Welcome!
Hello, Cpiral, and welcome to Wikipedia!
Thank you for your contributions. It's great that you want to contribute to Wikipedia - the more constructive editors the better!
I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
You might also find these policies and guidelines useful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Getting the articles just right can be tricky - but there are lots of people to ask!
If you have any questions, just click on the Contact Me link after my signature at the end of this section. Alternatively, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question.
{{helpme}}
By the way, when you are writing on a discussion page (or someone's talk page), it is considered good manners to sign your comment... to do this, just add ~~~~ at the end of your comment. That will put your user name (Cpiral) and the date/time at the end (or you can click on the icon when you are editing. Never sign on an article page - only on a discussion page.
~~~~
I am now going to add my signature, using ~~~~: -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 23:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Where's the "view page source" button other than the "edit this page" button?(I once saw a "view source" tab on the "Vector" skin. Do I need a new skin?)[[User:Cpiral|CpiralCpiral]] 20:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers. Here is my contribution to the Missing Manual that PhantomSteve linked me to: The "edit this page" non-issue. "Edit this page" is non-destructive and non contentious. It has basically the same effect as if it had displayed "View Source". Don't hesitate. It's OK. A user preference sets the double-click to edit a page.
To "edit this page", then, is really just to "view source". To get a feel for this reality, you could edit a watchlist. There is no "Cancel" option. Finally, there is the rare case of the Copyrights article, where administrators changed "edit this page" to "view source". CpiralCpiral 18:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Will the My-Preferences-->User-profile->Signature->Signature box accept more than 260 characters?[[User:Cpiral|CpiralCpiral]] 20:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
My-Preferences-->User-profile->Signature->Signature box
How to I link to a file?[[File:User_contributions_detail.png]]? It renders. It writ large! I need it to show a link instead.[[User:Cpiral|CpiralCpiral]] 20:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
[[File:User_contributions_detail.png|#px]]
That will limit the picture to however many pixels you wish (i.e. 25px would limit it to 25 pixels). Hope that helps! Marx01 Tell me about it 02:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
It became useful today. Thank you!CpiralCpiral 05:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello there, Cpiral. I'd like to welcome you to Wikipedia. I noticed you are seeking a mentor. Let me introduce myself, I'm zarth.
I have been kicking around online here since April'09. I struggled, like most newbies, and slowly gained experience. Most of what I learned was self taught. For months I edited and warred (under a different identity), making friends and also disgruntling several editors. This month I started fresh under my new name. I tinker with improvements, including fixing page layouts. I've created some userboxes in the past. I love tutoring newbies and whacking vandals.
I answer questions, show solutions to problems and give advice. I also handout some cool goodies.
If you decide to take me up on your offer, leave a message on my talk page
Linuxzarth (R) 22:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I reverted the edit you made to the Asperger syndrome page because it seems to have made it more difficult to read. If you want your edits to stay please explain each change you made to the paragraph. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 03:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
The last line of your edit changed the meaning significantly... from: "...as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents" to "The idea must be established and notable inside or outside of its group of adherents" (bolding mine). The key to the policy is that a Fringe theory does not have to be accepted by the mainstream... but it does have to have been noticed and discussed by the mainstream... notability within Fringe theory fandom is not enough. Hope that clarifies things. Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
No. You seem to indicate here that it matters, for inclusion criterion for an ariticle, "which side" the reliable major source or which side the extensive references are on. It does not. I don't understand the inclusion criteria for an article to be whose side they're on. Quoting: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria." The criteria for inclusion is the number of reliable sources, not which side they're on. For Fringe Theory that includes "one major publication". Whose Side is an important concept in Fringe Theory article inclusion only in that it is a non-issue. So we bring up the "sides" issue using two bullets to represent the two sides, only to to eliminate "sides" as a selection criterion, where we say "one major publication..." Please, either change your nutshell to both our liking, support your reverts with valid arguments, or let me edit the nutshell. But please don't revert my edits and then ignore my requests on your talk page for communication here. Here is the nutshell: Fringe theory in a nutshell: In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. (The target of adequate is inclusion critereon, right?) And here is my most recent suggestion: Fringe theory in a nutshell: To qualify for an article in Wikipedia, an established idea should have significant mention in extensive referencesin a supportive manner, or evenin a debunking or disparaging manner in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. CpiralCpiral (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)cpiral CpiralCpiral 02:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
No. You seem to indicate here that it matters, for inclusion criterion for an ariticle, "which side" the reliable major source or which side the extensive references are on. It does not.
