User talk:InternetHero/Archive 1

Wolverine
I'm sorry to keep reverting your edits but I don't think that YouTube video really bears the weight of such statements, either about the kinds of animals the wolverine is wiling to take on, or the reasons that those other animals may retreat from the battles. The video is about 5 seconds of a wolverine lunging at a wolf, interwoven with closeups of a wolverine and shots of two wolves (not a pack) circling something. The video ends before there's any resolution so we don't even find out how the argument ends (though I concede that the wolves don't seem too eager to stay with the fight). JohnInDC 03:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it was meant to demonstrate the eye gouging attempt in co-herence with my past edit in respect to wolves and other such animals creating a strong message to stay clear or else serious predatory assets could be removed.


 * I've actually seen this video on a documentary and there were about 5-6 other wolves. I've also seen and another video and read that wolverines hide on tree branches for ambushing deer, but I don't suppose anything but resources available on the internet will be taken.


 * Maybe I can scan the book or something. InternetHero 02:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy of mind
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so you can't quote other Wikipedia articles as sources. Also, user talk pages are not for discussing article disputes. These discussions go on Talk:Philosophy of mind and nowhere else. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-03-27 23:04Z


 * Thank you. It seems I have lost the right to edit, so how would you consider I share my knowledge?


 * Publish a book or an article. If you're not qualified or capable, then try forums or blogs. There are almost an infinity of choices available these days. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'll get started. Sorry for the trouble but I'm not useless. --User:InternetHero 16:01 - March 28, 2007 (UTC)

Warning
You have been repeatedly adding material for which no source is offered to Philosophy of mind. Attribution is a core content policy on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so relies on previously published reliable sources for all of its content. The ability to cite sources for all proposed content is more important than either logic or getting it right. The disputed paragraph is being added without any sources cited, so the correct answer about whether or not to include it on Wikipedia is obvious - without reliable published sources, it does not belong in the article. Repeatedly adding the same material without trying to address this fundamental flaw with it is disruptive. Continuing to do so could result in a temporary loss of editing privileges here. Consider this a formal warning that your editing has been disruptive, and you are in danger of being blocked. GRBerry 16:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. InternetHero 02:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary on Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Please try to avoid "challenging" other users to edit wars as you did with your last edit summary on the above page. It is always best to assume good faith and be civil at all times. Thanks. -- Codeine 22:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ya, you're righ, but I know somebody will change it. Nevertheless, Mozart created his music for all of us to enjoy. I do, however, beleive he would have wanted his 'real' picture.InternetHero 10:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox
I totally agree that infobox is very useful for studying and stuff. I used musical artist infobox for Mozart article (which was removed later), and it took me a while for adding all informations, cause i had to go through whole article to gather all informations. It's pretty neat to have it all on one place. I really don't see a reason why the composers should be an exception. Only valid explanation is that there's no proper infobox. But if we make a good one, I think there won't be a problem. Only we have to find out which data are most important to be in infobox. I was thinking of:
 * image and caption
 * birth name
 * also known as
 * born (date and place)
 * origin
 * died (date and place)
 * musical period
 * worked on (I'm not sure how to define this. things he/she composed. ex. symphonies, concertos, oratorios, etc.)
 * major instrument
 * other instruments
 * years active
 * influences
 * influenced
 * notable compositions
 * signature

