User talk:Cuddlyable3

Archives

Welcome to my Talk Page

My policy is to keep my page open for any new contact or old friend with ideas on how I can help contribute to Wikipedia. Please be prepared to identify yourself to me, if asked, and do not bring conflict. WP:RPA is applied here.

Cuddlyable3 07:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LFSR

Please see the comment in the discussion page about the table of polynomials. Amoss (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FPC

A Koch curve has an infinitely repeating self-similarity when it is magnified.

900x450 pixel view of points along a finitely iterated Koch curve

Your animation Image:Kochsim.gif has been nominated for Featured Picture. Beacause it has recieved some complaints over size and aliasing, I wonder if you might be able to upload a larger, anti-aliased version. It certatinly is interesting, and I would love to see a better version. J Are you green? 21:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added notes to the image description that may interest you.Cuddlyable3 19:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It really is an interesting illustration. Do you think that you could redo it as, perhaps, a 400 by 200 pixel animation in greyscale with antialiasing? I love the idea, and I would absolutely support a newer version. J Are you green? 20:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Increasing the pixel resolution is easy and just makes the file bigger. Rendering in a greyscale however would need some arbitrary process which goes beyond what the Koch curve defines. Aliasing is the result of sampling in space or time (see my image description notes) so there are several possible sources to consider. Strictly speaking, we should not see a 2-D line at all, nor the structure of the fully developed Koch curve. For a beautiful image, search out (Google) the sphereflake! Cuddlyable3 08:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK - I just thought it might have a chance if you could do that. J Are you green? 00:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To do anti-aliasing, just render it 3x as big as the final image, and shrink it down (e.g. with bi-cubic). Of course to do "perfect" anti-aliasing you'd need an infinitely large initial rendering, but it doesn't need to be perfect. A separate comment, there's too much white space as the bottom. —Pengo 15:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the means to do this and see the result? The code to draw the Koch curve is rather simple and I can help you with that if you wish. However you could also take the existing image (or just one frame of it) and reduce its size to 67 x 34 pixels; that simple exercise might save you some time and possible disapointment. As to the white space, you are right that it could be reduced. Cuddlyable3 19:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reduced one frame - looks tiny but antialiased to me... If you upoload a new version of the Koch curve that is identical to this one except that it is rendered at, perhaps, 900 by 450 pixels, I can shrink it down for you to 300 by 150 pixels and get antialiasing as a side-effect, as Pengo suggested. J Are you green? 20:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J, please post your reduced frame here if you can, so we can all see it. Since the object is scaling invariant we don't need to push especially large files through the Wiki server, do we?

I note that the antialiasing process Pengo describes if done on a 2-colour (monochrome) image generates a 16-colour (greyscale) image. This is because one filters by taking 3x3 blocks of pixels, using 3 different coefficients for center, mid-side and corner.

However I think a quest for an "antialiased" Koch curve by increasing pixel resolution will only lead to huge image files (slow to load) and no new aesthetic delight, until one has magnified it so much that the finite iteration limit of the curve computation becomes visible. At that stage you are just seeing a monochrome line figure, which is where it all started. Cuddlyable3 07:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK; here you go. It obviously is tiny, which is why I am asking you to render the original at 900 by 450 pixels. As for file size, relax. Your GIF is currently 4 KB; I cannot see a 900 by 450 version being more than 85 KB, still a really small file. If you upload a large verision over the current one, I'll downsample it for you. J Are you green? 20:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as for the resolution and limitations, its not really how much deatil is really there (especially for something like this where antialiasing will destroy that ultrafine detail) as how easy it is on the eye. To be honest, a 200 by 100 pixel image looks tiny on my screen (about 2 by 4 cm). I really wouldn't mind the lack detail so much as to have a larger, anti-aliased image. By the way, downsampling probably will destroy any visible limitations of the "finite iteration limit," so I wouldn't worry about that too much. J Are you green? 20:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK; there you go J. Cuddlyable3 18:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time ever working with an animation, so forgive me if I did anything stupid... but here is my version. J Are you green? 00:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J, I was expecting you to reduce Kochsim2 33% as you did with the tiny image, which has grey pixels. Kochsim3 is reduced only 66% and, from the looks of it, is still 2-colour (it's hard to see at the moment as I am on an office computer. I find that I can freeze the frame by jiggling energetically with the mouse!).Cuddlyable3 08:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reduced it to 66 % because it had a sufficient enough anti-aliasing effect for me. It is four shades of grey. I can upload one reduced to 300 pixels if you wish, but adding more shades of grey makes my computer play the animation too slowly. J Are you green? 20:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the big image with one that A) shows only the points along the finite Koch curve that I have been using in these animations, without connecting them with straight lines, and B) has a finer time resolution. I find it interesting that A) the thinning out of points density during the zoom can always be hidden by storing a higher iterated curve. (Mine has 4097 points which was adequate for the original 200x100 pixel illustration.) B) The subjective effect of the continuous zoom is not linear! We have self-similarity in shape but I think we need the time scale (or the zoom ratios) to be exponential to get a smooth zoom. Cuddlyable3 10:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FPC

