User talk:TVGarfield

I'm a stage technician with a BSc in EE.

Rothenberg
Hi there, TVGarfield. I just saw you'd made a constructive edit to the Rothenberg Ventures article today. I'm not sure if you've seen, but I've been trying to bring some attention to the overwhelming weight of negative information in the article content, and posted an update on the talk page just yesterday about an SPA who is adding more without joining the discussion. (And FYI, as disclosed there, I am consulting for Rothenberg, so will not edit the page directly.) You'll find that thread here. Let me know if you have a chance to consider it. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I seemed too negative, but it is referenced. I reduced it since not every possible thing needs to be repeated. TVGarfield (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply. I'd argue that not all content that is referenced is necessarily encyclopedic, and this article is rather a mess. Anyway, if you have any further thoughts, please feel free to join the discussion. Thanks again! WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 21:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree not all content is; and not all encyclopedic information is very good for PR. I don't know enough about the story but removed some of the excessive repetitive negative information that went beyond making the point.  On another note, the article was started by an employee and as other companies have found out, not necessarily a good thing.  A quick look on the internet seems to say, negative information in this article, is not far from the truth. TVGarfield (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha, great point. I hadn't even gone back to look at the start of the article's history. Indeed, Wikipedia is one of the Streisand effect's greatest amplifiers. Meanwhile, one thing I should have asked again about: what do you think about the AmEx lawsuit against Mike Rothenberg the SPA ? If one is to search the web for "american express" "mike rothenberg" "superior court" not only are there no news sources to be found, Wikipedia is the top result. It's currently supported only by a WP:PRIMARY source, with no WP:SECONDARY to be found. As well, the defendant is Mike Rothenberg, not Rothenberg Ventures. What do you think, willing to take a second look at that bit? WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 14:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I really don't have time to research it all. I usually just edit articles I have an interest in, or I'm familiar with the topic.  I took a brief look yesterday and the first and only article I read, had the AMX bit.  It probably isn't in any 'main' news, since this is not a big hedge fund.
 * I understand not having the time, and that's one thing where I can provide assistance. In this narrow case: the AmEx filing mentioned in the introduction was filed in March 2017 (FWIW there is not even an external link provided) and the Backchannel piece was published in September 2016. Seems pretty open and shut. I realize your reluctance to get involved further, so I won't bother you again. But if you'll consider making this edit, I'd appreciate it. Best, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 15:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

0.999...
Thanks for your comment at Talk:0.999.... Since I've become a magnet for vicious personal attacks by Slawekb a.k.a. Slawomir Bialy*, I've stepped back, figuring others will be able to repair what he has damaged. Unfortunately, contrary to your thoughts, I disagree that "algebraic proofs" fall under WP:CALC, since there isn't a consensus of obviousness. (If you believe you've misinterpreted this, don't feel bad: The aforementioned editor is still apparently in the process of familiarizing himself with Wikipedia policy, given that for weeks he's cited WP:UNDUE for why the section should be altered, but has newly come to the epiphany that WP:V demands that it be deleted. If you merely disagree with me, however, then that's a somewhat moot point.)

I agree with your sentiment, though I think the references under 0.999... are a better argument against claims of WP:V violation. However, misinterpretation of such sources, whether due to insufficient English comprehension, blinding bias, or maliciousness, appears to allow these sources to be interpreted in some rather interesting ways (ways rather convenient for the interpreter!).

* I suppose this doesn't qualify as sockpuppetry, since the two usernames, though confusing, are blatant. He explained the existence of the second at User_talk:Sławomir_Biały, though it's interesting that he only started using the second on Talk:0.999... now, after dozens (hundreds?) of edits with the old one. Calbaer (talk) 04:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:CHALLENGE outlines precisely what went down here. Material was flagged as needing citations.  Citations were provided and the content was updated to reflect the content of the cited sources.  The edits made to comply with policy were reverted.  The remaining option in WP:CHALLENGE is removal.  Challenged content can be removed at any time, but it is usual to allow some time for references.
 * I am quite happy to support anything I add to the article with a direct quotation to a source. This would hopefully obviate any concerns that you have over my comprehension of written English.  I would appreciate the same courtesy in return, that future discussion of content in the article be backed by explicit direct quotes.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Reality is about 99.9...% of the average reader without higher math is not going to understand the article without the 'Algebraic Arguments'. I agree they need better sourcing but since they are so simple it is going to be hard to find them in a good source.  The good sources are written for a more advanced reader since the average reader probably would never read pure math as a pastime.  The examples do abound in others.  Although it is far from formal and isn't a formal proof of any kind, it shows that it is 'plausible' and there is something to it.  If you had to explain this topic to someone with no knowledge of limits or higher math, in a paragraph, you would use one of those examples if you were actually trying to convince them.  TVGarfield (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * But our goal isn't really to convince the casual reader. It is to summarize what reliable sources have to say.  These supposed algebraic proofs do appear in reliable secondary sources on mathematics education, but the general consensus in those sources is that they are of limited value in convincing students (Byers), have little explanatory power (Peressini and Peressini), and that because of legitimate issues with such arguments, questions like the justification of 0.999...=1 are best deferred until after a formal treatment of limits (Baldwin and Norton; Katz and Katz).  I do not believe that it is consistent with the neutral point of view to present these algebraic arguments without that context.  Sources are not presenting these arguments as convincing proofs, and neither should the Wikipedia article.  We should write the section from the sources up, not top down.  Don't start with the arguments and try to find proofs of them.  Begin with the sources that discuss those proofs and try to summarize them.  Does that seem reasonable?   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

An other side of 0.999...
I came here for the reason of also opposing to your argument of [[WP:CALC], because I decided to stop commenting on the very page, when I saw the above section.