What do you think? --Lošmi 14:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is finding a template that everyone will follow. Maybe putting a list of templates from a variety of people that an administrator can choose.InternetHero 23:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds ok. Only if there's one willing to do that. --Lošmi 22:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Cree?
Back in April, you edited the article on the Cree, adding a mention of zygosity. Can you explain why you did this? DS 17:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Feel free to take it off. It was just non-sense. I do belive that Deganawida's vision is factual though as Balck people are beginning to be more and more impressive.InternetHero 01:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Contribution
Hi. I assume you are talking about Freydis and her battle against the Skraelings in Vinland. Well listening to what you said I guess that you have done nothing wrong. If you have got your sources and have not copied and pasted any infomation than you have not done anything wrong and they shouldn't be reverting your edits. I hope this helps. Kyriakos 00:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems I was. But, I plan to work on making them into my words which would actually be quite fun. It is nice to make a literary contribution to history as a whole. That is why I enlisted for Wikipedia. Thank you for your time. InternetHero 00:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Referencing Issues
I am willing to look into this problem, but I need a link to this article before I can do so. Will you please provide me with one? Thanks. Captain  panda  01:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi there. The orignal issue was about Freydis and my honorable attempt to add flavour to the account of her voyage to Vinland, but it now seems that the issue is regarding my valuable contribution to the 'Norse colonization of the Americas'. The administrtor has told me to revert the edits in my own words, but I think he has failed to realize that I have tried to do so from the very start in order to merge the existing information. I have nevertheless tried to proceed further, but it seems not good enough. I think you'd agree that it looks nothing like the original information, which I pretty much copied from 'Canadian History for Dummies' only because I thought that is what I was supposed to do. Anyway, I've tried very hard to show my resolution in this matter but to no avail. I would have to ask if my contributions are worthless, because I think they aren't. If you see that they aren't useful, I will take your opinion into consideration. Here the link: Thank you for your time. It is greatly appreciated as I feel I have done nothing wrong besides learn how to be a better contributer. I wish not to fight at all, my friend. InternetHero 01:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * a cut-and-paste should be avoided just for general principles, but a good faith mistake is easily corrected without prejudice to the editor. The main thing in contributing is to keep your cool (admittedly it can be trying, and I am no paragon of patience)--tones are impossible to discern on the 'net, and inevitably the harshest interpretation is the one taken. If your information is from a competent source (usu. but not always a published work) and you have correctly re-written the information in your own words, you're good to go. Occasionally you will run into an editor who takes a proprietary attitude to an article (I have been guilty of that a few times), but if you remain civil and explain your edits, things usu. work out without having to take the edits to any type of wiki arbitration. Normally, a concise and civil explanation in the edit summary box does the trick--be sure you do this. If not, discuss the change and make your case on the article's talk page. Again, civility is the key--don't let yourself be goaded into replying in kind. Always take the time to explain you're trying to improve the article--this gets lost in discussions of specifics. From what I can see, your contributions should be okay now. Good luck and keep contributing--the more you do, the more you learn.--Buckboard 05:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It was actually a copyright issue. Thanks for your time, though. I'll take your advice for future reference. InternetHero 18:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Block
I've blocked you for 24 hours for non-compliance with copyright policy in the face of warnings. I've posted a request for review of the block at WP:ANI. If you want to add something there you can write it here and I'll add it (or a notice of it) to the ANI thread. (You can still edit your own talk page.) You can also request a review by using the 'unblock' template. I actually instated the block a couple of hours ago. I should have notified you with a message here immediately but failed to do so. I regret that. Haukur 12:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok.


 * "Unauthorized commercial publication or exploitation of text, images or content of this website is specifically prohibited. Anyone wishing to use any of these files or images for commercial use, publication, or any purpose other than fair use as defined by law, must request and receive prior written permission from the Smithsonian Institution. Permission for such use is granted on a case-by-case basis at the sole discretion of Smithsonian's Office of Product Development and Licensing. A usage fee may be assessed depending on the type and nature of the proposed use." So this isn't GDFL-compatible, right? Well, its from anoter article, but I'm not going to say where. --InternetHero 18:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Contribution
I agree with CaptainPanda that it would have been helpful to have a wikilink such as Norse colonization of the Americas or Freydís Eiríksdóttir. Looking over the edits you have done and comparing them with the original page there is an issue with copyright and how far you can go to edit the original text. The copyright status of the original page is certainly dubious with regards to Wikipedia "for non-commercial use", in many peoples eyes wikipedia is a commercial entity. I do think Haukur was right to remove the "offending text". I think that you should try to rewrite the text and possibly put it in a before putting it into the article. I have several sandboxes that i use. Wikipedia is about building a WP:CONSENSUS ad in this case the consensus seems to be against you. Whilst administrators are by no means infallible they do have the best intentions and copyright violations are very serious. I see now that you have now been blocked. I think it is sad that you have been blocked because you seem to have the best of intentions but the reasoning is there at the ANI. I hope that this block does not dissuade you from editing in the future. I agree with Buckboards sentiments and i hope that you learn from this experience. Good luck in the future and i will be happy to help with any further questions/problems. Woodym555 19:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think I'll use your suggestion about the sandbox. InternetHero 18:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Bob Law Law
Major Native American Victories

                     

Nominal Native American Victories

                     

 Major European Victories < N/A = Mixed-breed Indians      

Nominal European Victories           < N/A = British cowards.

Neutral

        <--- N/A = Procters' an idiot.

22 majors (Indians) 22 minors (Indians) Total: 44 - 8 majors (Euro) 15 minors (Euro) Total: 23

re: timeline of important inventions
You don't seem to understand, the entire list is indeed unreferenced, even the ones with references on.

The problem is that by adding them to the list the editor is making the claim that these are important inventions. But in the absence of a cite that that is so, that is Original research.

