User talk:Cpiral/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

It's versus Its

Hi, If you wish to continue to contribute to the English language version of Wikipedia, it would be a good idea for you to learn the difference between "its" and "it's". "Its" is the possessive case, and "it's" is a contraction meaning "it is". I see that your edits consistently make this elementary grammatical error, and I request that you make a systematic effort to correct them. Thanks, 71.182.220.102 (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I do wish to contribute. Are you sure you have the right user? It's been forever ago since Cpiral began using its liturgy during the combination of I and T and S. Thank you for your efforts. I will re-double mine.CpiralCpiral 00:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Turns out that this same very "it see wit see", Wiki-wizard IP very likely

1. did a contributions list on Cpiral,
2. took the top of the list (I was working on a personal essay on subpage /Click-o-phobia at the time)
3. went to the top of that and
4. provoked a controversy over the least controversial statement ever written — the slogan underneath the Wikipedia logo "...that anyone can edit" — by tagging it as {{dubious}}
5. added a comment to make it look as if it was not an intentional provocation, but a reasonable slap
6. provoked Cpiral's mentor, Marx01, before I knew what hit, and then
7. started a noticeboard complaint about Marx01's reaction.

This paragraph will defer to moderator Abecedare: "I don't see any sense in escalating this dispute further, and recommend that all involved disengage and move on."

The target of the socketpuppet was Cpiral. The "drive-by" had an un-intended victim. Cpiral recently whacked two people with trouts for talk-page abuse: Gandalf61 as a personal reproach (for curse-words), and DreamGuy got a trout award for provocation and disparaging remarks. (It was deleted by DreamGuy as "pointless")

My bet is that the socketpuppet is DreamGuy or Gandalf61. The evidence, for the record, is

1. its V.S. it's (first sentence in the new section) My major re-write of the first section of Fringe Theory was an innocent provocation. The ensuing discussion was so abusive I whacked Gandalf and awarded DreamGuy with the trout. But note the edit history:
   1. Gandalf reverted my major section re-write, saying he had detailed the reasons on the talk page.
   2. I reverted his undo because of revelations from User talk:Gandalf61 and because he "lied" about detailing his reason for reverting (actually he was just several hours late in doing it.)
   3. Well, it was put back to the original way again, but this time by a socketpupput. Gandalf61?
2. Wikipedia_talk:FRINGE#First_Section_was_heavily_modified shows DreamGuy in an abusive light, and DreamGuy has had a lot of complaints by other users against him.

Cpiral then wrote a long essay (as I am want to do) about it's dramatic experiences with DreamGuy, and I would sincerely dedicate [[     it     ]] to DreamGuy, while at the same time wishing well my time was money.
CpiralCpiral 20:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

---

To Marx01: Cpiral's handed more than just "its". It's a word doctor in a world ward.

Dubious:

Don't be a "me".

Do be "us".

Don't be a mean-to-me.

Do be a means to us.

IP's not meant to be mean.

Its mentor be me-and-you-be-us.

Apparently, don't mess with Marx01. I O U 1: 1 0 0 1: l o o k:

{{dubious}}<!--No, it clearly does not. Otherwise editors would not be blocked for violating policies.-->

Like all language (not just computer-programming language), the above symbol sequence is an artificial construct for the general purposes of programming, and may not mean what it specifies. International political policy is a program for the many and has planetary consequences. Mass-media is programming and has massive consequences (if only TV soaps). Person-to-person talk is programming and has personal consequences. Self-talk is programming (be careful). And while it's natural and easy make internal complaints to ourselves about conditions, what really "matters" is materiality, and those who mold it in any way. Words are for programming future material actions. I wish a computer will read all this and understand it. Wishfully thinking, I program the future:     it     will all makes sense. CpiralCpiral 17:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Here is what I wrote DreamGuy on his talk page, Fringe Theory debate" section (now deleted)

<snip>

Here is what made me revert Gandalf61's undo of my major guideline section re-write.

Please keep in mind that at the time I was trying to get my edit up on Fringe Theory. Gandalf61 had just reverted it, and had "lied" (he was late) about posting details for his reasons . So I looked at his user page and was alarmed at the following patters of "not complete devotion and dedication to WP".

From his discussion page:

<snip>

CpiralCpiral 20:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

None of the above is meaningful to me, except the unjustified accusation of sockpuppetry, and vague and unprovoked innuendo against Gandalf. Perhaps this again needs to be escalated to a higher level? 71.182.220.179 (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Please "No."

