Jump to content

User talk:Matthew Stannard/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Godel Machine

The Turing Machine is not a "fiction" except in one respect. The designs for many implementations of it are published. The mechanical paper tape version was built a few years ago and is in a museum somewhere. It works. The only way in which it is a "fictional" Turing machine is that it does not have an infinitely long roll of tape.

The Church-Turing thesis shows that all computers are equivalent except in speed and memory capacity. Any computer can emulate any other. The PC is a Turing Machine (with a limited memory). The PC can emulate the Turing Machine - there are several online demos available. The paper tape version of the Turing Machine can emulate a very, very slow PC which is very memory hungry - we can't afford the paper.

Many (at least all those that terminate and many which do not) programs require only a certain amount of memory to run. The amount of memory depends upon the architecture of the computer and the nature of the problem.

A PC is a Turing Machine. And if it is not (for your program), add more disk.

I am in the middle of a chain of correspondence with Juergen Schmidhuber, the prophet of the Godel Machine. His paper does not say how the Godel Machine will be built or even how to go about its design.

Paul Beardsell 01:52, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

So you are posting public attacks against Schmidhuber all over the place, not just in his discussion page, claiming he does not even know what a Turing machine is. Are you aware that he has published extensively on Turing machines in major peer-reviewed journals etc? E.g., follow links in http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/kolmogorov.html . Are you sure your agressive outbreaks will boost whatever is left of your credibility? Newbie 20:35, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, I accept that it is unseemly to say something like that here where its existence is not obvious to (apologists of) Schmidhuber yet it could be seen by anyone, and I have deleted comments which might be considered a personal attack. Further comment will be on the Schmidhuber page. Matthew, sorry your page has been used thus. Paul Beardsell 23:34, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Au contraire, I am honoured to find my talk page used as a wiki-corridor, even though I haven't fathomed the issue in this instaqnce. I like the idea of a proof engine, but remain sceptical that the somewhat theoretical discussion that has been going on here adn would be more interested to see implementations of the Godel madhine scheme, even if they don't meet all the criteria. Matt Stan 08:25, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd say this is a half-hearted retreat, because you still claim that Schmidhuber's paper "does not say how the Godel Machine will be built or even how to go about its design." Of course it does. Newbie 21:44, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The reason I'm not fathoming it is because of content-free statements like Of course it does. Why not say Schmidhuber's says the Godel Machine can be built like ... and the way to go about its design is as follows... You don't have to explain - just give the references. Then mere mortals, who have become involved because their corridor happened to be convenient, can start to benefit from what, after all, is supposed to be an encyclopedia, i.e. a learning tool. Matt Stan 22:02, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Someone has deleted Go-doubledot-del Machine. To my frustration. Where's the fun in that? Paul Beardsell 07:16, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Artificial Intelligence

A syllogism:

  • Given that the mind is the software/hardware brain, and:
  • Given the Church-Turing thesis:
  • The inevitability of Strong AI must be accepted.

(Well, either that or we are not intelligent.)

Paul Beardsell 02:06, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

For correcting spelling

Hmm, spelling might not be my strong point :) Thanks. Revth 18:36, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wot I need ...

What I need is not to be given too much power. For someone so keen to skate so close to the edge you think I would have a better idea where the edge is. If you have _me_ deciding where the edge is I could end up very wet and cold. In my view people are too polite. They should be more keen to shout, "Watch out, thin ice!" Paul Beardsell 00:29, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(N)POV

  • A: "X is a fact"
  • B: "Some claim that X is true"
  • A: "The view that X is true is becoming increasingly prevalent"
  • B: "Some claim the view that X is true is becoming increasingly prevalent"
  • A: "According to the esteemed Mr Y, X is true"
  • B: "According to Mr Y, revered by the proponents of X, X is true.

I don't know, Matthew. Disengaging from my current controversy, the Godel Machine, and away from the nebulous artificial consciousness, back to what I consider the solid ground of my position on AI:

That some AI exists, that Strong AI is inevitable is fact to me. But not to others. But the bias in the AI article has been worn down over time by several people who share some of my opinions. The skeptics have been marginalised mostly by good argument. What started as an "AI is a failed field of research and furthermore is pointless" article is much more rounded. But it does not reflect my point of view entirely. I have had to settle with having my say and allowing others theirs.

In your article you have a more difficult job because there is is a heavier weight of political correctness. The field is less susceptible to analysis. The facts are more difficult to discern. You might have to settle on continuing to make your points more cogently than Dysprosia. She is making your job difficult. But the article is a good one, possibly partly as a result. But also as a result some clarity is lost as you struggle to make your point in a way to which Dysprosia will not object.