So basically almost none of the list are referenced right; and it's not a small thing. For example is a blue LED really an important invention? What are blue leds used for anyway? Microcredits- should they be here? Hybrid cars? Should any of the inventions be here? Where do we draw the line? It shouldn't be the editors call on this, it should be from elsewhere.WolfKeeper 22:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are trying to say. "So basically almost none of the list are referenced right, and it's not a small thing." This really doesn't make any sense. The category holder for the wrong-doing here isn't the references at all; It's a matter of [consensus|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CONSENSUS]. The references portray the proper information viable to write on Wikipedia. I think the article may need a "cleanup" instead of reference problems? What do you think? I won't revert your edit, as I haven't contributed there, but I will take it up in the talk page. Good day fellow, Internet Hero. InternetHero 22:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart‎
You've been revert-warring on the above page re. the image for a long, long time, and are doing so against the clear consensus on the talk page. Please - reconsider your next revert as you're in great danger of being blocked for revert-warring - A l is o n  ❤ 05:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I have to see for myself. I can't sondly believe that Wikipedia is based on a mere consensus rather than verifiable sources. I am pretty sure that the neutral point of view act overrides the consensus. I may be wrong, but I have to see for myself. Good day. InternetHero 05:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In your case, there appears to be doubt as to the veracity of your sources, and therein lies the problem. How and ever, coming back day after day and revert-warring is not the way to move forward here; it's just being disruptive - A l is o n  ❤ 05:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As you suggested, I am blocking you briefly. Thanks.  I have no doubt that you are making your contributions in good faith, but edit warring is not the way forward.  Alison put it very well on the talk page: no-one should be out to win or lose.  Wikipedia works by building consensus, and if you will not accept this then I encourage you to consider whether contributing at Wikipedia is the best use of your talents.  If you want to publish an article about Mozart that meets entirely with your approval, then I suggest you get your own web space and put a modified copy of the article there.   --RobertG &#9836; talk 10:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, RobertG. I just know that I can find people to support me, but it is out of a mere quantative level, rather than a qualative one. Anyway, I hope I can find some other way to hold Leopold's reference in correspondence. If he like the Croce painting so much, he would have made the same remark - no? InternetHero 06:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart&diff=169654720&oldid=168415356 on Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart you deleted one previous contributions by me and one by yourself and inserted a number of new comments into a previous contribution by yourself. This is absolutely unacceptable. Don't do that! Antandrus has kindly restored the previous comments. Michael Bednarek 02:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I did it as a favour to you. It seemed very childish from both of us, so I was acting out of good faith. Nevertheless, I am sorry. Sincerely, InternetHero 04:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I notice Special:Contributions/InternetZero. Whoever that is, s/he is very welcome here. But I should be grateful if both of you would please read the official Wikipedia policy about what is called meatpuppetry. Best wishes. --RobertG &#9836; talk 17:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * O.K., but I think he's acting on his own; we're friends but he's also into music. Like I said before though, anyone who is agreeing with my doing so because they believe it themselves 100%. I am very honorable and my teachers/friends share the same interests, and, luckily for me, they feel EXACTLY the same way. Indeed, it was my teacher Mr. John Dominic who had a copy of the Bologna-Mozart in his classroom. Please believe me when I say that I'd never try to manipulate Mozart in any way, post-humurously or not. There is only just few people who I respect as much as Mozart, and, who I would do ABSOLUTELY anything for. InternetHero 01:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Bologna Mozart
I have been looking at your comments and associated discussion over the choice of image for the top of the article, IMHO its not worth edit waring over. I'll ask the question is the picture worthy of an article in its own right, are there enough sources to assert notability, do the discussion surrounding its detail warrant separate discussion, is its ownership of note. Afterall we are writing an encyclopedia and other famous paintings are subjects of articles like. Mona Lisa, The Scream, anyway its just a thought. Gnangarra 04:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome
Please note that this is not a licence to start suggesting people who disagree with you are unreasonable and uneducated, that would be a good way to get blocked. ;) 86.44.6.14 (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VII
You have been active in a dispute regarding evidence to prove the sentience of Cait Sith in the computer game Final Fantasy VII. A poll has been set up in order to find consensus of editors of the page regarding the evidence. Please post your opinions on the talk page. Cait's Sentence Poll. Gavin Scott (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Telescope
Hi, I have reverted these additions at Telescope. This article is an overview of telescopes - all types (see Summary style). Information added was history of optical telescopes only... as such probably belongs at the History of telescopes article. The citations you added show some new/minority thinking backing up your additions and, again, may not be enough support to add this material to an overview (re: Undue weight concerns). All of this may be a good add to History of telescopes. I am currently re-writing that article and will try to add it there (I have copied and pasted your adds into my desktop version). If there is some more citations for this material published by reliable sources (i.e. text book level sources) could you let me or other editors know about them on my or History of telescopes talk pages? Thanks. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, but the information gives an overview of the telescope. If I am incorrect, then most pages that give an overview for the summary must be changed. I do hope you find the space for my additions as the web sites are GFDL compatible, and in such, are perfectly viable sources. I do believe that the great minds of these men should be recognized at all costs. Good day, fellow Internet-Hero.InternetHero (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, as an overview, the page covers all types of telescopes. The information you are inserting only covers one type, optical telescopes. And there is also an already existant article for this information--> History of telescopes. And "great minds of these men should be recognized at all costs" goes against Wikipedia's policy of "WP:NOTSOAPBOX". There is a level of verification that the material you are adding does not meet. I am not saying it is wrong or does not exist in text book level information... I am just saying that you have to prove it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No problemo. I will just add the information about the telescope in regard to Al-Haytham. The telescope is a device to magnify distant objects, but simply stating that a radio, or electromagnetic telescope contradicts the foundation of the latter is highly dubius. I see no argument here, but rather 'an agreement to disagree'. InternetHero (talk) 03:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do not make POV edits as you did here. Absolutely no reliable sources state that Ibn Al-Haytham invented the telescope in "the beginning of the 13th century century" Not even the Richard Power ref. And one Richard Powers ref does not "fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". Controversy is handled in History of telescopes... within reason and reliable sources. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

