User talk:Diza/April06-Dec06

Back to my talk page

---

Smile, it'll deceieve your mind to rationalize about it

Userboxes This user is a member of Wikipedians against censorship.

PR

I'm doing public relations for your paradox.

Remember: There's no bad publicity, there's only unused publicity.--Amir E. Aharoni 13:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetical arguments

It's a value judgment because it assumes the correctness of the axioms underlying it. Nandesuka 21:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If you look carefully you'd see I actualyl removed the text that was edited in that used the word "axioms", since these are assumption of a subjective nature. Yet, regardless of my inclination the arguments states "when and IF", the if part is redundant since that were actual cases. A large part of the argument is that "IF" and it's later debunkment. I do not assume anything, I want to show the reader that following this logic and wording leads to a "when" without using any subjective words at all.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 17:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:PPTParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.jpg

First, it's not impolite, but see also images is very strange and I am sure not recommended in Wikipedia:Manual of style. If you really want to have those images accessible from one place, I'd suggest either creating a category for them, or a page with a gallery (in your userspace, or possibly mainspace as a gallery of some kind). Please see Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial#Avoiding_image_.22stackups.22 and other picture tutorials - and please don't insert gigantic images on other people talk pages. Oh, and please note that Image:PPTCountdownto1500Log.jpg is a parody, rather useless (on a large scale, any point near the end of exponential function can be made to look like the end...) and probably falling under WP:NOR.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Prohibition edit

Hey, sorry for the dicked-up edit. I will go through and make sure I didn't remove any other content. Sorry for tinkering with your baby.Russell Abbott 07:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Being conscious of prudence, is all that matters. I welcome your contributions, as long as they do not conflict, erase or neutralize neutrality. thanks. Procrastinating@^talk2me 08:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Katzen

I think you put your finger on the pulse here. "In the world of body modification" maybe. But in the world at large, maybe not. I'll consider AfD later on. Give you time to develop it. I am sorry I tagged it 16 min. after creation - I didn't realize it was so fresh. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 22:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. Yet this bizzar little world is home for many millions of people world wide. And being one of the very few world wide with these traits she defently deserves a stub, even just as a human bizzarity. :) --Procrastinating@^talk2me 22:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think a self-respecting 'pedia should stay away from stupid topics. Why would we reward this freak for piercing her upper lip and inserting whiskers by writing up an encyclopedia article about her? LOL - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

But then I think about all the game cruft and webcomics etc etc and my head swims... nevermind... - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, one of the greatest adventages of this online `pedia is that is enough room for information that is otherwise classically treated as anecdotal. we also have articles about forsaken train stations and small towns of less than 5000. because there is enough space, and we have no printing pages total budget, and becaseu they hurt no one ...they exist. besides that, in the relevant community(which is quite large) she's important enough. and even besides that point, she's a hack of a curiousity to read about. :~) --Procrastinating@^talk2me 17:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I am convinced, no AfD, but it don't mean I won't vote Delete if someone else nominates it :) - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

In my view ANY article that is not promotional spam, biassed material, or one that is redundant in that it repeats what others have said Does Not deserve to be deleted. your local train station article may be of some use or interest to someone. It hurts nobody by simply existing. In the hebrew wiki for instance Any article is worth deleting if a bunch of admin did not predecide it's subjective worthyness and and the author's personal relationship. so you see this kind of a subjective unguided opinion is a dangerous slope.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 17:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

howto

I'm replying to your message on my talk-page about creating a userbox. There are lots of ways to incorporate userboxes in your userpage. You can just throw them in, but then you can't allign them. You could also code for a box around the userbox. like this:

{|style="float: right"

|{{Boxboxtop}}

{{User:Feureau/UserBox/ubx-5}}

{{Boxboxbottom}}

|}

which will create this:

Userboxes ubx-5This user uses entirely too many userboxes.

You can align them by changing the word "right" to "left" like this:

Userboxes ubx-5This user uses entirely too many userboxes.