It was meaningless as regards sockpuppetry. It was meant only as an explanation of how I might see a pattern that could enable Cpiral to revert a genuinely worthy undo of my major re-write. I hope that helps.CpiralCpiral 20:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Cpiral, I have the following requests and opinions:

• This extremely long amount of research into the subject is extremely tedious and I would like it summarized so that it is easy to move through (keep all the stuff just summarize it under my little section)
• I have dissected this long statement and it looks like the edits you made to Fringe are written by a 'young' hand (by young I mean young to the Wiki). That is why I wanted you to write an article so early so that I could target immediate problems. The intro itself is written well, but not for Wikipedia. I am going to drill you on style to help you understand this.
• Your argument on Fringe theory has escalated to unnecessary levels and I will be mediating it if it continues to escalate.
• Dreamguy made some nasty comments, that is apparent.
• Gandalf seems to have done nothing wrong, please clarify.
• I am still curious about your message to me. I understand the first almost poetic section, and the language part, but not the "I program the future" part. In the way I see it:

You have noticed that language is a program and construct of human imagination, something which evolved from the primal grunts to allow for efficient communication. However, the impact of a single person is not enough to trigger the reform of the way a language is spoken and written. The boundaries and rules of the majority bind you to speak it in common terms. If you do not communicate it in these ways, then confusion ensues.

Please respond with swiftness,

Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 01:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Directly underneath the lead paragraph under this section, I added a horizontal line and underneath that detail the simple pattern that makes Gandalf61 look guilty. See there: Cpiral makes major edit, Gandalf61 reverts it, Cpiral undoes revert, IP steps into edit war escalation. That IP, I have been calling a socketpuppet. Now, a socketpuppet in my mind is not a bad thing, but only a necessary evil.

If a future, natural language processing computer reads all this, it will understand better than us because it will have longer logic sequences and perfect memory access. Then, understanding, it will be programmed by all this natural language, and whoever writes it. It and only it could make perfect logical sense of all our foggy ramblings. Assuming the computer valued honesty, all the honest typing I can do will indeed program the future computer, which will then act based on patterns of honesty. Thus my honesty will program the future in the most forceful way. After all, a snippet of language doesn't matter if it doesn't materialize in an action in a future caused by that snippet. Not only "I" but all writing of all people would potentially program such the future. My statement "I program the future." was one of hope in my dogged application of honesty in all my writing.

My writing is concentrate. It is difficult for people to squeeze a meaning from it because it is purposefully and painstakingly multi-meaning. I am confident the future, language processing computer will have no problem recognizing the patterns in my multi-meaning phrases, and awarding them a higher priority in it's self programming from its natural language "food". I realize this looks crazy. Look again! I understand your question, and I have modified the paragraph accordingly.

CpiralCpiral 20:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Your accusations against me

Cpiral - you say above that I lied about detailing my reasons for reverting your update to Wikipedia:Fringe theories immediately after making my edit and that I only detailed my reasons several hours later. If you look at my contributions for 29 September you will see that my explanatory post to Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories is timestamped 1 minute after my reversion of your update.

Possibly you were genuinely mistaken here. Maybe you became confused about where Wikipedia timestamps are displayed in UTC (in talk page signatures, for example) and where they are displayed in an editor's local time (in edit histories, for example). Nevertheless, accusing another editor of lying is a serious business. Therefore I would like to see you withdraw your accusation and apologise to me here on your talk page, as soon as possible.

I am not going to waste my time refuting your other accusations against me, of sockputtery, impoliteness, laziness etc., other than saying that they are all simply nonsense.

If you cannot learn to conduct yourself politely towards editors who happen to disagree with you over something, then you will find that your time in Wikipedia is very unsatisfactory and frustrating. If I do not see an apology from you within a reasonable period of time, I will be asking for the assistance of third parties to help you improve your attitude towards other editors. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I respect you, Gandalf61, for your civility and for your operations on this project. Cpiral's Gandalf61 document was to demonstrate a pattern I saw, a pattern which threatened the authority of the revert, a pattern which caused Cpiral to immediately revert the undo. I'm sorry for reverting your undo.

I love Cpiral and I will not make it apologize for my beliefs. I believe there was a gap of eleven hours:

Project page history:

01:44, Gandalf61 (rv major changes by .Cpiral - I have detailed my concerns on the talk page - let's discuss) [sic]
Talk page history:
01:45, Gandalf61 (Tainted???) (First Section was heavily modified: explain why I reverted these changes)
Project page history:

12:47, Cpiral (...says there were "detailed reasons" for the reversion. Nope. All it said was ["lets discuss"])

I felt sorry the moment Cpiral reverted your undo because it was in that very minute that the missing details appeared to me on the talk page. I believe there were no details for eleven hours, no matter the history page says. The proof of this is in the edit box comment on the project page.

