|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:59 am
Dukes KingShoy Dukes Ok well as fun as this fantasy is... -.-
From the history page of that article:
* (cur) (last) 08:57, 13 January 2007 24.154.130.172 (Talk)
* (cur) (last) 09:37, 12 January 2007 Android 93 (Talk | contribs) (→Advantages and Drawbacks)
* (cur) (last) 09:37, 12 January 2007 Android 93 (Talk | contribs) (→See Also)
* (cur) (last) 09:35, 12 January 2007 Android 93 (Talk | contribs) (forgot to close a tag)
* (cur) (last) 09:34, 12 January 2007 Android 93 (Talk | contribs) (Learnt it in math and thought it should have an article.)
Someone who DOESN'T have a wiki account edited it, thus the IP instead of username, prior to that it said Mark Cutler, NOT Takazawa. Interesting, huh? Additionally, this IP has only ever previously edited Gaia related pages and pages about ninjas and zombies. Odd, huh?
Just so you know this constitutes vandalism of Wikipedia, I am reverting it to the prior version. Whoever did the edit, if not Takazawa himself as I suspect, has priorly vandalized Wikipedia pages as well. I doubt Taka would vandalize an article about his own math formula. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cutler's_bar_notation&diff=100482623&oldid=100410166It originally said Takazawa, now it says Mark Cutler. Doubt Taka would edit it that way. Meh. I trust his article, but I do find it strange he has his own Notation. o_o Also note the creation date. LAST NIGHT. Now then, go do a vanity search for Mark Cutler. No wikipedia result for the bar nptation. So how'd he find it?
Now then, say he wrote whatever theory this is, fine. This article is written from a point of view of someone who knows what they are talking about. Most math students don't learn them to the point where they can give highly technical explanations of the theory. So, either he wrote it, which I find highly plausible, or he didn't invent the notation and someone else did who has the same name.
Additionally, if a teacher were teaching it, they wouldn't teach it as Takazawa's innovation, they'd talk about Mark Cutler's innovation. I agree. I do know that Taka is very mathematical, and would think of something like that. But I do agree with the idea that he didn't write the page. o_o
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:03 am
KingShoy Dukes KingShoy Dukes Ok well as fun as this fantasy is... -.-
From the history page of that article:
* (cur) (last) 08:57, 13 January 2007 24.154.130.172 (Talk)
* (cur) (last) 09:37, 12 January 2007 Android 93 (Talk | contribs) (→Advantages and Drawbacks)
* (cur) (last) 09:37, 12 January 2007 Android 93 (Talk | contribs) (→See Also)
* (cur) (last) 09:35, 12 January 2007 Android 93 (Talk | contribs) (forgot to close a tag)
* (cur) (last) 09:34, 12 January 2007 Android 93 (Talk | contribs) (Learnt it in math and thought it should have an article.)
Someone who DOESN'T have a wiki account edited it, thus the IP instead of username, prior to that it said Mark Cutler, NOT Takazawa. Interesting, huh? Additionally, this IP has only ever previously edited Gaia related pages and pages about ninjas and zombies. Odd, huh?
Just so you know this constitutes vandalism of Wikipedia, I am reverting it to the prior version. Whoever did the edit, if not Takazawa himself as I suspect, has priorly vandalized Wikipedia pages as well. I doubt Taka would vandalize an article about his own math formula. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cutler's_bar_notation&diff=100482623&oldid=100410166It originally said Takazawa, now it says Mark Cutler. Doubt Taka would edit it that way. Meh. I trust his article, but I do find it strange he has his own Notation. o_o Also note the creation date. LAST NIGHT. Now then, go do a vanity search for Mark Cutler. No wikipedia result for the bar nptation. So how'd he find it?
Now then, say he wrote whatever theory this is, fine. This article is written from a point of view of someone who knows what they are talking about. Most math students don't learn them to the point where they can give highly technical explanations of the theory. So, either he wrote it, which I find highly plausible, or he didn't invent the notation and someone else did who has the same name.
