User talk:Justin W Smith/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Thanks

Thanks for your views on the changes i am attempting to make. The paragraphs i removed, while indeed very large were extremely poorly constructed and unrelated tothe topic. its a contentious issue, but i do think we need to keep the article focussed on its subject. Cheers.  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.172.138 (talk) 06:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Cheers for noticing that. Tresiden (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Anita Dunn

Just to be clear, my allusion to edit-warring wasn't directed at you. While I haven't agreed with your edits in the article, I do greatly appreciate your efforts to achieve consensus through discussion. Sorry to (inadvertently) offend. --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

AFD

The discussion has been closed. Read the header--no further discussion on the AFD page. You've already made the statement on Julian's user talk page; it should not be added to the AFD page after the discussion was closed. Please self-revert your edit to the page. Horologium (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the note!

From what I understand, Julian's an extremely precocious young man who, for all I know, may have gotten just about all he could from contributing on the project......of course WP will lose a tremendous asset should he retire!↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 21:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And I was probably a bit too hostile toward him on this "Fox News" matter. At times, WP can be a very hostile environment. It is hard to always assume "good faith". In any case, I'm sure Julian will succeed in whatever he (she?) spends his time on. Jwesley78 (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You didn't seem very hostile. However, from a glance at his user log, it looks like this whole issue is the one that may have depressed him.

I !voted to support his close of the AfD so don't feel so bad. (Oops! not tryin' to make you feel bad! lol)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 21:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing but if I was going to try some armchair analyzing(?sp) here, I'll bet Julian isn't used to having his judgements second guessed much and is surprised at the small crowd of folks who, in this one single instance, happen to disagree with him -- maybe? I dunno.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 21:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I posted this on Jimbo's page (and if Jimbo ignores me -- so what! {smiles})↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 22:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Haha! Very nice. I hope he responds! Jwesley78 (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, that would be kul if he did! (BTW, coincidentally, I'm going to have to go cold turkey w/regard to by coming to Wikipedia allallallthetimetimetime myself. (I've loved it, but gotta figure out something else to do with my passing moments. I'm sort of an all or nothing kind of guy, unfortunately!..... )↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 16:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Julian explains.

"[...] I admit that my break was, among other reasons partially in response to my overall feeling that no-one is genuinely interested in this project anymore. So, when I return, I intend to start taking measures to re-instate the feeling of a community, where one's work is appreciated and editors are respected by fellow users, even a the risk of making an utter fool of myself... ¶ Sorry for the rant."

('Tho that's not much of a "rant," by the standards **I'm** used to, at least! ^{:^)})↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 16:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

MOS: linking within quotations (Anita Dunn)

Linking Unless there is an overriding reason to do so, Wikipedia avoids linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader.

hello, Jwesley78. i think Anita Dunn's statement is the ideal place to put links inside a quote for Bill Ayers and ACORN. the overriding reason is that neither is mentioned previously in the article, and the reader's interest would certainly be piqued. i don't see how any link would "clutter the quotation", change the quotation or mislead or confuse the reader. Kenatipo (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I don't have strong feeling on this either way. I feel it is safer (especially on a "controversial" section of an article) to stay very close to policy (i.e., MOS:QUOTE). I won't object if you add the links back in. Here's what I'd suggest: 1) Add a section on the talk page about "links within Dunn's quotes". 2) Add the links back into the quotes, and in the comment mention the section you added on the Talk page. And if this topic becomes contentious, the links might be removed again. Jwesley78 (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Your rollback request

Hello Jwesley78, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert anything else (by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with) can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning, depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 17:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

