Cyan

:''This article is about the color. For other uses see Cyan (disambiguation)'' Cyan is a pure spectral color, but the same hue can also be generated by mixing equal amounts of green and blue light. As such, cyan is the complementary color of red: cyan pigments absorb red light. Cyan is sometimes called blue-green or Turquoise (color) and often goes undistinguished from light blue. Cyan is one of the common inks used in four-color printing printing, along with magenta, yellow, and black; this set of colors is referred to as CMYK. Note that while both of these colors are called ''cyan'' they are actually substantially different from one another. Cyan printing ink is much less vivid, indeed CMYK printing technology cannot accurately reproduce pure cyan (100% blue + 100% green) on paper.
== See also == *List of colors colors vi:Xanh lơ

Cyan

The ''see also'' list is precisely that: also. It doesn't properly include things that are already linked in the preceding paragraphs. I'm taking them back out. user:Vicki Rosenzweig There was an edit conflict that confused me, but I have already taken them back out. --user:Ellmist Misplaced conversation moved to User talk:Cyan/Atlas Shrugged Redirects. -- User:Cyan 01:39, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC) == are you back? :) == or was that edit the other day just a little teaser? PLEASE come back! :) User:Kingturtle 04:44, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC) == Cyan Spectral Number == If cyan is a pure spectral color, what is its number in order from red to violet?? The order is: # Red # Orange # Yellow # Green # Blue # Indigo # Violet Cyan is not here. Is cyan sort of #4.5?? Can anyone make a complete list of pure spectral colors?? User:66.245.123.52 18:41, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) :There are infinitely many pure spectral colours, so it doesn't make much sense to number them. Cyan is between green and blue. --User:Zundark 22:11, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::Well, why don't people include cyan in the sequence?? User:66.245.82.212 22:15, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) :::Sometimes they do. The list you give above is the traditional one, which I think originated with Isaac Newton. But it's not definitive. Omitting cyan is not really wrong, as long as you consider all shades of spectral cyan to be shades of green or blue. Similarly, you can omit indigo. --User:Zundark 22:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::::Can you name some alternates?? User:66.245.105.9 23:18, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) :::::Alternates to what? If you mean alternates to the traditional list of spectral colours, I already gave three: add cyan and/or remove indigo. --User:Zundark 07:16, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::::::Any besides the 3 you already gave?? User:66.245.73.148 02:04, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC) :::::::There'd be infinitely many. Just chop the spectrum up any which way then attach names to the sections you get; e.g. red, reddish orange, orange, yellowish orange, yellow ... indigo, reddish indigo, bluish violet, violet, reddish violet (though you might want some more creative names). :::::::The question is "How many ways can chop it up and end up with sections that fit with the way we ordinarily think about and talk about colours?" Slice it up into 84 sections, for example, and you'll be hard-pressed to tell the difference between the hue of one section and the next. Slice it in three, on the other hand and you'll end up with sections that vary very noticibly in hue. :::::::So, anyway, what's the spectral number of cyan? Yeah, sort of 4.5 if you're using that numbering system. Does it make sense to number them? Perhaps, as long as you keep in mind that the numbering is arbitary. :::::::Just because something is infinitely divisible doesn't mean you can't attach numbers to it. However, perhaps the best numbering system would be wavelength in nanometres (or frequency in petaHertz). - User:Jimp 24May05 == Cyan in a user-friendly world == Someone wrote at Template talk:Colors that cyan is not-so-well-known by its name outside the world of computers. What do people know it as?? My answer is probably green-blue or blue-green. User:66.32.242.23 22:02, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) == Infobox == I'm alarmed by this infobox: I think it may oversimplify to a dangerous degree. For instance, RGB 0,100%,100% and CMYK 100%,0,0,0 are by no means the same color. In addition, why is a range of 0 to 255 chosen, when color science will generally use 0 to 1; percentages might be safer... There are already far too many people who asssume that 0 to 255 is the natural and only way to represent color values, who get confused when encountering other systems... In my opinion. Does the infobox have a talk page? User:Notinasnaid 13:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Cyan problem == The most recent edit of the article (as of this post on its talk page) says that RGB cyan and CMYK cyan are not the same. Can anyone show the difference in detail?? User:Georgia guy 21:55, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Well, I could try to explain the difference, but nobody can really show it, because you can only see CMYK on a printed page. The whole area of color and web pages is very difficult. There are good arguments against trying to show any color, because it may look utterly different between different screens. Color management is a nightmare lurking just behind any discussion of color and computers. I think I'd vote against any graphic which claimed to "show" CMYK versus RGB cyan. The best thing might be for you to put some cyan on your screen, and print it, then compare. User:Notinasnaid 08:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cyan

Please leave comments on my User_talk:Cyan, rather than this page. I have preserved the content of an article from the 1911 Encyclopedia on /Aerotherapeutics. I have /kidnapped some articles created by a hard-banned user. ==Who am I? Can I conceal myself forevermore?== I'm a Ph.D. student at McGill University, with an extra-curricular interest in Bayesian probability. My ambition with respect to Wikipedia is to update the Principle of maximum entropy, Principle of indifference, and Principle of transformation groups pages with material based on my understanding of these subjects, mostly gleaned from [http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/etj.html E.T. Jaynes]'s [http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/node1.html articles] and [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521592712/qid=1048804694/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-3370975-3931148?v=glance&s=books book]. I may also eventually make contributions to entries on the general subject of Proteomics, that being my field of research. But that would be less fun, since Wikipedia is one of the things I do to ''avoid'' thinking about my research. ==Vanity, vanity, all is vanity== ===Major contributions=== Principle of maximum entropy Base pair Principle of indifference Borel's paradox ===Minor contributions=== Eclectic probability Quotient rule Harmonic series (mathematics) George Polya Reasonable person Ion source Electron ionization Omer Schlock Mercenary Pierre-Simon Laplace ===Extremely minor contributions (TeXification and the like)=== Derivation of the partition function Lagrange multipliers Hempel's paradox Adoption Barney & Friends This Might Be A Wiki Carolus Linnaeus Green Light Wiki Inviscid Here is my /To-do list. Comments appreciated. ==And these few precepts in thy memory look thou character== ===A most extraordinary limit theorem===

