User talk:Victor Engel

Belated welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! // Fra nkB 02:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

"Full moon cycle" or "moon cycle" would be good names. But "fumocy" is not (yet at least) a widely-accepted term for this; thus it cannot be used as an article title or linked to (but it could be mentioned as a proposed name of the concept). The article was not deleted; It's right here. Just use the "move page" feature. --mav 20:06, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Belated welcome, and Thanks for the note on

 * Typos and misspellings are a likely thing. You probably shouldn't make a practice of throwing minor mistakes like that in peoples faces, just fix them.


 * Not sure what plain dates I obscured,
 * Since this is my own talk page (thanks for setting it up), I'll experiment here with editing. I know there's a sandbox -- I just haven't played in it enough. The dates I was referring to were, e.g., changing "2000-01-01 00:00:00" to "two thousandths (2000 AD) very first second". Was that supposed to be easier to understand? It actually took me several readings before I understood what you were trying to do.


 * so far as I can see on a re-read, as intended, I introduced the concept of Terrestrial time, which was only linked as an abbreviation,


 * It seems to me being linked as an abbreviation is sufficient. If you're not familiar with the concept, simply follow the link, conveniently located at the appropriate spot, and read up. That's the whole beauty of hypertext.


 * Moreover, like the little fixup I did, the paragraph needs to be carefully worded to introduce terms, then use them,


 * Doesn't hypertext do that automatically? It seems to me that it's possible to define terms to excess. If the intended publication were print, I might have a different opinion, but wikipedia is intended for browser use, as far as I know.


 * Sorry if you thought I in any way thought of that as a completed edit for that section.


 * I didn't think of it as a completed edit. I did, however, think you thought it an improvement, else why do the edit at all. I thought the article was much harder to read after the edit than before. I would have reverted it, had I known how to do so.


 * Refer to the Village Pump (Policy) for other thoughts. WP:VPP I did (for me) much worse 'damage' on Full Moon, as like the paragraph I suggested needed written more carefully, I found the whole section was poorly self-integrated for the lay person. In general, I'd extend that comment to the next section on both articles. In any event, I abhor 'IN-YOUR-FACE' templates as a rule, but when time (or knowledge) limitations press in this volunteer service, I will (regretfully) occasionally resort to such.


 * Fortunately for you, perhaps, I'm not sure what you mean by 'IN-YOUR-FACE' templates, but I can guess.


 * Basically, the two articles should share the same text so far as I'm concerned,


 * As far as that goes, "full moon cycle" would be equivalent to "new moon cycle". Well, at least they have the same period. The details of the variation would differ. For example, the maximum interval between new moons is not the same as the maximum interval between full moons even though their mean intervals are the same.


 * as I commented plainly on Talk:Full moon. Note I also stated a three-point set of deficiencies, but also that only the third was 'Real important', the other two are matters of taste. Now being a new editor, note that it's preferable to do a complete edit, but if you can't, it's important to state what you percieve is wrong, and if possible (like points 1 & 2) suggest what may be a corrective measure. People edit in an area to which they tend to specialize. Most articles are patrolled or watched by people making a contribution on them, but that doesn't mean a wandering editor has no place or valid view point. Some matters, especially technical ones like this can benefit from a view from another's shoes. The idea is to work together, and minimize friction (See WP:CIV), not expect everyone to be perfect everytime. It is part of our  culture that any non-user page is subject to being edited mercilessly. So edit out my misspelling, don't bitch about it.


 * I was at work at the time and didn't have the time. My decision to contact you directly was to point out something that I perceived was a sloppy edit by you that you may have been unaware of. I tried contacting you in as private a way as I could identify. Consider my comment to you to have been terse, but not rude, please.


 * If you have the time to work on the article flow and present the dates, do so. No one owns any article on wp, and the troubles follow if and only if one begins to feel possessive of them. In the meantime, I'll leave you a welcome message above, which has some useful links. Best regards // Fra nkB 02:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the welcome message. I will use it.