As well as going to the Village Pump have you thought about asking for a review? Wikipedia:Peer review Oops, I see you have!

Paul Beardsell 01:30, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi Matt - I don't want to make your life difficult, far from it - if you feel that way, let me know what you feel I'm doing wrong :) Dysprosia 08:23, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I suppose you might say that my recent way was an effective way forward but could I not have done it ethically? Paul Beardsell 02:11, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

AI and the Turing test

Turing did not say that unless something passed his test it was not intelligent. He said that if something passed his test it was intelligent. Some things may be examples of intelligence but would not pass his test. The Turing tests splits the candidate population of intelligent artifacts into two categories: Intelligent and Undecided.

Error detected in AssertItIsMe.c
Paul Beardsell 02:57, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

fifelfoo

can you refresh me on what it is were agreeing about? ;) Sam Spade 15:59, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Body language

Hi Matthew: A while back you added to body language:

Many elements of body language can easily be understood, and tested, simply by knowing about them. For example, the tendency for people to raise their eyebrows as one approaches them fact-to-face is usually indicative of esteem. If you walk down the street and encountrer someone you don't know then the chances are that neither of you will raise your eyebrows. If you recognise each other, however, then, even if you do not greet each another then eyebrows will likely raise and lower. Of particular interest here in a work context, is that it is not only recognition that is symbolised by by eyebrow raising. If one is not rated highly by the other person then that person will not raise their eyebrows, even though you are recognised.

This is a fairly specific claim, and not a well known one, so I think we should have a reference to it - there is so much pop psychology around body language (not so mention some shoddy scientific work). Can you add in the place where it was published, please? seglea 16:53, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've put link from Body language to Article covering eyebrow flashing Matt Stan 11:20, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)]

Replied on my talk page. Dysprosia 12:46, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

AC edit war

Even if you don't want to get involved what it is going over at artificial consciousness is interesting. Paul Beardsell 20:34, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is a request for you to edit your paragraph at Talk:Artificial consciousness/real. Paul Beardsell 16:23, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I added article by Igor Aleksander in NPOV version, was not added in main version. OK, concerning articles I can do the work of finding more of them. The main problem is rather that we must agree on a shorter article, it's clear that making it long and adding philosophy would make it weird and pretty questionnable. And, more importantly, we should agree on how such article should be organised, I think that it should be like NPOV version, as there are clearly opposite views as "strong AC" and other interpretations (an interesting philosophical problem BTW), so it's clear that nothing would come out of it if we shall change "strong AC" to correspond to "weaker" AC etc. So I think that different views should be clearly separated, do you agree? Do you agree that article should be shorter? Find out in what we agree, then we can go forward. Tkorrovi 22 Mar 2004

Or your opinion still is that the article should be deleted. This is also right by certain logic, no popular encyclopedias have such article at present at least, and it was omitted most likely because of controversy about the subject. But I think such proposal would not have wide support, nobody who had a deal with this article didn't suggest that so far. Wikipedia is rather built to gather as much information as possible from so many sources as possible, so omitting something what is without strong reason is not the policy. BTW there are articles in Wikipedia about very unsignificant topics, like I read recently an article about a country, what was declared to be a country and has 62m2 of land (in an apartment) and a king. And nobody ever suggested to remove the article. So I think that the suggestion of removing the article, though it in some sense may be right, is not feasible in Wikipedia, and when it isn't then it's just a dead topic to talk about. Tkorrovi 22 Mar 2004

And, if you want to know more about me, I'm an automatic control engineer by education, worked as a programmer and system administrator in high-voltage network. Tkorrovi 22 Mar 2004

Peadophile chatbot

Sounds as though that chatbot passed the Turing test. Paul Beardsell 04:56, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fathers 4 Justice page

Matthew - I've been playing with a copy of the F4J page, and offer the following for your thoughts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tagishsimon/F4J

It includes a couple of quotes from a Grauniad article; and whilst I acknowledge that on the one hand these might better grace the Fathers' rights page, on the other, they do indicate a school of thought in opposition to F4J and, I suppose, FNF. My view, FWIW, is that the page needs to reflect the fact that the F4J agenda is opposed by people who / groups which see its actions as misguided and/or misrepresentative of the current situation.