\lim_{\omega \to \infty} 3 = 8

===Insults=== When comments are posted, the raw text appears without vocal inflections or body language; the lack of these nonverbal cues tends to make the raw text appear to be more terse or rude than the sender actually intended. This is stating the obvious, but people seem to forget it in the heat of the moment, causing a vicious cycle. I think it is rather sad that one doesn't have to look far to find one user insulting another. (I have been guilty of this myself -- sometimes I just can't hold back.) The wikipedia policy link on this topic is wikipedia:staying cool when the editing gets hot. ===Shopworn tactics=== I have observed that during conflicts it is quite common for one party, or more often both, to wrap themselves in the "Wikipedia flag", as if a personal attack on one user were somehow an attack on the entire community. A related maneuver is to declare that the future of Wikipedia is at stake. These "escalation tactics" are rather tired ploys. Insulting another user is... poor, but it isn't an general attack; only wholesale vandalism qualifies. And the project's future, in the broadest sense, isn't decided during the slinging of insults; it's decided on the policy pages. ===What a lousy webpage!=== Judging by what I've read on [http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9710a.html this page], the only way my user page could be worse is if I used some marketing. So let this be a lesson to you all: don't be a wiktionary:smart ass like me. ===Serendipity=== I was fixing a broken link on the heuristic page when I noted a link to a [http://home.nethere.net/bkovitz/ wiki on the subject]. That wiki, it turns out, is one of a set of wikis hosted by a fellow named [http://home.nethere.net/bkovitz/ Ben Kovitz]. I noted that his wikis weren't listing in the Wiki article, so I made them an entry, under Green Light Wiki. A little later on, I was reading a Talk page, and I noted the common misspelling "Wikipeida". I thought that it might be a good idea to create a redirect page for this typo, so I did a search to see if it had already been created. It hadn't been, but the search did pull up History of Wikipeida. When I clicked on it, who should I find but this same fellow, Ben Kovitz! Neat! Of course, that's nothing compared to all the coincidences that ''didn't'' happen... ===I can't believe I ate the whole thing!=== User:Cyan/Atlas Shrugged Redirects deleted by yours truly. It took an hour and a half. Now I'm a Wiki-Hero -- women want me, and men want to be me. ===The Chain=== And if you don't love me now
You would never love me again
I can still hear you saying
You would never break the /chain - Fleetwood Mac ===Sock Puppets=== User:Puce, User:Fuchsia, User:Magenta, and User:Chartreuse are sock puppet accounts I created to play a joke on the page User:Liberal/deny freedom of speech. ===A word to the wise=== �Common language - or, at least, the English language - has an almost universal tendency to disguise epistemology statements by putting them in a grammatical form which suggests to the unwary an ontology statement.� - Edwin Thompson Jaynes ===The sign===
I saw the sign and it opened up my eyes
I saw the sign
Life is demanding without understanding
I saw the sign and it opened up my eyes
I saw the /sign - Ace of Base

Cyan

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion | Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress | Wikipedia:Favorite pages of banned users | Wikipedia:Conflicts between users | Wikipedia:Village pump | Wikipedia:Manual of Style | Wikipedia:Guide to Layout | Wikipedia:Special characters | Wikipedia:TeX markup | Special:Newpages | Wikipedia:Boilerplate text | Special:Upload | Wikipedia:utilities | Wikipedia:Database queries | Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub | Wikipedia:Pages needing attention | Wikipedia:Duplicate articles | Wikipedia:List of controversial issues | Special:Shortpages | Wikipedia:Shortpages | Wikipedia:Most wanted stubs | Wikipedia:Protected page | [news://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english WikiEn-L] | [news://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc Wiki-L] |[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=12.144.5.2 tidy up punctuation] | /archive ==Time Cube featured article candidate== Place a Support vote for Time Cube at the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Time Cube! ==DNA:Talk== [Peak:] Regarding DNA:Talk: the process that you defined was proceeding as well as might be expected, and I believe that the latest product of that process, namely T6.2, is also quite reasonable. Certainly it takes into account everyone's stated objections in a reasonable way. I was thus taken aback to see that you have proposed a new process. This seems not only to have taken us all the way back to Square 1, but to have set things up to make it likely there will be a perpetual cycle of changes. If it is necessary to revise the process, then I would propose that it be based on "all but one" agreement. (In this case, that happens to be the same as majority agreement, but "all but one" agreement is the principle that I think should apply.) Since you are evidently well-versed in matters of Protection, I would like to ask your advice regarding another candidate for Protection. There is an anonymous user who has persisted in deleting material from the Race page that does not agree with his rather narrow POV. He has also shown himself quite adept at hurling insults at two of the contributors who clearly do not deserve it. The irony here is that I actually agree with the anon user that the article is in need of significant improvement; however, it is listed in Wikipedia:Brilliant_prose and deserves protection from anon's changes so far. Anyway, I have two questions: What is the appropriate way to get the page protected? Would you recommend a ban or protection? Thanks. User:Peak 06:44, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC) [Peak:] Re: Race: I have requested reversion/protection as you suggested, and would invite you to help. Please also see Talk:DNA on some ideas regarding a new procedure that will terminate within a fixed number of steps. Thanks. User:Peak 16:11, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC) : [Peak:] You have already proposed two procedures, so it would, I think, be best if you could propose another one - hopefully one that is guaranteed to terminate reasonably quickly. If you are shy about nominating yourself as Judge, then I hereby do so. Alternatively, the decision about who is to be judge could be part of the new, new procedure. : I would also like to point out that if there is just one individual who refuses