Wholesale deletion?
You added comments to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#self-appointed gatekeepers with the edit comment, "Restoring wholesale deletion of my comment." I looked at the history/diffs, and it does not look like your remarks were previously added, so I am puzzled what you mean by "Wholesale deletion." Robert A.West (Talk) 20:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am puzzled, too. I only added that remark after I verified that my change was edited out (by the change currently after it). It appeared both in the current view and the history view. Like you, I now can see no evidence of my ever having made such a change. Have I accidentally run into a wiki bug? What happens if two people make an edit to the same page at the same time, by the way? Victor Engel 22:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If both editors make identical edits (as in two reverts of the same vandalism), one will be ignored; otherwise, the second one to save should get an edit conflict page, which that editor has to resolve manually. My edit (immediately following yours in space, but preceding it in time) was an edit conflict, and I thought that perhaps I had inadvertantly wiped out your edit in resolving the conflict.  When I saw that it wasn't so, I looked further.  I have seen odd things happen when there are multiple edit conflicts on a page -- perhaps that is what happened in this instance.  Robert A.West (Talk) 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. In any case, I wasn't particularly worried about it. In the worst case scenario, it would have been an illustration for the subject the commentary was about. For what it's worth, I thought you said much more eloquently essentially what I was trying to say. Perhaps I shouldn't have said "Wholesale deletion". That was out of frustration with having lost the changes I'd just made. Victor Engel 23:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There seems to have been an additional problem. Your comment, "Yes, there are some articles that are infested by POV-warriors who keep down reasonable edits, but they are outnumbered by the articles that are guarded by knowledgable, responsible editors. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)" does not appear in the current version. I did not delete it. In fact, I want to pains to ensure it remained, since it was not my comment, and it included your sig. I thought I'd better post this, so you knew there was no intention on my part to delete it. Victor Engel 00:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Digital Photography edit undone
I undid your edit to the digital photography article. I don't think the edit substantially improved the article. Furthermore, the illustration was an animated GIF. GIF images are not appropriate for photographs because of quantization issues. I realize GIF was used to do get the animation to work. However, animations are also annoying to many people, and I think in this context having two separate pictures side-by-side would be more appropriate. The animation would be completely lost to anyone reading through quickly, having a browser with animation turned off, or for a printed version of the article. Victor Engel 01:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your memo. Most editors don't bother to do such.  And I understand the various arguments against animated gifs, but I've seen it used in many other articles here on Wikipedia.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jupiter_Great_Red_Spot_Animation.gif


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rivertree_thirds_md.gif


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AnimECHECS-Le-coup-du-Berger3.gif


 * I also believe the very nature of animated web media lends itself to more advantages than disadvantages. We are using browsers on electronic machines, not pen an paper or books to view the web, thus the media is different.  I also think seeing the dramatic differences in such an image has more impact than doing a side by side comparison as you suggested.  Someone can look at the various areas of the image and see exactly where the changes were made with an animation.  This is much more difficult and less noticeable with a side by side illustration.  To completely disregard the benefits of web media for the sake of deferring to "old" media is, in my opinion, to try to grandfather the need for buggy whips when the automobile has clearly made the need for buggies obsolete.


 * Thus in this case, I default to the Wiki no firm rules policy.