An audio signal (top) may be carried by an AM or FM radio wave.

Another of your animations is at FPC, if you would like to comment. thegreen J Are you green? 01:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I added comments.Cuddlyable3 16:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sieve of Eratosthenes

At right is my new animation of a 2-millenium old algorithm. Bring popcorn and lean back to watch this little movie.

Cuddlyable3 16:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ziggurat algorithm

Thanks for the image, but the caption and animation seem to imply that:

The areas A under the curve are equal, and
The right-hand (solid white) part is eliminated by rejection.

Neither of those are true. Each layer's black + vertical hatched regions total a constant area A (except for the base layer, which is special), and the right-hand region is eliminated by multiplying a [0,1)-distributed random point by the width of the slice x_i.

I tried to edit the caption to clarify the second point, but the first is pretty hard to fix.

Also, the fact that the distribution tail is, in fact infinite, is not clear from the graphics. It's asymptotic to, but never quite reaches, the X axis.

Sorry to complain, but to illustrate it accurately, you have to demonstrate:

Choose a point in a vertical interval divided evenly into 8 regions. This gives the slice number i.
Map that region number, via a loojup table, onto a slice of non-uniform height and width.
Choose a point x uniformly between 0 and x_i−1
Test if the point is less than x_i, and accept x immediately if so.
Otherwise, generate a random point y between y_i−1 and y_i and test if y < f(x). If so, accept the point. If not, restart from the beginning.
(Step 5 is different in the i=0 case, but let's not try to illustrate that.)

71.41.210.146 02:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you anonymous user. I respond on talk:ziggurat_algorithm.

Further replies in the same place. That animation seems like a ridiculous amount of work to me, but if you are inspired, far be it from me to discourage you! I have a script for a significantly different animation. I apologize for asking you to re-do so much work, but I couldn't have imagined it without seeing your first effort. 71.41.210.146 08:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Eh, even though your images didn't make it to Featured, I still think you deserve one of these.

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		Awarded for two very-near featured images, and several other very good ones. Temperal^xy 21:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Computation of CRC

Hello there, I saw your excellent diagrams under Linear feedback shift register and would like to submit a request for something similar for the above page. If you can also find a way to work Galois LFSRs into the text then great, my brain's tired right now and just mentioning them in the lead section would be a tease. Thanks. -- Regregex (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Regregex. Please can you describe some more of the diagram that you would like to have made?Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of an animated modified Galois LFSR to accompany Code Fragment 2 and calculate the same result as the long division example above. Also perhaps demonstrations of fragments 4 and 5 to show the difference endianness makes. -- Regregex (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have put 2 animations at Computation of CRC. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They look great, thanks again. -- Regregex (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:193.156.194.5

Hello there, thank you for offering to help with any need to make contacts in Norwegian. At the moment there's no urgent need to do anything special unless you would like help with forwarding abuse reports to your network administrators there (Students can always create an account elsewhere and use it at school to edit). If so, you should take a look at Wikipedia:Abuse reports. I can help with the initial report but you would want to coordinate with the investigator / contactor. You could also volunteer to become a Norwegian "contactor" in general (see Wikipedia:Abuse reports/Volunteers)) if you have the time to do so. Regards – Zedla (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following your suggestion I have volunteered as contactor.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quote you left on my talk page

Where does the quote.."War does not determine who is right — only who is left" come from? CadenS (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to [[1]] the line comes from Bertrand Russell (but it is unsourced) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mandelbrot set Z^n pictures set

