User talk:Vfp15

Please click here to leave me a message. Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3 When continuing an existing discussion, please post your comments at the bottom of the section you are commenting on. PLEASE DON'T (on this talk page I mean) insert comments in between lines or paragraphs. Thanks, Vincent

Hello, Vfp15. As a prominent contributor to sulla, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:sulla, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- Nick 15:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, lets try to co-operate and come to a happy medium, there are some things that I want in, and there are some things you have just improved, so in the spirit of your post on my talk page, let's bury the hatchet :-). I am sure we will have disagreements, but we can work thru them. PS. am busy for next couple of days, so don't miss me too much! Sulla16 18:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lucius Cornelius Sulla. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Thank you for your useful summary. It'd be good if you could send me your e-mail address, too. —Xyrael / 21:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be advised that the Arbitration Committee has declined to accept the request for arbitration you filed earlier this week. Several arbitrators expressed the view that seeking a request for comment or third opinion might be the best way for you to seek further input on this dispute. I see above on this page that someone else has filed an RfC, so this may be helpful in addressing the issue. I wish you the best of luck in getting this resolved and in your future editing. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Vfp15.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. you incremented the vandalism counter on my user page.. is this some sort of self-referential edit? ;) njan 21:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Point taken re: use of superlatives, and of the factual and subjective. I'm aware of the vagaries of critical opinion, but some popular reputations are long-lasting enough (in Chardin's case, for the better part of several hundred years) that the use of such descriptions may be all but universally accepted (an opening paragraph stating that Elvis was an important and influential pop singer would be safe re: subjectivity, but would err too much on the side of caution, and miss the import). Anyway, when I have more time I will look to expanding the opening paragraph, and adding a section on 'assessment'. Thanks for your thoughts on this. JNW 11:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem re: Chardin. You do have a point. It occurred to me later on that there can be mention of the high regard in which he is held, without pushing it as objective fact, but with solid cites, of which there are many. There's a great line from a Van Gogh letter comparing Chardin to Rembrandt in terms of paint handling. So, it's all in how it's phrased, I think.

• Terrific, the Stokes painting by Sargent. You know the story: Originally Mrs. Stokes was painted with her dog, which Sargent painted out and replaced with the husband. Good move. Cheers, JNW 22:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I just ran out of articles to edit... Now seriously: once in a while I visit the "New Articles" page, and there are bound to be surprises... Cheers. GregorB 13:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is almost certain to be deleted unless you include more information, including a list of his major publication, with awards, full degrees and prior positions, and so on--and a reference of two from some outside sources. Remember, dont copy any of it from his web page. DGG (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 'ordering you about'--I know you're an experienced editor, but professor articles are a bit of a special problem-- I am trying to get the article so it will be kept , not deleted by one of the people who run around here not understanding that academic people are important. I spend most of my time at WP defending these articles, and if they are done fully the first time, they are first off not as likely to be challenged, and second, easier to defend. Otherwise I often end up hunting up all the details in a rush at AfD. In general, articles about any Associate professor will be challenged, and usually not pass. What I find from experience works best is awards and editorships, if any, & Associate professors often don't have them.

and popular books, if there are any, as there are here. I'd advise you not to link it, unless you are prepared to write an article about it and think it important enough for the article to stand. (I'd suggest not--both articles would then be likely to be challenged as there only to support each other). But I would suggest you add a citation to at least one published book review. This will impress people here.

sorry for the line about copyright--I meant only that it's tempting to just copy all the details from the official web page. DGG (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean when you claim that there are 366 days in a year? Flying Hamster 17:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Brian Sinclair, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Sinclair. Thank you. -- Daytona2 16:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors.

(I'm just being lazy by using the template, I know you know all this stuff already).