I am sorry I made a major rewrite change to a project page without discussing it first.

As for the apology you request, for my belief in the eleven hours: as Gandalf did in The Fellowship take a flying leap. I understand that in writing that, Cpiral makes a general accusation that the the contents and history of the talk page were changed after the fact, and does not blame any user in particular. I also understand that this looks bad on Cpiral's part.

Finally, I feel badly about my pre-maturity, and wish to disengage from any further escalation. Oh please, let this be the end of this good lesson! Thank you very much!

CpiralCpiral 19:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Cpiral you are getting into extremely serious business. Please think thoroughly before taking any more action. Are you fighting for the right reasons? Can you back up your accusations with evidence which clearly shows that this person has committed any wrongdoing? Is this worth it? Also please stop talking in third person, it's strange. If you are speaking for the ideal of Cpiral, do not let that continue. This is not an argument over Cpiral and its ideals. Also when an editor reverts, undoes, or clears your edits with the response of 'let's talk', do not go about accusing them of being irresponsible people. They did the right thing. And is it is decided to put it back, your revision is still on the history page, and forever, will be.

Cpiral, I am not angry if you are accusing this user of doing things they did not do. I feel like you and all of my other adoptees are like my children (which quite frankly is rather odd since all of you are years older than me). As a father figure, I must say that if you feel provoked because someone reverted your edits, said lets talk, and then went offline for 12 hours because they had previous commitment or whatnot, that I am disappointed in you. Honestly I expected more from you. Not because you are better at doing anything than my other adoptees, but because you showed pride in being an editor. You were thrilled to be a part of such a large project. I saw that you would protect the rights of Wikipedia to hell and back. But your spirit has died down and it seems like you are trying to get back at these people for something. For what? For pride? For honor? For Cpiral?

I like your style, but the ugliness I have seen (not necessarily from you) has made me almost feel bad to be a part of this project. It is depressing that so much hurt can be expelled from such a beautiful creation of humanity. Have I committed these crimes? Yes. I've lashed out a few times and wreaked havoc on IPs. I personally feel that IPs can be a terrible thing. I think that a user account should be established before editing rights. I felt no grief, no sorrow, no guilt for what I said to that IP. I apologized, but that is because that is the gentlemanly thing to do. I have lashed out and I replied to my own actions with a sincere apology. Yesterday I felt so much stress that I was ready to burst out and attack several people with words. Was one of them you? Yes. But I forgive you. I forgive you because you still are a young person to the Wiki. Please accept my apologies and forgive me for even thinking of lashing you.

This stress made me want to retire and become a hermit in the world that is Wikipedia. Making random edits, small unnoticeable ones, yet give advice to all my adoptees. But I still hold firm to the project. I want to give all I can to this project. I wish that I could put in my ideas and change the way the Wikipedia social system works.

Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 23:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I will quit speaking in 3rd person. It was my way of reminding the humans in us (and me) of the heavens we live in, compared to the servers we trod around in. It is strange.

I do not wish to get into any more serious business. It is stressful on me, and I apologize for being careless in my actions on Wikipedia, but only because you are here, Marx01. I will be much more careful. Thank you, and stay well.

I am sensitive to innuendo and I must make an effort when I write not to construe veiled opinions. Politicians swim in the verbal world of natural language programming, and these days the underlying implications of their words are important. To me it's as if their back and forth means one thing on the surface while another thing in implications. The back may not even know it shows forth. Q. What of the loss of child-like innocence and trust; the loss of play; the loss of simple sincerity in words, and thus the loss of a utopian social system? A. Things should be only what they seem. It is that way for most of all life for example, except for certain humans. I will continue to make efforts get passed my past.

Now, if I may please, there is clear evidence that the IP was experienced, and intended to provoke, and there is sufficient evidence to suppose an administrator who could change the history logs. But I very much do not want to ever know. In fact, I don't need to forgive. I am so thrilled about attention, and no one on Wikipedia, no matter what they say to me, can do any wrong in my eyes. I am happily married here, and in all honesty will capitulate once I've had my little say. They're all white and innocent. In turns I, Cpiral, fantasize about fraternizing with Gandalf61 and DreamGuy later, and about retiring. Let's not and say we did. (Now I really must go and clean my room.)

