User talk:Eleuther
This is my talk page. You may add a section here, if you wish to start a discussion with me about something, but if you're responding to something I said in some other discussion, please respond there, not here.
Henry Adams
[edit]I've just finished reading his History of the years 1800–1817, yes, all 2700 pages of it, and I am amazed. The book's WP article says it's noted for its literary merit, esp. the first 6 chapters, but that opinion just seems to indicate that a lot of people haven't read much past the beginning. The real literary merit comes from the overall structure—the long analytic narrative leading up to the crisis in 1812, and then the dramatic crescendo to the climax in Book 8. Book 9 can then be regarded as a book-end to the famous first 6 chapters of book 1. At least that's the way I see it. Comments are welcome. Eleuther (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Mandelbrot set: e^(-|z|)-smoothing
[edit]Hello Eleuther,
I stumbled upon the following Mandelbrot animation:
https://rtricks.blogspot.com/2007/04/mandelbrot-set-with-r-animation.html
Back then, in a discussion about the Mandelbrot set, you said that you had never seen anything like it before. I didn't know it either, but by chance I found out that there is a name for this coloring. The addition of the individual images is called e^(-|z|)-smoothing.
If you are still interested, you can find the description here:
http://math.unipa.it/~grim/Jbarrallo.PDF
If you know the Julia programming language, you can have a look at this smoothing right away:
Greetings --Majow (talk) 08:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
September 2021
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Hi, Eleuther. I haven't studied the disagreement between you and AndyTheGrump, and don't have any opinion about it, but did you notice this edit summary? It's a request for you to "go away", i. e. to stop posting. You're supposed to comply with those kinds of requests. I just noticed that you were recently blocked for harassing him (I presume for this edit?), so you should be all the more careful. Please don't post on his page again. Bishonen | tålk 19:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC).
- Hi, Bishonen, thanks for your attention. The "go away" summary only appeared on his most recent reversion of my remarks, and I will of course comply. I would be interested in your opinion about the intemperate language this editor has generally been directing at me, as summarized in the posts I made on his talk page, which he deleted. Can you comment on this? Eleuther (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'd really rather not, as I don't know what might have called that language forth. Just as I won't comment on your own edit summary here. I don't, in either case, know where the intemperate speech came from, and I don't want to spend my Wikipedia time researching it. My interest is solely in asking you to desist from posting on Andy's page, after I noticed this. Thanks for undertaking to stop. No matter what's been going down, that has to be a good thing. Bishonen | tålk 12:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC).
- Hi, thanks, Bishonen. I thought the nature of the language---the exaggerated invective---might be of interest in its own right, by Wikipedia standards, without requiring you to do historical research. But that was just my thought. Thanks for your attention, no need to reply. Eleuther (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'd really rather not, as I don't know what might have called that language forth. Just as I won't comment on your own edit summary here. I don't, in either case, know where the intemperate speech came from, and I don't want to spend my Wikipedia time researching it. My interest is solely in asking you to desist from posting on Andy's page, after I noticed this. Thanks for undertaking to stop. No matter what's been going down, that has to be a good thing. Bishonen | tålk 12:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC).
Is civil discussion possible?
[edit]Hi, Grump. I'm barred from posting on your talk page (see above), but I would still like to have a civil discussion with you about our differences, so I'm starting it here, on my own talk page. You are under no obligation to respond, of course, and if you respond with invective, I won't pursue the matter, considering it closed.
You appeal to your Anthropology degree for authority, and I respect that. I come at the issue from a somewhat wider perspective, however—a long life of browsing books not just about anthropology, but also about history, and archaeology, and science, and mathematical logic (my main focus), etc. From this perspective, it seems to me that the ideas of race and racism that are current in the US today are not really normative for all time and space. Rather, they are a product of the time. It seemed to me that the article on racism didn't reflect this relativity very well, so I tried to change it, leading to the current brouhaha. Was this really such a bad thing to do? Eleuther (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, Grump. Do you really have nothing to say, i.e., have you bowed to the superiority of my reasoning? If so, I will resume my project of making the article more neutral. Thanks. Eleuther (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Update. A week later, Grump has not responded here. And when I made a conciliatory post on his talk page, he immediately reverted it. The degree of hostility he is showing here seems to be extreme by Wikipedia standards. But what can you do? Eleuther (talk)
The Fundamental Theorem of Wikipedia
[edit]If you don't want do be swarmed by assholes, don't edit.
Beweis. Klar.
The article Wilhelm Müller (physicist) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
There doesn't seem to be any evidence of notability here. A Google Scholar search doesn't turn up many citations, and a general Google search just finds mirrors back here.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PianoDan (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
"Brunswick three" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
The redirect Brunswick three has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 12 § Brunswick three until a consensus is reached. Pichpich (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
[edit]- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,