Hi. There's error with set of pictures illustrating "Multibrot" sets. For Z=Z^5+c there are picture of Z=Z^6+c, and for Z=Z^6+c there are actually Z=Z^8+c set picture. These sets are easily identifiable 'cos they have n-1 (for Z=Z^n+c) "branches" of the Mandelbrot set. I could fix the image descriptions, but the line illustrating natural number progression in powers would be broken. I wonder if you can create correct pictures for Z=Z^5+c and Z=Z^6+c in the same style? (Or maybe you have them even stored somewhere, and the error was introduced at time of uploading?) Oh, and the same error is with negative powers. There are seem to be n+1 "corners", so -5 and -6 are wrong. Thank you. --89.113.78.50 (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well caught. You are right. Do go ahead and change the picture captions for now. I can provide correct pictures for d = 5, 6, -5 and -6 later. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mandelbrot - fractional powers etc

I note that my edit has been removed and you say 'join you on the talk page' (is this now the right place?)

I am uncertain what was incorrect about my comments.

It is true that if you stack the slices of the multibrot then you will get a new thing which could be called the mandelbrot 'shape'. It is also true that the many sites which refer to '3-D' mandelbrots are no more than specialised colouring effects which generate an image with a '3d' appearance via shadowing. Therefore I use the phrase 'no more than a pseudo contoured variant'. I would be pleased to see how to amend this statement to be suitable for the article.

Also I would appreciate help with the statement 'the behaviour of the Multibrot as it drops from 2 to 1 to 0 and then to -1 APPEARS more complex than the behaviour above 2 and below -2. Salisbury-99 (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant join us on the Talk:Mandelbrot_set page where there are a couple of threads about generalizing the set to other powers than 2 i.e. multibrots.

I did not see threads on the talk or achive page which appeared to talk about this topic helpfully.

See these threads: Image of a mandelbrot generalization, Generalising to complex power and Negative power illustrations are wrong on the Talk (Discussion) page, not an archive.

You can look on the images shown for integer values of d as slices of a 3-D figure. However they have different rotational symmetries so simply stacking them is about as interesting as stacking different gear wheels. Our difficulty lies in the transitional slices between them: some arbitrary choice(s) are needed to operate the iteration because multiple sets rather than a single set arise. This video advances through some positive values of d.

Mandelbrot's set has a mathematical definition that does not mention colour, which is always an arbitrary addition when rendering.

there is no requirement for an arbitrary slice-factor. Admittedly using a tiny slice would make the stack very large but for between say -6 and +6 offers an acceptable range and at a slice-factor of .01 requires 'only' 1200 slices.

I was not talking about the mere integer steps which would be tediously jagged. But can you visualise the video rather as a sequence of layers than as a time-sequence. For example the difference between mandelbrot 1.999, 2.000 and 2.001 is to me quite interesting. There is an evolutionary process as each bubble is emitted from the spike and rolls backwards creating a spiral effect. I do not have the skills to produce this as a viewable stack.

When one departs from an integer exponent to any fractional exponent there is no longer a single set in the complex plane.

i can't see how this can be. My analysis continues to have a single M-shape for every value of 'd' integer or otherwise 86.160.136.146 (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to describe what happens for -2 > d >2 . Key values are d = 1 where no iteration happens, and d = 0 where there is this singularity: the set (of complex values that remain bounded when iterated) changes from filling the whole plane to none of it. This is the sort of issue taken up on the talk page.

I was unable to see discussion of the singularity or of the behaviour between 2 and -2.

The above mentioned threads show some images for d = -1.5.

The Mandelbrot set article is about the 2-D mathematical object and is not so suitable for original research or artistic renderings. I think it right to say that here the math comes before the image, while there are other pages for fractal art in both Wikipedia and Commons where the image beauty is paramount. If you can provide good images that are educational and/or beautiful then do be bold! Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am uninterested in artistic renderings apart from the semantic impropriety of referring to '3D' when it is a mere shadowing effect. My research is not original although would liek to aim at getting a 3D display of the layers at intervals of say .01 from .01 to say 10.00 (and similarly negative). Would my notes on the Multibrot and the basic "JuliaBrot" as it evolves from -100 to +100 be of assistance? Salisbury-99 (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about some very small and very large exponent values, and your interest in 3D renderings. Mandelbrot and Julia sets have been computed in 3D quarternion vector space to give some remarkable "sculptures". Do bring anything that may improve the article to the Talk page since some of this is beyond me.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am really NOT talking about 3D renderings. That is mere artistic splattering and requires no mathematics. Who can we find someone who can deal with the video shown on the main article and show the mathematical structure which builds it into a 3D 'shape' where the spiral track of the lobes as 'd' moves from 0 to +7 can be demonstrated - or the clefts as 'd' goes negative. 86.160.136.146 (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User 86.160.136.146 are you Salisbury-99 ? A non-integer exponent causes multiple sets in the 2D plane. I believe the video maker took arbitrary branch points to keep the sets single and that corresponds to the sacrifice of rotational symmetry. The continuously varying perimeter of these sets can as you suggest imply a 3D structure. Its surface changes from external to internal as the exponent goes negative.