I don't understand the inclusion criteria for an article to be whose side they're on. Quoting: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria."
The criteria for inclusion is the number of reliable sources, not which side they're on. For Fringe Theory that includes "one major publication".
Whose Side is an important concept in Fringe Theory article inclusion only in that it is a non-issue. So we bring up the "sides" issue using two bullets to represent the two sides, only to to eliminate "sides" as a selection criterion, where we say "one major publication..."
Please, either change your nutshell to both our liking, support your reverts with valid arguments, or let me edit the nutshell. But please don't revert my edits and then ignore my requests on your talk page for communication here.
Here is the nutshell:
(The target of adequate is inclusion critereon, right?)
And here is my most recent suggestion:
CpiralCpiral (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)cpiral CpiralCpiral 02:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to adopt you! click here to say yes or no. Happy editing! Marx01 Tell me about it 01:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I like your style! Very bold! I will create an adoption page for you in a bit I have an appointment but I am glad that you accepted! Also remember to sign talk pages with ~~~~ so people know who you are. Also about my username you were very close but Karl Marx is actually a relative of mine (great-great-great-grandfather) and I decided to use that for my username! I like what you said though :D! Very Cool! Marx01 Tell me about it 22:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by that: but if by that you mean the fact that I wasn't on much today, I apologize. I had other things on my agenda. Few things I need to say:
Thank you, Marx01 Tell me about it 02:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
P.S- Tell me what you want in your userbox on my talk page. Marx01 Tell me about it
If you want anything changed, please tell me. Here is your userbox! User:Marx01/Cpiral
Put {{User:Marx01/Cpiral}} to create it! Marx01 Tell me about it 23:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
CpiralCpiral
I see that you are changing your signature from how it's normally displayed. Is there anything I can help you with? It's a lot of effort to have to fix it every time, and it seems that you forget to sometimes, leaving your sig with no link to your userpage. hmwitht 23:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Just so you know; I would not recommend going around telling people to read it. I'm not angry with you in any way, but if you were to tell certain people to do that it might tick them off. Also, Since your userpage seems to be exceedingly long, I would recommend creating Subpages to put it all in. That way you can have a friendly, welcoming, and exciting userpage! Just a thought on the second comment. Thank you! Marx01 Tell me about it 00:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Just so you know you have two new tasks on your program page. Just informing in case you didn't know! Just curious is that page on your watchlist (which it should be)? If so, do you check your watchlist?
Marx01 Tell me about it 20:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Please post on my talkpage if you have a conflicting schedule which lasts for a long period, need help, or have any questions. Thank you, Marx01 Tell me about it 00:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very very much for the wonderful essay! The reward I was alluding to was a userpage update! Please look over this and [Wikipedia:User page design center/Decor this] and give me specs on:
Happy Editing!