A friendly note

Hello Jwesley78, I noticed that you've been a bit aggressive in your attempts to mark 98.248.113.11 as a vandal, both by reverting their edits as vandalism and then reporting them to AIV. I hope that the conclusion to the report that you made will be the last of it unless the IP starts engaging in behavior that clearly violates WP:VAN. I'm an editor with rollback privileges just as you are, and I know that I have to be very careful to not bite the newbies or use automated tools to revert good faith edits, because the rollback privileges can be revoked at any time by any admin for even an honest mistake if that mistake can be considered disruptive or might make an editor feel harassed. My point isn't to chastise you, I understand why you felt that the edits were vandalism (and I have stated my objection to the edits on the Groupon talk page. I just wanted to help you avoid losing rollback for making honest mistakes. If you can, just leave the IP alone, if they misbehave I'm sure someone else will step in. Thanks! -- Atama頭 20:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I really am trying to be fair with this IP. I'm doing my best to not lose my cool. :-/ Jwesley₇₈ 20:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Re. Please revert your edit to my talk page

Please revert your edit to my talk page. You have added that 4 times now. Jwesley₇₈ 21:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Why? You still don't seem to get that you keep violating WP:CIVIL, unapologetically, even after someone (Atama?) suggested you apologize. I did not. I added new content* to your talk page and your response was to delete it with the edit summary "(undelete)" <sic>. --98.248.113.11 (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

*"Your continued labeling of my edits as vandalism is a clear violation of [WP:CIVIL]. Final warning. I invite you to truly engage in a responsive discussion at Talk:Groupon instead. --98.248.113.11 (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)"

I think the discussion on Groupon's talk page is over. It is clear that the editors do not feel your addition is appropriate. Jwesley₇₈ 22:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

I wanted to point out that 98.248.113.11 has opened up an ANI report here. I had nothing to do with it, and I wish that report wasn't created, but I plan to respond since I've been involved. If you're available I suggest you respond as well but please remember to keep cool. You haven't done anything to warrant a block or other sanctions yet, but ANI is exactly the kind of place where that can happen. Thanks. -- Atama頭 00:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Revert summaries

May I suggest that it is almost never helpful to mention "vandalism" in an edit summary. If it's not vandalism, you have made a big mistake. If it is vandalism, you have boosted the ego of a vandal who did not need to be told that it was vandalism, or given ideas (see WP:BEANS) to onlookers. I like the style of WP:DENY which suggests that attention-seekers should not be given attention. For example, in this revert, while I agree that it really does look like vandalism, it is not helpful to say so. In a case like that I would add "unsourced" or "unexplained" to the standard undo summary. Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

What I've learned this week, from you and others, is that vandalism should never be labeled as such even when it's obvious. I seriously doubt most vandals ever bother to check a page's history, but it's probably a good policy to deny them any recognition. Jwesley₇₈ 16:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

A tricky question of “myth”

Hi J,

I am getting in contact with you after noting your contribution to the neutral point of view policy article and have done this due to an issue that I’ve raised in the talk page of another article that may require outside help to resolve.

The discussion has now stretched way beyond 10,000 words (with me providing more than my share) and that has made its way past a third courtesy break. I guess it all depends whether the following issue is one, time permitting, with which you would like to become involved.

I’ve raised issue regarding the title of the article “Creation myth” after seeing the talk page notice which claimed: The article title adheres to the Neutral Point of View policy... . I did not think that this was the case and began the related discussion. It’s got quite a charged on both sides at times and, amongst other things, I’ve taken the view that some of the editors may want to bring the issue to a swift conclusion. A full review of all the issues mentioned would be appreciated but, not knowing when you may see this message or which other editors may have taken an interest in this topic, it may be worthwhile to make an initial check of the current state of the discussion so as to check the current state of the debate.

I do not personally hold any religious faith and yet considered the neutrality issues that I perceived to have been raised by the article title to be worth tackling, I realise that this is an issue that I have personally raised and, finally, I don’t have any expectation of outside involvement and just mention this in case this issue may also be of interest for you.

regards

Gregkaye (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

History of Peru - section removed

Hi - it was removed because user 216.124.113.16 is 99% vandal. I think there might have been positive contributions, but this user should be blocked. MithrasPriest (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