--- tqbf 16:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your old friend Tqbf is back to warring on the CISSP article. I would appreciate you hopping back in and taking a look at what is going on and giving some feedback on the talk page. --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there,

I saw the article on Mokusatsu, and noticed that your original article:

Mokusatsu is a Japanese word meaning "contemptuous silence". The expression was famously misinterpreted by the United States when the government of Japan used it ambiguously as a response to American demands for unconditional surrender in World War II. This misinterpretation is argued by some to have been a factor in President Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb against Hiroshima. "

differs somewhat from the current one, and it feels important somehow.

I know a little about the incident, but far from enough to dare write about it. The article could use a few source citations, and perhaps a japanese historian to sort out details.

Question: Do you agree with the new look and feel of the article?

DanielDemaret (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Vincent. From your user page:

Contrary to what you may have learned in basic calculus, the series

${\displaystyle \lim _{n\rightarrow \infty }\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\frac {1}{i}}}$

converges whenever you work it out numerically. In fact,

${\displaystyle \lim _{n\rightarrow \infty }\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\frac {1}{i}}=f(c)}$

where c represents the computer used to evaluate the series numerically. (Think about it...)

This only makes sense for smaller values of ∞. ;-) Which is to say, you can't do the second calculation on a real computer anyway. There are mathematical models of computation where you can. Are any of them physically realizable? We're still waiting for the torchbearers of hypercomputation (or those in certain branches thereof, such as the dazzling genius behind super-recursive algorithms) to come up with the goods.

Actually, f isn't just dependendent on c. It also also depends on what you mean by addition, multiplication, whether you're using IEEE single precision, IEEE double precision, a rational arithmetic package, etc. Amazingly, it can even depend on what you mean by Σ, because floating point addition is not perfectly commutative (it's not perfectly anything). It's possible to eke out a little more precision (a significant amount, in some cases) if you add floating point numbers lowest-magnitude first. Which takes you back to the problem of ∞. If it's better to calculate the sum as

${\displaystyle \sum _{i=\infty }^{1}{\frac {1}{i}}}$

(with Σ defined in the obvious way) what's the highest value of ∞ that still yields a difference in the answer? Depends on your numeric representation.

OK, obviously I'm not serious here. Actually, I'm just using this note as sandbox for editing math, to practice up for maddeningly persistent mathematical garbage like the article for super-recursive algorithm. Yakushima (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am a master student at the Institute of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. Currently I am wrapping up my master thesis titled “Can Wikipedia be used for knowledge service?” In order to validate the knowledge evolution maps of identified users in Wikipedia, I need your help. I have generated a knowledge evolution map to denote your knowledge activities in Wikipedia according to your inputs including the creation and modification of contents in Wikipedia, and I need you to validate whether the generated knowledge evolution map matches the knowledge that you perceive you own it. Could you please do me a favor?

1. I will send you a URL link to a webpage on which your knowledge evolution map displays. Please assign the topic (concept) in the map to a certain cluster on the map according to the relationship between the topic and clusters in your cognition, or you can assign it to ‘none of above’ if there is no suitable cluster.
2. I will also send a questionnaire to you. The questions are related to my research topic, and I need your viewpoints about these questions.

The deadline of my thesis defense is set by the end of June, 2008. There is no much time left for me to wrap up the thesis. If you can help me, please reply this message. I will send you the URL link of the first part once I receive your response. The completion of my thesis heavily relies much on your generous help.

Sincerely

JnW^talk 13:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you for 24h for breaking 3RR at Réseau de Résistance du Québécois. You wrote "I think I'm justified in going above the 3RR limit (not sure, and keeping it reasonable anyway) because the guy is A) COI & POV (he was instructed by his org to edit Wikipedia entry on the org) and b) he has made several personal attacks and has threatened me" but I'm afraid you are wrong. It isn't hard to read WP:3RR and discover that none of those are listed as exemptions. This doesn't help resolve the edit war, unfortunately William M. Connolley (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vincent,

Sorry for not replying to you earlier, but I've been away for a few days (- work) and not been online at all. I'm sorry to hear that you have had some problems with another editor - have you managed to make any progress with resolving this? i.e get an administrators to help you sort it out. Try not to let it upset you or ruin your enjoyment of Wikipedia. Please let me know if there is anything I can still do to assist you. Kind Regards. Marek.69 ^talk 02:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Monica Yunus is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica Yunus until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Orange Mike | Talk 01:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yokibito is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yokibito until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Nanshu (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need your oppinion on the source and what to do, thanks - Fniss (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty please - more ESs - e.g. Fish stew. Ta, Trafford09 (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Kipper. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you.

