User talk:Mtew/archive2

‌		‌	‌	General	‌		Talk		‌	Characters	‌	‌	Diaries	‌	‌	Projects	‌	‌	My templates	‌	‌	Special Pages	‌

‌		‌	‌	Archive 1	‌		Archive 2		‌	Flames	‌	‌	The Sewer	‌

new page

Hey, can I just ask that you put a space or period (for example) into the summary field when you create a new page so RC doesn't get cluttered with code? Thanks. -- Brains12 \ talk 22:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, In this, your wish is my command... mtew 22:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI: A space by itself is not sufficient. The comment gets trimmed before the test for emptyness, so I'll have to put something from !isspace in there. It may be anything; a letter, a number, punct... anything. mtew 11:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Spaces do work, I use them whenever I make changes which would usually create an auto-summary. For example,

(diff) (hist) . . N User:Brains12/New page‎; 15:38 . . (+7) . . Brains12 (Talk | contribs | block) ( )

Worked fine :) -- Brains12 \ talk 15:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... mtew 17:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Map size deux

Ok, I think there are a few things to keep in mind that need to be balanced: volume of changes (RC or bot or watchlists), easy of upkeep and editting, easy of use for the final product, and value of the final product. The first can be ignored if it's felt that it's a necessary evil (e.g. delete sprees). The second is kinda what poke is alluding to, how complex it is/would be. I personally like to focus on the third and fourth, what does the community get out of it?

Also, as a side issue is whether projects like this should be done in relation to feedback. I think that right now it's at a "please hold up" & "I second that" stage. So, I think you'd need to allay people's worries/concerns first ("I demand satisfaction") to proceed, even though it's not technically required. --JonTheMon 20:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The ease of upkeep and ease of use are my main concerns. ease of editing is part of ease of upkeep. While I do tend to be over elaborate, I have been quite careful to make sure that the changes I am making to main space are simple and maintainable.

The community gets more consistent and possibly more accurate information if I do this right. It also gets less grind when it comes to upkeep, again if I do this right.

The feedback is WAY too dramatic at this point. I am a very stubborn cuss when I see crowds trying to compel conformity. You listen and try to understand. Poke is a little more gruff about it, but he also listens. I don't see some of the others doing that. They get up on their high horse and say 'do this' and 'do that' with implicit threats attached. And nary a 'please' nor any patience apparent. Worse, some of them make things up. That puts my back up. mtew 21:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