=Changes reverted

Hi, i see that many of the changes i proposed have been reverted. I appreciate that removing a paragraph could be controversial, but I think it is unfortunate that merely because someone wrote something first, it has priority. I can understand that if I was merely deleting contentious material with no explanation, that might warrant reversion. But i was careful to list my reasons. A simple reversion removes any chance of debate. :( Anyway, I appreciate all your work. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.172.138 (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No one person owns an article. An article is always written by consensus among its editors. Wikipedians like to debate, it's part of the culture. :-) Jwesley₇₈ 07:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

conan reply

My edit was in support of another editor who removed it for the same reason. Is this account actually 100% verified that it belongs to CoCo? Perhaps adding a source next to the link to prove it would discourage future removals. DP76764 (Talk) 19:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding a couple of refs onto that! +Awesome! DP76764 (Talk) 19:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Dang, that was fast :( Didn't know Twitter had a 'verified' thing like that (plus, blocked from it at work); good to know! Thanks again for the effort. DP76764 (Talk) 19:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Your recent use of rollback

Your edit [1] reverted what seems clearly an improvement to this article, labelling it vandalism. I've restored it. Why did you do this? Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, this was an accident. Jwesley₇₈ 14:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, we all make mistakes. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about my mistake. I also apologized to the editor whose edit I reverted. Jwesley₇₈ 19:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No harm done. After glancing through all your edits, I thank you for your effort in making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. motsjo

List of numerical analysis software notice.

Thank you for the notice! --Pier4r (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem... Jwesley₇₈ 22:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Help with Cincinnati geography?

I need an opinion about Cincinnati geography. Would you be willing to contribute to the discussion at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Cincinnati, Ohio? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not very knowledgeable about such topics. Jwesley₇₈ 22:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Theoretical computer science and applied mathematics

Regarding the discussion of theoretical computer science and the footer for applied mathematics, I appreciate your efforts to bring discipline and perfectionism . Thanks for your help and striving for consensus. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the complement. And thanks for your work too. Classifying topics is difficult, especially b/c we each have a different perspective on (and a strong connection to) these subjects. I'm sure the resulting template will be better than it was when the discussion started. Best wishes, Jwesley₇₈ 23:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

My remaking of the applied mathematics template was bottom-up. I suppose that the WP project mathematics people will want to use their discussion on article classification to describe "applied mathematics" in the traditional sense, rather than in the SIAM sense, in a top-down approach. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Good job on the Angie Harmon page

Hello. I got bogged down with work and missed some edits on Wikipedia. Thank you for removing the vandalism from the Angie Harmon page. Happy New Year.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. :) Jwesley₇₈ 05:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Minus signs

If you're going to replace latex with html/wiki formatting as in this edit can you please use &minus; for a minus sign instead of a hyphen (-)? It looks prettier and is more mathematically correct. It would also be a good idea to use &nbsp; for the spaces within the formula, to prevent bad line breaks. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure will. Thanks, Jwesley₇₈ 23:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking out for us!

Thanks for keeping an eye on the Paragould, Arkansas page. You're the best!
Regards,
ParagouldTweets —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.18.20 (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You're Welcome! I'm a Paragould native myself. Jwesley₇₈ 17:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Elekes

Dear Jwesley78, thanks for the Elekes article. Yes, we were collegues, firends, his office was next to mine. I planned to write up the article, just was too busy with other things. I will continue to work on it. Kope (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

LaTeX

Thx for your communique on LaTeX. I understand that putting \, into a LaTeX tag gives you a fully-rendered .png image, so that's cool. It should of course only be needed if the image contains non-standard characters or something (I haven't bothered to learn all the detail, life's too short). Therefore IMO there should be no excuse to not use LaTeX for maths. On ProofWiki we have a policy to always use LaTeX, even for such things as individual variables in "Let $x\,$ mark the spot" or whatever. It makes the mathematics so much easier to follow. --Matt Westwood 10:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, now I've read the Mathematics Manual of Style and I confess I agree with about 10 per cent of it. Fortunately my career and reputation doesn't rest too heavily on my assiduousness of documenting mathematics on Wikipedia. :-) As I hinted above, I have my own game to play - but I'll be coming to Wikipedia here and there to make comments on content (not style) as and when it diverges from my own (admittedly limited) understanding. Thanks for your input. --Matt Westwood 10:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Kudos