I'd be grateful for your thoughts; feel free to hack the test page (It tails off towards the end in any event, and would need more work even assumping you could contemplate its candidacy. Best wishes --Tagishsimon 20:22, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Matthew - I've NPOVd the Fathers 4 Justice page; I think it's slightly POV - absolutely no criticism of the group on the page. See Talk:Fathers 4 Justice. I've also added to the page a slightly amended copy of the FNF Other Organisations & See Also. I've flagged the issue in Wikipedia:Cleanup#March_20 for the community's attention. Thought you'd appreciate the heads-up, though I guess you've got the page on your watch list. Best wishes --Tagishsimon 23:05, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)


greetings

this is felix - im in.

see you in cybaspace... Neko san


Don't forget to use User talk: for talk messages :) Dysprosia 08:18, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

simulated consciousness

I replied in AC edit war section (delete this). Tkorrovi 22 Mar 2004

Test from Office PC

This is a test. 217.158.80.239 08:42, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

2nd test

verifying ip address not logged in. 217.75.160.30 14:35, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Chatterbot contest ...

... at Slashdot Paul Beardsell 16:22, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

primitive chatbot

You may try my chatbot also at http://www.geocities.com/athens/agora/3849/rb.html (works only in internet explorer). This has only 60 lines of code and has nothing to do with artificial consciousness. Tkorrovi 09:58, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Epistemology

Did you see this link at the end of the epistemology page? Paul Beardsell 09:08, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


The device should have radio buttons on the back of its head to allow its operator / owner / slave-master to choose what epistemological model the AC device is following today. The user manual will say: "If your Non-genuine AC says it does not know what you mean, try re-phrasing your statement. Oherwise choose another epistemological model." Paul Beardsell 16:22, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Or just change the resolution. Multiple personalities that learn off each other? AC VM, will it also be only able to virtual experience? My screen that followed me around could learn to predict what I wanted to do next. It could suggest things when I am bored. The face that it presented on its screen would be that of anyone who had interacted with it sufficiently for one of its AI modules to map an animatable face. Pressing the buttons enables you to choose virtual people who are in essence caricatures of themselves, each with its own or shared epistemological models. Matt Stan 23:44, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Anecdotalise

from an irrelevancy on the artificial consciousness talk page

Isolating artificial consciousness article

Why you try to isolate artificial consciousness article by deleting links to it? In Wikipedia an article must be accessed from the links under related articles. The links are restored. Tkorrovi 14:18, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree with your explanation on my talk page, whether "neutrality disputed" comment put there by Paul Beardsell should be removed, must be decided by the editors, and the problems should be solved by editing the article, not by isolating the article, this is not a Wikipedia police. Also I don't find it right to create a separate article synthetic consciousness by you and Paul on almost the same topic, there should not be parallel articles in Wikipedia. You also saw the wish of other editors to merge parallel articles, like digital consciousness, with artificial consciousness. Tkorrovi 16:17, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

My opinion is that artificial consciousness article should be edited and parallel synthetic consciousness article should be deleted because it is not Wikipedia policy to create parallel articles. I'm not against including Kismet or work of Igor Aleksander into article. And you should have elementary respect towards me, and not support Paul against me. You talk like this was bad Paul who copies stuff to synthetic consciousness article, but this article was created by you and Paul, why you did it then? Tkorrovi 17:07, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

You cannot cope with Paul like that. The only way to cope with him is to show that people don't support his behaviour. Do you agree that I am paranoid and a troll? If you don't reply, then it must be assumed that you agree and support Paul in his offensive behaviour. By being hypercritical concerning my language skills etc you helped Paul to ridicule me. So you seems to support Paul's mean behaviour. It's not that you cannot correct me if I made mistake, the language of anybody whose first language is not English is sometimes worse than these whose first language is English, even if they are learned a lot, this is natural, this is why for example every translator, even if he/she knows languages well, supposed to translate only into his/her first language, not to foreign language. We can peacefully continue discussion on artificial consciousness talk page if you take firm stance against Paul's offensive behaviour and remind him every time when he becomes offensive, that this is not a way to behave. Then he stops doing it, and there would be no obstacles to edit the article and discuss what we should include there. You can edit the article even now. Your comment in previous section here "Anecdotalise from an irrelevancy on the artificial consciousness talk page" was also meant to ridiculing who, me or you or Paul? I think at least when Paul reads it, he understands that it is a support for him to ridicule me. So by that it seems that you support Paul in offending me, and then pretending to be my friend is extremely impudent. I hope you understand, unless I see a firm stance from you against Paul's offensive behaviour, I must assume that you support it. And, if you find that there is something redicilous in AC or in me or whatever, we can talk it, I like jokes. I proposed to talk in my AC forum, not because this forum but because Paul would not disturb us there, but you didn't like it then, you may propose some other place, but I can talk on AC talk page as well. Tkorrovi 19:31, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I didn't notice the reference to Stockholm syndrome. No, nobody wants to talk to person who confirmed that he is not going to respect you. But when I must do that as he is not banned from Wikipedia, then I don't afraid to talk to him or anybody else. I'm no coward you know. I'm going to protect myself and others from unfair gaining of power, by means of discrediting or whatever. I did it before, and helped many people. Tkorrovi 19:45, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, but concerning the Wikipedia, a person who confirms that he is not going to have not a slightest respect towards someone else is tolerated here, in academic conversation such person would be discredited. Tkorrovi 12:05, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