History of people, places, or things
Your proposal concerning "History of people, places, or things" would be considered best at Village pump (proposals). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Etiquette
Comments like the last sentence of your recent user talkpage comment tend not to make girls and women feel welcome here. It was not appreciated by Wolfkeeper and s/he was justified in removing it. Please moderate your discourse and be polite. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It wasn't me at all, Sir. I accidently used the 'show preview' button before leaving to let my friend use the computer. I hope you belive me as I take contributing to Wikiepdias' articles very seriously. InternetHero (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

vandalisms
You don't get to edit my words in talk. You also don't get to edit the article to remove valid references. I consider both of these to be simple vandalism.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. -- - (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. -- - (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- - (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You're weird, my friend. InternetHero (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

ANI
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding your recent disruptive behavior. {{#if:Internal combustion engine‎|The discussion is about the topic Internal combustion engine‎.  Thank you. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi InternetHero; I'm sorry I suggested that your account may have been compromised. You'll have a much more pleasant experience on WP if you read and understand some of our basic policies and guidelines. Please read WP:RS and WP:V. Wikipedia content is based on sources like Encyclopædia Britannica, scientific journal article, and the like, most protected by copyright, cited according to WP:FN. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I already know those rules. I was tricked by another editor wgo had an administrator ban me and simultaneously tell me the reason was because the site wasn't GFDL compatible, and therefore unable to be used as a reference—which is completely false. InternetHero (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ''You and another editor are both involved in an edit dispute, and are about to breach 3RR, so I'm notifying you both. It doesn't matter who is "right" or "wrong" - you shouldn't be edit warring.'' -- Mark Chovain 02:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR warning
Hi InternetHero,

The AN/I thread above indicates that you have performed three reversions within the past 24 hours, so I just wanted to drop you a note and let you know that you are close to running afoul of the three-revert rule. It has been pointed out that you are seeking third opinions on this matter, though, so as long as you keep up discussion rather than relying on edit-warring you should be fine. Thanks! -- jonny - m t  02:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Will do. InternetHero (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:internal combustion engine
You wrote:

It seems I was wrong in that the websites can be used. Somebody tricked me before saying that my website I was referencing wasn't GFDL compatible because it said that any commercial use isn't allowed. Most of these websites say the same thing. BTW 2, I am not being disruptive. I thought Wolfkeeper wasn't following the rules. I know he's your friend so you'll be quick to throw around accusations, but it really doesn't make you guys look too professional.

I don't see how the terms of use in the Brittanica coincides with thsi statement. I would think s/he has to gather Britannicas' primary source achive before they can rewrite or reference the site. You guys haven't given me any other arguments that contradict other than, "It's just wrong".: "The GFDL requires the ability to 'copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially' and therefore is incompatible with material that excludes commercial re-use. Material that restricts commercial re-use is incompatible with the license and cannot be incorporated into the work. However, incorporating such restricted material may be fair use under United States copyright law and does not need to be licensed to fall within the GFDL..."



Use of Content: You may display, reproduce, print or download content on the Services only for your personal, non-commercial use. If you are a teacher, scholar or student, you may copy reasonable portions of the content for lesson plans, interactive whiteboards, reports, dissertations, presentations, school newspapers and for similar nonprofit educational purposes to the extent permitted by applicable law. In each case, however, you may not remove or alter any copyright, trademark, service mark or other proprietary notices or legends. You may not publish, distribute, retransmit, sell or provide access to the content on the Services, except as permitted under applicable law or as described in these Terms of Use. Britannica works to ensure that all the content on its Services is in compliance with applicable U.S. copyright laws. However, in the case of works on the Services authored by parties other than Britannica, you may wish to check on their copyright status before downloading them if you are in another country.

Linking to the Services:


 * host, publish, broadcast, rewrite or redistribute any content on the Services except as permitted in these Terms of Use or as specifically permitted by Britannica.