Just want to congratulate you on having an open enough mind to review you position as conversation progresses. Not all are as open-minded, thoughtful, and flexible. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the complement. I wish every Wikipedian tried to maintain an open mind and some level of flexibility. It makes the editing experience much more pleasant! Cheers, Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 21:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Of course, we all like to be right. But for too many, they act like a lawyer, representing a client (even if the client is guilty). Rather than like the judge. At least, that is my view. I always marvel at those who reflect an intelligence and desire for truth (whatever that is) that is greater than their ego. I fear you may find yourself in the minority in these parts.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion Uighur house redux

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I am letting you know because you participated in the thread the first time it was brought to the WP:ANI. Here are the URL and wikilink to the current discussion. [2] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Speedy deletion Uighur house redux

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Uighur house listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Uighur house. Since you had some involvement with the Uighur house redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I have marked you as a reviewer

I have added the "reviewers" property to your user account. This property is related to the Pending changes system that is currently being tried. This system loosens page protection by allowing anonymous users to make "pending" changes which don't become "live" until they're "reviewed". However, logged-in users always see the very latest version of each page with no delay. A good explanation of the system is given in this image. The system is only being used for pages that would otherwise be protected from editing.

If there are "pending" (unreviewed) edits for a page, they will be apparent in a page's history screen; you do not have to go looking for them. There is, however, a list of all articles with changes awaiting review at Special:OldReviewedPages. Because there are so few pages in the trial so far, the latter list is almost always empty. The list of all pages in the pending review system is at Special:StablePages.

To use the system, you can simply edit the page as you normally would, but you should also mark the latest revision as "reviewed" if you have looked at it to ensure it isn't problematic. Edits should generally be accepted if you wouldn't undo them in normal editing: they don't have obvious vandalism, personal attacks, etc. If an edit is problematic, you can fix it by editing or undoing it, just like normal. You are permitted to mark your own changes as reviewed.

The "reviewers" property does not obligate you to do any additional work, and if you like you can simply ignore it. The expectation is that many users will have this property, so that they can review pending revisions in the course of normal editing. However, if you explicitly want to decline the "reviewer" property, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC) — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll check it out. Thanks! Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 14:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Eigenvalue, eigenvector Page

Hi, Justin.

I notice you reverted an edit I made to the “Eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenspace” page (I had added a calculator link to the “Online calculators” section).

Why did you remove that link? It is an online calculator and works well; it doesn’t get much more appropriate than that. Is there a limit to the number of calculators that can be listed? If so, why not just mention them in the body of the rest of the article and not even have an “Online calculators” section?

David Binner (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• The existing links are to pages that do not appear to contain advertising. The link you added contained a prominent "Ads by Google" at the top of the page. Seeing how you have added external links to this site (www.akiti.ca) several times before, there is reason to believe that you may have a WP:COI and are trying to generate traffic to the site. Please see WP:ELNO #5, or WP:EL#ADV. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 15:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, Justin. Yes, the page has a Google ad. However, the site has been up for about ten years and does what it claims to: solve for eigenvalues and eigenvectors, and it is free. The Google ads are a relatively new addition to the site. In any case, I will yield to your discretion. If you think a resource should not have ANY advertising, so be it. David Binner (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply from user Jax0677

Sorry, advertising was not my intention. My intention was a redirect.Jax 0677 (talk) 07:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Optimization à la Bonnans (et Gilbert)

Dear Justin,

I left a note for you on the talk page of J.F. Bonnans. Briefly, I recognized that Bonnans is one of the world's leader's in optimization, as are his coauthors. I was adding their textbook to c. 5 other articles when I came across your discussion on Bonnans's talk page.

I shall not repeat my discussion regarding Bonnans here, but shall again thank you for the previous discussion about theoretical computer science and mathematics. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Kiefer, I have no problem with Bonnan's books being referenced. I believe I removed the addition of his book only b/c it was clear that he was adding a reference to his own book, in violation of WP:COI. I also posted on the article's talk page asking someone more familiar with his books to determine whether or not they should be added. In 8 months, you are the first to reply.

