User talk:WillNess

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to Wikipedia[edit]


Hello, WillNess, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --4wajzkd02 (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

thanks! WillNess (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009[edit]

Information.svg Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Avatar (2009 film). Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"your" articles? "YOUR"??? Why am I excluded exactly? Sheesh! Demand sources, demand attribution by all means. But saying it is "YOUR ARTICLE"? That's rich. WillNess (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I think by 'our articles' he meant Wikipedia's articles, he never said it was his. You did some nice edits on the content I wrote in Roadside Picnic article! Keep up the good work. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Nick
Thank you very much for your words of encouragement! Thank you for the article on Alexander Pechersky too. WillNess (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sieve of Eratosthenes[edit]

Hello there! I hope you're well. I can see that you've been very busy editing Sieve of Eratosthenes. It's really good to see an editor with such entuhusiasm. Looking at the article's edit history it seems that you've started to disagree with another editor. It can be very frustrating when that happens. The best thing is to discuss any future changes on the article's talk page. It's best if you try not to conduct creative disagreements on the article itself; keep that to the talk page. I can see that you've already started to engage on the talk page. That's good. Remember that there's the very serious issue of the three revert rule. Please make sure you read the link WP:3RR. It's a policy on Wikipedia that says if you revert an article more than three times in 24 hours then you will be blocked from editing. And no-one wants to see that! So, take a deep breath, relax, and go to the article's talk page. All the best. Fly by Night (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouragement and warning. Problem is, the other person refuses to engage in any discussion on the talk page. They just ignore my arguments and do whatever they please - to the detriment of the article's quality IMO.
What can be done in such a case? WillNess (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
To keep conversations in one place, I reply to your comments on my own talk page, just so as you know - I'm not ignoring you ... --Matt Westwood 19:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The real problem behind the edit warring[edit]

moved here from User_talk:Geometry_guy#The_little_sieve_poem.

There is a real problem lurking beneath all this petty bickering. We do need judges (on WP), but we need them to judge honestly and knowledgeably. We need to know authoritativeness ranks, and objectivity ranks, honesty ranks, etc. Votes cast by people with low specific rank probably do need to be taken into account with less weight. The ranks would of course need to be dynamic, with all the history maintained and rechecked, so if some new evidence comes to light the value would get re-examined and thus always be as close to the true value as possible, according to the knowledge base at a given point in time.

As an aside, that's part of a bigger political theory. We need to be able to vote anytime we want, not only once in four years. We need to be able to recast our votes any time we want, either for our representation or directly on the issues at hand. The system would tally them up and at any given point in time the true will of society would be known and represented. But we need this system also to maintain trust ranks, and knowledgeability ranks, and possibly even honesty ranks, etc. That's like getting likes on a socnet. We certainly value the likes very differently coming from different people, but the system currently assigns an equal weight to each of them. Same approach could be even taken for a true measure of value created by an individual for a society - to be rechecked and revalidated and changed accordingly at any given point in time - to replace money itself. :)

The (dynamic, ever-changing, separately computable on every issue) verifiable trust rank would be eventually formed for each editor, and edits would carry the trust weight of their editors. In disputes, the cumulative trust of opposing parties would play a role. Trust networks could eventually form on certain matters, and a society (on WP, of editors) might split into two (or several) well-formed mutually-trusting sub-societies as pertaining to some issue (there might be several trust ranks for an editor, as rated by/computed from several different mutually-trusting networks of individuals (editors, here)).

Mainly perhaps this would play out on social, not scientific (hopefully) issues. This is what's going on on WP right now anyway, and is cause of much warring, with stronger side winning. But the winner shouldn't be defined by force, if there are two (or more) genuine sub-societies each with its unique POV, both should be represented, possibly by spitting the article.

I realize this appears to fly in the face of NPOV policy, *but* the RS requirements interpretation is / can be / pretty subjective, as we just saw. There is even a school of thought teaching that all knowledge is social. WP tries to pretend that is not the case, but edit wars seem to be evidence to the contrary. The problem is real, as we just observed/participated in a small-scale dispute ourselves.

And both (all) split-parts of the article could be equally well sourced and grounded in RS, just differing in some other aspect, like for the Sieve of Eratosthenes there'd be a minimalist mathematician's take on the matter, and a programmer's take (with much code snippets and more meatier complexity discussion (as it once was)), and child's take on it with more visual aids, etc. etc. A reader would choose a "reader mode" from a menu, and see the corresponding version. And if there's a well-formed minority on some article whose opinion gets always trampled, they'd finally be able to have their voice and their case shown to the general readership.