Please note that you should always end a separate userbox with |} if not, everything after your userbox will be seen as part of the box, and will not appear on screen.

For more information about userboxes see Wikipedia:Userboxes.

Enjoy editing your userbox! - C mon 18:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Procrastinating@^talk2me

Five-Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique

The problem with this AFD is that you missed out the third step in the process, listing the page on the deletion log page. So the only people who've seen it found it through the "Five-Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique" page itself. AlistairMcMillan 20:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I thought only that mattered. Anyways, now what?--Procrastinating@^talk2me 20:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added it to the current log page. Votes normally run for five days. AlistairMcMillan 21:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. So the answer to my question would be "If listed correctly admin will take care of this" ? --Procrastinating@^talk2me 21:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Just follow the instructions at WP:AFD#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion and it'll all be taken care of. AlistairMcMillan 21:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Great. Yet this should be stated in the "how to" section, since It took me forever to not find it..:) Procrastinating@^talk2me

unclear edit re. Penis removal

Re. your message on my talk page, you're looking at a diff across a number of edits. There are two others in between yours and mine. Check the edit history here and the delta between my edit and the previous one here - Ali-oops^✍ 22:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ye. oops. Wierd I missed that. thanks.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 09:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikify tag on 'God is Dead'

Hello Diza,

What do you think needs wikifying on the God is dead page? I understand wikifying to be adding internal links, breaking into sections, and consistent formatting, and the article seems to me OK on those things. Could you elaborate what you think needs doing? Cheers, --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 19:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's just hard to read. it needs to be broken down. it also uses many terms without linking to them. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 15:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to fix it. It's never going to be a simple read because its a much more difficult concept than the simplicity of the sentence suggests. Cheers, --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Really ? I always found the concept self explaintory and quite trivial. I guess it depends on your preconceptions through upbringing.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 16:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Evil Demon

Ah, I'm sorry, I thought 'cleaned up the article' would be enough. I'll be more specific in my edit summaries in the future.--Laplace's Demon 18:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I have no idea why that article uses 'Daemon' instead of 'Demon'. Even Descartes doesn't use 'Daemon' in his Meditations. Is there any way we might have the name of the article changed to 'Evil Demon'?

Oh, and as to the origin of my username. It's the name of a thought experiment originally proposed by the mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace. The basic question of whether or not an intellect that possesses all knowledge of the present and past, will necessarily know the future as well. I chose it as my username as it's a question dealing with both physics and philosophy, my greatest interests. --Laplace's Demon 21:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Lets continue here, shall we?

If you have absolutely no idea, as do I and the article does not explain it, show move support in the talk page and I shall move it.

I believe laplas's deterministic question has been asnwered by modern quantum mechanics. how about contributing to Laplace's Demon  ? :) Procrastinating@^talk2me 08:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The Art of Dreaming (book)

I've reverted your pagemove because there is no need to use brackets for clarification as there is only one article with this name. By the way, it's not misleading as the first sentence explains that it's about a book. Take a look at similar examples: Rule, Britannia! - a song, The Blind Watchmaker - a book, etc. --Zoz (t) 18:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for and against drug prohibition

I have once again removed the reference to Adam and Eve in this article. I am not trying to start a revert war, though I truly beleive this paragraph is better without referencing the bible. HighInBC 23:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope this is a welcome compromise [1]. direct Biblical refrences are really not necessary. Procrastinating@^talk2me 08:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That is wonderful, thanks! HighInBC 22:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Templates

I noticed that you recently applied an improperly formatted cleanup template. I have fixed the template, but felt I should tell you that it needed to be replaced. You can find a list of properly formatted cleanup templates here. Please note that it is never appropriate to substitute a cleanup tag.

Thank you very much for your contributions to Wikipedia. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Alphachimp ^talk 20:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly you could linked your change or mention the article's name since I make more than one edit a week. this was'nt easy.