Optimization is not an area I research, so I don't know who is reputable in the field. Obviously, there are many people who attempt to add references to their own work to Wikipedia who have no business doing so. See, for instance, the recent additions of "My Inventions in Number Theory" (with an apparently non-existent ISBN) to List of unsolved problems in mathematics and Real Analysis.

I hope I didn't offend Bonnan's or yourself with my edits. (I must admit that I didn't like receiving a personal email instructing me to revert my edit on Wikipedia, with the justification being something like "see my long list of publications".) Anyways, everything has worked out for the betterment of the article. Best Wishes, Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 10:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Justin, I think it was fine that you were concerned about conflict-of-interest. I see a lot of articles on the interface of optimization and statistics that seem to exist only to promote some engineering professor's novelties, and these articles seem to be written by graduate students. When such articles seem trivial, I don't judge weeding them as worth my effort.

However, in this case, you were correct to be especially vigilant about one of the most important articles in the mathematical sciences section of Wikipedia. As you noted here, you did post this note some months ago: I am sorry for not seeing it before.

I have no reason to suspect that either Gilbert or Bonnans were even remotely upset; I suspect that dealing with slow editors, slow graduate students, slow computing environments, and inadequate caffeine give them enough frustration that they don't worry much about English Wikipedia! I interpret their attempts to help here the way as I interpret their textbooks — as good faith efforts to light the entrance to the glories of the constructions of the monument of science (after D. Guedj, La Révolution des Savants, quoted by Hiriart-Urruty & Lemaréchal, vol. I).

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)23:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Erdos Bacon number

I believe your edit was made in good faith, but your rationale clearly is not the intent of WP:SELFPUB. There IS a better source, just not one that confirms this person's Bacon number. IMDb has all movie casts, and he is not a cast member in ANY film. IMDb is not reliable for everthing related to films, but for cast lists it is considered reliable. Furthermore, the information you restored violates two criteria of WP:SELFPUB: "1. the material is not unduly self-serving; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties". ANYONE can put ANYTHING on his own website. I can set up a website claiming that I have been an extra in every film with Kevin Bacon, but that does not make it true. Does EVERYONE have an EB number simply because they say? If many of the items were sourced by your standards, the quality of the article would basically be crap. You appear to have some knowledge of science; suppose I claim on my website that I created a new element, but I don't have anything other than my claim to support it. Would that be an acceptable source for Wikipedia? This is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a self-promotional website. Look at the other entries in the article. There are independent sources for the links to Bacon (and if there are any exceptions, feel free to remove them). Your rationale simply fails. Do not restore the item without consensus on the talk page. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, (1) I don't think it's "unduly self-serving", and (2) the source is not making a claim about a 3rd party. And no, there's is not a "better source" for this information; there is simply *no* other source for this information. This is not "ANYONE" claiming just "ANYTHING"; it's a reputable Computer Scientist claiming to have appeared in a movie. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 15:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is a standard source that is used for cast lists in films: IMDb. Many, if not all, of the items in the article provide the links with Kevin Bacon directly or indirectly through IMDb. The fact that he is a "reputable computer scientist" may give him lots of credibility in the area of computer science, but it does not entitle him to be an exception to the standard method for sourcing a link to Kevin Bacon. I am a reputable physician; that gives me credibility in medicine; it does not entitle me to claim a Bacon number without additional evidence beyond my credentials as a physician. And yes, it DOES involve a third party: it involves the people claimed in his film links to Kevin Bacon. And it IS self-serving: It promotes a claim that is not verified when other verification is possible if he in fact is credited as a cast member in a film (which he is not). You are trying to place an item in the article without any evidence according to the way ALL of the items are sourced in the article; MANY such items have been removed in the past, some of whom also were "reputable" in their fields and had their own websites making unverifiable claims. There is no reason Woeginger should be given special treatment. I will continue to have good faith for now, and if you wish to pursue this further you need to take it up on the article's talk page and wait for the appropriate consensus. Without the proper consensus (or independent sources), I think a strong case can be made for POV-pushing since you are in the same field as Woeginger; but for now I am assuming it will not come to that. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You're argument is utterly unconvincing. Contrary to to the policy of WP:SELFPUB, you refuse to allow any such information into this article. With the standard you're trying to set, almost the entire article should be wiped out; rarely are movie extras recorded in reliable sources, e.g., IMDB. In fact, many do not even consider IMDb reliable source for cast listings. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 18:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The article is almost fully sourced with independent sources, if not completely sourced. You're completely ignoring the facts about the way the article is written (I am beginning to doubt that you have actually looked at the sourcing of other items), and if you persist without a consensus, you will be POV-pushing. Take it up on the article's talk page. Other responsible editors need to see your arguments. I'll respond there, but not any more here. Please edit in good faith, and wait for a consensus before making any changes in this matter to the article. I always respect a clear consensus. So if you can get a consensus legitimately (no canvassing please) on the talk page, I'll move on. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you've not looked specifically at the sources for the Bacon numbers. Here they are (I might've missed one):