to accept the legitimacy of the new, new process, then that person can be excluded from the process, and we (as a community of N-1 persons) can agree to use reversion to enforce the outcome of the decision procedure. It's not ideal, but it's better than having processes that allow (and even encourage) the worst kind of "trolling" behavior. That is, if one allows everyone to have veto power over everything, then (since power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely) someone is eventually going to abuse it. That was really the point of my comments about the importance of "all-but-one" procedures. User:Peak 17:01, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC) ==Lebesgue-measurable function== :''Please check my recent edit to Lebesgue-measurable function for correctness. Thanks, User:Cyan 23:38, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)'' Looks good -- thanks. It never hurts to remember to proof-read. User:Michael Hardy 23:42, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC) ===Nucleic Acid=== What's the favor for, though? I don't think either you or I could possibly learn anything from it. Possibly Lir could learn something from it, and I guess if we really can't ban him, it would be nice if we could at least train him to behave better. One good experience with him under the watchful eyes of authority, though, is not going to change ''my'' attitude toward him. If Lir were to engage in a civil and reasonable dialogue with me as an experiment in good faith that he could build on and learn from, then I suppose the result, no matter if I think the same of him afterwards, could be a real diminution of the grief he inflicts on people who refuse to stop relying on his good faith. I could do this for the sake of others. But I expect he'd just view this supervised dialogue as an opportunity to show he can be reasonable and then go back to being unreasonable whenever it suits him. Why should I assist him in what would be a PR stunt? If he wants to show how reasonable he can be, there are plenty of other users with whom he can show this who are more eager than me to work with him. Meanwhile, I will work to help others by continuing to campaign to ban him. Not that I think he'll be banned in the current political climate. But if only we could instill a little fear of God in him perhaps he might decide to play more nicely. He must know that the political climate could always take a turn, and so he might like to get ready for it by establishing a good track record. You practice with him though. I don't feel like it.User:168... 05:06, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) ---- Re: Marking page It's alright. The wall of shame is there so I (and others if they care) can keep track of troublemakers. A lot of the topics I edit and watch are controversial so it's good to know who the trolls and biased losers are :) - User:Lord Kenneth 05:06, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC) ---- ==.'. ur wikicookies! .'.== Here are your Wikipedia:WikiMoney/WikiCookies: Congrats and ''Peace Profound'', User:Optim 13:08, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) ---- Cyan invited me here from somewhere else. Actually, Cyan proposed an email exchange and I inquired if there was a reason to speak in private. I am testing the opinion that identity has little place in wiki publishing. At most it is a convenience for identifying voice and stance in written dialouge, but it tends to get in the way of organizing subjects in an opus. Superimposed on an educational document is a dynamic experiment in mob democracy. Cultural evolutionary trends within internet culture make such an expression likely, but in large part, the purpose of the project seems to be to maintain the hope that humanity can keep an open channel within itself as much as it is to actually construct the educatonal opus. Mostly I see people acting out the usual deep seated patterned reactions that drive an over-amped society. At best this thing might serve as a proving grounds for development of lingual conflict management approaches. As far as I see, the project is a mirror of the insulting, abusive, demeaning mannerisms our culture has developed for law enforcement. The project seems to mirror the badly broken authority relatioships of a culture where domestic violence is rampant, reeling from untold millennia of recurrent intergroup and interpersonal violence and the multigenerational trauma that inevitably follows. A constant atmosphere of edginess, of identifying and disparaging wrong-doers betrays an exited, fearful group whose H/P/adrenal axis is scarred by unexpected and repeated threatening stimuli. The overstimulated HPA is often associated with a concurrent stimulation of endorphin/dopamene-driven behaviors, a product of upregulated neuron populations resulting from painful stimuli and the post traumatic catharsis it produces, along with behavioral/cognitive habits related to cyclic seeking driven by the neurochemical products of the overcharged HPA - habits that flush bursts of corticotropins, others related to avoidance strategies and behavior driven by the sheer momentum of the chemical processes involved. In the social arena, the dopamenergic-associated pain-avoidant strategies express as a range of behaviors, ranging from "make nice" or contrived politeness; the gamut of pleasure-seeking behaviors; sometimes pathological pleasure seeking in social dominance, submission, or rejection; creative activity in general; and the general overcharged processing of information of all sorts. It makes a fine engine for something that once cost millions of dollars in salaries for scholars to produce; the non-membership basis seems useful to avoid elitism; and it promotes the liberation of knowledge otherwise sequestered by power groups. But it is only what it is and it is mostly people praying to their own creation for life itself, fearful of loosing a place that has not yet yeilded the overdriven measure of satisfaction they expected. Besides contributing whatever I might to the document, as quietly as possible as far as associating any serious contribution I offer with any present identity, all the while teaching anyone I can the tools for resisting and retraining abusive authority. If anything, I hope that people who troll-hunt and advocate for bans as opposed to advocating affirmative processes, if reputation is what they consider a perc of working here, I hope they get paid far less than they expect. I hope alliances and friendships built around identifying "problem" identities tend to dissipate. I hope the community will produce a number of complaints of abusive power similar to the proportion in which banning and agressive behavior by people who associate an identity with status is present in the process. Forget the childhood stuff that can leave people edgy; if you have ever been kidnapped at gunpoint you might consider distancing anyone and everyone from the mere concept of kidnapping to be as important as you would adding a version of the word to the game that people play while trying to write this opus. Likewise, categorizing people ... responding to person at all in a dialogue otherwise about subject and process ... insulting