One thing, I think poke brought it up before, was how much work it would save. An issue of upfront costs vs recurring costs. From my vantage point, I see a lot of upfront work that would yield good returns, but only on a very small number of edits. So, a tradeoff of sorts, and if the net value is about even, the status quo would likely have the deciding vote. --JonTheMon 21:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I mostly agree. It would depend on who is doing the work. The worker should be the one who decides if it is worth doing. While others might think the result is too small, the one doing the work might see personal rewards. I, for one, think doing a few repetitive tasks would help me break some really horrid bad habits. Actually taking something onerous to completion would help me convince myself that I can take big projects to completion. It would remove a mental block I have about some fairly complex things I have been putting off doing. mtew 21:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That may be the case if this truly were a personal project on your own website. However, this is a community wiki, and therefore you should not be the one to decide whether you are going to do something because you feel it is worth it. Nor is it a place to break yourself of your own bad habits. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the best wikicoder here (far from it, actually), but like Jon says, if the net value is approximately +/- zero, it should be put before the community to come to a consensus on and probably isn't really worth cluttering up the RCs with. If there were more gain for the community (as in significant gain, not just a tiny bit), then I don't think many people would have issues with what you're doing, but as it stands, some of our best coders here are confused, and I think that says a lot. --★KOKUOU★ 01:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You are standing this on its head. If I decide not to work on a project, I won't. As for the RC traffic, what is the main purpose of the RC log? I get the impression that a lot of you use it for entertainment. You find the stuff I'm doing boring. SO WHAT! mtew 02:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Mtew you continually sidestep the issues raised by users or go off on tangents. Ko didnt say anything about your work being boring. Also your conjecture that people use the RC for fun, is simply that, conjecture. Users like RC to be kept spam free, as it helps us track the changes on the wiki and the articles which need work or might need checked for reverts, it can even be used to check is someone has replied to a post and so on and so forth. Having someone spam RC with pointless edits however, simply serves to clutter the RC and thus preventing people from finding the informaion they are checking RC for. However RC is not my major issue, my major issue is that many people on this wiki learn wiki coding as they go, I for one did and I know many others have. Adding vague parameters such as the ones youve added to infoboxes only serves to add a new level of complexity to a page and thus leads to confusion with users and hinders their understanding of how wiki code operates. Further to this I have no personal problem with people wishing to make the wiki better, however the benefit of a wide sweeping change to the main space article templates should serve the community at large, not one particular user. You have still yet to show anyone the worth of your work and when asked about your recent projects you have either been dismissive, agressive, evasive or plain old confusing. Myself and MANY other users don't see the benefit of your work, even more don't even understand what it is you are attempting to achieve, thus the onus is not on us to prove the pointless-ness of what you are doing, rather it is on you to show us it has merit. Thus far you have neglected to do this. Please start responding with actual aims, plans and explanations of how this will help the wiki AT LARGE and not with general rhetoric about the theory of worth or how you feel about peoples comments, as to be blunt, those are not pertinent to the issue at hand. -- Salome 03:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"Adding vague parameters such as the ones youve added to infoboxes" — which ones are talking about here, besides the one mentioned on Template_talk:Location_infobox#Add_map_size_information_-_not_displayed? I don't find that one vague, and I'd be willing to answer any questions being asked there (or wherever the others are, once I get pointed to them).

While it may seem reasonable to demand that people who write for a gaming wiki be also able to explain themselves lucidly and concisely, I think it is too much to expect that they get it right at the first try, and this talk page topic, for one, has not been focused on understanding what Tmew is on about (although it probably has managed to convey that his explanations need to get a whole lot better if he wants to avoid community upset over his actions). Characterizing Mtew as "dismissive, agressive, evasive or plain old confusing" is unfair because, while he is that at times (and so are others here), he is also conceding things, addressing points raised, and attempting to explain himself better. Right below this topic you find a discussion where he's constructive, maybe because I actually attempted to clarify matters instead of placing the burden on him alone. Cooperation is the key. But maybe that is plain old confusing? ;-) Maybe you all are saying that there is no place on this wiki for people with ideas and good technical skills who are not as able to express themselves as well as you are. --mendel 10:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Salome: If I 'side-step' an issue it is usually because my immediate response is outrage. Outrage at misrepresentation. Outrage at the re-opening of issues that have been settled by earlier discussions that the re-opener ignores. Outrage at claims to represent 'the consensus' when they are fairly obviously expressing a personal opinion. Outrage at derogatory remarks that should draw NPA warnings but don't. Outrage at arbitrary or bullying demands. Outrage at the 'in-crowd' mentality. I avoid expressing that outrage for reasons that should be very easy to figure out. mtew 06:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

mendel: The reference to 'vague parameters' may be to the conformation compliance checklist projects stuff that Poke had objections to in a 'bot' request and elsewhere. Those objections are being taken badly out of context and are misapplied. I did not define the original list of those parameters and their meaning though I did extend the list using the same style as the originals. I get a feeling this is a deliberate distortion, a kind of trolling, and have ignored it on that basis. mtew 14:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

At/Al templates

What project does this refer to? I can't find them, link please? --mendel 17:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Template_talk:At and Template_talk:Al --JonTheMon 17:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