Secondly, I try to keep away from the ever increasing ever changing beurocracy of naming convention and tempplate substitue action prerequisetes. thnaks 4your help in rectifying my ignorant mistake though.

Thirdly, how Do I put a cleanup template with a costum messege?

Recent update to Arguments for and against drug prohibition

Great work cleaning up that article. You really trimmed the fat. HighInBC 12:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahhm.. I mainly trimmed the junk some IP user wrote in, but thanks ! :)--Procrastinating@^talk2me 16:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

M-Theory

I disagree with your reverts of my edits. The only section I deleted was the "spiritual implications of M-Theory" section, and I think rightfully so. Furthermore, you are incorrect when you say I have added no new information. There was hardly any information of membranes and the formation of the extra spacial dimensions, of which I added to. I want a better explantion on why you have reverted those edits I had done. Gagueci 21:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am a student of physics my self (finishing a BA), and had you looked at the history of the edit summaries you would've seen my comment on that section being silly...YET, Many people of various spritialistic background consider "many worlds"/"dimentions" a serious buisness, and view the physical science merrits of Quantm theory many worlds interpretation and String theory's as a validation to their vaious (somewhat condtradictory claims). Those voices should be heard.

I looked at all your edits and found almost nothing but rewordings.

I'd hate to start a revert war on this subject. please revert to my last edit yourself and add your stuff by sections so we can discuss them one by one, otherwise what you did cause the difference between versions to be overwhelming, leaving no place but a total revert. thank you.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 10:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and revert it back yourself. I have no further problem with it. Gagueci 16:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You sure?

Done. i've also replaced existing small "brane" section with your elaboration of it. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 18:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I feel sure. You're right, I was inconsiderate with my edits, thank you for pointing that out to me. Gagueci 19:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for being such a sport. writing in wikipedia can take sometime to get used to. I hope to see more of you'r contribution in physic articles. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 20:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

A....Ism

Sorry about that, I went a bit too fast and misread it there. Thanks for catching it. Attic Owl 21:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

dont worry bout it. that's what wiki's all bout. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 14:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: your comments on my talk page

Sorry for the late reply; I've been thinking rather hard about this.

You wrote: lol, "cool" could ber anykind of a fashion statment. transexuality being a clear one. I'm not sure if you realize this, but that was quite an offensive thing to say. If I can cite the article Transsexualism for a moment—"Transsexualism often manifests itself as an agonizing dysphoria toward one's biological birth sex, as well as difficulty or inability living in its social role. If untreated, it can lead to mental and emotional problems, and sometimes, suicide."

This ... isn't the description of, as you put it, a fashion statement. Stretching your ears can be a fashion statement. Dressing androgynously may even be a fashion statement. But being transsexual is most definitely not, and it's important to remember that it's an inborn, often painful thing, not a "choice to be different." Two options: live as the gender you were meant to be, or live a continually miserable life. I don't see much of a choice there.

I was also made uncomfortable by your asking if I had a girlfriend. What did you mean? Were you trying to imply something?

Good luck in your future endeavors on Wikipedia. :) Your talk page is pretty long, btw; have you considered archiving it? Switchercat ^talk_cont 02:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I trully apologize if I hurt your feelings in any way. I was trying to make light of a heavy situation, assuming you were O.k with ot your self. Naturally I understand this is an inborn state nad not a choice, yet I thought most people would feel better fooling them self that it is, I guess you are more conscious than most people. You still may choose to see it as an interesting way to experience the "human condition", being out of the ordinary, and having the priviledge to experience both sexes. I always found this fascinating.

About your possible mate, I was just curious as to whether you are attempting connections and if so in what sex. maybe you are too young to openly discuss these things, if so -Again I trulyl apologize.

Thank you. archieceing on the way (User talk:Diza/Oct05-April06).--Procrastinating@^talk2me 10:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Red Rain

BBC's Horizon on 14 November featured Chandra Wickramasinhge, but I don't have much information about this yet: I don't have a telly; one chum fell asleep and another was too bored to remember much. There is a mention on BBC's Horizon web site. The previous week covered pandemics and Wickramasinghe seems quite keen on H5N1. Sorry, I don't have the links to hand but Google with (+Horizon +"red rain") showed them up on its first page last week.