and outcasting ... these all mirror pathological social behaviors which, to one who has seen them on the loose, in force, have little appeal in collegial social processes. In resisting and re-training abusive authority, escape-and-evasion, demonstration of exagerated in-kind but sham behavior, genuine appreciation of the role of appropriate authority, and the development of specific plans for better dealing with the problems that confront authority all can have their place. In this context, resoect for legitimacy of authority is best defined as respect for authorship. In editing, respect for authorship is best expressed as a genuine effort to answer for oneself the question, "what is this author trying to say." In a project that invites authors to correct each other's incoherence about every subject in the universe, an answer to such a question might not cohere nearly as quickly as one might expect. Personal comfort, or even the ability to function, can require adjusting the expectation to express instead as a preference or hope. You may delete this anytime, of course. I might be back to "discuss this" or at least to see where it goes. Expect nothing from me I don't declare, and check that if you will. - User:antiterrorist Jan. 24, 2004 (A sock-puppet whose password I hope to soon blindly replace with random keystrokes so it will never be accessible to me again. Of course, that could wear out the list of "cool" handles for wikipedia, and accelerate the inevitable Yahooization564 of handles, and so be it.) :I'm sorry you feel that way. All I can say is that my own opinion, about both society in general and Wikipedia in particular, is rather different from yours. If you have any specific concerns, I remain happy to discuss them here. -- User:Cyan 16:25, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC) Specifically, my concern is that processes here, though overtly directed toward writing an encyclopedia and inexorably moving in that direction, are symptomatic of widespread inflamations of portions of the central nervous system affecting drive, cognition and behavior. I suspect (based in part on your academic performance, and in part on your personal mannerisms) your opinion and world view is guided by a somewhat stable life experience, psychologically at least, that leaves you no reason to explore mass psychopathology. For a person whose life experiences, including personal, professional, childhood and adult, have exposed them to pathological authority, and who has developed a reasonable description of the neurobiological etiology involved, interesting or useful discussion involves assessing and developing therapuetic approaches to the psychopathology, moreso than navigating the murky circumstances created by hominoids suffering limbic inflamations. -AT :"...processes here ... are symptomatic of widespread inflamations of portions of the central nervous system affecting drive, cognition and behavior." Wikipedia does not have a CNS ''per se'', so I presume you are talking about one or more humans. Do you have somebody or a group of somebodies in mind? :From what you write, it seems you are interested in the "mass psychopathology" of... sysops? Wikipedia power structure? ... something, anyway. Perhaps such an investigation would be interesting, provided the investigator keeps track of his confirmation bias. -- User:Cyan 18:56, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC) "be polite, not crass, or we'll block your ass" - :) User:Secretlondon 22:11, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC) ---- The edit to The Wall seems POV interpretation at best, and somewhat Michaelesque at worst. Just my view of it. User:PakaranUser talk:Pakaran 04:41, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC) :It seems ok. If similiar edits are made by that anon to music-related articles, I'm going to start thinking "michael" though. User:PakaranUser talk:Pakaran 04:45, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC) I'm not sure I understood your comment on my talk page, but I take it you were agreeing with Mav and not being ironic in that regard. I do take your procedural point and agree with it as a rule of thumb, but in this case I think it could be valuable that Jimbo will be exposed to more of the ongoing evidence that the rules and procedures are flawed. It would be a problem that Lir will seemingly have a leg to stand on when he complains to Jimbo if it were ambiguous which of us, being unreasonable and antisocial. Perhaps I'm fooling myself, but when one looks at the histories, I don't think it's ambiguous at all. If Jimbo acts in a reactionary and doctrinaire way, it will go badly for me and I will be sad about that, but I don't really mind martyring myself for this cause.User:168... 18:44, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC) Your post from Requests for Admin: **I was wondering when this would show up. Functionally, 168's protection changed nothing, as I was about to do so anyway. I have some simple questions for 168 that will determine my view of this matter. 168, if you were given the chance to change your actions with respect to protection of DNA, would you? If so, how? -- User:Cyan 03:26, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) At the moment I see no reason to regret my action or anything truly wrong with it. I suppose you might be able to persuade me otherwise, but you'd have to try.User:168... 04:42, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) :You have invited me to attempt to convince you that protecting DNA was not the best possible action for the circumstances in which you found yourself. Very well, I will give it the old college try. :First, I must state your position as I understand it. You feel that Lir is a vandal, making harmful changes and then being deliberately difficult on the talk page. You therefore feel justified in treating him as a vandal, reverting his edits and protecting the page. This is your position as I understand it. :The argument that I muster against such a position is simply that the best action for the sake of your reputation must take into account Lir's standing in the community. Few people enjoy dealing with Lir during conflicts, as he is... easily offended, shall we say, and apt to be retributive. (You may have noticed his edit summary of 02:45, 5 Jan 2004 on the DNA article, which is typical of the emotions-first approach Lir takes to editing here.) But for all that, there is not a consensus that he may be treated as a vandal. Certainly some editors feel that way, but others do not. In short, there is a significant, although perhaps not overwhelming, segment of Wikipedians here who accept Lir as an editor. :It's generally considered important that sysops not to use the special privileges they have in conflicts, particularly not conflicts with non-sysops. The principle is that sysop privileges are intended to serve the purposes of the community at large, not the individual sysops. Thus, when I protected DNA, I did it on behalf of the community, and likewise when Snoyes unprotected it. I can assert these things without fear of contradiction because neither Snoyes nor I were deeply involved in the editing of the page, nor had either