 * None of that bans linking or referencing to it.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Linking or referencing doesn't include copying or broadcasting or redistributing, it's all still on the original site.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand now. I was tricked by another editor claiming that [[|this]] site wasn't GFDL compatible. Given the fact that the copyright claims of this particular site and the ones you referenced are the same, can I use the information from it? I figured the copying aspect meant that I wasn't allowed to use the information and reference it. It's only GFDL compatible when you are allowed to commercially copy its information. Most websites should be GFDL compatible then. Damn, him.InternetHero (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you still don't get it, I checked, and you were suspended fair and square.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's to do with copyright. Copyright is the right to copy something. Only the original author has the right to make copies; by law.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Everything anybody ever writes, paints or plays is copyright to them. Only if they sell or give up that right to copy does it change. This is the Berne convention.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And that includes 'derived works'. in other words if you slavishly copy something somebody wrote- almost anything- and then change it; the guy that originally had copyright still has copyright over the changed copy as well.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What you did, was take a bit off a website and pasted it into the wikipedia. That's a copy.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Then you rewrote it bit by bit. That's a derived work. And it's usually still a derived work even when none of the original remains! (Because it's a derived work every step of the way, including the last change).- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So that's bad. Don't do that.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But what copyright *doesn't* cover is if you just summarise something without ever copying it, or if you simply refer to it. Like 'I read that jesus got crucified' source: 'The last temptation of Christ'. That's perfectly fine even though that film is copyright; you're not slavishly copying it, you're just commenting on it. That's OK. Or if you ref a website in the wikipedia. But if you took more than a few sentences from the film and slavishly copied them into the wikipedia, you're screwed. (You can normally get away with a slavishly copying a sentence or two, particularly if you put quote marks around it, and say where you got it from, that's called 'fair use', just don't take too much from any one place.)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Got it now?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I had it for a long time after I knew he tricked me. What happened was he banned me for plagarism and simultaneously told me it was for GFDL reasons. The site I used back then was indeed GFDL compatible. That's what I was trying to get at, but it seems you're still mad at me for some reason. I was only trying to make things neater with your edits and I didn't at all write that comment about thrusting. Anyway, I hope we can work together in the future. InternetHero (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I checked this out. You were suspended fair and square. The CA government site you plagiarised was on a non-commercial only license. The wikipedia is actually (perhaps surprisingly) on a commercial GFDL license (that's so downstream sites can advertise to make money off the encyclopedia). The licenses are just not compatible. And that's quite apart from the ethics of not referencing it.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Do not remove valid references from an article and then ask for cites. That is stupid. If the ref is not satisfactory, or does not support the statement, removing it is fine. There is no doubt that rockets were used by the chinese, the problem is NOT the ref stating that, the question is whetehr rockets should even be on the timeline. Deleting the ref does not alter that discussion. Greg Locock (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, ya; I copied the website but I didn't know it was against the rules to copy. If Wikipedia was a non-commercial organization, then I could paste it on. The site is indeed going to enable me to use it as a reference, but only a few bits of information can be used. I'm going to have to go to the library. 2nd, I was trying to be nice. I could have deleted the whole sentence as it hasn't anything to do with the IC-engine. But since we're in a discussion here, leaving it on and simply tagging it seemed like a better idea to me. InternetHero (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't use minor for substantive edits.
FWIW the minor flag is intended for minor spelling corrections and possibly wikilinking and grammar and stuff like that. Using it for edits that change things is seriously frowned upon...- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 06:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No problemo. InternetHero (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible edit war
Hi. Thanks for raising the concern about the possible edit war. Because you would be one of the parties, the good news is that you can simply choose not to edit war in this case. Please try to reach consenus with the other party and, if that doesn't work, try to bring others into the process. Reading WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DISPUTE may be helpful, but please don't be tempted to edit war. Thanks again TigerShark (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Internal combustion engine
Your repeated revert of your edit to the definition section of the lead is completely inappropriate, not only does it contain at least one spelling error, but it fails to make a definition of what an internal combustion engine is, and even disagrees with the reliable sources that have been linked.

In case you don't understand (which it is pretty apparent to me that you don't), a list of common features of something is not a definition.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You should read Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary and thoroughly understand it before making any further edits to the lead paragraph of the internal combustion engine article.22:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure I did. I got that quote from my library. I wrote it down but I forget whether it was the 1st or 2nd paragraph. Anyway, your argument seems to be based around whether or not the clause of the "whole engine itself" constitutes a clearer definition; whoops, a definition! InternetHero (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, my argument against your edit is multifold:


 * it says 'most internal combustion engines'. A definition does not apply to most internal combustion engines it necessarily applies to all engines. A definition is not a summary.


 * it uses the word 'preformed' in a context that makes no sense; I think you mean performed


 * it says 'This motion is usually' but again, this is a definition not a summary. A definition is not usually the case, it is always the case.


 * it refers to pistons, but not all internal combustion engines have pistons; hence this does not constitute part of a definition. As discussed in Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary an article needs to start with a definition and a definition must not be over broad or over narrow.


