User talk:168...

Welcome to userland 168! --mav 19:58 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

Welcome! I miss a lot of simple edits too, e.g. closing parens, closing brackets etc. There's a 'show preview' button below which you can use, but still when using it I manage to miss a lot. That says something about me, I'm sure. Koyaanis Qatsi

Thanks very much, mav & KQ! --User:168...

---

Yes, welcome. Delighted to see someone looking at Editor. Everybody who has a user page has a user talk page too. I'm sure you'll find mine next time. Maybe I'll just tease you out a bit about the joke. Jokes that are explained are never funny. Ortolan88

---

Cut and pasted from User:168...:

He. Good on you. Most of what I write is crap (please don't all nod), but I look on it that if there's a small mistake (hopefully nothing too stupid) at least it's going to stimulate someone to correct it and potentially add more useful info, so it's not too bad. Welcome Mintguy BTW to automically sign your name type three tilde(~) type four to put your name and the time/date like so Mintguy 19:31 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks! Meanwhile you've made me realize that anybody can come to this page, pretend to be me, and write whatever. As in "Hi, I'm 168..., how'd you like to read my views about Jews, homosexuals, feminists and librarians..." Yikes! 168...

You are right, of course, but for what it is worth it has never happened. And of course, you can always delete -- in general people here look down upon deleting what other people write on the talk pages of articles, but virtually everyone understands that a user has control over their own page (and if there is any serious vandalism to your page, and misprepresentation over whose page it is, a sysop of Jimbo can sort it out pretty easily). Of course, given the nature of the wiki project, probably the best attitude is a certain detachment from the text; "168" is as you point out just a number; it can be as little or as much of you as you want, Slrubenstein

Good point about the anonymity of being just a number. O.K.. So here's what I really think: Librarians are HOT!!!!168...

Damn! You wouldn't think the paws on beagle would be slender enough to allow him to touch type. Leave that dog for a second and just see what happens! Nevermind that last post. I'll remember to log out next time I leave my computer. 168...

---

Hi 168, thanks for your contribution to local anesthetic. I´ve been writing a lot on that article as well as local anesthesia and I think your expertise would be very helpful in refining these. If you can spare the time, please don´t hesitate to take another look. And, of course, welcome. Kosebamse 22:36 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)

Hi 168, thanks for your comments on my talk page. I've taken the liberty to move them to the local anesthetic talk page. Being rather new to wikipedia, I'm not too sure about the do's and don't's but I believe that matter belongs there. Thanks, Kosebamse

---

Concerning "...but I think the change throws away a chance to speak (albeit indirectly) about evolution,..." -- Evolution is exactly why I made that change :-) Evolution is supposed to be blind and random, and selection is supposed to be mindless and statistical. It confuses things when people who believe in evolution talk as if they really (perhaps without realizing it???) believed in intelligent design. And neither evolutionary nor intelligent-design nor Lamarkian phraseology is NPOV. All we really know is the end result, not how it got there. And the isolated cell of course knows nothing. But anyway, you usually don't leave much editing for me to do - but I am more attracted to science topics than many others, and thus more likely to edit. Regards, -- Marj 18:36 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)

(later) Actually, it was the article I edited just before that one that was more clearly anthromorphic. I forget what that article was, and the Wikip servers are too slow right now to go look for it. But in general (and whether or not evolution is involved), I tend to edit science so that the literal meaning is the obvious meaning. Especially since WikiP's readership is international, the language use should be simple. (And I think I would probably say something like "weight is distributed evenly between the fore and rear legs" and leave out "divide" and "responsibility" altogether.) Passive tense is actually useful in moderation :-) -- Marj

---

You can change your username if you want to. You just ask Brion Vibber: he's got a script he can run on the database to change all instances of one name to the other. There's no need to be stuck with a name you don't like. Plus some editors don't like users who are named after IP addresses -- it gives us vandalism flashbacks :) -- Tim Starling 04:23 29 May 2003 (UTC)

---

Dear 168...