See User:M.mendel/fetch. And actually people do copy some popular user templates over (i.e. for character pages), and, being beginners, they do it incompletely and wonder why it fails to work properly. --mendel 18:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

yessss. :D Did you see User:Mtew/Projects/Drafts/al mtew 18:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I read the description and decided to forego reading the code (I glanced at it just now), because its usability would have sucked anyway (i.e. too complicated to use). (But you knew that already.) --mendel 18:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Basic use would be {{Al|expected main space page|alternate location prefix}}. What would make it more usable? mtew 18:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If that is the basic use (i.e. the most common case), then you suck at doc writing, because I couldn't see that from your documentation at all: I figured there were various parts of the page names being assembled in various ways, and decided that was way too complicated for what is needed, or can be understood by most people. ;-) --mendel 18:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I will admit to being a tech trying to write user docs and not being good at it. The other main use would be {{Al|expected main space page||alternate location suffix}}. The other stuff just lets you carve up the original name using #titleparts and stick stuff in the middle. That would let you chop off another users name if you wanted or ignore the original name entirely.mtew 18:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

SysAdmins

There is a serious problem with the behavior of some of the system operation administrators.

Before I get started with the criticism, I will say that there are some really good admins here. They provide very good to excellent examples of how the job can be done. The fact that they do the job so well actually makes the behavior of the others less excusable.

First, the actual abuse of admin power, while rare, does happen. In particular, bans are over-used. This combines with another problem I will get to shortly, gives the entire SysOp crew a bad reputation. While I try ignore general classifications of people, other people often do not. In my opinion, the other SysOps would be wise to 'sit on' these people.

As mentioned above, there is a problem that makes power abuse much worse. Specifically, they do NOT 'Assume Good Faith'. Before taking drastic action, they do not always examine the whole situation. Quick action is often a good thing, but has to be coupled with good judgment. Vandals and spamers with short histories do need quick blocks. Also people who attack others aggressively or viciously should be stopped quickly and harsh actions may be needed to stop the abuse. However, normally non-aggressive members with non-trivial histories deserve a warning before harsh action is taken. This is especially true if the member has been provoked.

There is also a problem when a SysOp colors what other people say with their own biases. Exaggeration is a problem with at least one of the SysOps. That one accused me of requiring 'compelling' reasons for altering my actions. I do ask that requests be reasonable. A general demand that all editing be stopped is not reasonable. A request that specific kinds of edits be suspended will be honored by me.

The tendency of some SysOps to demand obedience is also a serious concern. This is made worse when threats are included in the demand. For example, a threat to remove all of a members contributions, or even all of a certain kind of contributions is WAY out-of-bounds. This is simply 'bullying' and really should be considered grounds for a ban in my opinion. SysOps who act as bullies aught to have their privilege grants reviewed,

A much less important, but still serious, problem that I have with some of the SysOps is that they bend the NPA rule a great deal. Classifying change log entries that result from editing as 'spam' is derogatory.

There are other problems, but I have vented my discontent enough for the moment and should stop now. mtew 13:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship#Reconfirmation? poke | talk 13:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Combined with some reality preferably. I haven't seen anyone threaten to remove all of a user's contributions. Whining about stuff that actually happens is one thing, but when you start dreaming stuff up to whine about... -Auron >8< 13:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Poke: thanks for the link.

Auron: 'decide if we want to keep any of these edits you have made, (both this current project and your previous project)' is a threat to remove content. mtew 14:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to try to clarify, i think there's a difference between contributions and results of your contributions. An undo/rollback will keep your contribution, but remove the result of it. I think that's what Auron was referring to. I don't know if that makes a difference to your point or not, but it seemed like it was being mis-understood. --JonTheMon 14:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see the distinction, but it does not make a difference to this point. The additional information would become unavailable and the threat is still a problem. mtew 14:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a copy from the note section to a parameter of the infobox as additional information.. And in general I don't see "information" that is only visible to editors as very important information at all.. poke | talk 15:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not just visible to editors. It can be specifically transcluded in other pages. Also, the absence of the StringFunctions extension makes isolating the quantitative information in the note impossible as far as I can tell. mtew 15:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