 * I noticed that you're not a native English speaker. Definitions are some of the hardest parts of English to get right, a single nuance of a word can completely change the meaning. Your English seems very good indeed, but some of the subtle nuances aren't quite there right now. It wouldn't matter for 99% of the wikipedia, but I'm sorry, but on this paragraph it does.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.

Continued edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL. TTT. InternetHero (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attacks
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. DigitalC (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. No problemo. InternetHero (talk) 06:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Kozuch
Please do not post massively to user talks. Instead, try to solve the problem via administrator. Thank you.--Kozuch (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * O.K. I tried that before in the Internal combustion engine article but the Admin said to, "Try to utilize the Dispute Resolution method". I'll try again, though. InternetHero (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Solicitation for Proxy Editor
InternetHero posted to User talk: Mavigogun:
 * Hello. A credible authors' reference is being "overrided" by edit-warring. I recently tried to add to the telescope article but this editor seems to think that his opinion overrides a VERY credible author in Mr. Richard Powers. I've been blocked before for edit-warring recently, so I don't want this to be another incident on my record.
 * Anyway, the other editor seemed to have asked his friend-type editors to form a consensus, so I will do the same. The Islamic connection here is, Al-Haytham. He is FUNDAMENTAL to the telescope and the FATHER of optics. By definition, the summary can include him since the radio and electro-magnetic telescopes are derogatory to the average person looking at the article; I wanted to add it to the history section since it looked cleaner. Can you help your fellow InternetHero?? InternetHero (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I will not act as a proxy for anyone in an editing conflict; my only option is to educate myself, read the article, and make edits as necessary after vetting my proposed changes on the appropriate talk page: however, your solicitation and the degree of creditability represented by the repeated warnings to and suspensions of your user account do not meet my motivation threshold.  You might enjoy a publishing environment without the conditions imposed on contributers to this utility; a blog might well suit you.Mavigogun (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

O.K. No problemo. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, I have never been solicited to come to the Telescope article, and was never contacted by User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr. Please assume good faith. DigitalC (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, it seems when some1 is innocent they disregard the concept of guilty pre-requisites. I'll assume good faith, though. InternetHero (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Credible author
Salam, thanks for your comment, however I think Jagged 85 is a more credible editor in this field. I guess he can help you better than me.-- Seyyed(t-c) 01:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No problemo. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

My Reference to applying Al-Haytham to the Telescope article

 * "So did Ibn al-Haytham's optics. His work on refraction and lenses led to the development of the telescope and microscope. Once these devices threw open their portals onto the invisible, there was no looking back. Van Leeuwenhoek's (1632-1723) 'tiny animalcules' revealed the living world to be stranger than any natural philosopher could have guessed."


 * The reference.


 * I agree that the rather strong conviction were unjustified and unwarranted. I diagree to "a passing mention" as that would qualify as being an overly narrow definition since most people recognize a telescope as the one found in schools—not high-tech laboratories. To be absolutely fair and justified, both the 11th and 17th centuries were instumental to the history of the telescope: without the the European lensmakers and craftsman, the telescope might not have been invented: without the Arab glassmakers and researchers (especially Al-Haytham), the telescope might not have been invented. I think—and hope—everyone can agree on this. InternetHero (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions
As I stated on the telescope page, I don't know why you are discussing definitions, as no one else is. However, you are setting up a straw man argument based on the definition of furniture being something to sit on. Merriam-Webster defines it as "movable articles used in readying an area (as a room or patio) for occupancy or use". - DigitalC (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The summary isn't what you think it is (or mayber better put, what I think it is). I'm talking about the first paragraph of the article. The page you gave me before was about summary-style of sections within the article. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a dictionary so any controversies must be listed in the summary. I left it in the History section because it help match it to the microscope article. InternetHero (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * From WP:SUMMARY - "When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text can be summarized from the present article and a link provided to the more detailed article." As such, Telescope should be summarized from History of Telescopes(HOT). Al-Haytham is barely mentioned in HOT, and as such a summary of HOT would likely not include him.
 * As for the lead, WP:LEAD states "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist". I don't see there being any controversy over the fact that al-Haytham was important to the history of optics, nor have I see any reliable sources pointing towards a controversy about al-Haytham within the realm of telescopes. As al-Haytham shouldn't be mentioned in the Telescope section, he shouldn't be mentioned in the lead, as it would be WP:undue weight. - DigitalC (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Credible author (Telescope article)
Hi. I'm afraid my awareness hasn't yet reached what you're asking about, although I am aware that Islamic scholars and engineers made significant contributions to the development of astronomical instruments and measurement. Maybe someone involved with the Astronomy WikiProject is who you need. Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's ok. I have found some new references. InternetHero (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 3RR violation
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. Rud get  12:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether or not you are right or wrong, you should not edit war over content as you did on Telescope. I have provided a clear explanation for the block over at WP:AN3 (under the relevant header to you). You should have been aware of this rule since you broke it only days ago, and you were blocked then also. Make sure to edit with consensus in the future or you may face extended blocks. Rud  get  11:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

