Jump to content

User talk:Dzonatas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dzonatas (talk | contribs) at 14:36, 25 January 2006 (→‎Categories in subpages / sandboxes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!

Meelar [[User talk:Meelar|(talk)]] 06:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No harm intended

I think you misinterpreted my use of the word "sad". That's probably because I'm not a native speaker of English. I didn't intend to offend you or your daughter. It isn't "sad" that you gave her the name "Sage d'Arc". If you like the name, and your daughter does, than you should be pleased with it. Nobody is making fun of that. Another thing is that you have your personal reasons to edit the Joan of Arc article. If you wanted to give your daughter the same name as the last name of Joan of Arc, you probably wanted to use the exact spelling. You thought is was "d'Arc". It probably isn't. I don't know. But why bother? Her (current) French name is Jeanne d'Arc. So why be concerned about the exact, original spelling? We probably will never know the original. Is your daughter concerned about it? I guess not. Where I used the word "sad" I meant the way you have mixed your personal feelings with editing a project like Wikipedia. You have been accusing several people of being biased, but you're forgetting your own position. Your approach isn't very scientific: when Durova claims your sources aren't right, you think it's an personal attack (and it is not). I think that's sad. Nothing else. — Switisweti 09:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas, the use of superfluous hyperbolic phrases are where I have pointed out the personal attacks. Therefore, your claim about the unscientific approach for reasons of personal attacks upon source critique is incorrect. Perhaps, if you truly don't mean it in such a way as "sad," you'll go back and refactor your edits. — Dzonatas 21:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which edits specificly do you want me to refactor? Do you mean I shall delete the word "sad" on Durova's talk page? And I never claimed you attacked anyone. You say you feel attacked by Durova and me and you just shouldn't feel that way. — Switisweti 22:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: Computer Science

I clearly said, that I find your arguments silly. Not you... your arguments. How personal can that be? —R. Koot 13:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mister, I hope you will accept my last modification of the CS page. It is a sensible modification. Do realise that most of my time on wikipedia I have spent arguing with you. I dont claim to have universal knowledge, but the thing in life I know the most is CS. Please, consider putting yourself under question from time to time, when others (with some expertise) disagree with you. I would like to point out to you that you have questioned my points of view and contradicted me on every possible occasion, with a total confidence in you. I consider many of your points of view on CS as very naive. In the case of **philosophical** positions, many have expressed opinions about your contributions similar to mine. In the case of **technical** discussions, you have proven to have completely erroneous believes (I am talking of your completely false assertions about the HALTing problem, oracle Turing Machines, and energy efficient algorithms), and I dont think you can disagree with that. The fact that you did not know much about these subject comes as no surprise: they are fairly technical, and I reacon even research level computer scientists dont necessarily know these fields well. Also, we are all entitled to erroneous beliefs, mistakes, etc... That is absolutely normal, and no problem from my POV: I am NOT an elitist at all. What is NOT ok, is that on those technicall problems (which you really did not understand well), the same phenomenon occured as in more philosophical questions: you have NO DOUBT that you hold the truth, however many and how ever expertized your detractors. Please, start considering that when a scientist says something about his field of research it may, at least, not be total nonsens.--Powo 21:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Sources???

Do you really have any source saying that this: formal mathematical tools required to solve complex tasks is a fundamental aspect of CS? You claim you have shown such sources already, I must have missed them! Would you be kind enough to give them again?--Powo 17:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As quoted below, in bold, from the computer science talk page:

This one is okay. I believe it could be expanded into 2 or three sentences to develop a more rounded opener. — Dzonatas
  • I think that the subdisciplines should appear in order of importance. Algorithms is more important in my view, that languages or operating systems. Also, I don't understand what in use by the computer means. Sbwoodside 05:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of how you don't understand what in use by the computer means. I can make many guesses, but I would like a clue to what you do understand of it. I used the University of California, Davis, pages as a source. An editor didn't like "formal mathematical tools required to use the computer in solving complex tasks" [1]. — Dzonatas 16:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)'[reply]
* The link you cite (univ of davis) does not contain the information you say it has
* Here is what I understand of the sentence (a guess, as you asked): there (allegebly) are mathematics in use by computers, which are an important part of computer science. Typically, these mathematics could be arithmetics on floating point numbers. Here are my two objections:
* This is not a fondamental of computer science, it is a subtopic
* Arithmetics on floating point numbers is not really mathematics in the scholarly sense of mathematics.
Could you please explain, by giving at least one example, what are these mathematics you talk about, which would be in use by computers.--Powo 20:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