While agreeing with Calbaer on the reservations on [[WP:CALC] and on seeing Sławomir Biały as a person very difficult to deal with, I feel urged to point to the fact that Sławomir Biały is mathematically fully correct, but, nevertheless is confronted with a league of editors either not willing or not able to see the mathematical flaws in their preferred versions, and the incoherence of these versions with given sources. My decision to stop commenting was based on palpable hostility and insinuations, and the above text is correct in treating Sławomir Biały as bludgeoning (Guy Macon), but is, imho, itself in no way neutral and focused on the problem (sock puppetry, maliciousness, ...), not mentioning the attacks and reverts by (in no specific order) Hawkeye7, Klaun, Dmcq, Calbaer and others.

I do not know how to deal with this tar pit, but try to be at least balanced, and, of course, will notify Calbaer about this comment. Purgy (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

hi
Hi

I am adding some details about a living person and you have marked for deletion. Can you revert it.

Question
Question why did you revert my changes to Nancy Jo Sales. It was a truthful post and not slanderous/rude. I was just trying to inform the public ZionSCRC (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. TVGarfield (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
You are invited to join the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry 😊😥
That's was me ok? Cool.😎 XxCoolBoy213xX (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

That IP from Taiwan was vandalising. nosyl is p- in Chemistry, also he removed the link.--170.78.75.25 (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The IP was reverting the possible sock of User:Nipponese Dog Calvero. SA 13 Bro (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You have put back in a link that is circular and the notation of 2 -4 is how the article used to read before the multitude of edits. Your link is not clearly stating what you said.  I have revered the article.  TVGarfield (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Reverting defamatory content
TVGarfield, thank you for reverting [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zach_Garrett&diff=prev&oldid=817400063 this edit]. When you click on that link, it should tell you that the edit has been removed from public view entirely. That's because the content of the edit was beyond mere vandalism—it was potentially libelous. You were 100% right to revert the edit, but in the future, if you see something grossly defamatory, it's encouraged to seek revision deletion from an administrator. Sound good? --Jprg1966 <sup style="color: #003366;">(talk) 04:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was busy at the time but pulled the BLP issue. I will attempt to report in the future.  TVGarfield (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
Hello, I'm Noah Kastin. I noticed that you made a change to an article, List of Lego Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu episodes, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 11:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was fixing someones page wreaking edit. They can add a source if they want.  TVGarfield (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Warning
'''If you continue to be disruptive to editors and continue to vandalize articles I will have to report you and you will be banned Please do not continue to do thisCarlstauffer (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Carlstauffer(don't get mad for constructive criticism or I will have to report you) '''
 * Try to use punctuation when reporting me. TVGarfield (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing and ONGOING valising of applicable and credible editing Warning
If you continue to be disruptive to editor, which seems to be the ongoing case, plus continue to vandalize articles(with your opinion on what only YOU believe is correct), I will gladly report you and with some help, you will be banned !
 * Really? I thought I would just be blocked not banned. Prepare the report because I'm going to remove another edit. You should use diffs when you report me if you want to be taken seriously. TVGarfield (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Learning Curve
Thanks for the explanation in removing the ref (unlike the previous removal by user:bbb23). Everything done here seems a have a learning curve but I could argue that if you watch the video it proves the source -- however vague -- is accurate. 96.242.88.25 (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Reliable sources are an important foundation of Wiki. Check out Identifying reliable sources for more information. TVGarfield (talk)

A barnstar for you!
If you notice they are making no difference to the page eitherway. However, you are trying to add an image that is not properly accredited and in possible violation of copyright rules. You should upload the image to wiki commons and then link to it. You need to ensure it is not copyrighted and you have permission to use it. See WP:IUP for more complete information. TVGarfield (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Populated places disestablished
(Note: I moved the start of this discussion to my page) Where are you getting the information that you are using for these edits. Thanks TVGarfield (talk) 05:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The information is generally found on the pages themselves. Eastfirst107 (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * They seem like random places from various countries, hard to believe there was a single link for that; so I was wondering how you found them. I also knew one was wrong because I have relatives in one. I do not see where the information comes from on the page it self. I did look at some. I'm considering a wholesale revert, or did I miss something? TVGarfield (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I had time to take another look at it. I guess my concern is what is the definition of "Populated places disestablished". I'm now assuming you have taken incorporation for the test. Is this the definition of established? TVGarfield (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Hi TVGarfield. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have&#32;temporarily [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ATVGarfield enabled] rollback on your account&#32;until. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Chetsford (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.
 * I think you mean it is as momentous as installing twinkle.TVGarfield (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

user:Wiki2tan
Thanks for reverting. Looks to be sock. Here is investigation. Sockpuppet_investigations/Wiki2tan. Please help get this resolved quick, as I am somewhat new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TFFfan (talk • contribs) 23:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)