later
He defended the thesis of rectilinear propagation of light. His camera obscura was implemented to provide experimental evidence for this statement. He contended that magnification was due to refraction: the bending of light rays at the glass-to-air boundary and not, as thought before, to something inside the glass. He made the link between glass curvature and magnification. He is then credited with discovering that the magnifying effect takes place at the surface of the optical element rather than within it. (4.7) 500 years after Alhazan made the camera obscura, Geronimo Cardano 1501 1576 who was influenced by alhazan, suggested replacing the small aperture with a lens Gio vanni Batista della porta 1535 1615. Kepler improved it with a negative lens behind a positive lens which enlarged the projected image. Robert boyle 1627 1691 portable. His work in catoptrics, concave and (to a lesser extent) convex lenses, and the 1st magnifying instrument prove this. http://www.muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm?ArticleID=382

Had you noticed Ilkali habit of removing-revertioning user contribes?
Hello InternetHero, Had you noticed Ilkali habit of removing-revertioning user contribes?

Credible Author msg.
I'm not sure why you left me (and possibly others) a message entreating me to help you re Telescope, as I don't believe I ever even looked at that article before, let alone edited it. Can you give some background? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Basically, another editor asked anothr editor to help him form a consensus. I provided a reference in Richard Powers, but that seems to be "not" enough to form a consensus. It doesn't matter that much as I will form my own consensus if I must. I think I wil be joined because Richard Powers and the reference has been in the NY Times. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Understanding
At Talk:Telescope you posted this:


 * 'The concept of the poorly understood authors of the great works of Islam was intended not to be related to my discussion. It was merely a theory on why you guys don't know Ibn Al-Haytham. You guys aren't at all giving me the benefit of the doubt.'

It is not a mater of poor comprehension; after assessing the data, they do not concure with your assessment. Or, simply put: they saw the same thing and came to a different conclusion. Theories on why people just don't understand you are not appropriate to the article talk page; nor are expressions of contempt.

On a seperate topic: the writings on optics penned by Ibn Al-Haytham is not a 'work of Islam', but the product of a muslim person; the label you use to describe him says more about your agenda than it does about him: depending on perspective, we might label him an Arab, a Persian, an Aryan, or -if you like modern political bounderies- an Iraqi. To point: adherence to a neutral point of view is the only way that this utility -used by many different people with widely varying perspectives- can function.Mavigogun (talk) 06:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. My father is French and my mother is Native-American. I have no obligation here other than to provide knowledge that can be used. InternetHero (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Honest Grammar changes
Please note: Making a series of substantive changes to an article (as you did here ), and calling it "grammar changes" i.e. making a major change and claiming it is a minor one, or vice versa, is condsidered poor etiquette. Grammar changes can be restored piecemeal but it will take some time by you, me, or some other editor to sort them out from a whole series of other edits you made. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's what I did... GRAMMAR. So you're saying I'm not allowed to contribute? I've had enough of this. InternetHero (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I took a look at that edit, and can't believe you're calling all those changes grammar changes... As English is not your first language, you probably need to try attaching more weight to other editors' advice.  In your edit, you've changed grammar, style, punctuation, and added information. -- Mark Chovain 02:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It was all in good faith. I changed those things for the better. I didn't add a sentence either: I added a sentence belonging to a user called, "Jagged85". I added the link to the Optical telescope article. You make it sound as if my edit was vandalism. I tried to help: end of discussion.
 * I thought I mislabeled the word 'grammar' since yuou seemed to hate the idea of me using it to clarify my edits/contribution, but it does seem to mean (in whole) the structure of the sentence. Punctuation—and others—do seem (by definition) a focused concpet. Next time, I'll be more specific. I don't see why you hate me, though. InternetHero (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No-one is saying your edit was vandalism (although it's kind of ironic, given your accusations that other users' good-faith edits are vandalism). We're just asking that you try to be more accurate with your edit summaries, and discuss major changes first. -- Mark Chovain 02:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * O.K. No problem. TTT (To The Top). Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Civility & Archiving
A recent edit summary of yours was, "We just HAD a dispute over the summary... Please don't vandalise the article again." Please don't accuse other editors of vandalising articles just because you disagree with the changes they made. Vandalism is "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia": It's about putting "R0dn3y woz here" in the middle of text, not changing the text in a way that you personally happen to dislike. -- Mark Chovain 02:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We had a big 'thing' on this earlier. See: this page. What, now I have to make a new discussion??? That makes no sense. He tried to revert to the edit after our simultaneous bans were completed and it got reverted by 3 other editors. He left it for weeks and now all of a sudden changes it... The whole arguement was about me adding to the summary, and now he changes it without a word... Why do you take his side??? InternetHero (talk) 08:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to encounter the same problem repeatedly: consider what the common factor between these instances is, perhaps then an internal solution will be evident.Mavigogun (talk) 09:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not taking sides: I'm telling you not to refer to people's edits as "vandalism", when it's just a disagreement on wording. In reading the section of the talk page you have referred me to, I do not see that a consensus has been formed. -- Mark Chovain 10:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * O.K. I won't do that anymore. Is should wait more than a week? I asked everyone in the talk page if they had a problem if I added the components as a seperate clause in the summary. He argued with me, but I had a reference. I think Wolf is just a kid or something. We both got banned for edit-warring and when I added the information, he reverted it; another person reverted it again—then another. He seemed to think that I should be "allowed" to try and contribute alittle by clearing the summary up for confused readers. Then all of a sudden he changes it in mid-sequence from adding very good material in the article (I might add). Whatever, I'll take it up in the talk page again. InternetHero (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to to consider outside opinions on this one. You might consider getting a third opinion, or requesting comment. -- Mark Chovain 23:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * O.K. If you guys don't want me to add to the summary in respect to explaining the moving parts to clarify the idea (indeed, I thought Ic-engines were intwined with reciprocation), that's alright. He was the only one who was against it. I waited a week for the other editors to say something to diagree and nobody did. He tried to revert my edit and it-was-in-turn, re-reverted. I figured I could end the "problem" right there, but I was childish. I will take it up again. InternetHero (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's best not to archive active discussions. Archives are normally where inactive discussions go so that people can refer to them in future. Editing conversations in archives is considered poor form. -- Mark Chovain 01:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * O.K. What else do you have to say? I'm not trying to be disruptive or have poor etiquette. Sorry, I guess. InternetHero (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Unsolicited Advice
Don't let the struggle over content break your spirit: you have passion and a desire to contribute -that's a good thing.

