User talk:Vic226

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you wish to leave me a message, please use the "+" button above to add your new message on the bottom. Please also remember to sign your name with four consecutive tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. Also, please keep an eye on my talk page for updates; I will always respond to your message in here for the consistency of the discussion unless otherwise specified by you. Thanks.

This user is currently busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Contents 1 Helpme request 2 Welcome 3 Mathematical induction 4 Your reversion of my edits to my user page 5 User:SpecialWindler 6 Cabal case Israel-Lebanon conflict revert war 7 Thanks 8 Tell me what to fix. 9 Have a problem. 10 Thank You Vic 11 Paradise Lost - official MySpace link removed 12 Daisuke 13 Atletico Madrid kit. 14 Operation Wrath of God 15 Urf, IRC? 16 Copied Boxes 17 The Breakfast Club 18 Mussina

[edit] Helpme request

Although I have been using Wikipedia for a long time, I am only a fresh member of the Wikipedians registered for only about a month. I understand that I can look through the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia if I take my time, but I would like to know which of them are the most important or commonly violated by other users. I apologize if I make any inconvenience to anyone.

I'll be dropping off a welcome message, while I'm here; hopefully that will clear up a little bit. There's always the five pillars of Wikipedia, or the simplified ruleset. Some people even boil it down to the policy trifecta -- ultimately, the five pillars will probably make the most sense for new users, but I recommend a glance at all three, whenever you're ready. :) Luna Santin 05:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Welcome! Hello, Vic226, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck or looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Help Desk, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers: User pages The five pillars of Wikipedia Wikipedia in eight words How to edit a page (or, the quick cheatsheet version) Help pages Tutorial How to write a great article Manual of Style Glossary What Wikipedia is not Assume good faith Wikiquette Sandbox (this page is for testing) I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, or ask the people around you for help -- good Wikipedians don't bite the newcomers. Keep an open mind and listen for advice, but don't hesitate to be bold when editing! If you'd like to respond to this message, or ask any questions, feel free to leave a message at my talk page! Once you've become a more experienced Wikipedian, you may wish to take a moment to visit these pages: Wikipedia:Community portal Wikipedia:WikiProjects Best of luck to you, and happy editing! Luna Santin 10:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematical induction

Hi Vic,

there is no mathematical difference between starting at 0 and starting at 1; the two versions are easily seen to be equivalent. It's more of a style issue, and leads to one of the sillier religious wars you'll see in mathematics. That said, of course the true faith starts at zero. --Trovatore 02:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that if you start with one rather than zero, then you cannot conclude that the property holds for zero and thus you have not shown it for all natural numbers. Zero is a natural number. The external link to cut-the-knot is not a reliable source. It is not written for technical correctness, but to give a raw beginner a "feel" for the subject. For example, he says

"(2) If x1, x2, ..., xn > 0 then (x1 + x2 + ... + xn)/n ≥ (x1·x2·...·xn)^1/n

etc. n here is an 'arbitrary' integer." which is clearly false since -5 is an integer, but one cannot define the arithmetic or geometric mean of -5 positive reals. JRSpriggs 06:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your reversion of my edits to my user page

I'm utterly and genuinely curious as to why you reverted my last two edits to my own User page. Did I put something inapproprate that I was not aware of? Ripogenus77 05:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The time I reviewed it, there was someone else who apparently edited your personal profile. If I actually pressed revert after you have reverted (or anything) the changes made by another person, I apologize for the confusion. (Actually, thinking right now, I don't think I need to stick my neck into your business, either.)

[edit] User:SpecialWindler

I was just transfering the article over to make it all right. I know this may have caused some confusion so Apology accepted. SpecialWindler 04:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cabal case Israel-Lebanon conflict revert war

Hello. You requested mediation for that case and suggested your user page. Thus, I'm here. Because nobody has actually counted the number of dead bodies with any degree of certainty, any news article is probably going to be off. I'm suggesting that the article mentions a few different sources and their respective numbers, allowing the reader to draw their own conclusion from it all. This would also keep a NPOV, so long as it is noted that there are more articles with different numbers. If this works for both parties, please respond below. Thanks, --Mechcozmo 21:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed the discussion board and considered your remedy for this case, and it sounds perfectly fine to me, just need to bring this into attention for some comments from both parties. I don't think anybody in either party has considered the fact which you pointed out, that no matter how reliable a source may be, the death figures can by no means be proven to be valid (also because it's a current event it won't stay the same). Also, I see from the debate the problem with cited sources that almost everyone judges their reliability by their own speculation in various ways. And that's one POV issue there. --Vic226 08:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the strategy of including multiple sources is the one we are currently utilising. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 19:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll mark this case as closed then. --Mechcozmo 14:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I appreciate the explanation. Thanks for not killing the noob. Morpo

No problem. I highly respect the principle of not biting newcomers on Wikipedia. :-) Vic226 06:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tell me what to fix.