Of course if their "product" i.e. the page-version would be demonstrably false, or flagrantly ignoring well-established RS and using flaky ones instead on a consistent basis, there should be a mechanism for such article-version to be graded (by whom??) appropriately and all its editors get their share of negative grading (by whose trust network??) subsumed into their trust history. (the grading process could play part in trust networks-discovery) And grades from higher-ranking editors would carry more weight too, just like links from higher-ranking web pages carry more weight in Google PageRank discovery mechanism. Maybe each our editing action, on articles and talk pages etc., would get a little "trust/mistrust" button near it, or something like that.

This is all still a very vague idea that I have. WillNess (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

My comment: Deletionists suck. Always. --Matt Westwood 18:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Edits to prime number[edit]

Hi, thanks for proposing a compromise at Prime number. Nevertheless I've undone your edit, because I think it isn't necessary now. PeggyCummins/Rebecca G have been blocked for sockpuppetry–they are apparently the same person–so hopefully there will be no more edit warring on this page. Best wishes, Jowa fan (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I suspected as much. WillNess (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Counting sort comment[edit]

First, I am sorry that I messed up this page. I quickly realized that I was wrong (after David Epstein fixed it). However, I did not do a second wrong edit attempt: it was another person (i.e., you may want to explain this to her/him).

Nonetheless, if we talking about the counting sort and how to prevent these erroneous edits in the future. Please, note that the version with the plus is the stable version. IMHO, it should be highlighted (in a comment or otherwise). Second, I suggest to add some comment that explains the differences between versions that use PLUS and MINUS. Then, people would not change this code.

Finally, as I noted on my wikipage and, because Wikipedia has such a messy way of communicating, I prefer to discuss such matter via e-mail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itman (talkcontribs) 17:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think both versions are stable. The difference is in insignificant detail of final traversal direction, and corresponding prefix sum entries calculation. -- WillNess (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Track Geomtry[edit]

Longterm misuse by User:CRGreathouse of their rollback tool[edit]

St Petersberbg[edit]

That Taibbi delete of St Petes makes no sense because it was a goof on my part. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The Hunger Games ... needs to go on a diet.[edit]

I'm guessing you're not aware of the guideline WP:FILMPLOT, specifically the 700 word recommended maximum length. I worked hard to get it down there, and now it's back up to about 900. Please consider whether what you're adding is really necessary. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

instead of removing the most recent, please remove the least needed. I contend there are other parts less needed than the few words I added, as a necessary background, in the section. This section is titled "Plot", not "Film's setting" after all. "Plot" should be about participants, not provide general explanations about the fictional universe. Cut those, by all means. WillNess (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
there you go: my new copyedits to shorten the text (by removing excessive details): -386 bytes. My earlier additions: +396 bytes. WillNess (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: A barnstar for you! Nils von Barth[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, WillNess. You have new messages at Nbarth's talk page.
Message added 09:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for November 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tail call, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Wise (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, it was intended, as stated in the edit reason there: "wikify the two names, Friedman and Wise (2nd to disambig page since page itself doesn't exist)". WillNess (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Animal Farm[edit]

Sorry about restoring that paragraph. I was trying to fix the spelling and for some reason it didn't let me know there was another edit after that. I removed it again here. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


"Politician" is the correct description in the "occupation" field of the template. While you are quite right that Hitler was a mass-murdering demagogue (and which crimes are described at length in the article), these were not his occupation -- he did all these monstrous things while being a politician. Similarly, he led Germany into ignominious defeat as part of his role as military leader, but "military incompetent and war-losing buffoon" doesn't belong there either. -- The Anome (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

huilo -> Putin?[edit]

From the comment at [2] it sounds like people in Moscow just assume "huilo" refers to Putin now? That's ROFLMAO funny, or would be if I could find a reference. Any chance you have a link sitting handy in your browser history? Tx. Wnt (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

not just people, police. When the guy protested he hadn't named who this referred to, the policemen said to him, "we know who is the huilo in our country". WillNess (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
it might be safe to assume this, because using mat so openly is such a taboo (in writing, still - in speech it becomes less and less so, but you'll never hear it in a TV broadcast), so if it is used after all, the connotation seems obvious. WillNess (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA alert[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, WillNess. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)