of us expressed strong views about the text during discussions on the talk page. Your protection, on the other hand, is not such a clear-cut case. You have clearly stated a view on what should be written in the article, and the protection you undertook to perform favoured your preferred version. The thesis that Lir is a vandal could be a justification, but it is not universally accepted, and this is the source of the damage to your reputation. :This damage is not a huge deal: enough people find Lir to be a pest that your actions may be viewed as justified by a significant portion of the community. You will almost certainly ''not'' lose your admin privileges over it. Nevertheless, the action was not above reproach; you've generated a certain amount of distrust, and similar actions in the future are now more likely to cause people to distrust you. :Now, having made that argument, I must suggest a course of action that would have been preferable, in the sense that no shadow of a doubt about the propriety of the action could have accrued to you. This course of action is simply to treat yourself as a non-sysop for the purpose of this conflict. Non-sysops in conflict must request protection from a disinterested sysop, and this is the course of action available to you which was above reproach. :(I do not require a counter-argument; if you haven't been convinced by the above, then it is likely we shall not agree about the propriety of your action after any amount of back-and-forth, and I can live with that.) -- User:Cyan 05:33, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) I have searched extensively for community support for Lir and met with nothing but silence. Perhaps I didn't search in the right way or in the right places, but I feel very strongly that I have done due diligence in this regard. While I'm inclined to trust your take on the community, because I see you get around, nevertheless I feel it is reasonable to take a position of skepticism regarding your claim that Lir has people who want him here who are themselves people who are wanted here. I am very much more skeptical as to what my reputation might be at this moment and how my protection of DNA might have changed it. That said, you might well rid me of my areas of skepticism if you showed me where to look for the evidence. Regarding the distinction between you protecting DNA and me protecting DNA, I certainly see it, and I think you draw the line in a reasonable place. The rule however seems to me to draw the line somewhere else--seemingly it says that if you have had any connection with the article ever, you are not allowed to protect it. That struck me as absurd and a principle that manifestly was not conformed to, most obviously because I knew you had made at least one edit to the DNA page and so were bound to have a preestablished preference for the status quo version. So I inferred that precedent existed for sys-ops using their judgement as to what is allowed when. I also inferred that there is precedent for direct democracy and for creating custom here by just doing things that haven't been done before. I am also not aware of a clear hierarchy of rules or of grades of rules or indeed of any rules here that are actually enforced except for the rules against vandalism and offensive names. I think we have something not so distant from anarchy going on here, and at the very least a fluid system of rules and government. When I see bad things going on, I feel like it's reasonable and indeed best for the community to just do what I think is right, irrespective of convention. I think if people scrutinize what I did, it does not represent a bad example. But I accept the reality of PR. If my action becomes a bad example, then I will feel bad about that. I just don't see it as having become that yet. Yet I made a remark to you before about martyrdom. I figured scrutiny of my action would bring more scrutiny on Lir and a realization of the cost to the community of tolerating people like Lir--"good people being driven to bad things"/"good people being driven away by the bad". I figured ultimately I might be run out of town, but even if that happened, I would have made some kind of dent in the community consciousness. Also I figured, if I'm ridden out of town for that, then good riddance to the town. The town has problems. It needs a system of driver's licenses and drunk driving laws more than it needs a clampdown on the police.User:168... 06:09, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) :In the Wikipedia:Block log, you will find evidence of both views of Lir. I don't think anyone actually defends Lir's behavior; rather, there are those who think he must be accorded respect as an editor because of due process, and those who would circumvent due process out of frustration. In short, custom decrees that it isn't for any one of us to decide when a contributor has become more of a burden than he or she is worth; that privilege has always rested in Jimbo and his designated agents. So when you treat Lir like a vandal by protecting the page ''against'' him, you violate due process. -- User:Cyan 06:24, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) Let me get this straight: Lir is tolerated because he hasn't been banned by Jimbo. Well, I have not been banned by Jimbo. Therefore I should be tolerated.User:168... 06:28, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) :No, no, Lir is tolerated because he was banned by Jimbo, but then had a long email correspondence with him, following which Jimbo specifically ''unbanned'' him. Hence my previous comment that to my knowledge, Lir is the only person specifically allowed by decree to edit Wikipedia. -- User:Cyan 06:31, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) What specifically is the "due process" I violated and how did I deny Lir respect as an editor? I didn't ban or block him, which I think is what you said people objected to as a violation of due process. If I denied Lir respect as an editor by protecting the page, then I did the same thing simultaneously to everybody who might have wanted to edit or revert it, and you have done the same in the past. I don't think there is a due process, just a rule about who can do the protecting when, which is somewhat subject to interpretation. User:168... 