CpiralCpiral 01:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologize (again) for my actions. I had a tad bit of my version of a breakdown there... I can handle stress well but unfortunately I suffer from what my doctor calls hyper-depression syndrome. I tend to get depressed over 'small' things and if stress is put on me, it can lead to such side effects like that stupid self-pity stuff and/or a breakdown of my mental health (very rarely and temporarily). I will continue to mentor you and I hope that I will be able to for as long as you need it =). Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 01:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful. And hey, you look fine on stage, Mr. Marx.

I found this on a note while cleaning my room:

A poem: "Drama"

I want I want I want I want.

I won I won I wanna win.

I wanna be well, a deep well.

Raising issues, raising a man's head, while a manhole leads to the gutter. "up right head high"

Get it? Get it.

A comparison:

• A board game of Scrabble — the pleasure of total concentration.
• An online social village — it offers the pains and pleasures of life; it is like watching a movie and having strong feelings.
• A simulation having the five senses and the real possibility of death (i.e. the brain) — ecstasy.
  • A good life has stability, like a dentist and her suburban family.
  • An awesome life has both depressions and ecstasies; the survivors of tragedy speak of awe.
  • A smart life answers its questions and questions its answers, and so polishes the mirror, and so sees what's coming and so drives not so recklessly.

Finally, an old church program had scribbled on it:

utterly reject self negation

CpiralCpiral 04:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Cpiral - there is a lot in your posts above that I do not follow at all, but you seem to be saying that:

1. You refuse to apologise for accusing me of lying, because ...
2. you still think that I am lying about when I posted my explanation to Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories, and ...
3. the page histories have somehow been changed to corroborate my version of events.

Is that an accurate summary of your position ? I just want to be absolutely sure I have understood you correctly before I decide what further action to take. Thank you. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Gandalf,

1. I officially, fully, and sincerely apologize for implying that you lied.
2. I apologize to all concerned for implying that there was any tampering with history logs.

I must reverse my former stance because

1. the "strange coincidence" of "missing details" suddenly appearing
2. the "luck" of my edit remark decrying "Nope. No details"

are not enough to support the avalanche of logic resulting in a serious accusation of history log tampering

I am forced to consider the very likely possibility, and must try, to turn this story from human intrigue to a documented case of cognitive bias. I share the story of how this could have happened below. Cognitive bias is, to those who experience it, an unbelievably powerful illusion. It blinded me from seeing words on a page. I have an almost photographic memory of words on pages. For me, this is an extreme example of cognitive bias.

The context of the story. "Stay objective." is the talk page guideline. Gurdjieff says that if one had "objective consciousness" necessary to eliminate all of one's cognitive biases (which he calls "buffers") all at once, that this complete and constant state of "objective consciousness" would bring about an immediate series of self revelations that would cause such shock (hence the term buffers) that it would have catastrophic results. If so, then the need for a neutral point of view is nothing more than an implicit need to accept the very real possibility of cognitive bias in ones own self. (By definition, the bias is invisible to the person afflicted.) For example, I believe that Any general negative objection made on a talk page are susceptible to cognitive bias. Any unspecified objection, in other words a personal objection, violates the unviolable "love of self" bias, and only by providing a reliable specific of the wording or idea proposed, grounded in an objective reality can any assertion be accepted and any real debate concluded on objective grounds, logically. When WP:NPOV and WP:RS are the basis for talk page points (The very first, central point made concerning talk page guidelines is Maintain Wikipedia Policies of neutrality and verifyabilty.) then there is no room for cognitive bias in the objection. There is merit, then, only in being specific when issuing "objections". Any general negative could itself contain cognitive bias. With all innocent "mistakes" a humility and patience is called for on both parties. This story, then, is an extreme case of a common problem.

The historical context surround the drama is (I'm happy to report!) visible on the history page.

The plot. On the talk page, because of my cognitive bias I saw:

Please consider going forward with the changes to the title and tone. Also, the content now stresses the expanded idea of "comparison" alluded to in the original. There may be logical and factual omissions or errors, but the idea of comparison techniques in general is an improvement for this section.CpiralCpiral 18:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't see any way to address my concerns without removing large parts of your contribution and making the section even more confusing - so I have reverted to the previous text. Let's discuss and see where consensus lies on these issues. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No details, no "In conclusion" or "In summary" I simply read "I can't see" and the rest of the paragraph.