Marx01 Tell me about it 23:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm very happy that you are going so far within the Wiki! Also I am very very proud that my students are displaying their work, and getting compliments on it! I am also glad that you are working on non-task items, which increases your social notability on Wikipedia (I'm not worried much about the task, I stalk all of my students contributions to make sure their on the right track). Please please please refrain from spending too much time on here! Take care of what must be done first; because although Wikipedia has an article dedicated to the world, it cannot replace one! I have been in very gnarly situations because of my time spent on here (mainly with workload), and I would not want to see that happen to you. Think of the Wiki as a treat: as you finish your work, allow glances or edits to the wiki between work. Or just finish all your needs first and then go on an editing spree. I am saying this a peer and friend who understands the situation. Marx01 Tell me about it 05:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Marx01/Sick
I think that it would beneficiary for you to begin and dive into the heart of the wiki. I see that you are already creating discussions on article talk pages (I particularly like your argument on the Netbook talk page). Since you seem particularly ready to dive into the Wiki... I think that you should begin to formulate an article you wish to write. I did see your Article subsection:
I believe in OJT. I don't want to edit articles I'm not willing to adopt or take an interest in, returning and watching to see how my edits went, and to defend my work, familiarizing myself with the content.
Which is why, since I feel you deserve a fun challenge: I am going to require you to write an article which meets your criteria. Please look through Articles requested for more than a year and Requested Articles and find an article you are interested in working on. Please note that this does not necessarily have to fall into your category of interest; each article you create gives you more knowledge you may not have previously known. The reason I know this is because I wrote an article which I had no prior knowledge about the subject, but I had plenty of fun throughout writing it. Once you choose an article, please write it here and I will direct you step by step on the article's talk page as to how to go about writing the article. Also none of the process will take place on subpages, so that you can receive critique from other users.
I know that this is out of the blue, but I feel that you are very ready to write an article.
--Marx01 Tell me about it 23:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I also noticed you wanted a color-coded version of your edits. I use this to check up on you guys if you would like to take a peek-> Soxred93's Tool
That would be fine. i'm going to create the article and get things settled so that you can start editing at any time. Information will be on the talk page. Marx01 Tell me about it 22:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Human Vs Computer: Not about robots or insects, just cognition styles, strengths, and weakness. Not about neural network. Not about the mind. It's about cognitive comparisons today, and has a section about the future, since computers are rapidly evolving. cognitive arena: winner + serial: memory: computer + pseudo parallel: multi-tasking: computer (Clifford Nass Stanford: Humans can't multi-task) + parallel: analogy, metaphore, pattern recognition: humans The mind may not be cognitive at all. In the future section: Computers evolve faster, so a timeline is inline. When will computers beat humans in parallel thinking? Quantity: If Moore's law holds, and we now have X transistors on a die, and we need 100 Billion, that's 1x1011, with 10 thousand wires each, that's 10e3, Quality: Our brain cells are connected in patterns in time and space that neither humans nor computers can see clearly enough diagnostically CpiralCpiral 18:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Human Vs Computer: Not about robots or insects, just cognition styles, strengths, and weakness. Not about neural network. Not about the mind. It's about cognitive comparisons today, and has a section about the future, since computers are rapidly evolving.
cognitive arena: winner + serial: memory: computer + pseudo parallel: multi-tasking: computer (Clifford Nass Stanford: Humans can't multi-task) + parallel: analogy, metaphore, pattern recognition: humans The mind may not be cognitive at all.
In the future section: Computers evolve faster, so a timeline is inline. When will computers beat humans in parallel thinking? Quantity: If Moore's law holds, and we now have X transistors on a die, and we need 100 Billion, that's 1x1011, with 10 thousand wires each, that's 10e3, Quality: Our brain cells are connected in patterns in time and space that neither humans nor computers can see clearly enough diagnostically CpiralCpiral 18:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Alrighty; Thank you for the fact (very interesting), but I would just like to put in a little something about myself:
I'm much more comfortable with scientific notation in normal format (1x1012) instead of (10e11). Took me a while to figure that out. Thank you :D Marx01 Tell me about it 17:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I believe your account was compromised. Please change your password. Reasons:
Please do not think I am being mean if it is you, just keeping you secure. --Marx01 Tell me about it 05:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
If You do not respond within 30 minutes, I'm reporting this to an admin. I am almost positive you are not Cpiral. If you are not Cpiral, and wish to discontinue being an ass, please leave a note below and no hard feelings. If you are Cpiral, please tell me below so I can give you some advice. Marx01 Tell me about it 05:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