Hey Vic226 this is jgomez 23:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC) I was wondering why half of my article is gone? i have been working on outside source material which i have, and am posting on the page those articles about ISM. how could those things which you deleted have been re-worded so as to not read like an advertisement?

Hello Jgmz. If you check in the history of the ISM article, it was not me but Humblefool who purged half of your article. Although you should ask him about the reason for the deletion, I can understand why the entire middle section about the features are deleted: an encyclopedia should be accessible to a general audience to have a general concept of an article, and possible summaries of analysis, significance/achievements, and/or cultural impacts may be followed. It is not a textbook; it does not attempt to focus on overly detailed information for a specific article. Instead, it should leave the sources/references/footnotes for those who are interested to understand further. Part of the reason that the before-ISM article reads like a brochure is because that the explanation of online interfaces and systems are way too detailed, and it could even make the reader confused.

There is not much you can do about it for improving the deleted parts alone, such as features section. Instead, try to focus edits on why the article is important and worth notice for a typical audience. I suggest you to take time to read through Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, or, based on the issue above, tackle on what Wikipedia is not, importance of verifiable and reliable sources, and citing sources.

I understand that it may be a lot of reading to many new users, so here's what I did when I started to contribute here: I skimmed most of the policies and guidelines specifically on bolded, italicized, and/or underlined parts, and several lines of the beginning of each paragraph. This way you should have a basic concept of what a standard article in Wikipedia should look like. If you want, you can also browse through featured articles to see what makes them perfect (well, almost) and stand out from others.

I sincerely hope that you could one day become a legitimate Wikipedian and make Wikipedia a better place. It could be hard at first, but as you edit, you will discover that it's actually easy and a lot of fun in this great community. Cheers, Vic226 02:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Have a problem.

So Vic, why is is ok for Gerald R. Molen, Janusz Kamiński, Frank Grillo, Conrad W. Hall, Edward Neumeier, and Reed Smoot to all have wikipedia pages, But Darrin Fletcher, and Chet Thomas get erased?jgomez 23:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, see the following deletion logs for why your articles were deleted:

• Darrin "Fletch" Fletcher
• Chet Thomas

Also, I would like to clarify that I do not have the permission to delete articles of my choice; possibly only the administrators can do that. Concerning about the reason of the deletion of Fletcher and Thomas but not the others as listed above by you, I believe it has to to with notability of the person/event. It would be helpful to read about the notability of people and why is the person not worth noting in Wikipedia (essay only; not a policy or guideline). There might be other related Wikipedia-based articles concerning this issue, but I could not recall any others at this moment.

I have red through the two biography pages you have created, and have done some researches for all of the people you listed above. I think the main difference is that Fletcher and Thomas are still relatively unknown to the general people. If you think of the credits after the movie, there are indeed a huge list of many people involved in creating this particular movie. So why aren't they listed in Wikipedia? It's because they do not contribute enough to have a significant impact on either the film itself or the society.

Take Frank Grillo for example: his article page is still a stub as marked, but he is one of the main characters in a rather popular TV series Prison Break. Also, Janusz Kamiński has involved several famous movies (e.g. Schindler's List) under the title of cinematographer. In comparison, Chet Thomas has made three movies as a producer, one of them also as a director. However, there is not much review from members in IMDb, hinting that the films might not be as significant in impact as the others. Under the title of founder for ISM does not make them any more notable, either, for ISM itself isn't really that influential either. Similarly, Fletcher has made numerous cameos in a lot of films, but his contributions are rather minor for a general audience to know.