 * --Mactographer 03:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In this instance, I think a mouseover action would be far more effective. I have no idea how to do that on wikipedia, however. By the way, I think the animation of the River tree thirds also suffers the same problem as the image I removed. However, in the case of the Digital photography article, in addition, the accompanying text didn't improve the article. Victor Engel 05:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Hey Victor Just noticed your post on a page i was editing about AF447 and am guessing you must be the same name i recognize from dpreview. Small worlds and all that. Matthew Field. Mfield (Oi!) 04:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are others with my name, but you are correct. Victor Engel (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict at Eclipse cycle
Just wanted to let you know we were both editing Eclipse cycle simultaneously. I was lazy and overwrote your edits but they have been restored. Thanks. --TimL (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Victor Engel (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The Problem with the Octaeteris
It has 8.434 eclipse years. Would that not make it fail as an eclipse cycle? I could see the possibility of an eclipse occurring on Octaeteris after another, but than that's it, no more. So the significance seems to be this, based on your data, after an eclipse there is a 65% chance of another eclipse (lunar instead of solar and vice versa) occurring exactly 8 years, 1 day later. That does not seem to me to qualify as an eclipse cycle. A predictor? Yes. A reliable one? No. At least a fortnight guarantees an eclipse 100% of the time. :) Do you think it's still significant enough to maybe add it as a note in the article?  --TimL (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, what I said was that an eclipse has a 65% chance of being preceded OR followed by another eclipse. That chance that an eclipse is followed by another eclipse one octaeteris later is about half that. I don't know if it's significant to re-add or not. I'll leave that up to more knowledgeable folks. Victor Engel (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. That makes more sense to me, given the deviation from the half-integer eclipse year. So there is a 33% chance that an eclipse would be followed by an eclipse of opposite type another eclipse. I think that's pretty much the nail in the coffin. Do you mind if I add a summary of our discussions to the eclipse cycle talk page? Thanks. --TimL (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Go ahead. P.S. How many occurrences are there in a fortnight cycle?Victor Engel (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2 or 3. Just part of the (shameless plug) eclipse season. Love any feedback you might give me on that article. --TimL (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Math vs. Science
Interesting. It almost seems like an oxymoron to be a science natural and hate math. In my mind, the two are inseparable. Victor Engel (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting! I think totally the opposite, the two overlap but I don't think understanding math is necessary to understanding science. Yes, they are very complimentary, if I wanted to do a my own science experiment I'm going to possibly need to polish up my math skills, but there are so many scientific concepts that require little to no math skill at all, but it helps (I sometimes wonder if opponents to evolution are merely incapable of imagining large numbers, like 4 billion years). In my case I was tested by a professional for various aptitudes, I'm relatively weak in math and very strong in science as well as verbal. Same with ACT and SAT tests, relatively weak in math very strong in science and verbal. So math is my "weakest link", the hardest thing (relatively again) for my brain to do, although their are other aspects my mind is weaker at still that fall under the concept of EQ. --TimL (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * E.g. I can draw you an illustration that shows why the number of solar eclipses and lunar eclipses must be roughly equal, no math involved. I'm cheating though because the illustration relies on basic geometry. :) --TimL (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Your article has been moved to AfC space
Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Victor Engel/Zenfolio has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zenfolio, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk or via live help
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! - Happysailor  (Talk) 14:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Editing interface
Depending on your browser, you should have a basic set of citation tools at the top right edge of the text editor window, which are discussed a little bit at WP:CITE. More information about integrating more advanced text editors can be found at Text editor support.

Zenfolio
To expand a bit on the discussion at Talk:List of photo sharing websites, my opinion is that the notability concerns with Zenfolio need to be addressed before it is added to the list. Writing the article about the subject before adding it to lists is pretty standard practice, and unfortunately I am not convinced that this website meets the criteria at WP:GNG or WP:WEB. None of the sources currently in the article at AfC appear to simultaneously meet the significant coverage and reliable source clauses of the GNG. The previous deletion of this article due to notability probably is getting it more attention from me than the other sites on the list; if you think some should not be there feel free to bring them up for discussion or boldly remove them yourself. Kind regards! VQuakr (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is absurd. Is a PC World review not relevant? PC World is a long term relevant publication both on the web and in print. I should remove other sites from a list because you are nitpicking Zenfolio? Using your same criteria, pbase should be deleted. I certainly don't think it should be deleted, though. It is just as notable a site as Zenfolio. The only reason Zenfolio is not as notable as pbase is that it is not as old. In my opinion, Zenfolio is more notable than the vast majority of sites listed there for professional photographers. Perhaps the list is intended to be a list of free photo sharing sites for amateurs? In that case, Zenfolio doesn't qualify, but only because it's not free.Victor Engel (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you need more print sources?

Victor Engel (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Duncan Grove, Pro Photo Magazine (UK) July 2010
 * George Schaub, Shutterbug July 2010
 * Curtis Joe Walker, Professional Photographer, January 2010

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk or via live help
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Hallows  ( ask your question about your article here ) 19:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Hallows Aktiengesellschaft ( talk ) 21:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Zenfolio