You asserted in votes for deletion that I "make a proprietorial claim" on the article, this is a wrong assertion, I never made any proprietary claims on the article. And this happens when you wrote me a friendly message on my talk page. Your behaviour is impudent. You should take back your claim in the public place where you made it. Tkorrovi 13:00, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

"I took myself this heavy burden to work on that controversial topic" is not a proprietary claim. And I shall not leave, but now not because of the article, but because I cannot allow to gain power by anybody by unfair means, I just protect my rights as an ordinary Wikipedia user. Tkorrovi 15:02, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Virus?

Matthew, maybe you have a virus? See this difference listing. Or you have auto-complete turned on? Or you are inserting secret codes in an anti-Estonian conspiracy. Paul Beardsell 11:19, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

[1] is a rubbish site, from the examples there only one is right, others may be used in poetry maybe. Estonian Language FAQ [2] at [3] is better (I'm also there [4]). Tkorrovi 15:46, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Hey, what we should do with Murry link? It has many negative reviews, it's not anything original, in essence a random sentence generator, just some addituional programming doesn't make it to anything original, how he calls it. Yes and it was voted down. I would simply say that it's not AC, not anything what I understand AC is. As you see, this "lowering the constraint" is not so good, just anything may then be put under AC. So what we should do? Tkorrovi 21:31, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes but one reason why AI community don't like him is that he calls for standards in Artificial Intelligence, what more or less would be based on his critter ("concept fiber" or "mentifex" "theory of mind") [5]. And all there is is a primitive random sentence generator badly written in javascript, he likely cannot write any more complicated AI program. Just consider what happens when we give such people a power, they would put an end to any development. Nothing wrong if he just did add a link page to consciousness studies or such, but the problem is that it is dominated by his "theory of mind", what is not a theory of mind, and this is the opinion of most of the experts, and most of the AI community, in other words most of these who know more about AI. This is why he always tries to catch newbies, and this is easy because his critter is quite simple, but the newbies don't understand that this is only a tiny fragment of what AI is, and by far nothing of what AC is. I'm not against links, especially links to AC software (except commercial software) because there are not much of these (Magnus, my program, maybe Dennett's Cog if there is any code somewhere yet). There should though only be a software what is especially intended for AC, not software what goes under other categories, like general purpose neural networks, natural language parsers or genetic algorithms. Artificial emotions software like Kismet should also be under a separate category, maybe in the article, but as there might be a lot of such, then maybe it would be useful to create a separate article for artificial emotions. When Murray wants to put his program somewhere, then it should be under chatbot or natural language processing. Tkorrovi 13:52, 15 May 2004 (UTC)


Contact centres

Matthew, have you got a reference to the Sunderland story?

PS Glad to see that you offered no objection to splitting up your main Fathers' rights page. One is always hesitant to interfere in another's opus. JPF 08:02, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Deontology

There is an article on deontology if you need a better link. And "watch this space" means just that! Paul Beardsell 22:54, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re: Plagiarism?

I must say I feel unsure about the pertinence of GFDL when I see WP content reused by such shitdiscussable quality websites, but they do have a right to use it and they do quote WP as a source (xx-small text at the bottom of the screen). They have as well their own copyright notice, which I'm unsure if they can have, though, as I'm not an expert in that. For more information, start your exploration from Wikipedia:Copyrights – and ask questions there. --Valmi 16:13, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

IP addresses

  • 82.70.105.142
  • 81.154.162.120

Please edit the artificial consciousness article normally, and don't start the edit war. It is possible to make changes in the original version, and not change the whole article. I seek help after next revert. Tkorrovi 02:03, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mediation at Artificial consciousness

Hi. There was a suggestion that there might be some use for mediation at Artificial consciousness. What is your take on the situation. Would you be amenable to joining us in trying to hammer out an amicable modus operandi? -- Cimon 19:12, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

The Humungous Image Tagging Project

Hi. You've helped with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license 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 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 top 1000 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:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

I don't know what you'd consider to be a simple explanation. Think of it this way, as it currently stands wikipedia content is freely and openly available to anyone who uses its license, the GFDL. Multi-licensing using the CC-by-sa widens the number of places/people that the wikpedia content can be freely and openly available to. In other words, the exposure is wider and more people can use the content. Not choosing means that the status quo will be maintained, so it means nothing, so to speak. The FAQ above has a bunch of Q and A's, but maybe this explanation helps. Let me know if not. – Ram-Man (comment) (talk)[[]] 13:57, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Articles