However you are correct that adding the 'map size' to the infobox is not the right way to do this. I had agreed to that before the shit hit the fan and it should not have prompted the threat. I will very likely remove the 'map size' parameter myself some time soon from the nine pages where it was added. If that was what was meant, then they were beating a dead horse. But that is NOT all they were threatening to remove. mtew 18:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Column alignment

How do you determine which columns should be right/center aligned? --JonTheMon 14:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The result has to look reasonable. Actual numbers should line up on the right. Single words or code values look best when centered. Arbitrary strings get the default left alignment. For sorting purposes, leading blanks can make a lot of difference and that can change the kind of alignment needed. mtew 16:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas/Research

Shouldn't there be a way that you could call a dpl template for every instance of the /day or /week template called so you don't have to hardcode any limits? --JonTheMon 20:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Not with DPL, but the LoopFunctions WIKI extension would allow exactly that. You might recall that I asked that those be installed some time ago, but no one else saw a need for them. That particular episode left me a bit PO'd at the establishment here. You might want to talk to the other POWERS and have them reconsider their opinion... grumble --mtew 21:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is a little magic you can do with DPL, see User:JonTheMon/Updates. That's the parameters of my 2 example calls on my update alert. So, it is possible. It's just that by using relative paths e.g. {{/day|....}} that it seems to screw up some of the calls. Imma look into it a bit more. --JonTheMon 21:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the generated tables are smaller than the number of data points can also screw things up. Really, putting the LoopFunctions into the WIKI is likely to be the best solution. --mtew 21:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, you can use DPL to generate a table, you know? So, just give it some table formatting for each row it adds, and boom, no looping needed. --JonTheMon 21:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

While I haven't looked into the DPLmatrix stuff, I was aware that DPL can be used to generate tables with one row for each item found. In this case, the items it could detect are '/day' (or '/week') template calls. However, there will be more '/day' lines than there are items (or locations) once a single duplicate is seen. It is even worse when you look at the 'delay distribution' table. While it is possible to Kluge something that uses DPL to do this kind of thing, the result would be exactly that – a royal Kluge. Better to use the right tool. --mtew 02:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note

It's per se, not per say. It's Latin. Misery 14:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

yep, legal latin, but either way, you understand what I meant. Fix it if it bothers you. --mtew 14:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not particularly bothered, but I have a habit of reducing misinformation. I apologise if it was rude. Misery 14:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Not rude. I was uncertain of the spelling, too lazy to pull up another page to check and put in the modern word with the understanding that the meaning would be sufficiently clear. I may or may not fix it depending on my mood when I'm done sorting my e-mail. --mtew 14:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

do test edits on a test wiki

You make entirely too many unnecessary pages, on a regular basis, that sysops have to clean up after your experimenting is done. That's bull. Do testing on your own wiki. This wiki is not a hosting service, it is a wiki about Guild Wars. The freedom of userspace doesn't stretch that far. If you have coding you are done with and want to present, then sure, go ahead and make a few pages in your userspace to show your work. However, if you are just fooling around, making 20+ pages with code that will never be used by anyone but yourself, do so somewhere else. Thanks. -Auron 02:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

As an alternative, you can just recycle your pages so they don't have to get deleted each time. Just name your sandbox test1, test2...testn and use those same pages for everything.--Fighterdoken 02:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Or that! Good idea. -Auron 04:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I moved stuff around because the pages were 'too big'. The moves leave behind redirects. The redirects are not used because I clean up the links. If stuff could be moved without leaving redirects behind, this would not happen.

Also, this IS stuff that really has pieces that are now in the main space. This is an ongoing project and is about 30% complete. Other things like Nicholas Sandford pushed this project off my active list, but Nicholas is now settled enough that I could get back to this. These are NOT tests. They are drafts. They are preparations of Guild Wars specific material. They may use some of the tools I developed earlier, but they are NOT experiments and do NOT belong in another WIKI.