Be proud of your name! 168 is not just any number! It's the order of PSL(2,7), also called Klein's group. That's the second smallest nonabelian simple group, and it's very important and has a long history in physics and mathematics. 168 is great! Revolver

---

Well, I tend to follow ACS (Amer. Chem. Soc.) style for chemistry articles. Seems appropriate for the subject, and it's what I'm enough used to that I don't have to look too much up. -- Marj 05:19 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

oops, wrong book - it was Chicago. Whatever. Do whatever you prefer. Marj.

---

re: scientific method -- I am sorry if you took offence at anything I wrote, because that was not my intention. But to be frank, I think you are taking things too personally. Although I may be refering -- positively or negatively -- to something you wrote, I am not specifically writing to you (except of course when I write on your personal talk page). You and I may simply disagree as to the function of the talk pages, but I see them as geneal and informal opportuities to discuss issues that are relevant to the article. You made some good points, and I responded in my own language, while trying to be clear about my own position. If in the process I misrepresent you, I am sorry, although in most cases I think this is a trivial matter for two reasons: your own position is represented clearly in your own words above, and readers can judge for themselves, and if you feel I have misrepresented you you can easily (as I think you have) correct me. Be that as it may, whatever I have written, my main intention has been to represent my own point of view. Moreover, my aim in representing my own point of view is to do so with notion that I am writing to all wikipedians. I am not writing solely, and in the recent case not even primarily or directly, to you (I was writing first and foremost for eclecticology, and secondarily for everyone else). I also know many people join a "conversation" late, and may not take the time to read everything that comes before -- which is why I think it is important to reiterate points that are important to me, even if someone has already made them. In other words, although I will try to follow your second peice of advice (to try to better grasp your intentions before responding), I must make clear that how I write is not always (and in this particular case) not responding to your intentions (perfectly or poorly grasped) Also, I really thought it was evident from what I wrote -- and how I wrote it -- that I thought the preceeding comments (i.e. yours) were exceptionally intelligent. I am not sure what else to say. I hope this is a simple misunderstanding. Or it is possible that our personalities (and communication styles) are simply incompatible. That said, wikipedia should not be about personalities and I hope that you and I can both continue to contribute constructively to various pages, as in my opinion we have in the past week or two. Slrubenstein

I reailize Iam about to run the risk of seeming to question your intelligence -- risky, because I know you know this is not my intention, and I think you understand me, but a risk I am willing to take because however much I trust my ownintentions and our intelligence, I do not trust this medium and believe that generally electronic communication requires people to bend over backwards to be clear -- I just want to make some hopefully final comments on your last remarks,

Do you see how I may not have been in need of those specific points of clarification, having just expressed very similar points myself? (i.e. I credited you with paying effusive respect to my intelligence in a certain way, and I proposed psychology [just as you proposed "personality"] as an explanation)

Yes I do see that, so I am glad you are willing to indulge my on need to continually clarify myself, which, besides satisfying some of my own insecurities, may b useful to other readers of the talk page besides yourself.

This was hardly any irritation to me (in fact, I appreciated the spirit of your reply mostly), but I wanted to show you that whatever the communication issue is, it does not disappear when you address me personally.

And I mostly appreciate the spirit of your notes on my talk page -- and I fully appreciate your willingness to raise these issues with me in a frank and courteous manner. I will continue to do my best to reciprocate. And perhaps we can agree -- or rather, mutually acknowledge -- that whether we or not we are addressing one another personally, we may continue on occasion to irritate each other, and that while such irritation may say something about our psychologies or pesonalities, we can both assume that nothing it wasn't intended or meant to be taken personally. I think we are now on the same page, and I hope I am not being tedious now. If all I am doing is repeating in somewhat different form what you have already expressed, it is only because having spent so much time working on this issue, I want to be really sure. It isn't that I think you doubt my intelligence perhaps, given that I sometimes misunderstand others or oversimplify, my doubts are mainly about myself! Slrubenstein