Do you have something against ESs? Trafford09 (talk) 10:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extra work for little benefit. After all, I might lie in the summary and mislead people who would not want to see the change I made. Vincent (talk) 11:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. The benefits are many, though, esp. to vandal-patrollers - if they see an edit is by a registered user, and has a plausible ES, the edit can reasonably safely be ignored. Not foolproof, but time-saving to all those who keep tabs on their lengthy watchlists.

After all, the consensus is to Help:Edit_summary#Always provide an edit summary.

As for the effort, well one could copy+paste something from the change, easily? Or there are commonly used abbreviations, as in this edit summary legend.

What do you think? Trafford09 (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind your change to the article, but your Change Summary confuses me. "Tense shift" seems to revert my immediately preceding change, but you haven't; you've only juggled a clause. If something was "pointed out earlier," can you point me to it? "Unnecessary wordiness" reverts an edit yesterday of "DAGwyn" that his Change Summary says was not made to promote wordiness but to make a point. Spike-from-NH (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Fawn Hall has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article surrounds a person who does not appear to meet the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. There is not a good deal of significant, reliable references. This article should be moved, merged, and redirected to the Iran–Contra affair or an article about the investigation.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cocoaguy ここがいい 18:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fawn Hall is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fawn Hall until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Cocoaguy ここがいい 18:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry about the Angèle Dubeau - Angry birds fiasco. I had mindlessly included a piece of wrong information without proper research. Thank you very much for your correction. Ahmasmi (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hardly call it a fiasco and never apologize for an edit! Cheers -- Vincent (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charles Veley is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Veley (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. pbp 21:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tadd Roosevelt is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tadd Roosevelt until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

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) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Norman Bird, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page All Creatures Great and Small. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- DVdm (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Vincent (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to make sure that in no way I wanted to be offensive or rude in asking you to sign your comments, it was in the pure intention to put a mark, where my comment started. From the reaction of Maproom (I'm worse than you are! :) ) and from my repeated experiences with D.Lazard I fully understand your reaction to save your time by avoiding discussions with this kin. However, I do not share your general verdict on using four operations in defining fields. Up to my knowledge there are several ways to this goal. I like the algebraic approach of having a group with one binary (addition), one unary (inverse), and one nullary (neutral) operation, often calling the nullary a constant, and I tend to avoid the elementary approach of claiming "inverse operations". Besides these and the approach via solvability of equations in a field (v.d. Waerden?) there may be also other possibilities. Cheers! Purgy (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vfp15. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Jia Jinglong, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Scott Glenn. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources you're adding are not reliable sources, and they are contradicted by a respected newspaper. Please stop adding them. Per WP:BLP, sources in the biography of a living person need to be of the highest quality. That means sources like The New York Times, which has a history of fact-checking and an editorial board, not the IMDb, which is user-generated content and thus unusable as a citation on Wikipedia. Random websites like "myhowbook.com" are also not usable as sources; according to this page, this looks like it is also user-generated, since it talks about receiving submissions and approving them. Stop edit warring to add unreliable sources to a BLP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Scott Glenn. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I am getting very close to blocking you over this bringing this to WP:ANI (ugh, best to avoid involved blocks, even for BLP violations). Do not add these unreliable sources again. Seriously. I've explained why they are disallowed by Wikipedia policy, and if you continue violating WP:BLP, you will likely be blocked from editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]