There was a conference at Cardiff recently, and the papers are due to be published in the near future. It's puzzling. Gil Levin was at the conference - the man who designed the GC-MS 'life detector' that was flown to Mars three decades ago - so they ought to have been able to work out how to test if the particles were alive.

Davy p 20:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That's the point, a potential discovery of this magnitude should have gain more attention by the scientific community, yet not only have the papers not been published, but the it seems as though there aren't that many serious scientist studying it. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 10:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Drug stuff :Arguments_for_and_against_drug_prohibition

I thought I added this:

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/cjb54.pdf/$file/cjb54.pdf as a citation.

Look in page 5.

If you think its good, added to the page that had the citation needed thingy. It is not general enough but nothing empirical can be very general, and I believe my source cites another source which may be even better. Also, please revert the change you made to my talk page. It just looks bad when I revert criticism so, to keep a good reputation, I like the critic to revert her own changes... :) Thanks for keeping an eyeout for vandalism and keep up the good work! Brusegadi 22:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

hi, There's a huge list of refferences at the end of the article so it is constumary to add a direct inner page ling called a reference. Not only did I not notice you adding a new one, but there isn't a direct {{{ref}} tag linking from where you drop the {{cn}} tag. Please put a reference to your new(?) source.

Furthermore, I have a Very Strong Opposition to rewriting history through a deletion of talk pages, be it personal or article related. I have seen terrible things happen to the isralie wikipedia because of these trends to "burn the books" on specific conversations and decision, it completely shuttered the democratic process of communal writing, and I will not have it here.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 10:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

ALS

Hi Diza, re: your edit on amyotrophic lateral sclerosis I just wanted to let you know that this is a discussion that's been had before. The logic in calling it "fatal" is that for the vast, vast majority of patients it is unfortunately a rapidly progressive disease. Although about 5% or so survive past 10 years most do not. I would certainly agree that primary lateral sclerosis or even progressive muscular atrophy could be considered chronic rather than fatal, although the latter is also life-limiting. As a counter-example I would say Parkinson's disease is chronic rather than fatal, even though statistically people with the disease do live for a shorter time than those who do not have it. Interested in your view. --PaulWicks 19:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Amputation of the head is always fatal, I believe we should not disregard the crutial hope factor in having a real comprehensive article. For better accuracy maybe the "sometimes fatal" should link to an external article or a specific segment of the ALS article statying the 5% thing you just mentioned. just plain "fatal" is just plain wrong. (Mr. hawcking is living with it for 40 years now!!) --Procrastinating@^talk2me 10:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As amusing as that comparison is, it is not a suitable analogy in this case. I do not know if you are someone that has ALS, or someone who is involved in the care of someone with ALS. Either way I hope you will not consider me insensitive when I say that in my experience ALS is invariably fatal (or at least it has been in the 4 years I've been working at the largest ALS clinic in the UK). Stephen Hawking is an exceptional case, in fact the exceptional case although there have been one or two cases to survive nearly as long. People with a diagnosis of ALS are very likely to die much earlier than they would have done had they not been diagnosed with it. Although there is no firm definition, many refer to it as a terminal illness; by comparison it is certainly not a chronic disease as it is not long-lasting. Where definitions do exist, such as under insurance companies wanting to define terminal, critical, and chronic illness, ALS is termed by most providers as a terminal illness. Average survival is 2-5 years although this is highly skewed to the right by the ~50% of patients that die within 14 months of diagnosis. The reference I use most frequently comes from our database: http://jnnp.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/74/7/995.pdf --PaulWicks 09:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, I think it is important to incorporate it in the article. You are obviously more knowledgable than me in this case. We can put "Almost always fatal" with an inner link to a "life expectancy" section of the article.