A tag has been placed on Zenfolio, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Hallows Aktiengesellschaft ( talk ) 11:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Zenfolio article deleted?
Help meThis has been an immensely frustration process for me. I'm trying to contribute to wikipedia, but at each step, I seem to be stepped on by people with more power than courtesy. The latest instance involves the apparent deletion of the article I was asked to create in order to add an entry to a different article. The article apparently was deleted before I could correct the article. The person asking me to correct the article did not instruct me on how to correct it despite repeated requests. I consider this an abuse of power, and I expect an apology and assistance in moving forward with the article. I have spent time on this article, and that time is valuable to me. So simply throwing it out without giving me the chance to correct it is like stealing my time.Victor Engel (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Was the intention of the article to promote a company? Or was it written in that tone? Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 17:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First, let me say that although I've edited a number of articles, this is the first one I've created from scratch. I created it because when I added Zenfolio to List of photo sharing websites, my addition was removed due to lack of notability of Zenfolio. I went back and forth trying to support the notability, and finally, the person who removed it, added it back after he did his own research. I was also told that there should be an article before the company is added to that list, so I started an article based on that direction. Having never created an article before, I used the article of another site on that same list as a template and modified it with Zenfolio data. Since I'm more comfortable editing existing articles than creating new ones, my goal was to create a basic one with limited information at first, and then add more using edits I'm more familiar with later. My article was declined based on notability and references, so I started adding citations. As I stated somewhere, I don't want the article to simply be a big list of citations. It seems like one good one should be sufficient to establish notability (which has been established a separate way in the list article as well). I have dozens of citations at hand, which I'm just waiting to start amending to the article. So it's frustrating to find the article simply deleted. I am not, nor have I have I ever been, an employee of Zenfolio. I have nothing to gain by advertising for them. Thank you for your assistance.Victor Engel (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Go to WP:REFUND to try and get it back. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 21:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Done. Now I know what Userfy means. Also, for some reason, the first time I followed WP:REFUND I couldn't figure out what to do. It turned out the form I needed to enter the article name in was so prominent I didn't see it. How embarrassing. Victor Engel (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Since this was deleted because of a deletion discussion Articles for deletion/Zenfolio - the first step must be taking the issue to Deletion review. Recreations of the article will probably be deleted without going through that step.  They (Del Review watchers) will also be able to give very specific feedback for the article's restoration.  Skier Dude  ( talk ) 20:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, that is the page I was looking at when I added the help me tag, as suggested on that page. What confuses me is how the article could have been set up for speedy deletion when as far as I knew, it hadn't even yet been approved as an article in the first place. The last I knew, I had resubmitted the article after addressing specific issues that were pointed out, and I was waiting for feedback to see if I had addressed them completely. If not, the appropriate thing to do would have been to address those issues, not to delete the not-quite-yet-an-article.Victor Engel (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe it was moved into article space by an Articles for Creation volunteer, then subsequently deleted. This obviously represents a bit of a disconnect between AfC and the deleting admin; there may be an opportunity here to improve coordination between AfC and New Page Patrol/practice for speedy deletions. Are you planning to submit this one to WP:DRV? If not, I might run with trying to bring up the more general AfC/NPP coordination issue. In any case, I apologize for my part in your frustration. VQuakr (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. At this point, everything is in such a mess that I don't know what the best approach is. I do think it's important that the article be created, and I will do my part to help craft it. The state I last left it was never intended to be a final and complete article, but you need to start somewhere, right? At this point, can I let you decide what is best to do in this case? If so, I'll follow your lead. One idea would be to restore things to the way they were when the article was rejected the last time but still existed. That way, it would be available for improving. If it would be better to start from scratch, I guess I'm OK with that, too, but I don't want to go down this same road again, so I'd like to know what I could do differently to keep that from happening. By the way, I never saw the deletion discussion (far less participated in it), so I don't know what was said there. It never dawned on me that there would even be one, since that presumed the article had to first be created, which last I checked hadn't happened.Victor Engel (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I took a first pass at rewriting the article at User:Victor Engel/Zenfolio. I removed the existing secondary sources because they did not meet WP:RS; instead adding a couple others including the PC World article that you mentioned. Let me know what you think, and if you have any other similar sources, adding them would be helpful. When this article is ready for review, a request should be started at deletion review to avoid speedy deletion per WP:CSD. I can assist with that when the time comes. VQuakr (talk) 04:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I haven't taken a look yet, since I've been very busy at work. As it happens, today was my last day at work, so I'll have time presently to take a closer look.Victor Engel (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)