User talk:Sir Isaac Lime

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome! 1.1 Additional tips 1.2 Be Bold!! 2 Test 3 Magical Negro 4 WP:AIAV 5 Page confusion 6 RE:Vandalism from WoodDaver 7 Luís Bonfá 8 Perspective "accuracy" 9 It has come to My attention... 10 Hey 11 Wikipedia:Introduction 12 Thank you 13 Re: John Lee Hooker 14 Good article on a musician

[edit] Welcome!

Joe I 03:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Test

Thanks for experimenting with the page Dollar on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.SoothingR 10:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This message is regarding the page Dollar. Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. SoothingR 08:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If that truly is the case, I apoligize..however, I'd like you to take my reasons for it in account:

• Your adding was not referenced, and I was unable to verify it with Google.
• Words like 'cheese', 'pie', 'bacon' and vulgar language are regularly edited into Wikipedia for no apparent reason.
• When I removed your contribution, you added it back.

So please, when making possibly controversial changes, cite your sources and discuss it on talkpages. But for now, thanks for the notification and I'll leave 'cheese' in Dollar.SoothingR 18:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magical Negro

This is regarding your repeated vandalism on Magical Negro. Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Stop deleting content immediately. KI 01:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Clearly my assessment was incorrect. By in large I agree with you on your points, but until consensus is reached I'm wary of bold measures. KI 20:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI, user:155.84.57.253, user:24.0.91.81, and user:CantStandYa are one person, also known as user:Shran. He may also start using other IPs or user names. He has a history of abusing multiple identities and sockpuppets to skew consensus editing. I've semi-protected the article from IP editing, but will remove it shortly. Please let me know if the user causes further trouble. Cheers, -Will Beback 07:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIAV

Please do not add people to that page unless they have vandalized very recently, within the past few hours. Thanks. --tomf688^{talk} 23:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page confusion

Hello. Sorry to have posted my {{PRODhint}} on your user page instead of here. I do know the difference :) but I must have mis-clicked the link... Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page, too. Best, Sandstein 04:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Vandalism from WoodDaver

Your welcome. If you scroll through all his contributions, you can see you're not the only user page I had to cleanup. Happy editing ;-) Moe ε 23:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Read wooddaver's request to be unblocked. He tells you to kiss his ass in the unlock template. Lol, it was of course denied. Cheers. --mboverload@ 23:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luís Bonfá

Hiya. Looks like the copyvio in this article was inserted over an existing stub, [1]. On things like this, do we just roll back to the non-copyvio version, or what? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, but I went ahead and reverted it anyway. I should have checked more thoroughly for that. Sir Isaac Lime 23:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perspective "accuracy"

I noticed you deleted the comments regarding a perspective only being accurate for a spherical picture surface.

Please consider these two points below regarding perspective accuracy:

1. SMALL-ANGLE APPROXIMATION

a. If a perspective is "calculated" using standard perspective construction techniques (ie, standard 2-point perspective method or standard perspective transformation matrix calculation on a computer), the resultant image will NOT match a true projection of rays onto a picture plane.

b. The reason that standard perspective construction methods are not accurate (when using a flat picture plane) is that they make the small-angle approximation in order to render lines that are straight in the represented scene as straight lines in the picture plane.

c. Example: Imagine a perspective drawing of a road such that the road extends across the picture plane, parallel to the picture plane. All standard perspective methods will represent the road as having constant width in the resulting perspective drawing since the road is parallel to the picture plane. This is an inherent INACCURACY in the representation of the road since it breaks the primary rule of perspective: the distance from the road to the viewer INCREASES as the road extends away (to either side) from the point directly in front of the viewer --- therefore, an accurate "perspective" should represent the road as becoming narrower towards the edges of the image.

2. DISTORTIONS AND THE MEANING OF ACCURACY

a. A second source of distortion is a matter of judgement on what it means to be accurate: as a picture plane increases in size (ie, increasing the angle of the field of view), a flat picture plane quickly becomes highly distorted (similar to Greenland on a Mercator map) regardless of using the standard perspective approximation mentioned above or by accurately projecting rays.

b. It is true that if one were to view the image from the exact viewing position from which the perspective was constructed, the highly distorted edges of the image will appear accurate (if the perspective was created by projecting rays) simply because the distortions are being cancelled out. However, the image will not follow the rules of perspective! Only when a scene is projected onto a spherical surface is a true perspective image created. This is analogous to Greenland appearing in its accurate size only on a globe.

c. Example: Imagine the viewing eye of the perspective is located at center of a circle-shaped road. On a flat "perspective" generated either by standard calculation or by projecting rays, the road width will NOT stay constant, even though the road is always a constant distant away from the viewing eye --- again, this breaks the primary rule of perspective. Only when the image is projected onto a curved surface (in this case, either a sphere or cylinder will represent the road accurately) will the perspective be "true."