• But my edit to Fringe Theory had stood for an entire day. I had felt like it was, for the most part, accepted by a sort of consensus by silence. When you reverted it, I felt a small doubt about you. I "saw" that you "lied" about explaining in any detail (remember this is a description of my cognitive bias and not an accusation). This was a small matter to me, and I waited for ten hours.
• I looked for "promised" details. Again I "saw" the same thing (as above). So I went and checked out your credentials on your discussion page. After an hour of studying, dissecting, and removing all doubtful evidence from any discussions on your talk page, I concluded that my earlier doubt was confirmed, and that I should revert.
• I had two reasons for reverting, and so I reverted. Just after the act I saw on the talk page — I still clearly remember a surprise: a coincidence of a sudden appearance of many new paragraphs between my general announcement of the rewrite and your general denouncement of it — the missing details!

I have big concerns with your changes to the Identifying fringe theories section:

       * There are several places where your new version is ungrammatical or unclear. For example, "noteworthiness is the comparative significance"; "it's need to be in Wikipedia"; "phase of the world stage"; "the particularly advanced in comprehension". Clarity is essential in a guideline document, and it is not reasonable to drop an unreviewed draft passage into the guideline and then expect other editors to help you clarify your meaning.
       * The part where you imply that editors of fringe articles may be "dissembling" or "bluffing" does not assume good faith.
       * Most importantly, you are importing several new ideas here. "Less than theory, hypotheses, conjectures, and speculations, have no purview at all" seems to attempting to draw a bright line that excludes all articles on certain types of topics. "Fringe theory, because it is compared to the mainstream, must also consider the times ... A main article need not consider the times" seems to be proposing that fringe theory articles are held to a different standard of notability than mainstream articles. "Such an article is challenging to write, to maintain, and to evolve over time; much more so than a main article" - a novel opinion. These all represent significant departures from the existing guideline, so they should be discussed here on the talk page before they are included.

I can't see any way to address my concerns without removing large parts of your contribution and making the section even more confusing - so I have reverted to the previous text. Let's discuss and see where consensus lies on these issues. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

In hindsight, was it a coincidence? Not likely, because they appeared right after their absence served as a justification for the revert I made. This is the kicker: I don't recall having a conscious desire so strong that it would cause a cognitive bias to make the revert! To the contrary, I thought I was making a neutral and objective study of your talk page, and coming to a logical conclusion. This must be understood by the reader: that moment is still flabbergasting to me. To the best of my knowlege, I was being what I felt and believed was neutral and objective. (It is only by current suppositions that I turn.)

• When you protested, I looked and saw you were "correct". The history log indeed showed that one minute later that you posted many detailed and thoughtful paragraphs.
• This history showed more than I recalled seeing, and I, to the best of my ability, logically, was forced to think the logs were tampered with. In effect I was forced to think you were involved.
• Upon this last protest (if you will) of yours I began another review of events. I clearly recalled that moment of "strange coincidence" of sudden appearance of missing details. I clearly recall feeling "lucky" I'd made an edit summary stating "the facts". I then slowly began to accept the more likely reality that there was no coincidence, there was no luck, and that therefore, there was no history log tampering. I am still having a difficult time absorbing all this. I turned at the moment I realized that I was being forced by "luck" and "coincidence", which are not reliable forces.

All the earlier conclusions of mine that you protested (if you will) followed from a single, documented belief of mine repeatedly based on what were to me "facts". Please understand it was not seen until you protested.

You have been patient while I have slowly come to the reversal of my earlier conclusions. Thank you Gandalf. Please believe me, and in so doing, please see your way to forgive me. I hope to see your response "swiftly Shadowfax! Fly you fools!" (Shadow facts?)

CpiralCpiral 21:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I wrote two (of my) entries above to Marx that "I very much do not want to ever know" if there was lying and tampering going on. Perhaps now I know why. (Ouch.)

Apology accepted. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. Thank you for your time. Honestly? I do not exaggerate when I say that the revelation from my self-scrutiny, described above as a specter of a powerful cognitive bias (and slight paranoia) will probably turn out to be one of the most important influences I have ever learned about myself. I cannot practice enough, my awareness of it in public forums. [[User:Cpiral|Cpiral<font

Your time on the Wiki

I've been stalking your contributions lately and you seem to have been editing less than normal. No problem, in fact I find it good thing. It most likely means that you are doing a good job, not just in the Wiki, but outside as well.

Awesome! Keep up the good work!

Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 02:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right on. It's so compelling! I can't think of a thing wrong with focusing on Wikipedia... uh, who was I? Oh, yea. (I think about the drama, once. There you were. There I was. Been there, done that.) If I was independently wealthy, I'd get a nice setup and just stay online here for years, have my meals brought to me. As it is, there is no way I can sustain the amount of efforts I have been putting into learning this venue. It has everything to offer for me. I have gotten to a point where I can slow down. (I always think that about learning curves. "Look, Ma, there's the top of the mountain, right there." ) Honestly, I've been spoiled for years and years with books and study and writing; Wikipedia is just the absolute last fling I actually have time for. I gotta get some things done around the house, and my time here has been excessive. I will need to slow down, and it won't be easy. I just love it. Thanks for being part of it. See ya tomorrow. P.S.: (see?!)