• http://oracleofbacon.org/cgi-bin/oracle/movielinks?firstname=Bacon,+Kevin&game=1&secondname=Pat+Billingsley
• http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1310375/fullcredits#cast
• http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nunberg/bag.html
• http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1099790/
• http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097336/fullcredits#cast
• http://oracleofbacon.org/cgi-bin/oracle/movielinks?firstname=Bacon,+Kevin&game=1&secondname=Werner,+Wendelin
• http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0234354/fullcredits#cast

They are all either self-published or not reliable, e.g., IMDb or oracleofbacon.org . Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 19:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

IMDb is a reliable source for cast lists. Take a look at film articles. It is cited throughout Wikipedia without challenge. Oracle of Bacon simply calculates a Bacon number based on IMDb. The others are reliable sources. And it is utterly absurd to claim that a source independent of the actor in question (i.e., IMDb) is "self-published" or unreliable; the actors have nothing to do with how cast lists are constructed on IMDb. That argument is grasping at straws in an attempt to bolster an unsustainable argument that flies in the face of the standard means of sourcing cast lists in films. I'll check out the Berkeley source later, but feel free to remove that particular item if it is self-published, but do not remove any that are sourced with IMDb or Oracle of Bacon, as they are quite reliable.

Now, you have every right to continue discussing this. But this has reached the point that it needs to be discussed by others if you wish to continue. Please take this up on the EB Number talk page if you wish to continue pursuing this. I'll be happy to respond there if necessary (I'll copy all of the above discussion there for others to see if you decide to discuss it there). But please, no more discussion here. This is no longer a simple disagreement between you and me if it goes further. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Advice on Copyright

Hello. I’m a student working for the Dean’s Office at the College of Computing at the Georgia Institute of Technology. I have been updating the wiki article at the Dean’s request—he feels that his wikipedia article was lacking some things, and requested that it compliment his bio on the College of Computing website. You were completely right taking down the Research section for copyright violation – I did copy it, I just didn’t think about copyright given that it was our department who put together the original copy. That was my oversight. I have re-worded and arranged the facts differently and updated the site since then, and was wondering if you think this version was more appropriate, and, if not, was wondering if you could advise me on how to make the changes appropriately. I’ve never edited Wikipedia before, and I would really appreciate your advice. CoCCommunications (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as copyright is concerned, the section should be ok as long as the words are original and not copied from elsewhere. I'll look over what's there. It might need some "wikification".

However, your editing of the article brings up some interesting conflict of interest issues. Since you've identified yourself as working for the College of Computing, you should probably abstain from making edits to articles closely related to the college/university. Wikipedia has several policies concerning conflicts of interest, and it's generally recommended that when changes need to be made to an article for which you have a conflict, that you instead request the changes on the article's discussion page and allow other editors to update the article. The following links might help you know how to proceed with future edits on such articles.