I would appreciate any comments you may have on the above!

Thank you,

"J-wiki"

First off, please sign your comments using four tildes ~~~~. It just makes it easier to know who I'm talking to. As for point 1, you're right, it is an approximation. Feel free to edit the page to do so. When I came to the page, there was a lot of information that was mathematically true, but did not help in understanding perspective. In other words, there was more about what perspective wasn't than what it was. As it was, it didn't add anything to the discussions, because it didn't explain why, or how that actually mattered.

I think you make a couple jumps based on the limitations of one-point perspective, and apply it to all perspective constructions. Yes, in a one point perspective drawing there is an approximation for lines parallel to the picture plane. However, the rate at which they recede is that given by drawing lines from the eye to the point. This is identical to what is given in a basic (n-point) perspective construction.

Is a spherical projection necessary? I'm not convinced it is. But honestly, I don't have a lot of time for wikipedia, and it's been a while since I looked at the math for perspective.

I'd say take a crack at the limitations of perspective section. Sorry again for my half-assed response, but I'm moving right now. Oh, and my only other thought is that 2b is incorrect. It doesn't "happen" to look correct because they are there, it looks correct because that is where it is supposed to look correct. It is in any other place that it happens to look correct. Again, a paragraph or two in "Limitations of Perspective" may be nice, making sure you emphasize that perspective works only if the picture plane isn't absurdly large. Sir Isaac Lime 07:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please pardon my lack of wiki-equiette, as I am still relative new to wikipedia. I do appreciate you taking time to reply to my comments. As you may have noticed already, I have added a little more than "a paragraph or two," but I've prefaced the section warning the reader that it's not important to a basic understanding of perspective. When you do have some more time in the future, I hope you get a chance to review the section in detail. Good luck with your move...

J-wiki 06:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. You are right about point "2b": in the actual article I've described the distortions in a (hopefully) more accurate manner. -J-wiki 06:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It has come to My attention...

Dear Sir Lime, let me first adress that I am an admirer of your work on theology. But I am afraid that I must protest some of your decisions of late. It was brought to me by a student of mine that you deleted a page on a certain Infidel Iggens. I must protest this, it is a true article and should not have been deleted. I have also spoken to over this system of mail to others in league with you and your anti-Iggens cause. I have spoken also to (in person) the writers of the original article, a certain John Pape (WoodDaver) and Isaac Burgess Von Halburg (JizzyJonII). I told them not too post any such article without my checking it. However now having seen the original essay I say that these students should be unblocked and their article reposted.

Yours-- Prof. Jones

cc Alexis Wright

--Gene Chris Jones 21:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

The following is a message that I found on a certain Isaac Burgess Von Halberg's user talk, I just want you to see the bad things that others are saying about you:

"Sir Isaac Lime is a motherfucking faggot who sucks his pet monkey's fucking dick. What the fuck kind of name is that anyway, I just think that anyone sitting at the computer 24-fucking-7 waiting for the next motherfucking article to pop up is a fucking motherfucker!!!!!!!!"

Something tells me he was a little mad...

[edit] Wikipedia:Introduction

Sorry, that was a quick VP error on my part. I thought he edited the begining text, oops. Hello32020 19:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I'm glad you liked the suggestion and example. I hope that the people involved in sniping at each other at WP:AN/I will as well. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: John Lee Hooker

Please, Sir Isaac, read this link: Citation Needed in John L. Hooker An administrator, User:TomTheHand explains in detail that the position you are taking on my talk page and on the article discussion page is incorrect. If you like, I can ask him to explain it to you again if it is not clear. Mattisse(talk) 03:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

As I stated in your talk page, this link has no bearing at all on the discussion at hand. Please do not take small criticisms personally, I am in no way attacking you or the citation policy of wikipedia in general. I merely said that you requested a citation that was already cited, which was unnecessary. Sir Isaac Lime 05:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Sir Isaac for your reply. My point was that the information in the introduction was somewhat incorrect, so I changed it and gave a reference to try to deflect the criticism I suspected was heading my way from people who "own" the article. If you look in the edit history and the actual code, I think you will find that I did use named references. As I look through the article I saw more that was incorrect as well as important elements of the history of black recording ignored. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I want to improve an article about an important black artist, an article that seems unaware of the behind-the-scenes business issues which with black artists had to deal as well as other elements of the person, John Lee Hooker's, life. Thanks again! Mattisse(talk) 13:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good article on a musician

See Paul McCartney for a good example of an article on a musician. User:TomTheHand recommends 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict as an example of a well-cited article. Thanks! Mattisse(talk) 03:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)