I can ask you, Marx01. Would you please proofread the lead section (short) of parenthetical referencing? I rewrote it and had to make some guesses about what it was trying to say. (You can lash me if I need it.)

Thanks!! You have given me a great reputation to live up to, and I thank you for that.

CpiralCpiral 06:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually that looks really good!!!!! The only issue I saw was the italics (should not be used for emphasis), but you did not know any better. Your article writing style has improved greatly! Expect a reward! Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 17:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"Italics are used sparingly to emphasize." What do you mean?

I use italics to (1) create, out of thin air, the phrase "the term" as an invisible prefix to whatever is emphasized (such as unrelated) (2) a visual link of a parent idea which will later show up (perhaps surprisingly) as a child idea, and (3) to show which word to stress when spoken, in an otherwise ambiguous phrase. (Ambiguity is enlightening sometimes, the way a different a meaning pops up depending on which word is stressed, not unlike the colors of a diamond appear as it is reoriented.) Thus emphasis colors, emphasis links, and emphasis saves us from writing the term the term over and over. (Actually the phrase is the term or phrase.) (Wiz quiz: Why might I have chosen to put "the term" in quotes instead of emphasis? Answer hint: what are the many uses of quotation marks?)

Having said all that. I think the edit you made reverting my use of emphasis on list was correct. Why? Because the parent idea list was not so far removed from the child idea order of the list. It was overuse. It was not "sparingly" used. Thank you for proofreading that for me.

Having said all that, I now note that you underestimated me in some small way... and then gave me an award! Do you know how that makes me feel (about my model of the probable model of me in your head)? It makes me feel even better! Thanks. CpiralCpiral 21:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Exemplary Adoptee Barnstar
		I award this Barnstar to Cpiral for learning to manage time between the Wiki and Real life, and learning how to write a good intro to an article using clear language and representing the consensus. Good job! Marx01 Tell me about it 04:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Cpiral!

Please check the history of your userpage and look for the edits made by Mhkay. I've already confronted him about it (kindly, I assure you) on his userpage. I would like your input. Thanks, Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 01:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Mhkay is a frequent contributor to XML Schema (W3C). I'm working on wire protocol and believe I need to understand Schema languages. Well, I removed two unnecessary and potentially biased words. Mhkay then acted negatively and inappropriately.

You amaze me again. Thanks. I will take up the matter now.

By coincidence, I just noticed my signature goes to my user page, and offers no link directly to my talk page. (That does not defend Mhkay's action. He responded to a history page, not a signature.)

CpiralCpiral 02:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I find it odd that he wrote that against his own workings, but I feel (after reading your conversation with him) that he was trying to do good. But just making the other side biased while you object to that bias is just as bad as supporting your own claims. Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 23:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

His "strenuous efforts" ("writing against his own workings") were excellent and good enough. My objective is primarily to address issues he keeps bringing up: 1st it was the user page edit, 2nd it became his defense of an editorial error, and 3rd a general defensiveness against all my factoid "fact objects". (From a mental "factOrI?") I temporarily "own" the claim Mhkay is biased until I am corrected, but if I am correct, Mhkay wins, and I was helpful. Gandalf was correct, although not helpful. I'm sure MhKay is MhKapable of handling the situation he got himself into. I was with Gandalf.

The nature of those types of "discussions", where there is a biased self-defense, is not "win win" (like barnstars). It's one win, zero loss. The kernel of Wikipedia's cultural style is objective fact, and facts are uncompromising. One's own discussion persona is not easily objectified, but practicing Don't take things personally is gold, Marx01. The only way I would stop standing in the puddle dripping facts is if I was convinced to—impersonally, factually, and objectively.

You're right: a personal offense cannot end personal offenses, fighting not war, bias not bias. To end a "just as bad" as the other side war, to step passed the last bad and begin the good way things are, is to get to the objective way they are, away from the personal way they were. From material to mental, "things" are object-like. Owning a "thing" is taking responsibility for an object's nature. Thoughts can deceive, cars can break, people can surprise, but if ya respond acceptably, you are being responsible, you are handling, you are grasping the situation, and you can "own" things this way, have them "wrapped around your thumb".

