steve waterman wrote:Coincidentally, Daan Strebe, its author, is the person that objected at wiki, and single-handed, got the waterman map removed from its pages.
Done, even before I was notified, actually wiki still has not notified me ...just poof...not "citeable" I think...one can read the "discussion at wiki", I cannot bear to, again.
This is however, my very first time seeing his "skinny" production/projection. It does, happily and haphazardly in fact, violate two of MY deal breakers.
Antarctica does not appear like that on the globe.
Parts of the globe are missing in the projection.
I wonder what a 1000 mile edged square around the south pole plots to ???...it would be cosmic relief, for me personally.
I see my name has been used in vain.
Mr. Waterman, we’re not rivals. It’s sad you don’t understand that. It’s sad you couldn’t sit back and bask in the moment of fame Mr. Munroe so generously afforded, but instead chose to co-opt his forum for self-promotion. http://xkcd.com/977/
The contents of your many postings are sad, being riddled with errors, paranoia, and aggrandizement of your map/projection/thing. It’s sad you chose to try to bias what few readers you might have left against me (what do I have to do with any of this?), http://xkcd.com/978/
despite the many, many hours I have spent engaging you in good faith. I have encouraged you to publish your work in a peer-reviewed journal so that people have something reliable to refer to, offered to help however necessary, and tendered constructive comments on your attempts to do so. I have spent excruciating hours engaging your correspondence on kinematics.
I tried. I submitted work I believe twice, to one of those, that you had provided in a list. Then eventually said that they would need to give to an expert as there was no one there qualified, to judge. The only gave me one reference name...that was you, Daan Strebe. This was circular now, and to keep my focus, I gave up and moved on. It seems that someone posted to wiki that I cannot use xkcd either as reference...nor the work at Carlos Furuti, Izidor Hafner, and numerous other collaborative works...seen via my site. No waterman polyhedra, nor collaborators either for sphere packing...which indeed derives the polyhedron required for the this projection.
nor on-line waterman polyhedral generator http://paulbourke.net/geometry/waterman/gen/index.html
Also, there are specific routines in Mupad and Mathematica and a few documented at MathWorld.
including a aqrt 10,000,00 done several years ago with a supercomputer, and the image can be downloaded.
waterman gored globes
Great Stella..has virtually millions of watermans with their nets drawn by the software automatically... that, with no inventory, like Mark Newbold's applet, the next below, are quite amazing pieces of software....the applet is wik-hed fast and almost instantaneously generates the new poly...from just a single value...indeed, not one object in any inventory.
...none of thes eare valid for the wiki and pass the wiki test/filter/judgment/acceptance...as i understand their rules for "citable".
at his own polyhedral site http://www.saintjohnsabbey.org/wenninger/index.html
he is a monk...and one rightfully assumes a man of trust. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Wenninger
nor [url][his most generous endorsement in the polyhedral arena.[/color]
Publish or perish, seems to be the wiki manta. This likely would do squat either as verification...as "citable"...
Yet all you can muster in your moment of fame is spite and a grab at free advertising. It’s all just so… sad.
You see this all the above as self-promotion, whereas to me, this is my body of work..and I also have some Physics stuff too...
And now you are wrong yet again; no parts of the globe are missing on that particular projection of mine.
Then why is now the first time I hear from you that you have a projection, or any through this thread that i first see it. let me guess, it IS on wiki and nicely secured with citation. I would have looked if I had EVER heard on such a thing.
So, due to the huge distortion to Antarctica's real shape in the Strebe map, and with no actual numbers, and no documentation ever seen, I could not tell exactly how poor the polar region was. No matter, i still would like to see your map with a square of 100 miles edge around the south pole on the globe plotted on new projection. I suspect you will fail to post such a request, and merely avoid it, by switching focus as diversion and never will actually respond to it as a posted graphic.
I like your map, Mr. Waterman.
Thank you Daan.
That doesn’t mean I should have overlooked its lack of qualification for inclusion in Wikipedia.
You are correct...it is not "citable" under the wiki rules.
That doesn’t mean I ought to ignore the kinks in the graticule. That doesn’t mean I should pretend interruptions come without cost. That doesn’t mean I should prefer your map and obsessions over all else. Can you not yearn for a more vibrant world outside the confines of your own head?
Best regards, and with apologies to Mr. Munroe for this intrusion
— daan Strebe