AltaVista search : +news +child +killed +mother Limited to UK web sites, returned 2,110,000 results

01 Mother and child killed by fumes
02 An investigation has been launched into the case of a young mother with a history of mental illness who stabbed her daughter to death
03 Woman charged with girl's murder
04 Care Chiefs Rapped after Boy Killed by Mother
05 Mother 'killed baby who refused to breastfeed'
06 Police baffled by woman who smothered infant sons to death
07 Mother 'talked of urge to kill son'
08 Childminder 'killed baby in frustration'
09 Ruth Neave – how the SS created a child abuser
10 Texas mother charged with killing her 5 children
11 Pair 'had second thoughts on boy'
Christian Blewitt mansalughter verdict
12 Mother denies baby girl's murder
13 Child witness 'saw baby killed'
14 Woman accused in 1982 baby death
15 Three extra years for baby killer
16 'Child harm' appeals thrown out
17 Mother guilty of trying to kill son
18 []
19 []
20 []
21 []
22 []
23 []
24 []
25 []
26 []
27 []
28 []
29 []

Also

Revealed: past lies of abuse witness

Also

SHOPPING WHY FATHERS KILL THEIR KIDS

Also

Child Policy website

Also

Do absent dads hurt the family?

ISO Terms and Guidelines

http://www.issco.unige.ch/projects/ewg96/node54.html

Educational references

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomer#Education

I am

I am a set of philogenetically advanced adaptation processes that critically depend on an evolved sensitivity to subjective experience so as to enable agents to afford flexible control over their actions in complex, unpredictable environments.

Fathers Rights

  • Please be careful to state what you think fathers' rights stands for as being what you think. Statement of opinion should not be presented as fact. —Kelly Martin 04:39, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

From fnf chat forum 9-Feb-2005

Subject: RE: [fnf-chat] Is this why some of our ex-wives do what they do?

I've struggled to understand this myself. I think it is quite true. In my case, first she lost my love, then she lost control over me, then she lost control of the house and finances. Now she loses 'control' of the children. As the children become more independant she appears to be becoming more hostile towards them as if they have betrayed her also.

In the book that you are reading, is there any suggestion for how someone in this situation could find the love again. I mean is there something she could do or get help with so that she didn't feel so bitter about the loss of control?

Thanks, K.

Original Message-----

Extracted this from a book I was reading last night as it struck a core with me as to the basis of my ex-wife's approach to the relationship with me and now with my children. 'You don't know how to love people. You only know how to own them. And because people will never act just like you want them to. Mother, you'll always feel betrayed. And because eventually everybody dies, you'll always feel cheated. But you're the cheat. Mother. You're the one who uses our love for you to try to control us.'

Existentialism

I am what I am 
And what I am needs no excuses 
I deal my own deck 
Sometimes the ace
Sometimes the deuces
Its one life And there's no returning, no revising
One life and so its time to open up your closet

Gloria Gaynor

Father's Rights

Sir,

I have done as you requested. Please see Talk:Fathers' rights. I am not highly optimistic about the deep POV issues being corrected. In any event, if they persist much longer, I will be forced to submit the article for VfD. I believe that this subject merits a comprehensive article, but a wordy, badly-written tract in support of a movement simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I hope any VfD vote would lead to a total re-write, rather than the omission of an article on this topic.

P.S. I am not invested in this movement or in any other movements opposing it. I just don't like POV stuff here. Zantastik 03:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FORUM LINKS

Tkorrovi's request for arbitration

I am email-less for a few days. Have a look at this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Tkorrovi Paul Beardsell 22:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Matthew, thanks for your supportive comments. It seems you can make yourself a party to the request as it seems you may once have wanted just by making a statement on the page where it says "Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.)" Obviously I am neither asking for nor expecting entirely uncritical support. As a drole aside the proposed injunction seems harsh on one party only! Paul Beardsell 03:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your ironic remark on my page is taken wrongly, I believe, by Tkorrovi as a sign of support of him and he is busy referring everybody to it. You do not make yourself party to the dispute if you contribute on the evidence page, and not on the main page. Paul Beardsell 22:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User_talk:Psb777/draft Paul Beardsell 22:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems futile scoring these minor points but what should I be doing? Should I have just refused to take part in the process at all? Paul Beardsell 19:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

If it's such a good process perhaps you should take a more active role. E.g. you could apologise for all the personal attacks you made on Tkorrovi.  :-) Paul Beardsell 03:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Play to gain another act

I think that drama of yours requires another act.