• WP:SCOIC (includes several recommendations to follow)
• WP:AVOIDCOI
• WP:COIC

Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 16:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Dropping in because I run WP:GATECH and saw this pop up on my watchlists. I'm going to look into the article a bit and hopefully clean it up, as I didn't really get far when he was hired on- I think I was busy with other things at that point and it got put aside. My advice to this student would be to stop editing with the User:CoCCommunications account, as any experienced editor is going to analyze every single edit someone from that account makes. Make a personal account and learn about editing and our many policies that way, preferably on articles not related to Georgia Tech. I think the most important policy for him to learn right now is WP:NPOV. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 18:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

pentagram map discussion

I Justin, in case you care, I left some comments on your remarks on the pentagram map discussion page. In short, I basically agree with you, but then I have some question about some features of wikipedia. RichardEvanSchwartz (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies

Dear Mr. Justin W Smith, first of all I would like to offer my apologies, as it seems I did things I should not do. My name is Joaquim Lloveras i Montserrat ( Lloveras I Montserrat, Kim). I'm new to Wikipedia and the HTML language, and I would like you to help me in the steps I have to do for include, if you consider it relevant, part of my research in the golden ratio.
I am Doctor Architect and Professor of the Polytechnic University of Catalonia, bound at the School of Architecture of Barcelona. Soon it will be 30 years I published the "Theory of visual proportions TK", in 1982.

You can find some references of my recent activity in http://www.arquiteturarevista.unisinos.br/pdf/49.pdf. It’s one of the few indexed journals of architecture http://science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER&Full=ARQUITETURA%20REVISTA See also http://upcommons.upc.edu/e-prints/simple-search?query=Kim+LLoveras+Montserrat&submit=Anar . http://cataleg.upc.edu/search~S1*cat/?searchtype=X&searcharg=kim+lloveras&searchtype_aux=X&searchscope=1&SORT=D&sortdropdown=-

Then I send you the article that I would include in the section on "Applications and observations," and, more specifically, "Perceptual studies".

The golden relation exists between us, the Observers, and the ends of our Blind Points projected by the space. The angle between the horizontal end of the Blind Points and ours eyes is of 34, 34 degrees. It is the angle from the middle of the small side of the golden rectangle spans the opposite side. Who first found that there are a golden ratio between the observed and the Observer, giving importance to the space between the Observer and the observed and published it, was Kim Lloveras i Montserrat in “La Visión Proporcionada, 1984”, annex of the "The Theory TK of Visual Proportions" of 1982. He uses it to define the ends in the horizontal plane of the Cone of Good Vision in his Theory TK and Laws of Positioning 2007.

I would also include an explanatory picture I uploaded yesterday,Thumbnail
Cordially

(EspaisNT (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC))

Joaquim, this is an issue that should probably be discussed on the talk page for the Golden Ratio article: here. In my opinion, the discussion of "Blind Points" does not improve the article. Also per WP:COI and WP:SELFCITE, since this is material that you have written, you should probably let others determine whether it should be included. Again, I would mention this on Talk:Golden ratio to start a discussion. Thanks, Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 16:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Justin, I would add that HM Traquair, a pioneer in the Fields of Vision, in "An intoduction to Clinical Perimetry" (1927) defined our vision as "an island of vision surrounded by a sea of blindness." The elliptical limits of the "island of vision", in the horizontal plane, are the Blinds Spots. But Traquair never makes a relationship between the visuals fields and the golden rectangle, Relation that occurs between the boundaries of Blind Spots and the Observer, the Person.
They Blinds Spots are also the limits in the horizontal plane of the "Cone of Good Vision" of the Person of the "Theory TK of Visual Proportions". The "Cone of Good Vision" has a elliptical section, the "Ellipse TK". Outside the Cone, in the environment, besides not see well, we perceive differently (see TK experiences cited in the article Arquiteturarevista of Unisinos).
The golden rectangle, this ratio of measure so perfect, is the basis of our mechanisms of the perception of the space. Search this uniqueness, and why not say beauty, I think that is the basis of your article in Wikipedia. Nobody talks about it .
Sincerely Yours. Joaquim

Dear Justin, I thought about what you said "In my opinion, the discussion of" Blind Points "does not improve the article," and I think it's best I try to expose in another way. Cordially. Joaquim — Preceding unsigned comment added by EspaisNT (talk • contribs) 09:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

References