User talk:Sir Isaac Lime

Welcome!

Thank you for your contributions, you seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics! If you need help on how to title new articles see the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. For general questions goto Wikipedia:Help or the FAQ, if you can't find your answer there check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. If you have any more questions after that, feel free to ask me directly on my user talk page.

Additional tips

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

For Wikipedia policies and guidelines see The Five Pillars of Wikipedia and What Wikipedia is not.
Find everything in the Directory.
If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
Introduce yourself at the new user log.
If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.
If you have edits from before creating an account try this.
To Upload Images with the correct Copyright tags.
Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), this will automatically produce your name and the date.

Be Bold!!

You can find me at my user page or talk page for any questions. Happy editing, and we'll see ya 'round.

Joe I 03:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Test

Thanks for experimenting with the page Dollar on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.Soothing R 10:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This message is regarding the page Dollar. Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox.

Soothing R 08:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that truly is the case, I apoligize..however, I'd like you to take my reasons for it in account:

Your adding was not referenced, and I was unable to verify it with Google.
Words like 'cheese', 'pie', 'bacon' and vulgar language are regularly edited into Wikipedia for no apparent reason.
When I removed your contribution, you added it back.

So please, when making possibly controversial changes, cite your sources and discuss it on talkpages. But for now, thanks for the notification and I'll leave 'cheese' in Dollar.

Soothing R 18:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magical Negro

This is regarding your repeated vandalism on Magical Negro. Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Stop deleting content immediately. KI 01:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. Clearly my assessment was incorrect. By in large I agree with you on your points, but until consensus is reached I'm wary of bold measures. KI 20:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, user:155.84.57.253, user:24.0.91.81, and user:CantStandYa are one person, also known as user:Shran. He may also start using other IPs or user names. He has a history of abusing multiple identities and sockpuppets to skew consensus editing. I've semi-protected the article from IP editing, but will remove it shortly. Please let me know if the user causes further trouble. Cheers, -Will Beback 07:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIAV

Please do not add people to that page unless they have vandalized very recently, within the past few hours. Thanks. --tomf688^{talk} 23:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page confusion

Hello. Sorry to have posted my {{PRODhint}} on your user page instead of here. I do know the difference :) but I must have mis-clicked the link... Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page, too. Best, Sandstein 04:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Vandalism from WoodDaver

Your welcome. If you scroll through all his contributions, you can see you're not the only user page I had to cleanup. Happy editing ;-) Moe ε 23:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read wooddaver's request to be unblocked. He tells you to kiss his ass in the unlock template. Lol, it was of course denied. Cheers. --mboverload @ 23:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luís Bonfá

Hiya. Looks like the copyvio in this article was inserted over an existing stub, [1]. On things like this, do we just roll back to the non-copyvio version, or what? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 14:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but I went ahead and reverted it anyway. I should have checked more thoroughly for that. Sir Isaac Lime 23:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective "accuracy"

I noticed you deleted the comments regarding a perspective only being accurate for a spherical picture surface.

Please consider these two points below regarding perspective accuracy:

1. SMALL-ANGLE APPROXIMATION

a. If a perspective is "calculated" using standard perspective construction techniques (ie, standard 2-point perspective method or standard perspective transformation matrix calculation on a computer), the resultant image will NOT match a true projection of rays onto a picture plane.

b. The reason that standard perspective construction methods are not accurate (when using a flat picture plane) is that they make the small-angle approximation in order to render lines that are straight in the represented scene as straight lines in the picture plane.

c. Example: Imagine a perspective drawing of a road such that the road extends across the picture plane, parallel to the picture plane. All standard perspective methods will represent the road as having constant width in the resulting perspective drawing since the road is parallel to the picture plane. This is an inherent INACCURACY in the representation of the road since it breaks the primary rule of perspective: the distance from the road to the viewer INCREASES as the road extends away (to either side) from the point directly in front of the viewer --- therefore, an accurate "perspective" should represent the road as becoming narrower towards the edges of the image.

2. DISTORTIONS AND THE MEANING OF ACCURACY

a. A second source of distortion is a matter of judgement on what it means to be accurate: as a picture plane increases in size (ie, increasing the angle of the field of view), a flat picture plane quickly becomes highly distorted (similar to Greenland on a Mercator map) regardless of using the standard perspective approximation mentioned above or by accurately projecting rays.

b. It is true that if one were to view the image from the exact viewing position from which the perspective was constructed, the highly distorted edges of the image will appear accurate (if the perspective was created by projecting rays) simply because the distortions are being cancelled out. However, the image will not follow the rules of perspective! Only when a scene is projected onto a spherical surface is a true perspective image created. This is analogous to Greenland appearing in its accurate size only on a globe.

c. Example: Imagine the viewing eye of the perspective is located at center of a circle-shaped road. On a flat "perspective" generated either by standard calculation or by projecting rays, the road width will NOT stay constant, even though the road is always a constant distant away from the viewing eye --- again, this breaks the primary rule of perspective. Only when the image is projected onto a curved surface (in this case, either a sphere or cylinder will represent the road accurately) will the perspective be "true."

I would appreciate any comments you may have on the above!

Thank you,

"J-wiki"

First off, please sign your comments using four tildes ~~~~. It just makes it easier to know who I'm talking to. As for point 1, you're right, it is an approximation. Feel free to edit the page to do so. When I came to the page, there was a lot of information that was mathematically true, but did not help in understanding perspective. In other words, there was more about what perspective wasn't than what it was. As it was, it didn't add anything to the discussions, because it didn't explain why, or how that actually mattered.