"People with a diagnosis of ALS are very likely to die much earlier than they would have done had they not been diagnosed with it" Why is that? --Procrastinating@^talk2me 10:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

What is so special on Steven's case, in your opinion?

Respiratory failure caused by weakness of muscles involved in expelling carbon dioxide. That or pneumonia accounts for most mortality, with a smaller number attributed to heart failure (or suicide).

Yes, but you said that the very diagnosis makes them die faster, regardless of them having this hard to diagnos illness, or did we miscommunicate? --Procrastinating@^talk2me 11:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

My own view is that the coincidence is not that any one individual with ALS has lived a long time, but that he is also famous. Personally I think part of Professor Hawking's appeal as a "meme" if you like is the notion of a "brilliant mind trapped in a failing body". Whilst I'm sure he is exceedingly capable I don't believe (as often comes up in polls) that he is the most intelligent man alive, nor do I believe his survival has anything to do with him being bright. I've seen many bright ALS patients who haven't done so well. The other thing to bear in mind is that he has an excellent care team and a high level of service. Where that isn't available many people choose not to go on with life-extending procedures like feeding tubes, ventilation etc. I believe that he has the standard form of ALS and I have seen no evidence to contradict that position. There are many patients in Japan who have been alive with ALS for 20+ years, but they are invasively ventilated, a procedure which is not commonplace in the UK or US. There are of course exceptions, and these patients live for a longer time period. --PaulWicks 17:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying it's his strong wil lto live, supportive family and invasive medical care. Interesting. If there is no God, at least now we know that there is a Devil. This is an absolute horrific disease. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 11:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Why?

over at it's AFD, a couple of us are wondering why you felt thatVital needs should be kept? Just curious, don't feel like you need to answer. --Charlesknight 17:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I can ask you the same. It's an interesting unique piece on the subject in wikipedia, and although at need for a rewrite, and somewhat pseudo scientific, it's quality can be elevated through time. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 19:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Protoplasm revert

Hello! I noticed that you changed the category for protoplasm back to the root category Category:Cell biology from its subcat Category:Cell anatomy. I recently re-categorised about 100 pages from the root category Category:Cell biology to clean it up, as it had become quite unwieldy and the core articles were buried under less-important ones. I believe that protoplasm would be better suited in the Category:Cell anatomy as this category provides a comprehensive collection of "bits" that make up the cell, and thus serves an important purpose. While I would not argue that protoplasm is an important cellular component, the term is slightly outdated and hardly an important concept worthy of root category inclusion. The article itself is short, poorly written, poorly structured, and has no references. I would advocate changing the category back to Category:Cell anatomy for these and the above reasons, but as I have no wish to start a revert war I'm running this past you first :) Thanks -- Serephine ♠ talk - 13:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it can actually be in both' of them, since protoplasm isnt an important part of the cell, it's the cell's mystified abriogenesis.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 14:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Being placed in Category:Cell anatomy automatically places it within cell biology, as Category:Cell anatomy is one subcategory down from it. I just wanted to get it out of the root folder so that more important articles aren't being buried :) -- Serephine ♠ talk - 14:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

ok, sure thing.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 00:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Your Polyphasic sleep revert

It's obvious that you have not been closely following the changes to the polyphasic sleep article. Therefore, please be much more careful with your reverts. Your revert has resulted in a bigger loss of info. I will fix this for now. --Amit 15:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually have. Explain to me how can someone simply put a "not" before the "scientist think that" withought ANY citation and then simply remove the criticism page, again withought giving anything else instead? --Procrastinating@^talk2me 16:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Only some external links were removed by someone. A multi-edit revert was not needed to put them back. Several other useful minor changes were also made. I don't know where the scientists think that is coming from. --Amit 18:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Any edit that removes whole sections and/or puts a "not" before a sentence without citation will be reverted. yes, even if it had some minor typo fix or putting 2 external links and removing 2 others. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 19:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)