Mhkay is not being responsible for his works because his works are Wikipedian, and wiki works, like good journalism are objective. In this case, the wiki objective is to articulate on XML, not James Clark's persona. The last word on "Mhkay's bias" is up to him. He owns it with me. I will continue to respond to a perceived need on his part. As I am careful, emotion-driven haste won't leak bias. CpiralCpiral 06:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Essays note

Saw the note you left on my essay page a month ago, and decided to reply to it now.

The IP was taking the word from the Vietnamese Wikipedia and transferring it over to the english version. I reverted it because to me it looked like vandalism. Whther or not he knows Vietnamese is questionable. It was simply a story to show why I discourage IP adresses. Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 21:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Definition

I just now saw your question on my Wiktionary page; sorry for the delay in responding. Unfortunately I am unclear about what you want me to do. There is more to "definition" than a simple dictionary statement, with numerous philosophical issues across varying fields of studies. Eclecticology (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for responding.

It just seems off that WikiMedia sports a B-class article called "encyclopedia" and Start class article called "definition, yet we have an encyclopedia and a dictionary project. I would thank you in advance for any guidance you might have on the matter. I could make myself more specific, but first, I need to research interwiki linking, and inter-project participations to be sure that the issue I raise is a valid one.

I want to facilitate inter-project participations in a way that uses interwiki links to highlight areas that both inform and advertise the article's poor class status. For example, If I linked many of my discussions to Metawiki's howto on the subject, that poorly stated, but brilliantly structured and informed article might become readable sooner.

In general on-the-job training opportunities are win-win. All the institutions of any kind on the planet should edit their respective pages on Wikipedia. It is a joy to build that first building of your newly decided trade. I often edit to teach myself, recording my notes for others to follow. But then I value the written word, and all the crafts involved in sharing it.

CpiralCpiral 03:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware that in saying "All the institutions of any kind on the planet should edit their respective pages on Wikipedia" you are proposing an exact reversal of the Wikipedia conflict of interest guideline? JamesBWatson (talk) 11:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Cpiral is saying that it is best for companies to keep their respective pages well-organized and factual, since they have first hand information. Any bias will be taken out by other uses, so that a balanced article is result (in theory). Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 23:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. CpiralCpiral 17:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI says it is for "investigating possible cases of COI editing". WP:COI is for crimes already committed.

COI itself applies before the fact to potential crimes only (irregardless of whether or not there was "an edit".)

I think that you confuse WP:conflict of interest (COI) with the real conflict of interest, (WP:COI), that you exaggerate your understanding of WP:COI when you say "exact reversal", and that you err when even remotely considering a preemptive ban against any editor based on who employs them.

If this discussion begins to present itself as a truly potential a policy forum in a well reasoned, serious tone, I will happy to discuss this further in another discussion somewhere else. Thanks for your interest though.

CpiralCpiral 02:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I am puzzled as to how anyone can read so much into my brief remark. For example, I never suggested "considering a preemptive ban", nor, as far as I can see, anything that cold be read that way. However, it is perfectly clear that the overall tone of the guideline is that editing by people with a personal interest in the subject is on the whole discouraged, and that in those cases where it does take place circumspection is recommended. To say that all institutions should edit articles about themselves is going against this general spirit. Yes, I have looked through the guideline, and yes I have found sentences which support what I have just said. No I am not going to quote them, because "Look! I can find a sentence which can be interpreted as supporting my view!" "So what? I have found one that supports mine" leads nowhere. The general tone of the guideline is clear. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

In a world that defines wealth as knowledge and not money, everyone is encouraged to edit Wikipedia, contributing in any area they want to learn about. Special incentives would be given to those who edited in the areas of their personal interest. CpiralCpiral 20:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Is a Page history search by edit summary possible?

{{helpme}} I've tried Help:Page_history#Searching_and_exporting_histories, but I only want the edit summary. What I need is when a section was created, when it was edited. That section title is in the edit summary.

I'm trying to balance the need to preserve information with the lack of a citation on that information. I don't want to just delete it just because there is no citation. I may not have the "common knowledge" to know it does not need the citation. But if it is common knowledge, and that category of information ages quickly, such as in technology, the date it was entered becomes an important research tool in the effort to verify information in technical articles.

I've tried Wikiblame, but it is hit and miss, not query targetable. Specifically, I want to know when section 2.10.1 Solaris was created. In general I want to be able to see how articles grew to evolve.