IEEE 829

You put a clean-up tag on this page at the beginning of April, but I'm unclear why. Having gone to the link given I could find no further reference to what anyone might think this article needs. Please would you indicate, preferably on my talk page, thanks. Matt Stan 11:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the cleanup tag; I also cannot remember why I added it to the article. I have removed it now. --cesarb 12:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

This is to inform you that the arbitration committee will be including you in the case "Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell". We will be considering whether your actions have contributed to the dispute. Please watch the decision page for proposed findings and remedies and add any information you would like the committee to consider to the evidence page. -- sannse (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Grammar

Thank you for your advice concerning the grammar. Nothing wrong if you want to talk about grammar only, in a way that it would not concern my person anyhow. I'm not pretty sure though that your advice to use "with" instead of "of" is relevant there, as that particular Business Registry is not an authority, but a database held by the court of law.Tkorrovi 15:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Concerning your other talk about constructs missing in some languages, like future tense in the languages of baltic sea finns, and yes and no in celtic languages, you seem to know surprisingly little for being an anthropologist, as you said you are. These omissions don't show a fault in these languagese, or thinking of the people who speak these languages, but are there to demand an additional confirmation while talking about something. In celtic languages one must answer with the words of the question, like "Did you do that?" "I did that." instead of just "yes", so that one confirms clearly what he did, what he will do etc. In the languages of baltic sea finns, one is expected to answer not just "I shall do it", but also when one will do it. One can answer "I will do it some time later", but in these languages it doesn't sound good. These peculiarities in the languages certainly come from certain necessity, mostly in demanding more exactness, but they do not mean that baltic sea finns cannot think about the future, or celts cannot give a simple confirmation etc. If you want to talk about these issues further, please do that on the talk pages of some language articles, where there might be people more familiar with linguistics, who know more and might want to talk about these things. But this is obviously not relevant for artificial consciousness, not even a good example.Tkorrovi 17:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

"Finnish, I gather was invented a century or so ago. ... Estonian is more closely related to Turkish." I don't know where did you get that information, it is just as totally wrong as anything can be. The baltic sea finns, ie finns, carelians and estonians (also livonians, but that nation is now almost extinct) lived where they live now the last 5 thousand years, which is shown by archeology. How long time did they speak the language they speak now, is not exactly known, but by studying the folklore some suggest that it might be 5000 years as well, considering the events which happened 5000 years ago in that same area (like Kaali meteorite) and are still present in folklore, ie the memory of the nations in the area was continuous during all that time, and some words likely come from the time 5000 years ago. Of course a language change a lot during such time. I never heard that estonian is related to turkish, this is a full nonsense. Estonian can understand finnish even if he did not learn it at all, estonian and finnish are at least as close to each other as swedish and norwegian are to each other. But I don't understand not a word in turkish, at least not more than you do. Your opinion that I don't understand what proprietary means is a prejudice, I consider stupid the one who doesn't know what proprietary means). This is exactly what you should avoid. You proved now that in your additude towards me you proceed from wrong knowlegde and prejudices, considering me ignorant, which means that you have no good faith towards me, and I cannot expect a good faith from you, as I have an evidence to the contrary (in accordance with the wikipedia principles).Tkorrovi 20:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

BTW, if you talk about baltic languages, then they usually mean latvian and lithuanian. These are in a way unique languages, as they come almost directly from sanskrit. Estonian has nothing to do with that.Tkorrovi 21:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

"English has about ten times as many words in it as Norwegian." Yes I agree with that, English has ten times as many words as in Estonian also. Some things said in English are difficult to say in Estonian, but possible, and needs more words. As I said, I like English, I think it's beautiful. Estonian is too unimportant, I don't know whether it even would survive, it has less than million speakers. Finnish would I think, though some Finns here, when I start to talk to them in Finnish, say that they prefer to talk in English, as they are more used to talk in English in the chatrooms.Tkorrovi 21:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

