User talk:Quaeler

Hello - you are delete link from article about complex numbers

Good day. You are delete link from article about complex numbers.

I have placed the reference to our program for calculations with complex numbers in the form of formulas, and you have removed it. We with the brother have written this program that it was to whom somebody useful. We do not ask for this program of money and we give it absolutely free. Why our program is not worthy to enter into section of external links about complex numbers? We the truth very much tried creating this program and we consider that it could be useful to much. Sorry for my english.

WBR Nobuenhombre 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)nobuenhombre

hello - yes (and no need to apologize for your english!). the problem with the link you added is that it is not clear what is especially unique or noteworthy about the application. if you google '"complex number" calculator', you get many hits. what is it that makes your application worthy of being linked to the wikipedia article and not these (i am not insulting your work, i am just trying to point out that there needs to be a reason to start hosting links to the dozens of complex calculators on the wiki page). Quaeler 12:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of fictional rabbits

Actually, they weren't tagged in error, but intentionally. The stated scope of the group includes all articles in the Category:Lagomorphs and its subcats, and both of those articles fall in such a subcat. Basically, this project was proposed for enthusiasts of rabbits and rodents, rather than just as a purely biological one. From personal experience, I do know that animal enthusiasts go well beyond the mere facts about the animals to include fictional animals as objects of interest as well. Also, those articles are going to be contained in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/Pocket pets work group/Articles list, which I hope the members will use to check on recent changes, including vandalism, in those articles. Lastly, their is a list contained in one of our articles which lists fictional rabbits and hares, including both of those two. By keeping tabs on both articles, we will probably be able to ensure that content directly relevant to the character specific article which might be included in the general article will see its way to the character article as well. However, I would like to point out that the group would not seek or accept developing the article in any way which would place undue weight on any particular kind of content. Personally, those two articles are not so overwhelmingly important to me that I will seek to engage in any sort of edit conflict over them. So, if you choose to restore the banners, please do so. If not, I will eventually remove the articles from the project's watch list. 14:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! Brianga (talk) 10:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, to repeat the above - we can only block if they have received a level 4 warning, ideally within 48 hours. Three edits (ever) isn't really enough! Sorry! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

You were very constructive in your example, and I appreciate that. I am new and it is much better to have a relevant lesson like yours than to be tagged immediately and called names. You were nice, taught me something, and I thank you. It does help. AmeliaElizabeth (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

i can NEVER post a link from my blog is it?

so i can NEVER post a link from my blog is it? even if its quite related and offers more information? even if the user viewing the wikipedia article would get more info?

okay so why dont i publish the same content in my blog in the article page? well i dont want some of the content in my blog to be copyleft - thats the main reason

i have seen so many ppl post irrelevant and broken links in wikipedia articles

eg - in the same unawatuna page there are several dead links -> http://www.bufferzonenews.com/cms/?q=image/tid/22 http://www.unawatuna2612.com/ http://origin.dailynews.lk/2002/09/14/fea08.html http://lakdiva.org/clarke/unawatuna.html

you should spend some time going cleaning those links!

i have another question... can someone else post the same link from my site? is that allowed? because the content seems relevant —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shehal (talk • contribs) 07:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In the future, please do the following:

1. Please use complete words, formatting, and style like other edits you see so that your comments don't look sloppy (if for no other reason than people tend to treat childish looking comments with less value than more nicely formatted comments)
2. Use four tildes to sign whatever you leave behind (luckily there are automated bots to clean up after you; however personal responsibility is better).
3. Please follow the time-ordering of edits; in many pages, this page included, the newest content goes at the end.

With respect to the points you raise:

• Your logic of 'other people are behaving badly and/or worse than i am' is faulty. Were i to catch them in the act, i would stop it - like i have with you. That being said, i don't have enough free time to go back and fix every article that needs fixing.
• Please read the description of external links to be avoided on Wikipedia. Reading it again very quickly, your links definitely fall afoul of #12, almost certainly #14, probably #1, and possibly #4 - at least.
• Lastly, a link that violates the above enumeration is in violation regardless of whether the author of a blog, their mother, their best friend, an enemy, or a stranger, submits the edit.

Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 10:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV report and IPs

Hello there! Just wanted to say, great job on the encyclopedia, and good job reporting to AIV! Just wanted to drop you a note. Most of the time, IP addresses are dynamic, and may switch physical connections from time to time, sometimes even as often as every time a certain router reconnects. Static addresses may also change hands frequently; for example, a library's IP address is likely to be used by hundreds of people daily. When dealing with IPs, try not to label them as vandalism-only, as it is very rare that they actually are. Most of the time, just the user of the IP is the vandal. I wanted to clear this up for future reference. Hope it helps! Cheers, 22:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The noodle house

It's NOT VANDALISM if the author of an article blanks it. If you're going to be a self-appointed vandal fighter, you need to be a hell of a lot more careful to check the article history. Now why don't you go apologize to User:Fayaz820, the poor newbie that you just bit? Pairadox (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I must be misreading the caveats given which state "Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself..."; please point me to better guidelines in efforts to be a hell of a lot more careful... Quaeler (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:CSD, specifically G7, which states "Author requests deletion, if requested in good faith, and provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request." Pairadox (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and WP:BITE definitely applies here also. There is no reason to jump to a level 4 warning right off the bat. Pairadox (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Meh - that's where i'd disagree in the situation. Unfortunately the edit history is gone with the deletion of the article (it appears - again, magic link: welcomed); i was under the impression from the edit history that the page went like: creation(user) -> marked for CSD(other) -> alteration(user) -> blanking(user) .. in that context, if true - and with the added context of the not-known-to-be-false-at-the-time belief that blanking is disallowed - i'm content in the belief that there was nothing egregious in the action. Quaeler (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

You have been granted with the rollback permission on the basis of your recent effort on dealing with vandalism. The rollback is a revert tool which can lessen the strains that normal javascripts such as twinkle put on the Wikipedia servers. You will find that you will revert faster through the rollback than through the normal reversion tools such as javascripts and the undo feature, because the rollback feature does not require fetching the data from the page history and then sending article data back to the Wikipedia server as the javascript requires, therefore you could save time especially when reverting very large articles such as the George W. Bush page. To use it, simply click the link which should look like [rollback] (which should appear unbolded if you have twinkle installed) on the lastest diff page. The rollback link will also appear on the history page beside the edit summary of the lastest edit. For more information, you may refer to this page, alternatively, you may also find this tutorial on rollback helpful.Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Your help or advice

I am financially clueless and my very finance savvy brother just had me sign up online for a brokerage account then I came here and did a search that went nowhere. Of course far be it from me to suggest it should have its own page, but shouldn't it have at least redirected me to where I wanted to go? Thanks. BillyTFried (talk) 05:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ya sure - it could redirect to broker for example. Please feel free to make a redirect! Quaeler (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

solar cell

Why a 14th month old article making predictions on technology is not a good choice ? Why did you delete the 4 links ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.67.12.72 (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for signing your edit. Please take a look at WP:EL; it's not apparent that the link added anything to the article (issue #1). Additionally, the state of art of photovoltaic work is changing sufficiently enough that an article which makes predictions about technology and is over a year old is not of substantiative value to a wikipedia article (issue #2 - but feel free to debate this on the article's discussion page). Lastly, it's an entry in a blog - complete with broken images (issue #3). Quaeler (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with you, especially about "sufficiently enough", but OK. I didn't sign my edit because I don't have an account. 82.67.12.72 (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to bring the issue up on the discussion page for the article if you disagree - a more public discussion may find you in common company and result in a change. Quaeler (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your advise. 82.67.12.72 (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Briankohl

Just check the history page, you have noticed that General note: Vandalism on Babe Ruth. (TW)) is indicated that I've also warned this user about the article Babe Ruth and revert vandalism by using Twinkle. But possible an error ocuured so TW added the General note: Vandalism on Babe Ruth. (TW)) but the warning and revert doesn't work. Thank you, Tanvir che (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Applause

Nice try in defense of style -- i.e., in reverting the revision of 13:55, 14 March 2008, at the Charles Manson page. As you see, the grating change quickly returned. Tried to show edit-summary solidarity with you as I adjusted it, to make sure the possessive form, at least, was correct.71.242.159.196 (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Danke.. that being said "Tate friend" is a widespread colloquialism as well. Quaeler (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure my message was clear. What I meant was that "Tate friend" seems to me to be the correct form. Your reversion to it -- on the basis that "Tate's friend" is poor English -- indicated to me that you think "Tate friend" is better, too. My own contribution was simply to add an apostrophe to "Tates friend," after the editor who originally inserted it defied your reversion and inserted it again.71.242.159.196 (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, ok. Yes - we're in agreement. You should have just reverted the schmuck's re-addition - but i suppose a compromise is definitely more diplomatic... Quaeler (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Glossary of Graph Theory