I hope I did not bore you with the unintentional essays above. I also hope that my points could make you understand why half of the ISM article were purged while the articles co-founders were deleted. Again, if you could manage to understand the norms of the Wikipedia, I believe you will be one of the great contributors around someday. Until next time, Vic226 02:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You Vic

I appreciate your patience with me and helping me understand a few things. I just wanted to say thank you for the advice and information. I will read those things that you have referenced for me.--jgomez 19:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paradise Lost - official MySpace link removed

Hi Vic, Why has the official MySpace Paradise Lost page link been removed? This wasn't advertising of any kind - that's the page they link to on their official site as well. It's just as legit as for example other (lyrics) link. BTW - I am not a MySpace user :) This link was added only to provide additional information about the band. Thanks, V. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Varelse (talk • contribs) 22:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Varelse. For one, the page actually need to be cleaned up more or less, and requires adequate citations for most of the claims in the article (in fact, there is none at the moment). I just happen to be rather busy with my college application and can not possibly take up too many loads of tasks myself. Of course, if the official site has the MySpace linked to their site, then it should be considered more or less reliable as an exception. However, it would be more appropriate to let those who are genuinely interested in them find it in their site and focus on how Paradise Lost is worth notice in Wikipedia (not that MySpace is bad, only that it was considered in the guideline inappropriate and should be avoided if possible).

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is to meet the basic understanding for a general audience, not dedicate to any specific field. An article should focus mainly on its significance, such as its achievements and cultural impact, rather than on the already-detailed information of their facts. Hence, the lyrics link actually belongs to the LyricWiki Page, and the other external links may or may not meet the criteria of reliable sources.

I understand that there may be some confusion on my revert, and I hope I answered you question above. If not, just ask me again since it may be my misinterpretation as an intermediate English user. Until next time, Vic226 07:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daisuke

I added an inline comment about the WP:EL policy; but, if it doesn't work, then semi-protect is probably reasonable. Neier 22:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atletico Madrid kit.

Why'd you change it back, I changed it so it was accurate. as seen [1] There

And that's why the edit summary is important when you make edits that affect the general context of the article.

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers.

I will post the same message as above and another onto your talk page for your future reference, and revert the article back to your edited version. Again, please use the edit summary to avoid such confusion with other Wikipedians, who might deem the change(s) without proper reason as vandalism. Thanks, Vic226 03:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Wrath of God

Hey, I reverted your addition of the protection tag. The page isn't actually protected, and it's considered bad practice to protect main page articles unless they are being brutally vandalized (which is not the case tonight). --Wafulz 04:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It's alright. I'm okay with that. And thanks for your note about the use of protect tags. Vic226 05:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your reverts, it's amazing what nonsense people decide to do, and how much effort it takes continually stop it. Joshdboz 12:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No problems, although I tend to get a bit intense on either onging blatant vandalism or raised controversy by anyone. Vic226 13:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urf, IRC?

No. According to people in #freenode on EFNet, everybody just got dropped. --Rory096 06:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copied Boxes

Hi Vic226 - yes I copied the boxes. And the suggested help for new users sources. (These I've got to read) The boxes looked so professional I really though they were "standard issue". I had tried explaining the use of 4 tildes myself but just ended up with SmithBlue 06:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC) , which wasnt much use. The help list - I wasnt clear if it was from you or someone else and so didnt acknowledge either. But now I have the opportunity "Thank you - they are all very useful." I am fairly impervious to the rougher edges of Scott Adler and am continuing talking with him - I think he could be a great benefit if he will work within the guidelines. Thanks for cleaning up my User page. SmithBlue 06:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Breakfast Club

I saw your request on WP:RFF and took a look. I don't really think there's a good way to turn that list into prose, so I added headings to tell the reader how we're categorizing the entries and think it works pretty well. —Seqsea (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for taking time to review my edits (finally lol)! I also appreciate your changes that make the section look more neater. I wonder why I didn't consider that. Vic226_(chat) 06:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mussina

Angelos, Anderson to Meet

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for but it's a start. I'm not going to pay for the full text, however, the excerpt should shed some light. You will note that the Oriole's & Mike HAD a deal on a contract extension and that the "deal breaker" would be the omission of a no trade contract. The fact that Mike did go elswhere and there was no contract extension signed should illustrate my point that it was the lack of a no trade clause that forced a change in teams. His Yankee contract does include that clause I'll do some more digging as time permits but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I just hear so many people still say the Mike went to the Yankees for the money and I'm sure that it's Steinbrenner's payroll history that predicates that. I'm sorry I put something in that is considered "original research" and you're right, I can see where Mike's word would constitue that.````

Kevin Armstrong Muncy, Pa.

Hey, thanks for the reply. I think I just spent about 1 hour to finally dig out this news. I hope it would be revelant enough to prove your point. (Ironically, I finally decided to add "-Yankees" on Google search just for kicks, and got this info about his stalled negotiations with Orioles)

I will also post this link to the talk page for broader discussions with others, and may eventually readd the deleted paragraph back, though not without some rewriting to do. Feel free to respond in here or in the talk page if you have any questions. Regards, Vic226_(chat) 11:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)