You may be right that proprietorial and proprietary don't much overlap, but in some cases they do. For example, we can say both proprietary software and proprietorial software, and in some cases they mean the same. In some cases, because sometimes proprietorial may mean in some way less owned, such as partly owned, when part of it is open source.Tkorrovi 18:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm the most sure that you are really not interested in that at all, and it is also not so terribly important for me, but I too much like correctness, and therefore cannot tolerate statements that finnish language was invented 100 years ago. I don't know for who such claims are useful though, certainly they are useful for someone for some reason, usually russians, I would like to think that not for finns themselves. The finnish language as such was most likely born when the old testament was printed in finnish in 1552 http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:VDBFRm9MugMJ:virtual.finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle.asp%3FintNWSAID%3D27057+first+finnish+bible&hl=en The first books in estonian were also printed in 16. century. Before that, both in finland and in estonia, there were many dialects of the finnic languages, but no common languages. What maybe was mostly invented was the finnish and estonian nationalism, this was once intentionally forced and transmogrified by russians, to prevent the finns affiliation to swedish culture, and estonians affiliation to swedish, and later german culture. For that reason the national epic poems kalevala and kalevipoeg were written under the russian rule, these are mostly created by their authors, and are only in a minor part authentic national tales (the plot of kalevala was taking place in karjala, but by the other theories in estonia). The estonian ancient culture, though mostly forgotten by now, seems to be very different, the ancient religion seems to be more close to some form of buddhism, than to a sort of religion written in these epic poems. In ancient estonia there were not many gods, and the god was known as taara, which is the same as tara, as long a is written as aa in estonian, this was a god/goddess of earth, and tara is a goddess of earth in hindu and buddhist religions, also other such names are known as kali. Several lakes are sacred in estonia, and water lilys in these lakes. The mythology in kalevala is similar to that of norway, and has most likely a german origin, so it is not at all an original culture of the finnic people. But in general, that all is not very important at all, just that some try to transmogrify even that which there is.Tkorrovi 04:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Tkorrovi did not understand that considering him not a conscious entity was a talk about science

That could be the case. I'll check up on it, but if I have made a mistake, I thoroughly apologise. Ambi 06:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Matthew, some time ago you apologised to me and I did not reply partly because I reckoned if I thought about it I would work out why one was necessary. I was unable to work it out. And thanks for trying to defuse some of the more unthinking attacks on me, for stepping in to take the "blame" for one or two of them. Cheers! Paul Beardsell 03:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Talk to people on their talk pages

Talk to people on their talk pages please, e.g. user talk:Jimbo Wales, not user:Jimbo Wales. Dunc|☺ 9 July 2005 10:51 (UTC)

Beer?

Hi Matthew, I'm in London July 25 to August 4. I think we should have our annual beer. Incidentally I'm in Finland at the moment attending DebConf5. The travel advice suggested a cheap way of getting to Helsinki is to fly to Estonia and take the short ferry trip across the water. But then I thought I'm probably on some Estonian customs black list. The prospect of a strip search by enthusiastic friends of he who does not want to be identified as an Estonian customs officer made me think again: I flew direct. Imagine: By Wikipedia rules if they missed the four opportunities (in and out, in and out) they could catch up with me 10 months later. Yes, I know, the logic escapes me too. Paul Beardsell 11:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I attempted to expand on your good points on Jimbo's page

Hello, Matt: I tried to comment on and expand upon your post at Jimbo's page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=18551597&oldid=18540927#.3D.3DA_concern.3D.3D

I hope that I did well.--GordonWattsDotCom 20:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I got your note on my page; Thank you. -- Your words are difficult to accept, but inspiring; difficult for the obvious financial reason$$$ -but also inspiring because volunteerism is not only a good thing, but also it is evidence of a positive force, Higher Power, or whatever. Thank you once again for maing a good point; take care,--GordonWattsDotCom 10:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Tkorrovi et al: Alternative resolution

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#Alternative_resolution Paul Beardsell 13:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration case - final decision

A decision has been reached in the arbitration case relating to you. In this instance, no findings or remedies were passed concerning your conduct. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell#Final decision for further details and the full decision. -- sannse (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Paranoia

I'm glad he's not my neighbour. Paul Beardsell 06:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

List of family separation research articles

Just in case it's not on your watchlist, I ought to tell you that I've nominated List of family separation research articles for deletion. You might want to preserve it on your blog, I guess. Melchoir 13:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Matthew Stannard portrait 02a.JPG

Hi there, could you confirm the copyright status of Image:Matthew Stannard portrait 02a.JPG, I've placed it as GFDL-presumed, but if you could further clarify it, I'd be greatly appreciative. Thanks. --lightdarkness (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Lewis Schaffer

The link was inappropriately placed in the opening sentence. I should have added it to the external links section rather than delete it, which I've done just now. —Xezbeth 17:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:IMG_3753a.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:IMG_3753a.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 19:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:RDawkins_saint.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Meige's syndrome

I was looking for information on this medical disorder and ended up here. Your user page looked interesting, so I thought I might leave a message. Do you have this disorder, too, or are you a doctor? You can reply, if so inclined, to sherry922@gmail.com. Your comment about deserving our face at 50 is right on. I am closing in on that milestone of life, myself. Sherry

Image copyright problem with Image:108717_-_1_Tim_Loughton_MP.chamber.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:108717_-_1_Tim_Loughton_MP.chamber.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Privy Council

Please support http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Category:Members_of_the_Privy_Council_of_the_United_Kingdom_to_Category:Members_of_the_Privy_Council

Image:2006-12-03_-_United_Kingdon_-_England_-_London_-_Crystal_Palace_-_Crysal_Palace_Transmitter_through_trees_IMG_9102.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:2006-12-03_-_United_Kingdon_-_England_-_London_-_Crystal_Palace_-_Crysal_Palace_Transmitter_through_trees_IMG_9102.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Mothers Apart from Their Children

A tag has been placed on Mothers Apart from Their Children, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Corvus cornix 06:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"Trophallaxis"

For a topic on "Trophallaxis", there seems to be exceeding information on dog behavior. What do you think if that was placed in a separate article?