Making a picture i.e. the rendering of an abstract 3D object involves the mathematics of modelling, surface radiosity and ray casting (or even tracing). I don't call any of that mere splattering. Some 3D fractal work can be found at YouTube.com and you might find someone there willing to work with you. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muphry's Law strikes again

This has to be one of the finest examples of Muphry's law I've seen for a while. "Keaves"? Regards, 86.141.37.25 (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My shame is intolerable. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love it! (I'll gloss over the fact that my comment was an even better Muphry's example in itself, as I'd forgotten I wasn't logged in ☺. Tonywalton ^Talk 21:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment re File:Colour_Televisor.JPG

Hello

Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. I'm not sure if this is the right way to respond - if not then please delete this post!

The image in question was probably my close-up shot of a colour Baird-style mechanical television system - one of only a very few examples known to be operating anywhere in the world. I took the photo myself, uploaded it myself, gave it the appropriate copyright tag (release to public domain IIRC) and then someone came along and deleted it. As you'll see from my Talk page it's not the first time it's happened to my contributions to Wikipedia and I'm frankly so peeved at the whole thing that I'm unlikely to continue contributing to the project.

Giles —Preceding unsigned comment added by G1MFG (talk • contribs) 14:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on your page. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radio navigation aids

I have started an AfD for the article Radio navigation aid at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio navigation aid. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you thread

Hey, I've started a discussion about your comment over here. --Sean 15:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the change. // BL \\ (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took me so long to get around to this

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thanks for answering my marketing question on the Miscellaneous Reference desk! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You Sir (or Madam)

...are to be commended for your demeanor at the sometimes contentious RDs. Keep up the good work - the desks need a voice such as yours. hydnjo (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hydnjo. You are clearly a gentleman (or gentlewoman). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green laser pointer

You seem to know a thing or two about Laser pointers. Please tell me can Green pointers blast baloons or burn paper etc. I read they do, but practicaly they don't seem to...kindly reply on my talk page

Jon Ascton (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pen guns

Belated thanks (likewise, wishes for a Happy New Year) for providing the helpful video clip on my recent RD query. It was especially thoughtful of you to indicate at which point in the footage I'd see the p.g. in action. It certainly illustrates the point I'm trying to make, that this term is being made to serve indiscriminately for improvised guns [presumably] made of pen parts vs. a manufactured device intentionally designed to resemble (i.e. disguised as, made to be mistaken for) a functioning pen. I'm inclined to move the discussion to the Talk:Improvised firearm page and pursue the discrepancy there. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Happy New year to you. I think you make a good point. The article Improvised firearm mentions pen guns in the category "Cryptic firearms" but the adjective "Improvised" suggests something made without care to quality. That seems an unjust slight on the skills of this craftsman who plays an essential part in the James Bond universe that Johnny English parodies.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ASCII Art barnstar.

I hereby award you this ASCII art barnstar for your masterful picture of the shelf bracket on the WP:RD.