When I have time (if you like) I'll provide a side by side of some of the grammar/punctuation changes made to the Telescope article, and the judgment that motivated them; as you must realize, the subtlety involved in these concepts would be more aptly addressed in a major work -and naturally, as your familiarity matures (like wine?).

On the subject of editing talk pages: it is preferred that one strikes out redactions, rather than deleting; doing so acknowledges the desire to disassociate from a statement or position -without engaging in revisionist history- while preserving continuity.

I caution against linking to personal identifying information from your user page; you don't want some bent-out-of-shape radical -who can't handle the social structure of Wikipedia- making an in-person complaint about an edit.

Last, use User Talk pages to provide or solicit personal information (such as employment) -not the Article Talk page, where it acts as noise (oddly enough, the more interesting and compelling such information is, the more 'noisy').Mavigogun (talk) 05:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Thanks. :-)


 * 2) I think I stayed within these boundaries.


 * 3) ???


 * 4) You've been here how long? I've actually been here a while and know most of the rules. Try reading this. InternetHero (talk) 06:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The comments are based on observation, not insight into what you are/are not aware of; since you are aware of these concepts, the disconnect between what you know and what you do seems to describe a disregard or inability to implement that knowledge -editing other peoples comments, removing your own, using inflammatory language, etc.  In that context, the only remark that was meant personally was the first, as well as the caution about linking to the Facebook page that includes your name and location.Mavigogun (talk) 06:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I take offence to that. I didn't remove anyones' edit and I didn't use any steps shown in the link above. I refuted their arguements with facts. Al-Haytham has been sourced in about 6 other references that aren't of best quality, but I could say so for the ones that are here presently. The NY Times reference is top-notch. Caution to the wind my friend. I have nothing to had, and I have a knack for it. Check this out. InternetHero (talk) 06:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The NY Times reference would be great for Al-Haytham, however it is not a good reference for Telescope, Optical telescope or History of telescopes. - DigitalC (talk) 05:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

And which reference(s) state that the NY Times is unreliable or the same for the other references (external links)? InternetHero (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Apostrophe Usage
Hello InternetHero. I have fixed a lot of apostrophes which you changed over at History of telescopes. Hopefully these errors weren't intentionally added. You may be a little confused over the proper use of possessive apostrophes, so I will post a little on it below: Hopefully this helps! - DigitalC (talk) 04:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Use them to denote possession (when the subject owns the object) for example:
 * The cat's toy (the toy belongs to the cat) (one cat)
 * The cats' toy (the toy belongs to the cats) (multiple cats)
 * The planet's satellites (the satellites belong to the planet) (one planet)
 * The planets' satellites (multiple satellites, multiple planets)
 * You may wish to go back and change any other apostrophes that you have incorrectly changed on other articles. - DigitalC (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit
Please see Talk:History_of_the_telescope. - DigitalC (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, guy...
There is no "ongoing discussion". It's all in your head. Put back whatever it is that you're so riled up about and leave my talk page alone. I don't even remember what line or article you're talking about, nor do I really care... Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)