06:54, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) :When protecting Wikipedia from vandals, you can put on your sysop hat. If you observe an edit war but are a neutral party, then you can put on your sysop hat. If you're in a conflict with another user, you should ''not'' put on your sysop hat. That's the guideline. Now, is Lir a vandal? If yes, then you can just protect against him without violating the guideline. If no, then you can't. If the question of his vandal status, as a matter of due process (i.e. arbitration), has not yet been resolved, and you treat him like a vandal anyway, then you are violating due process. I assert that the question of Lir's status has not yet been resolved via due process, ergo I think treating him as a vandal is a violation of due process. -- User:Cyan 13:55, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) I see your argument now. But first of all there are two due processes as I understand them. One is that sys ops have the authority to issue temporary blocks without Jimbo. The other one has until now has depended on Jimbo, but is in transition to a committee-based system. Anyway, as I said before I didn't block Lir from Wikipedia. But I've conflated a couple issues by offering "vandalism" as my excuse for protecting a page. I don't actually know that vandalism officially is an excuse to protect a page. Perhaps it isn't. If it is, because I have authority to issue temporary blocks, and because blocks are only issued for vandalism, therefore I have the authority to decide what is vandalism and what isn't. Are there rules pertaining to temporary blocking (and thus to the assignment of "temporary vandal" status) that say what relationship a sysop is not allowed to have with the page that is being vandalized? I don't think so. I think I stumbled into a gray area, accurately assessed it as such, and behaved both reasonably and--though this is unknowable at the present--for the best of the community. User:168... 16:50, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) (I do not deny that I am stretching the definition of "vandal" and actually I specifically what I said I thought Lir was is a "kind of vandal." I think Lir is bad and I trust my judgement, which has been informed extensively by what others write about Lir. I am using the democratic process, such as it is here, to stretch our notion of "vandal" in such a way as to enable the current system of rules to deal effectively with people like Lir, which it manifestly and despite the complaints of many cannot deal with now.User:168... 16:59, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)) ==my stupidity== Thanks for pointing that out. I guess that makes me look pretty stupid, only skimming over the page and missing the salient bit, huh? ;-) - User:Snoyes 05:02, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC) ==Ed's comment on DNA== As far as I'm concerned, it's a matter of opinion whether there should even be a link on the page to Ed's comment, and my opinion is that really there shouldn't be. It seems like not so bad a compromise though, so I won't revert it. Do please tell me what Jesus would have done, were h/He in my place.User:168... 17:15, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC) Actually, in the religion I subscribe to, a very important principle is not to put up with any crap without a very good reason and to take the maximization of good for everyone into consideration. So you see turning the other cheek would have been sacrilegious. I hope in the spirit of tolerance you will respect that.User:168... 17:33, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC) It's my own mix of beliefs which derive from my parenting, other experience and some intellectualizing. I haven't given it a special name. I guess you might call it "ethical living."User:168... 17:42, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC) Well, seeing as we are devout followers of kindred faiths, I will expect in the future that as we work towards compromises and make reference to posts or edits or any action the other has taken, we will naturally avoid addressing each other in a tone that suggests the other really ought to have known better.User:168... 17:58, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC) Already done and I agree. But I can't promise to never again encourage people to do better than to act on human nature. I'm afraid it's just my nature;)User:168... 18:21, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC) ==Impertinent== Okay...lol. User:Ilyanep 22:59, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC) ==Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/168== Mav doesn't like that I removed Ed's post and has brought it up for "scrutiny." It's in the bottom section of Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/168, in case you'd like to comment.User:168... 02:22, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC) ==animated gif== I've just commented on the talk page, but it looks like a good use of the format to me, it's a good diagram. :) Thanks for asking my opinion (there's nothing I like better than to opine!). I also put it in a thumbnail using the new image syntax, which looks like it would be an acceptable workaround, I certainly have no idea how to resize an animated gif. Cheers, User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 04:37, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC). ---- I hope you won't really leave. I'm getting tired of losing good Wikipedians, especially to the kinds of users who generally drive them out. Hope to be seeing you around here for many more edits, User:Jwrosenzweig 17:13, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) Cyan, this would have to be the most ridiculous reason to quit that I have ever heard! Please reconsider. Ignore the dispute pages for a while and regain a sense of reality. It is really not worth giving up over whether something Lir said was true or not. User:Angelauser talk:Angela 17:23, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC) :Consider: I pressed the issue by posting my suspicions, and I did agree to Lir's stipulation. Lir provided the reference in reasonably good order, clearing himself of my suspicions; he fulfilled his part of the bargain. It's not that I'm going off in a huff, it's just more important to me to be an honest person and stand by my word than to be a Wikipedian. -- User:Cyan 18:04, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::Cyan, I'd say you were provoked and prodded into saying and doing something drastic out of frustration. You do have your own conscience to settle, but I think there are occasions when one can come to regret a bargain made (and how foolish -- Lir demanding you self-ban if he does the childishly simple action of telling you the name of a book -- the only thing more strange to me than his unbelievable request was that you, in irritation and haste, accepted). I think an honest apology to Lir would be all anyone expects of you at present, and all the best of us hope you will do. Please consider a return to us, at least, once you've taken some time away (if you do leave). This troll war is starting to reach larger proportions, and folks like Angela (and myself) will need all the good fellow editors we can find once the riff-raff are convinced (or forced) to leave us. User:Jwrosenzweig 18:10, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) :::May I add my voice to this -- please don't leave for good over this, pride or no. User:Morven 23:04, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) I hope you're just doing this for dramatic effect on the (overly risky, I think) hunch that the page reference will be wrong. You probably noticed in my posts that I don't think Lir has satisfied your criterion of ''verification''. We have two theories about Lir that we are trying to distinguish. One is that he is woefully misunderstood by the people who say awful things about him. The other is that he plays dirty and can't be trusted. Actually there's the third theory that both are true. Given those, a test built on the supposition that we can trust Lir's