User talk:Vfp15

Please click here to leave me a message.

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

RFC/discussion of article sulla

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]

Request for Mediation

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.

This message delivered: 04:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

RE: Lucius Cornelius Sulla

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]

Your request for arbitration

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]

Image:Vfp15.jpg listed for deletion

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]

User:Njan

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]

Chardin

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]

Re: Quick on the trigger

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]

Daniel J Solove

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]

AfD nomination of Brian Sinclair

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]

3RR on CISSP

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]

Tqbf

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]

Mokusatsu

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]

Hi, and a nit to pick

Hey, Vincent. From your user page:

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

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

converges whenever you work it out numerically. In fact,

\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

\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]

could you please do me a favor?

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?

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.
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]

RRQ

Let's be serious on the RRQ page, I am ready to cooperate. I write the exact same thing as in the reference. Philbox17 —Preceding undated comment added 05:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Note to admins investigating the RRQ edit war. I usually delete posts to my talk page by Philbox17 as I find him insulting and unpleasant. However this last post sounded conciliatory so I went and checked his edit on RRQ which convinced me this post to my talk page was simply a lie on Philbox17's part. The RRQ article was still completely inappropriate, POV, COI, and bombastic. I am leaving this up temporarily until the matter is resolved, then I will delete it. Vincent (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vincent. Your 3RR report was not in the standard form, and the user Philbox17 had not been given an official warning. So it would be difficult to block him for his March 14 edits even though they were past 3RR. Consider another 3RR filing if he goes over the limit again, but you'll have to master the proper form and list all the reverts to get a routine answer. I did look at the activities on the French Wikipedia. Though he's been incivil, negotiation is not out of the question. EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism RRQ

Can you stop vandalism please you erase evrything, it was source.Philbox17 (talk)