--mtew 04:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating. Just make sure your non-experimental edits don't leave behind 50+ pages to be deleted, k? -Auron 06:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

New Templates

Are you actually intending for those templates to be used on articles? --JonTheMon 17:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a note: I brought up a similar queston at Template talk:Folder Tabs. -- Wandering Traveler 17:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

new page (2)

#new page; same again. Thanks -- Brains12 \ talk 20:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a support issue

That wasn't a support issue... it was a bug report. -- Wyn 15:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Right. It was indeed intended as a bug report. The support issue was the attempted cheating. Are you saying there is a better place to report it? --Max 2 15:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Since there are no names involved in who the person was who was attempting to cheat, there really is nothing Gaile is going to be able to do with it.. it should go on the miscellaneous bug report page since it isn't directly related to the most recent update. -- Wyn 16:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That was helpful. I do have the name of character, but not the suggested screen shot. This was posted on Linsey's page first and Pyron Sy suggested that it belonged on Gaile's page. Poke's comment was way out of line. --Max 2 16:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Bugs versus intended features

A bug is usually taken to be the result of a coding error resulting in unintended behaviour. The report feature was specifically designed to be unable to be used on people who are no longer in the same district with you and as such, the fact that you cannot do this is a design feature as opposed to a bug. I have to say this is an intended feature as the message returned when you attempt to report someone in another district it specifically tells you that you cannot do this. Whether or not this is a good feature or not is open for debate, but any changes would be classed as a suggestion to change an intended feature as opposed to a bug report, which due to licensing issues is not something which can be made on this wiki at this time. If you want to know the correct term for what you consider this problem to be, it would be classed as a "design flaw". I have kept a loose eye on the whole situation and I have to say I feel people have handled the whole thing very poorly and entered into semantic debate and thrown you to all corners of the wiki. I can't apologise for them, but I'm sorry the situation got so silly. Hopefully some of what I have said explains the strange positions people are taking, but until our licensing is changed no suggestions to fix this problem can be read, acknowledged or acted upon here. May I suggest an alternative place such as the GWGuru forums? Misery 10:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. I've met the person who found the original 'bug' and have an engineering background. I've read, professionally, thousands of 'bug' reports. The form of my report was specifically NOT a suggestion. It consists of reporting a sequence of events and a statement that the last event in the sequence has undesirable effects. It specifically and intentionally does not ask for any changes. All the claims that it is a suggestion are factually inaccurate. Worse, they imply that the problem should not be fixed because of the licensing issue. That is also bullshit because I explicitly included a release to AreanaNet excusing them from the onerous restrictions for the license for the material I generated that covers the problem. --Max 2 15:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Arenanet have already explained that they are unprepared to accept such releases at this time. I'm not going to get into an argument about semantics with you, if you choose to define a bug incorrectly or differently from how I do nothing I say will make any sense. For the purposes of what I have said I have defined the term "bug". I believe this is the accepted definition for people who speak English as a first language. I believe I have have correctly interpreted what Arenanet has said so far. You are of course free to act as you wish, I merely attempted to explain the happenings and where various people were coming from. I will also mention this is not a new issue and Arenanet has been made aware of it before, their suggestion is to contact support to report people who switch districts to avoid being reported. I do not expect action based upon your "bug report" at this time. Good luck and happy editing. Misery 16:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