I think you make a couple jumps based on the limitations of one-point perspective, and apply it to all perspective constructions. Yes, in a one point perspective drawing there is an approximation for lines parallel to the picture plane. However, the rate at which they recede is that given by drawing lines from the eye to the point. This is identical to what is given in a basic (n-point) perspective construction.

Is a spherical projection necessary? I'm not convinced it is. But honestly, I don't have a lot of time for wikipedia, and it's been a while since I looked at the math for perspective.

I'd say take a crack at the limitations of perspective section. Sorry again for my half-assed response, but I'm moving right now. Oh, and my only other thought is that 2b is incorrect. It doesn't "happen" to look correct because they are there, it looks correct because that is where it is supposed to look correct. It is in any other place that it happens to look correct. Again, a paragraph or two in "Limitations of Perspective" may be nice, making sure you emphasize that perspective works only if the picture plane isn't absurdly large. Sir Isaac Lime 07:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please pardon my lack of wiki-equiette, as I am still relative new to wikipedia. I do appreciate you taking time to reply to my comments. As you may have noticed already, I have added a little more than "a paragraph or two," but I've prefaced the section warning the reader that it's not important to a basic understanding of perspective. When you do have some more time in the future, I hope you get a chance to review the section in detail. Good luck with your move...

J-wiki 06:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You are right about point "2b": in the actual article I've described the distortions in a (hopefully) more accurate manner. -J-wiki 06:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has come to My attention...

Dear Sir Lime, let me first adress that I am an admirer of your work on theology. But I am afraid that I must protest some of your decisions of late. It was brought to me by a student of mine that you deleted a page on a certain Infidel Iggens. I must protest this, it is a true article and should not have been deleted. I have also spoken to over this system of mail to others in league with you and your anti-Iggens cause. I have spoken also to (in person) the writers of the original article, a certain John Pape (WoodDaver) and Isaac Burgess Von Halburg (JizzyJonII). I told them not too post any such article without my checking it. However now having seen the original essay I say that these students should be unblocked and their article reposted.

Yours-- Prof. Jones

cc Alexis Wright

--Gene Chris Jones 21:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

The following is a message that I found on a certain Isaac Burgess Von Halberg's user talk, I just want you to see the bad things that others are saying about you:

"Sir Isaac Lime is a motherfucking faggot who sucks his pet monkey's fucking dick. What the fuck kind of name is that anyway, I just think that anyone sitting at the computer 24-fucking-7 waiting for the next motherfucking article to pop up is a fucking motherfucker!!!!!!!!"

Something tells me he was a little mad...

Wikipedia:Introduction

Sorry, that was a quick VP error on my part. I thought he edited the begining text, oops. Hello32020 19:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I'm glad you liked the suggestion and example. I hope that the people involved in sniping at each other at WP:AN/I will as well. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: John Lee Hooker

Please, Sir Isaac, read this link: Citation Needed in John L. Hooker An administrator, User:TomTheHand explains in detail that the position you are taking on my talk page and on the article discussion page is incorrect. If you like, I can ask him to explain it to you again if it is not clear. Mattisse (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in your talk page, this link has no bearing at all on the discussion at hand. Please do not take small criticisms personally, I am in no way attacking you or the citation policy of wikipedia in general. I merely said that you requested a citation that was already cited, which was unnecessary. Sir Isaac Lime 05:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sir Isaac for your reply. My point was that the information in the introduction was somewhat incorrect, so I changed it and gave a reference to try to deflect the criticism I suspected was heading my way from people who "own" the article. If you look in the edit history and the actual code, I think you will find that I did use named references. As I look through the article I saw more that was incorrect as well as important elements of the history of black recording ignored. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I want to improve an article about an important black artist, an article that seems unaware of the behind-the-scenes business issues which with black artists had to deal as well as other elements of the person, John Lee Hooker's, life. Thanks again! Mattisse (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good article on a musician

See Paul McCartney for a good example of an article on a musician. User:TomTheHand recommends 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict as an example of a well-cited article. Thanks! Mattisse (talk) 03:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magical negro

Thanks for the references ... please bookmark Wikipedia:Citation templates for the {{cite book}} and other temlpates that I used to make "proper" citations from your references (see the History for my changes) ... I used Google to find Amazon.com pages about the books, which gave me the ISBNs and publication dates. (You've been around so long, I thought you would have been aware of the templates by now! :-) —141.156.216.67 (talk · contribs) 04:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab

You are listed as an involved party at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-07-02 Twelve Monkeys. If you would like to participate, would it be okay if I'm the mediator? Thanks. User:Cool Blue 18:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC) (EDIT: Removed Font tags around Cool Blue's sig, as they were screwing up my entire talk page. Sir Isaac Lime 18:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

MedCab - Possible conclusion

I've come to a possible conclusion at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-07-02 Twelve Monkeys#Possible conclusion. Please list if you accept or decline. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 15:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Fat Possum Logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Fat Possum Logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 10:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a ping ...

Hello again, Sir Isaac Lime …

I came across this legacy message from two years ago on User talk:141.156.216.67, and thought that I would ping you that I'm still around. :-)

Happy Editing! — 138.88.32.143 (talk · contribs) _{00:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

And hello yet again … just noticed your recent revert of Magical negro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) … since it was a repeat by this anon, I decided to hang a {{uw-unsourced1}} on their talk page. — 141.156.161.245 (talk) _{03:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

Proposed deletion of I Eat Pandas

The article I Eat Pandas has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no claim of notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JDDJS (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Drawing Square in Perspective1.gif listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Drawing Square in Perspective1.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 13:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Sir Isaac Lime. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Luke Temple for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Luke Temple is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Temple until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Clarityfiend (talk) 01:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]