User talk:Jwz

Welcome!

Hello,, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Spam
It looks like these additions, mostly under "see also" are not what "see also" is intended for. See also is only supposed to be more cross-linking articles, not promotion. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 21:02, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Julia set ‎ (→External links: source code, animation) (top)
 * 21:00, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Kernel panic ‎ (→See also: simulation with source code) (top)
 * 20:59, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Klein bottle ‎ (→See also: source code, animation) (top)
 * 20:58, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Langton's loops ‎ (→See also: source code, animation) (top)
 * 20:58, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Lava lamp ‎ (→See also: simulation with source code) (top)
 * 20:57, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Lemarchand's box ‎ (→Other boxes: source code to simulation) (top)
 * 20:56, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Lévy C curve ‎ (→See also: source code, animation) (top)
 * 20:55, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) List of Tron characters ‎ (→Bit: source code to animation) (top)
 * 20:54, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Lyapunov exponent ‎ (→See also: source code, animation) (top)
 * 20:54, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Matrix digital rain ‎ (→See also: source code) (top)
 * 20:53, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) MacsBug ‎ (→See also: simulation) (top)
 * 20:51, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Maze solving algorithm ‎ (→See also: source code, animation) (top)
 * 20:51, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Menger sponge ‎ (→See also: source code, animation) (top)
 * 20:51, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Metaballs ‎ (→See also: source code, animation) (top)
 * 20:50, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Möbius strip ‎ (→See also: source code, animation) (top)
 * 20:49, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Moiré pattern ‎ (→See also: source code, animation) (top)
 * 20:48, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Munching square ‎ (source code) (top)
 * 20:47, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) N-sphere ‎ (→See also: source code, animation) (top)
 * 20:45, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Penrose tiling ‎ (→See also: source code, animation) (top)
 * 20:44, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Ping ‎ (animation) (top)
 * 20:41, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Polyomino ‎ (→See also: source code, animation) (top)
 * 20:41, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Pong ‎ (→In popular culture: source code and sim) (top)
 * 20:40, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Pong ‎ (→In popular culture: monochron kit)
 * 20:38, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Protein Data Bank (file format) ‎ (→See also: source code, animation) (top)
 * 20:37, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Regular polytope ‎ (→See also: source code, animation) (top)
 * 20:37, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Row of bombs ‎ (→See also: source code, animation) (top)
 * 20:36, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Rubik's Cube ‎ (→See also: source code, animation) (top)
 * 20:34, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Rubik's Snake ‎ (→See also: source code, animation) (top)
 * 20:34, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Screen of death ‎ (→See also: BSOD simulations) (top)
 * 20:33, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Sierpinski triangle ‎ (→See also: source code, animation) (top)
 * 20:32, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Siteswap ‎ (→Programs: Juggler3D from XScreenSaver) (top)
 * 20:31, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Spherical harmonics ‎ (→See also: source code, animation) (top)
 * 20:30, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Square One (puzzle) ‎ (→See also: source code, animation) (top)
 * 20:29, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Stellation ‎ (→See also: source code) (top)
 * 20:29, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Tangram ‎ (→See also: source code) (top)
 * 20:28, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Tessellation ‎ (→See also: source code) (top)
 * 20:27, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Tower of Hanoi ‎ (→See also: source code) (top)
 * 20:26, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Uniform polyhedron ‎ (→See also: source code)
 * 20:25, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Universal Product Code ‎ (→See also: source code) (top)
 * 20:24, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) Voronoi diagram ‎ (→See also: source code) (top)

These are links to within Wikipedia, and are relevant to the articles in question, as they demonstrate the principles described.

If you think they should go in a section *other* than See Also, what section would that be?

-- jwz


 * I'm not sure they belong at all. They mean nothing within Wikipedia itself. They require the downloading of your software, so looks like self-promotion and spam to me. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think that if someone is reading about (for example) Regular polytopes, they are likely to be interested to know where they can find free/open-source code that creates them, since the best way to understand something is often to see code that does it. It seems completely on-topic to me! It's not a commercial product, it's a package shipped by default with nearly every Linux distro. -- jwz


 * I only reverted on uniform polyhedron, but I'm sure you're going to get challenged further. I don't use Linux, so it is irrelevant to me, and I'm a programmer, and I still have no interest your source code. If the contents of the source code are important, like formulas or algorithms for generation, they might deserve to be in the articles, without specifics to software. If you want to include wlinks within the article about your software's capability, it seems justified to put it in that article, and no where else. But worse, if you attract too much attention, you might encourage someone to propose your software article as nonnotable and deleted. Fighting for notability is a tough battle when you're the author. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 02:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, whatever. I think it's useful and improves the articles but I honestly don't care enough to get into a big fight about it. -- jwz


 * If you'd like to do some good work here, consider uploading better images (or animations) to wikipedia articles as you can make, and then you can add credits to the images where they were generated. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to second Tomruen on this, the additions might be of interest to some programmers, but from I can see they are off-topic and not encyclopedic. In the future, if you have in mind making similar edits to a number of articles, you should probably bring it up a the relevant WikiProject to see if it flies.--RDBury (talk) 04:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * ...and I third that. I came here after reverting Rubik's cube but now see that you have inserted another batch today.  This is bordering on disruption and is definitely against consensus.  This is after you stated above "...I honestly don't care enough to get into a big fight about it".  In that case you won't mind if they all get reverted will you?


 * Screensavers are wallpaper. Would you expect the Osbourne and Little wallpaper featuring butterflies to get a link in the butterfly article for instance?  Could go on with every roll of wallpaper ever made.  Then every screensaver and every background for every mobile phone.  Then every graphic design ever conceived until "see also" was so full of junk to be completely useless.  Besides which the entry in Rubik cube gave no actually useful link if it just so happened it was the Rubik cube screensaver I was looking for.  Spinning  Spark  06:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Add me to the users who view this as promotion.Naraht (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Love your humour!
the first time I saw your site it was the funniest thing ever. Big-picture, cocaine trip style humour. Boy can you mix humour with seriousness. Chyeah!

117.233.76.255 (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)