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Legal 500, by Kww (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Legal 500 is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Legal 500, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 19:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Bruce Hyman

See [discussion] on Bruce Hyman talk page.

What a nasty, malicious and probably libellous piece of editing by you on the Bruce Hyman talk page. It has NO place on Wikipedia and I have removed it. Podder8 15:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Podder8 copying your bit across so this thread makes sense
And what an adorable, lovely, sweet thing Hyman did in the family court to the dad who wanted to see his own small child :-) You must be so proud to support him. Please keep up the good work! But many have been puzzling over why he did what he did. The speculation, viz. that he did it because he cared so much about saving a personal friend a lot of money (c. £11,000) whilst at the same ensuring that Doughty Chambers revenues did not suffer, that I included and which you deleted is the most plausible that I have heard. You perhaps have a better explanation. Matt Stan 16:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
My reply. I think Hyman is a disgusting, guilty scumbag. I don't understand why you think I am supporting him. I'm not. What he did is unbelievably evil. But, and you knew there'd be a but, didn't you - I don't like seeing other people smeared. Which you seem intent on doing, for some reason. Wikipedia isn't the place for it, that's for sure. Podder8 17:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so now I'm in the know, just because I've been commenting on the one-sided reporting on Wikipedia - as it has been in the entire media, from what I can see? Matthew, you need to get out some more. Too many conspiracy theories for one night. Podder8 21:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

OK let's hear the other side? Matt Stan 21:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a clue why Hyman did what he did. I don't know the man (though you clearly won't believe that, but that's your problem, not mine). I read the Guardian/Observer article and the amount of innuendo in it was ridiculous. I assume the wife was investigated at the same time that Hyman was, so it is reasonable to assume that the police would have brought a charge against her if there was a case against her. Innocent until proved guilty and all that? An old fashioned view, I know. So when I read comments made by you on other websites such as your comment 'At least Hyman got away with making it appear that he acted alone' then clearly your claim on the Hyman discussion page that 'There are no insinuations' is a hollow one. And just because I have only edited on Wikipedia on this subject doesn't make me a bad guy (though you won't belive that either). Podder8 21:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As I posted elsewhere, Hyman got away with making it appear that he acted alone and thereby got a lesser charge than he would have faced had he been deemed to have acted in conspiracy with someone else. He got away with that. He might have been in cahoots with the mother. That is quite plausible, don't you think? Some might suggest that that is more likely than that he acted alone. There apparently wasn't enough evidence to convict on a conspiracy charge. That doesn't mean that there wasn't a conspiracy. And there might have been some plea bargaining going on in which Hyman could have said he'd plead guilty to a simple perversion of the course of justice charge in order that the Crown Prosecution Service would leave it at that. For a long time Hyman refused to plead at all, going to court several times to make up excuses about why he couldn't plead to the charge as written. This was likely a ruse to get the CPS, who are budget-constrained, to stop investigating. Hyman was a barrister; he knew a bit about how to play the system, and he was represented by his cronies at Doughty Street Chambers, who presumably knew a bit more than he.

It's worth people knowing what the possibilities are, and one possibility is that Hyman's client was involved. That is given greater credence by the fact that she stood to gain financially. Some people might think that that is the most plausible explanation for what Hyman did. Others may not, but my view is that a strong possibility exists that the mother was involved. The telephone calls that Hyman made to her at the time he sent the email might have been about when to pick her child up from school, but the timing was strange, don't you think? That is just my view, which I am surely entitled to hold and to express, just as you are entitled to hold the view that it is obvious to you for some reason that the mother must be whiter than white and could not possibly be implicated in any way. I also surmise, from having seen a number of divorce and child custody disputes play out, that the satisfaction of seeing your opponent hit with costs is likely to outweigh the satisfaction of saving yourself the same amount of money. That's why I changed the way I expressed the argument about costs, just to reflect what little I know about human nature. The fact that the hit and the saving would actually both occur together would of course be doubly satisfying.Matt Stan 00:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Matthew_Stannard/Archive_1&oldid=1038698815"