Additionally, if a teacher were teaching it, they wouldn't teach it as Takazawa's innovation, they'd talk about Mark Cutler's innovation. I agree. I do know that Taka is very mathematical, and would think of something like that. But I do agree with the idea that he didn't write the page. o_o Since I never stated that idea you can't be agreeing with it. I think he wrote the article, or had a friend do it. It surely didn't write itself and is written from a standpoint of intimate knowledge of the system, so he'd be involved somehow. And, if he was involved, then that would of course exlain his "finding" it so soon after its creation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:21 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:35 am
Yeah but look at the article, it talks about it from a rather knowing standpoint. So either they are plagiarizing or they are intimately familiar with the system, familiar in a manner akin to being the creator, you know what I mean?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:45 am
Dukes Yeah but look at the article, it talks about it from a rather knowing standpoint. So either they are plagiarizing or they are intimately familiar with the system, familiar in a manner akin to being the creator, you know what I mean? You know what? I know I'll never prove to you anything I know to be true. So you can assume all you like about who did what. Hell, delete the article if it makes you feel better. If you need to prove to the eighty or so people in this subforum that I am worthless, so be it. If that makes you happy, whatever. I'm all for you. I'd delete it myself if I knew how to do that stuff on teh wikiz. Whatever it takes to appease you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:58 am
Takazawa Dukes Yeah but look at the article, it talks about it from a rather knowing standpoint. So either they are plagiarizing or they are intimately familiar with the system, familiar in a manner akin to being the creator, you know what I mean? You know what? I know I'll never prove to you anything I know to be true. So you can assume all you like about who did what. Hell, delete the article if it makes you feel better. If you need to prove to the eighty or so people in this subforum that I am worthless, so be it. If that makes you happy, whatever. I'm all for you. I'd delete it myself if I knew how to do that stuff on teh wikiz. Whatever it takes to appease you. Tell me this, how did you find it if you had no prior knowledge of it? It was created yesterday, it's not in any of the common search engine crawlers' databases yet, so how? If you want to show off your system, that's great, but pretending you just found it so that it doesn't look like you're bragging isn't great. Cause unless you didn't know, that's how it looks, looks to me like you either made this, or a friend made it, and then you invented an excuse for your knowing it exists so that you could claim no prior knowledge. On the other hand, you could have come and said "I am on Wikipedia, isn't that cool?" and it would be cool, cause not everyone is on Wikipedia. Lying about it isn't cool though. I don't care what bits you lied about, but you certainly didn't find it in a search engine. And it's a bit odd that it was just made yesterday, wouldn't you say?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 12:08 pm
Dukes Takazawa Dukes Yeah but look at the article, it talks about it from a rather knowing standpoint. So either they are plagiarizing or they are intimately familiar with the system, familiar in a manner akin to being the creator, you know what I mean? You know what? I know I'll never prove to you anything I know to be true. So you can assume all you like about who did what. Hell, delete the article if it makes you feel better. If you need to prove to the eighty or so people in this subforum that I am worthless, so be it. If that makes you happy, whatever. I'm all for you. I'd delete it myself if I knew how to do that stuff on teh wikiz. Whatever it takes to appease you. Tell me this, how did you find it if you had no prior knowledge of it? It was created yesterday, it's not in any of the common search engine crawlers' databases yet, so how? If you want to show off your system, that's great, but pretending you just found it so that it doesn't look like you're bragging isn't great. Cause unless you didn't know, that's how it looks, looks to me like you either made this, or a friend made it, and then you invented an excuse for your knowing it exists so that you could claim no prior knowledge. On the other hand, you could have come and said "I am on Wikipedia, isn't that cool?" and it would be cool, cause not everyone is on Wikipedia. Lying about it isn't cool though. I don't care what bits you lied about, but you certainly didn't find it in a search engine. And it's a bit odd that it was just made yesterday, wouldn't you say? Well I do vaanity searches all the time to amuse myself. I did one on 'Dukes' once, though it didn't return anything. So for me it's no surprise that I didn't see it a few days ago when I was last bored, but did see it this search. I have no idea what a crawler is, so I'm cutting to the chase. I don't know who made it, and I don't know why. But if it really makes you feel like a bigger person. I admit it all. I admit it was all a sham. I for some reason purposely got the date of my own system wrong, as well as some of the maths inside, because I apaprently don't know my own life OR work. Despite those facts, I admit that everything Dukes ever says is right, and I am wrong about everything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 12:12 pm
Takazawa Dukes Takazawa Dukes Yeah but look at the article, it talks about it from a rather knowing standpoint. So either they are plagiarizing or they are intimately familiar with the system, familiar in a manner akin to being the creator, you know what I mean? You know what? I know I'll never prove to you anything I know to be true. So you can assume all you like about who did what. Hell, delete the article if it makes you feel better. If you need to prove to the eighty or so people in this subforum that I am worthless, so be it. If that makes you happy, whatever. I'm all for you. I'd delete it myself if I knew how to do that stuff on teh wikiz. Whatever it takes to appease you. Tell me this, how did you find it if you had no prior knowledge of it? It was created yesterday, it's not in any of the common search engine crawlers' databases yet, so how? If you want to show off your system, that's great, but pretending you just found it so that it doesn't look like you're bragging isn't great. Cause unless you didn't know, that's how it looks, looks to me like you either made this, or a friend made it, and then you invented an excuse for your knowing it exists so that you could claim no prior knowledge. On the other hand, you could have come and said "I am on Wikipedia, isn't that cool?" and it would be cool, cause not everyone is on Wikipedia. Lying about it isn't cool though. I don't care what bits you lied about, but you certainly didn't find it in a search engine. And it's a bit odd that it was just made yesterday, wouldn't you say? Well I do vaanity searches all the time to amuse myself. I did one on 'Dukes' once, though it didn't return anything. So for me it's no surprise that I didn't see it a few days ago when I was last bored, but did see it this search. I have no idea what a crawler is, so I'm cutting to the chase. I don't know who made it, and I don't know why. But if it really makes you feel like a bigger person. I admit it all. I admit it was all a sham. I for some reason purposely got the date of my own system wrong, as well as some of the maths inside, because I apaprently don't know my own life OR work. Despite those facts, I admit that everything Dukes ever says is right, and I am wrong about everything. So what engine did you use to do this vanity search? You do realize the huge improbability of a crawler (bots that collect data for search engines) finding this page in the less-than a day since it was put up? It generally takes a minimum of two weeks before a site shows up on search indexes.
I could point out that those discrepancies could just be to add plausibility to your story that you just found it, but whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 12:41 pm
Cynicality should only be used in moderation. DD:
Either way, Taka has a wiki page about his math triple bar-beam/bean/32nd notenotation-thingy.
Can we leave it at that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
