't think it's a problem to source it. Go ahead and select a source to your liking. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

See [1] and [2] for starters. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources only refer to the organization as conservative, none of them prove that the organization actually considers itself conservative. Many newspaper articles refer to the ACLU as liberal, you don't see the ACLU being called liberal in the first sentence of their page, nor do you see them in any liberal categories. Nice try, but please, stop vandalizing wikipedia by defending the inclusion of inaccurate information. 99.150.113.218 (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

WTF? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone calls ACLU a liberal organization, does that mean that the ACLU is a liberal organization? No. The ACLU does not identify as a liberal organization, and even though many people claim it is, it is not identified on wikipedia as a liberal organization because the ACLU themselves do not identify as liberal. The same applies to the Thomas More Law Center and being a conservative organization. Do you understand yet? 99.150.113.218 (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

We have here the New York Times the Washington Post and Fox News calling the organization conservative. I see what you mean, these sources are obviously biased and unreliable, since they are part of the vast liberal media. Sadly, we here at Wikipedia must adhere to the neutral point of view policy which says that we must give the vast evil liberal media-machine more weight than other sources. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't falsely portray an organization as being something it has never claimed to be. Those sources do not make it a explicit conservative organization which the article currently makes it seem. It can only be explicitly conversative if the organization itself explicitly identifies as being conservative. You can use those sources elsewhere in the article in reference to the analysis of the organization but you cannot make the claim in the first sentence that it is a conservative organization. You obviously want to try to make the conservative movement look more expansive, but wikipedia is not here for you to promote your right-wing agenda, it's an encyclopedia. 99.150.113.218 (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The sources are very explicit. From the Washington Post article: "But the Thomas More Law Center, a conservative, religiously grounded nonprofit group that represents the Dover school board..." From the Fox News Article: "The Thomas More Law Center, a conservative Christian legal organization based in Michigan..." More are available. Nice try. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You still seem to be failing to comprehend the issue at hand. The Thomas More Law Center does not identify as conservative and none of your sources make the claim that the Thomas More Law Center has ever explicitly identifed as conservative. 99.150.113.218 (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Who cares what they say in their statement. They advocate conservative positions and have been described as conservative by virtually every mainstream source available on the subject. We report what the majority of reliable sources say. This is 100% what Wikipedia policy says to do. And, I should add, the center really is so clearly in-your-face conservative that I cannot possibly fathom why you are continuing to insist that it isn't. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

All the "conservative" positions they advocate could just as well be classified as "liberal" positions if you looked at it from a more open-minded perspective. However, that is beside the point. Refereces to conservatism are made in the article already. Leaving conservative in the first sentence misrepresents the purpose of the organization and does not conform to a neutral point of view. 99.150.113.218 (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. We report what is verifiable here. The sources I have given you are enough for that. If you can dig up some more "open minded" sources of comparable quality claiming that the Thomas More Center is a leftist organization, then be my guest. Until then, I have answered whatever reasonable challenge you were attempting to make. There isn't really much else to say about it. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, you only responded to my comment that I said was "beside the point". 99.150.113.218 (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This conversation is over. If you want someone to listen to you, then you can do it on the article talk page. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk

I have left messages on your talk page. You claimed to want this to be disscussed, so I would like for you to try discussing it now. Or are you too business adding Pro-life activist and Pro-choice activist categories to every single member of Congress? 99.150.113.218 (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The talk page of the article. k thnx bye. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Major proponents

The intelligent design advocate category is only for major proponents. Currently, you are abusing the category by trying to add people to the category who are unnotable in relation to intelligent design. You are attempting to decieve people into thinking your itelligent design cause has more major proponents than they actually do. Please try not to edit articles in a way which unfairly favors the intellient design movement. If you continue to add unsourced information to pages to promote your pro-intelligent design bias, you could be blocked from editing. 99.150.113.218 (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design advocates

Will you remove the people who I had previously removed from the Intelligent design advocates again? You've had time to read my reasoning and should understand why none of them belong in the category. 99.150.113.218 (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I think it is important information to know which politicians have taken a stance advocating intelligent design. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is against wikipedia policy because it was decided a long time ago, my friend, that you cannot place politicians in categories for every single issue. There used to be categories for Pro-life politicians and Pro-choice politicians and they were deleted. If politicians were placed in categories for every stance they took, then they would be placed too many categories. 99.150.113.218 (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)