         /\
        /**\
_______/****\_______
*.******/^^\******.*
  *.***( () )***.*
    *.**\,./**.*
     /**.**.**\
    /*.*    *.*\
   /.*        *.\
   '            `

SteveBaker (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SteveBaker. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow, Ref. Desk/Humanities

Re "Roof-alanche". Damn, for a moment there I thought I had managed to be quoted in the media! :-) 220.101.28.25 (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Ape shaking head.gif

Thank you for uploading File:Ape shaking head.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Ape shaking head.gif

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

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ╟─Treasury Tag►belonger─╢ 08:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking this discussion over here, rather than keeping it going on the Desk

Has this section of the talk page guidelines been deprecated, or has there been some discussion where it was decided it doesn't apply to the desks? Long sections are difficult for those with slow connections, as well as for me. Obviously the iPhone does scroll, but the only way to scroll in an edit window is very slow. I thought it was generally considered good practice to break up all long sections on all pages, as per the guidelines. Is there something different about the Desks? 86.177.121.239 (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for drawing my attention to "Create subsections if helpful" in the guidelines. We don't usually see this done on the Ref. Desk pages. I don't know what previous discussions there may have been about this. Ref Desks are structured by having for each question a section that fills with whatever responses arrive in the course of typically 3-4 days. They differ from mainspace pages in that editing of previous text is unwelcome. They differ from Talk pages in that the aim of responder(s) is to give the OP a helpful answer, sign off and let the section go 'as is' to archive. The sections are not supposed to be fora for elaborated discussions or raising new issues (though that happens). I understand that your concern is with section length and not a wish to start a new topic inside a section. To get to grips with your difficulty editing with iPhone I think we need to know whether the main delay you experience is in downloading text (connection speed), manually editing the text in the phone or uploading a new post. While I don't think adding random dummy subheadings with their edit buttons is a viable workaround, I do think this is an issue worth raising at Talk:Ref. Desk and I may add my thoughts there if someone raises it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

thanks for deleting that bit from the 'driving backwards' question. it was a bit pissy of me. --Ludwigs2 18:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#9 volt battery

Your response was brilliant. :-D AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KJAV

Hey. What did you mean when you said, "KJV Bible, (a book that IMHO is not an entirely good one)"? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KJV = Authorized King James Version. IMHO = In My Humble Opinion. Cheers. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! No...I meant what did you mean when you said it's not a good book? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look into www.evilbible.com. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference-Desk woes

Hi Cuddlyable3,

Things seems to be getting very heated over on the Reference Desk. I wanted to let you know, if you weren't already aware, that there is a project WP:COPYEDITORS that is all about improving grammar and style in articles with that sort of problem. If that is where your interest lies, you may enjoy that project and be contributing to Wikipedia in a very constructive way that nobody can deny you. A lot of people on the RefDesk seem hell-bent against you, so it might be a perfect time to step away for a bit to let things cool down. You may get more respect there after you improve some articles on the rest of Wikipedia. Trust me, I've run into PLENTY of articles with bad grammar that are waiting for passionate copy-editors like you.

Just a suggestion...no need to comply if you don't want to. I just feel it's sad there's talk about banning a user from all of Wikipedia when their talent could well be used elsewhere in the project. Best regards--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 04:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Apre. I appreciate the thought and the suggestion. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 06:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. And that troll yesterday sent me off on a Discordian trip, where I found this under "Counteracting the curse":

The human race will begin solving it's [sic] problems on the day that it ceases taking itself so seriously.
— Malaclypse the Younger, Principia Discordia, page 00074

Which I thought I'd pass along just to annoy you. Warm regards,

Wikiscient (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. May the Invisible pink unicorn shower 10³ imperceptible pink blessings upon you. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hawking

I cannot access that for some reason, sorry. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 10:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could e-mail it. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Received it. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I discussion about grammar nit-picking

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Cuddlyable3, it is not appropriate to continue to harass other volunteers over minor typographical and grammatical errors on discussion pages. You've now ignored clear requests from APL to stop bothering him; I have asked for you to be blocked. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Grammer nit-picking on discussion pages. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above I would draw your attention to WP:TPOC, where it says, "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting." Therefore, complaining about said errors is in further violation of this behavioural guideline. You are required to stop bringing these matters up, and especially where you have been previously asked to desist. To avoid any doubt, this is an official warning and should you continue to violate WP's guidelines you will be blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that you continue to wikilawyer about the guideline, without acknowledging that your behaviour is correctly perceived as harassment (see User talk:APL) or any indication that you will change what you are doing, I have now blocked you for one week. Asking someone want they intended when a sentence or construction can be realistically read and understood in different ways (or not at all) is acceptable under the guideline: asking what people meant when the choice is between a perfectly logical statement and nonsense, is disruptive, and you have been asked repearedly to stop this and related behaviour. Fram (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Template:Z8

Drop me an e-mail if you want me to tell anyone here something. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]