representations to us when he makes his reply (as in, trust him that the book he has cited is a book he had looked at when he made his claim on Talk:Citric Acid Cycle, and trust him also that, as I think he subtly implied at the time, this was a book he encountered in effect by chance, as the one nearest to him, and was not one he searched out to provide counterfeit support for his claim that "Krebs Cycle" is ''prevalent'') is not a test anybody would design to choose between those theories. What you literally told Lir was that you required ''verification.'' I don't think anybody could have taken you to mean by "verify" that you would settle for what seems merely ''plausible'' under the assumption that Lir is trustworthy. I don't think it was a gamble you made, I think what you did is to design an impractical test (unless of course you look up the book and find Lir is lying, which is possible...although he could always say "Oh, no, I meant ''this'' book," and keep you running in circles forever). Not to mention you didn't say how long a "self ban" lasts. So I don't see any dishonor in coming back anytime. As I hope you are planning to do anyway. User:168... 23:34, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) :[Peak:] If your conscience ultimately requires you to self-ban, I would suggest you make it for 24 hours. Or if you can't wait that long, come back as PhotoCyan (Magenta is already taken) :-) :User:Peak 08:12, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) Please, please come back. Appologize to Lir if you like. We miss you. User:PakaranUser talk:Pakaran 03:19, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC) Please come back! -User:Ann O'nyme 11:43, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC) Please come back. User:Silsor 05:19, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC) ''"The attempt to silence a man is the greatest honor you can bestow on him. It means that you recognize his superiority to yourself." -- Joseph Sobran'' Good luck with the silence imposed on you. Hello, my colorful friend! If you are lurking, please know that I have continued the quest you began at talk:nucleic acid and am trying to get contributors to work together again on the nucleic acid article. I know it's frustrating, and I have quit several times. I've also taken vacations, which somehow seems more satisfying than "quitting". --User:Ed Poor 14:35, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC) == Howdy! == Nice to see you in RC again! :) Have fun on your PhD work. --User:Maveric149 03:47, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) Yes, I'm glad you're back. I'm sure your wikipedia contributions don't aid your PhD at all, but which is more fun? ;-) User:Stewartadcock 07:48, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) :Welcome back! We don't really mind if doctoral work drags you away for long stretches (hey, it's important, we understand) -- just promise to come back eventually! :) Hope to see you around long-term, User:Jwrosenzweig 21:24, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC) Nice to see you back. :) User:Angelauser talk:Angela 03:37, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC) == St. Petersberg == That'll teach me to think that I understand a paradox. The external link is a great explanation, and I'm partial to the "utility limit" theory, myself. Seeing as the solution depends on what exactly "utility" is, do you think we should move it to the "Conditional paradoxes" section? User:Paullusmagnus 18:32, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC) == Thanks! == I can't believe you wrote Matlab code for me! That's crazy! Useful, but crazy. I may just have to acknowledge you if this ever becomes a thesis. User:Moink 19:33, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC) :p.s. I don't usually admit real-life info about myself, but let's just say you and I appear to have quite a bit in common. == glad you're back! == don't leave us again! :) User:Kingturtle 19:59, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC) welcome back... --User:JiangUser talk:Jiang Hi! Would you like to take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Votes for deletion#VOTE:_NEW_LAYOUT_FOR_VFD!? I think you thought it was a good idea last time it was suggested. User:BL 16:29, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC) =="insults"== Hi Cyan - I was calling myself that, not anyone else! - User:MPF 00:26, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) :Thanks! - doing so right now - User:MPF 00:45, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) ==hearsay== You're right. I've corrected the hearsay page. I do see how you could say that it would only be hearsay if the statement were being used to try to prove that NPOV is actually pointless. That's why I backed down from my original statement that it was "absolutely" hearsay. Maybe you're right. It definitely seems unfair to take a comment of mine out of context like that, though. User:Anthony DiPierro 20:09, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) ==White Flight== On the talk page for white flight, an anon asked if white flight occurred in Canadian cities, as well as US, saying he wanted to broaden the article to be less America-centric. I thought you might be able to help. Yours, User:Meelar 01:21, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC) ==Yokozuna== Re Yokozuna, wrestlers are known by their stage name only (eg. "Tachiyama"). First names may be worth mentioning in an article on the wrestler, but not elsewhere. User:Jpatokal 03:24, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC) ==Blocking proxies== Hi, thanks for the pointer on blocking proxies. Alas, the thread raised as many question for me as it answered! I have posted a new entry at Wikipedia_talk:Bans_and_blocks as a result... User:Jnc 15:39, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) == Principle of indifference == Hello, I've posted a comment at Talk:Principle of indifference, maybe you'd like to read it, or maybe not. BTW that's a great quote from E.T. Jaynes on your user page. Lots o' philosophical baggage contained in that one little phrase. 8^) Happy editing, User:Wile E. Heresiarch 17:13, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) == Diagrams for central limit theorem == Hello, I posted a comment on talk:central limit theorem about illustrative diagrams in response to your comment on my talk page. Happy editing, User:Wile E. Heresiarch 02:49, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC) ==Thanks== Thanks for moving that Polish article rant -- I should have done it myself, but I was quite upset that someone had done it and wanted them to go to the trouble themselves. Which in the end made work for you: my apologies. Some days I lose a little faith in humanity. Thanks for doing your part to restore mine. :-) User:Jwrosenzweig 22:02, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC) Thank you. My spelling has been terrible this week. User:UninvitedCompany 22:06, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC) ==Some call me insane==
I have spied tiger spiders on the prowl along my fence,
But the speed at which they travel makes a chase much to intense.