CUT THE CRAP! You may want to misunderstand me, but I certainly understand you. You want a narrow definition of 'bug' when a broader definition that includes my meaning is in wide use. As I said, I've met the lady who found the first 'bug' and that incident would NOT fit in your definition. Even if Arenanet is unprepared to accept releases on suggestions at this time, I did give them the release in case they decide that my writing is a suggestion. You are also choosing to ignore that what I wrote is NOT a suggestion. As I explained elsewhere, the phrasing specifically avoided the suggestion form. I've had more than a little practice doing this. In fact, so much that I do it more or less automatically. The crack about English as a first language is also completely uncalled for and I find it offensive. Further, your understanding of the events is incorrect. Poke was the one that raised the switching districts issue. The incident did NOT involve the offender switching districts. I do understand where the comments are coming from, and it is a fairly ugly place. There are a lot of self-serving motivations involved. Facts, like the district change, are being distorted, deliberately or not. So look at yourself closely before continuing this. --Max 2 17:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't uttered a word of crap actually and I understand you perfectly, you are just incorrect. You are implying a suggestion by implying that the current implementation is false. You want something to change, that's a suggestion Mtew. You can play the offended card all you want, I was not attempting to belittle you but merely explain the situation as another party who had not previously been involved. Getting offended and angry will only make your points lost, not enhance them. May I humbly suggest that you stop assuming everyone is out to get you or working against you? I may be incorrect, but at the moment that appears to be how you are acting. Misery 20:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If I may quote w:Software bug, which is admitedly not a definitive source but does represent consensus, "A software bug is the common term used to describe an error, flaw, mistake, failure, or fault in a computer program that prevents it from behaving as intended (e.g., producing an incorrect or unexpected result). " The error message specifically mentions that you must be in the same district as someone to report them which heavily suggests the feature is behaving as intended and as supported by the documentation, i.e. not a bug. Misery 20:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Settle down

Your comments to Backsword are unnecessary and bordering on violating GWW:NPA. I would agree that your "bug report" is more of a suggestion and does not actually belong on the bug report page, but I'm willing to allow ArenaNet to just reject it, since the feature is working as it was intended to work, and therefore not a bug. Continued name calling however, will earn you a ban. -- Wyn 01:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Backsword is notorious for moving stuff around at his own whim. He moved the report from the Misc Bug page to my talk page without even the courtesy of leaving a pointer to it's new location. I moved it back and added a note to Backsword to keep his hands off. That comment was necessary. Admitted: adding the adjective was borderline. I find his high-handedness outrageous.

Also, the behavior of '/report' may be intentional, but the incident does demonstrate that a problem exists. Reporting the incident and opining that it represented a serious problem does NOT make the report a suggestion. I am practiced enough in the art of reporting (and fixing) bugs to know how to avoid including a suggestion when it is not appropriate. Read the incident report carefully and ask yourself if I made any suggestions about what should be done. Note that the the 'should' in the report is referencing the action of the players and not the action of ArenaNet. Others may have made suggestions about this, but it does not excuse people, yourself included, from looking at what I had actually written. (Didn't you, yourself, tell me it belonged on the Misc. Bug page?) --Max 2 02:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh shit, something in Guild Wars is designed poorly? That's a first! I mean, after the impeccable design of areas like Domain of Anguish and the flawless, bugless Automated Tournament system, I can't imagine them screwing up something as menial as bug reports. You must be kidding! -Auron 06:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I happen to agree with your basic sentiment. However I'm and old stick in the mud and gave them a heads up about someone attempting to cheat. Now that I know that they really don't give a shit, I wont bother. Note however that the breakage in the bug reporting is due to a bunch of WIKI regulars who simply can't read, not with ArenaNet. The real problem is that the sysops let out of control people like Backsword get away with trampling on other people. (I'll admit that I am quite rebellious myself, and make LOTS of noise, but I have brought my behavior into line with expectations.) --Max 2 11:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep telling yourself that. You have quite a ways to go to get in line with expectations. -Auron 12:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If you mean I am expected to not make so much noise, that's not going to change. Other stuff is changing and has changed. --Max 2 12:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Making noise is fine, but it would be helpful if you could start making sense. Misery 13:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That could be a problem. Much of my thinking is kinaesthetic, visual or high-dimension mathematics. That, coupled with dyslexia, make it difficult to for me to explain myself and virtually impossible with people with less than good will. --Max 2 15:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

To visualise a 32 dimensional space, simply visualise an n-dimensional space, then bring n to 32. Misery 15:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

But n varies from point to point and is often fractional. Lay derivatives are needed to make the connections. Damn, I've been looking for my book on Gravity for two months now. :þ --Max 2 15:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)