You did reply to it. I figured you would have not missed it. — Dzonatas 19:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The link you cite (univ of davis) does not contain the information you say it has"

Here is a copy from part of the text: http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/undergrad/

"Computer Science (College of Letters & Science)

The Computer Science (CS) major is designed to prepare students for careers involving the design of computer systems and their application to science, industry and management. Students taking this major receive solid grounding in fundamentals of computer languages, operating systems, and the formal mathematical tools required to use the computer in solving complex tasks. Emphasis in this major is on software, although introductory architecture is included. The computer science program prepares students for work in industry or postgraduate study." — Dzonatas 22:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What a poor source, it is an advertisement program of a CS departement! This is thus basic mathematical tools you are talking about: linear algebra, statistics, calculus, etc... I dont see this as being a fundamental aspect of CS. If you do want to include a mathematical topic which is seriously related to fundamentals of CS, why did you disagree with my proposition of mathematical foundations of computer science which was much more of a litterate choice.--Powo 17:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]



Hi again. I thought you'd might like to read this article: [[2]]. Not to say that I take myself as an expert, but apparently everybody doese not agree with you that expertise is not a valuable reource, e.g. when you say: Your Ph.D. and MS have no creditential weight here. You'll need to follow the rules like everybody else with no original research. Your expertise doesn't doesn't mean you can get around the rule. Find a source for your claim. regards --Powo 18:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It has been reviewed on Slashdot. Expertise is a valuable resource. You like to twist what I have wrote -- I've noticed. — Dzonatas 23:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Science

Greetings Dzonatas,

Thanks for the considered responses. Please pardon the use of the word spurious if it fails to communicate. I debated its use, hence why I followed the word with the statement that I believe your statements were not disingenuous; that is, I believe your source are genuine and genuinely provided. What I meant by "spurious" was that I agree with Powo that at least one of the references was "shallow," since it came from a catalog page of UCDavis (as I recall, but I admit that I did not follow the source myself). I have no doubt that your sources were diligently discovered and provided. My statement only went to the "quality" of the source, not to your intent. Back to my comment on the mediation page, some sources are better than others. I consider a source from a catalog to be a bit spurious. That's all.
About the "expertise" issue, I generally agree with you, but I think I get there via a different "route." I would be willing to accept expertise of some individuals de facto. However, as I stated in my mediation response, verification of those creditials in the Wikipedia context would be very difficult. So I generally agree that it does no good to wave our credentials around here in Wikipedia. So, I try to provide documented sources and get on with it.
Your efforts to come to a consensus on the defintion of computer science are to be commended. It has been a long and arduous trek. You have my support.

Hope that helps. Steven McCrary 17:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC) P.S. I do agree with your excellent observation that providing references can become a point of unneeded pressure.[reply]

Forward-looking statement

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Durova 19:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shared parenting

Please do not "un-sort" stubs (by changing specific stub tags to the basic {{stub}}. This frustrates the work of the stub sorting WikiProject. Thank you. Stifle 10:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories in subpages / sandboxes

Hi, I noticed that you still have the categories in your subpage/sandbox of Joan of Arc, and I'm wondering if you could possibly de-activate them until the page is in the mainspace, as it's currently adding the sandbox to all the mainspace categories (e.g. Category:Nine Worthies). I'd suggest putting a colon in front of 'Category', like so: [[:Category:Nine Worthies]]. Thanks! Ziggurat 03:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleared. — Dzonatas 14:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dzonatas&oldid=36645163"