So you set your traps with care,
Scattering them here and there,
Hoping for a leg to snare,
And with eight the odds are in your favor.
Watch out! They can maim
Even with a leg left lame.
So some call me insane,
But danger is my middle name. - User:The Kurgan ==Thanks, Denial of Service== Did look for a reason, User:Rjstott 04:51, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC) Hello, Please give your opinion here Talk:DNA/vote. User:Anthere 06:09, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) ===Really annoying?=== Louis the 12.144.5.2 here,you said in your recent edit on Lord President of the Council that the Marquis/Woolton space insertion/omission was "*really* annoying" for reasons you'd elaborate on. As I see it,this was one that was particularly NOT meriting any alteration,since the visible link would go to a pre-existing article title anyway,that article having a space in its title so I avoided duplication by letting it be that way.So why not let the "Baron" reference that ISN'T an article alone?--L.E./le@put.com == Kils == Cyan, Kils would prefer it not to have the whole sysop history spread across Wikipedia. Let's respect his wishes in this instance.--User:EloquenceUser:Eloquence/CP 23:40, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC) ==Off-topic== Hi Cyan, your conversation with The Trolls of Navarone was somewhat off-topic to the talk page of the blocking policy so I have moved it to User talk:The Trolls of Navarone. Hope you don't mind. User:Angelauser talk:Angela 20:03, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC) == User:WHEELER == why did you protect this user page? User:Sam Spade User talk:Sam Spade 00:09, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC) :Cheers :) User:Sam Spade User talk:Sam Spade 01:59, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC) Hi Cyan, Any progress with De Finetti and negative mixing probabilities? This has serious application. Peter (petercotton.net) == Wik == Sometimes the truth is not nice. Actually, I find "idiot" to be a very watered down description of Wik. Wik should have been banned months ago, but this community seem to not like dealing with trolls and vandals effectively. Instead of reverting Wik and calling him an idiot, maybe I should message his bot and request that we can form a consensus so that he can revert three times a day again without discussing the article? --ICK\"">User:Hcheney User talk:Hcheney 17:31, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC) == Invitation == I fraternally invite you to add your name, to join the new community Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Quebec. Thanks and welcome!
Je vous invite fraternellement � ajouter votre nom, � vous joindre � la nouvelle communaut� Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Quebec. Merci et bienvenue!
--User:Liberlogos 04:28, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC) ==Malicious Deletion Attempt== Hello. Sorry for the imposition, but I thought you might be interested to note that an article you supported in the past on vfd has been listed again under malicious circumstances - the 3rd such attempt in 7 months. Please feel free to review the discussion and cast your vote as you feel appropriate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Atlantium --User:Gene Poole 10:56, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC) == Hate Groups and NRMs == Care to comment on the dispute about Hate_group#Hate_groups_and_new_religious_movements?. That section is now in RfC. Thanks. --User:Zappaz 01:19, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) == Article Licensing == Hi, I've User:rambot#Free the Rambot Articles project to get users to Wikipedia:Multi-licensing all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (''CC-by-sa'') v1.0 and v2.0 Creative Commons Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The ''CC-by-sa'' license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at ''minimum'' those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information: *User talk:Ram-Man#Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered *Wikipedia:Multi-licensing *User:rambot#Free the Rambot Articles project To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "" template into their user page, but there are other options at Wikipedia:Template messages/User namespace#Licensing Templates. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page: :Option 1 :I agree to Wikipedia:Multi-licensing all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below: : OR :Option 2 :I agree to Wikipedia:Multi-licensing all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below: : Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "" with "". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. ''Please let me know'' what you think at my User talk:Ram-Man. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- User:Ram-Man ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit§ion=new comment]| User talk:Ram-Man ==RFC pages on VfD== Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by User:CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - User:Ta bu shi da yu 03:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) ==Quebec Wikipedians notice board== You are hereby cordially invited to join the WP:QWNB. Vous �tes cordialement invit� � collaborer au WP:QWNB. User:Circeus 19:39, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC) ==Bring back quickpolls== I think it's time that Wikipedia:quickpolls be re-evaluated as a solution to short term disputes between users. WP:BBQ --Ryan!">User:Merovingian | Talk">User talk:Merovingian 05:17, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC) ==de Finetti's theorem== Someone has answered your question on de Finetti's theorem, and I suspect they've got it right. User:Michael Hardy 21:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

C