User talk:Orborde

This is Orborde's Talk Page. You talk to him here. Isn't it dandy?

Your question on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

You recently posed a question on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 54#Questionable use of Wikipedia content? concerning the questionable use of Wikipedia content on http://www.recipeland.com. And you asked to be notified of the answer on your talk page. Well, at the very, very bottom of those pages is written:

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Economics

Your recent edits at Economics may not be vandalism in the narrow sense, but they are certainly unencyclopedic. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:37, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know a thing about Associative Economics, so I have no view on that. And no, you didn't give me a heart attack. I just left you a note because, well, Wikipedia is not mainly a place to show off how clever you are, it's a place to work on writing an encyclopedia. (On talk pages, clever is just fine.) -- Jmabel | Talk 05:20, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

I was up way late and binging on Uncyclopedia, so I'm not sure I could have been called rational at the time, either. Side note: This seems like a somewhat silly way to communicate. Is there a more efficient way to use talk pages that doesn't induce fragmentation? --Orborde 05:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The way you avoid fragmentation is to copy, like I just did. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:32, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

OMFG w00t

Orborde (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orborde (talk) Orborde (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC) 21:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC) 21:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)~[reply]

Orborde]] (talk)

Orborde]] (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

21:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

So, yeah. I'm failing at this whole "custom signature" thing. As you can see, I'm trying to get a link to my talk page into my sig, and failing. If someone could tell me how to do this, that'd be dandy. Orborde 02:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Superstition

I didn't see anything redeeming or reliable in the text I removed. The problem I had with trying to make NPOV the text that remained was that in looking it over I really didn't trust the person who wrote it to understand the book well enough to report it accurately, or to understand where the fault lines are in the science wars debate. That is, if I took the position that the person who added the little "review" was correct in describing the book, I'd feel bad posting the "other side" of the issue, because from the looks of it the book is a big straw man (none of the so-called "postmodernists" argue that "everyone's position is a story or narrative and every story or narrative is equally true and valid"; as one such "postmodernist" I know put it, all things are constructions, but, as the three little pigs shows, not all constructions are as hardy as others!). However I doubt the book was really as poorly argued as this fellow has described it, and I wouldn't want to obscure that. So I figured the best approach was just to blank out that content for now and hope that somebody who has read the book with a bit more knowledge of the overriding debates would feel compelled to fill it out a bit more. I'll post this on the talk page of the article, perhaps it will attract some discussion. --Fastfission 00:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, sorry about the high school crack, it was meant as a turn of phrase, and was a poor one at that. I replied at length on the page, but clearly education has nothing to do with contributing ability, or logical reasoning, and that was just my own education elitism showing through. I apologize again, you did a good job of calling me on it. --Fastfission 05:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IDEA (cipher) and rounds

Hi, I've reworded it slightly; is it any clearer? — Matt Crypto 08:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ramirez.jpg

Yep - you found the source. Copyright does technically belong to the LAPD, but the *whole* purpose of mugshots is to make the face of the person known. I've never heard of any PD ever evoking a copyright claim to a mugshot. Besides, the image is fair use anyway. --mav 04:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Desk photo

Thanks for the complement about the photo of the desk. Edward 18:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HSV color space / Hue equation mismatch

Hi Orborde. Please have a look at the image provided here. Model 1 is that provided by Hue. It is just horrificly wrong and should be replaced ASAP. Model 2 is the sinusoidal model discussed here. Model 3 is obtained by normalizing (vertically stretching) Model 2 such that MAX-MIN = VS (=constant) for all hue angles. Model 4 is the model found at HSV color space. You will notice that Model 3 is strikingly similar to Model 4. I believe Model 4 is simply a very satisfactory approximation to Model 3. This approximation allows for somewhat simpler math. Given that Model 4 is the model suggested by Alvay Ray Smith, I believe we should stick to this model as well. Regards, (3ucky(3all 23:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Orborde. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Orborde. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]