I'm also having difficulty getting a toolserver acct to access. — CpiralCpiral 20:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You might want to try crossposting this to the WP:Help Desk to see if anyone there notices. I can't think of any automated way if wikiblame isn't working for you. My only suggestion is to jump every few diffs to see if you can spot when it was introduced then narrow it down. Are you only looking for how to do this on Operating system#Solaris, or on future articles? Just wondering why you're looking for toolserver access. -Optigan13 (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll try your crossposting idea. I'd like this to be a general ability. The future may hold lots of article sizing for me, and the way the structure of the article grows is information on how it splits. At least that's my guess-think. — CpiralCpiral 00:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure either, though you may be able to pull up the last 500 diffs and using your browser's built-in search feature to look for whatever you need. About the toolserver issue, I think your best bet is do what you already did.  fetchcomms☛ 22:19, 4

December 2009 (UTC)

I'll try your browser search method for this instance. Thanks. — CpiralCpiral 00:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Linuxzarth

I feel like I'm calling Underdog, but there is this Linux article that needs your attention. Linux is under-represented in Comparison of Windows and Linux. Warning, it's size is approaching 100kb. — CpiralCpiral 00:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)\

Toolserver Acct for Cpiral

{{helpme}}

Please see Wikipedia:Help_desk#Toolserver_Acct.

Did you need help with something, Cpiral? --cremepuff222 (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Would you try clicking on the link I documented at the help desk? I responded there in the negative to the generous and kind offer made. I think it is quite safe to try and verify the situation. Perhaps you would know where a better method of procedure might be than the one [[there]]. Thank you very much Cremepuff. — CpiralCpiral 04:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Sorry for not being on, but the work for my classes had overloaded me too much to go on Wikipedia much. I hope I can get some work done. I have it set as my home page and i'm always logged on, so i will respond to any questions you might have. Thank you and You're Welcome, Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 02:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You're awesome!

— CpiralCpiral 02:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Linktest shortcut

Thanks for adding it; but since WP:LINK is not policy, I wonder whether it would be better/possible to use the word guideline instead of policy in the little box? Tony (talk) 08:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Per {{shortcut}} family of templates, there is one for policy, which I used in error, thank you, and one for non-policy. I will fix it. — CpiralCpiral 21:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I was snooping around your contribs and you are in need of congratulations for your work (well, doubly so).

1. Service Awards: A Service Award, I am not sure whether or not you were aware of them, are awards which can be self-granted based on the number of edits you have achieved and the time on the project (as a full-on user). You currently have 1,597 live edits, and have been on the project 6 months. Therefore, you have achieved the "Novice Editor" and "Apprentice Editor" service awards. You should take a look around the service awards page linked at the top.
2. A Barnstar from Me: I looked at a chart of your edits based on what name-spaces they were in, and I was extremely happy to see that your article percentage has gone up! This is not based on your overall edits, but on your recent edits (November's).

I'm very glad that you have achieved plenty in the time which I have achieved little. It only goes to show how much you believe in free knowledge and how valuable you are to the Wiki! Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 23:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For having a much improved balance in editing. Good job! Marx01 Tell me about it 23:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Marx! Told ya the balance was going to work out in the long term. The Talk:operating system makeover got me "out of the house", and from there into the forest. There's Human vs computer, but I'm still not done understanding the article formation processes. I'd like to go back and work on my essay about section titles. I must say I'm proud to have fulfilled my user page statement that Wikipedia is multi-purposeful: I entirely rewrote the lead and Quick Summary sections at wp:categorization, but it was while I learned the subject of categorization. Me, a novice, wrote it. (1) It is now set for the correct audience, and I am immeasurably thankful for the experience that (2) gave me knowledge, (3) gave me writing skills, and (4) will continue to provide new editors knowledge. Of course I've now admitted I know little about operating systems. Thanks Marx! — CpiralCpiral 03:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

— CpiralCpiral 06:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Publisher-Work debate

hi cpiral, I've put together an api that can figure out a wikipedia reference's 'publisher' field unambiguously, given a url, and am trying to have it worked into the citation bot. There is some confusion though about what sort of things we want to have in the publisher field. Can you comment on this over here? I'd like to know what you think. cheers Spencerk (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Operating Systems

I redid the intro for you and I'll try to do some more later. Just don't worry about it, you're not alone.

By the way man, if I could offer you some advice I'd say stop being so damn hesitant with the drafts and just PLOW into it. I'd copy over some chunks of your draft but I don't want to steal the credit.--Ferrenrock (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll start rocking on it. Thank you. Your advise is advisable, Ferrenrock. — CpiralCpiral 02:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a Hi

Hey I haven't been on Wikipedia in a while; AP and State testing kind of drained my time. Then finals came. Hopefully I'll get into some more editing this summer. Anyway, I hope all's going well and I'm glad you have continued to contribute. Good job! --Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 00:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4