You undid my addition of a reference in the Glossary of graph theory. I did not fully understand your reason. Was it because of the external link to the publisher's website? If so, would removing that link have made the addition OK? I did not link to a bookstore, but to the actual publisher. I don't see how it falls under any of the categories of WP:EL:

4 Links normally to be avoided
4.1 Advertising and conflicts of interest
4.2 In biographies of living people
4.3 Sites requiring registration
4.4 Non-English language content
4.5 Redirection sites

Please advise. I'm new at this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarond144 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for discussing this here. If you could sign your additions to talk pages with four tildes in a row, that would be great (there are bots that clean up after people, but...). With respect to your addition - the main issue i had was: from WP:EL, wiki articles are not meant to become a laundry list of external links. To that extent, both the letter of law (you adding another link to an external site) and the spirit of the law (another external item (in this case, another text on the article's subject material)) seem to be falling afoul. Additionally, you had placed these links in the 'reference' section, though i couldn't see any place in the article which cited the text as a reference.

The litmus test is basically "does this addition add anything new to the article which wasn't already present" -- very technically, of course, yes (the article didn't mention this book). Otherwise, there is already a sampling of graph theory texts in the reference section, and as the article should, and will, never become a complete listing of all graph theory texts, there appears to be no reason another text should be added.

If you wanted to be thoroughly smarmy, you could always add actual content to the article which is taken from the text (under appropriate copyright and bla bla bla), thereby having a valid reason to cite the text.. but again, at this point, since your original intention has been seen (to just add the book to a list of graph theory books), that approach would leave a bit of a bad taste in one's mouth. Quaeler (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This was my first addition to a talk page. I do not recall being prompted for a signature. But now I see how it can be done. It's not so obvious until after you've seen it and done it once before.

What's more at question, then, is why the other textbooks (and the text within square brackets containing superlatives) aren't deleted, leaving just the article referenced. Why THAT particular sampling of textbooks?

Why use ad hominems like smarmy? Have I been anything other than polite? If the end result of your bringing the flaws of my contribution to my attention improves the article by adding good content from a legitimate source, why should that source not be correctly referenced? Aarond144 (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking back at the article, it seems even the reference to Rome, the first reference, shouldn't qualify. Better to remove all the references unless the article content is provable to be from those specific sources. Otherwise the listing is entirely arbitrary.Aarond144 (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(Another nice stylistic thing is to indent with the colon (which you can see being done when you edit text) - it keeps the discussion in the traditional threaded format style - i've edited your entry to keep in that style). So i used that ever important word "If" prior to the smarmy -- 'IF you wanted to be smarmy, [THEN] you...' Since you haven't done that THEN chunk, you haven't qualified for smarmy. That being said, i stand behind strongly the notion that such a tactic would be smarmy.

As far as pre-existing crap in that article, i agree that it's definitely got stuff that should be cleaned out - that what you were doing wasn't dirtying an otherwise pristine article. Digressing briefly: there seems to be two types of work on wikipedia articles -- work that prevents things from getting worse, and work that improves. For me, some articles i do solely the former and other articles i do both; for the article in question, i do just the former. ('just because i leave bad material, doesn't endorse the behaviour'). Should someone like to do the latter, including issues you've cited - it would be great. If it's a large change, it should probably be mentioned on the article's discussion page first. Thanks.. Quaeler (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Getting the hang of things re indentations and signatures. How long should a suggestion to remove all the references "season" before it's reasonable for me to do the edit? If there's no response to a suggestion raised in discussion, may that be considered assent after a reasonable amount of time, say a couple of weeks?Aarond144 (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh ya, i'd definitely couch it as "I plan on doing X unless there are objections prior to date Y", where Y being a week away is plenty of time. Quaeler (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Concern over AIV report

Hello. Your recent WP:AIV report of 74.32.114.167 (talk · contribs) concerns me. The IP's last two edits were at 12:35 and 12:43, however in the span of 60 seconds, you issued three escalating warnings ([1], [2], [3]) and then two minutes later reported the IP to AIV [4]. Escalating levels of warnings are supposed to be issued if an editor ignores the previous warning and persists in vandalism, rather than being slapped on all at once. Additionally as noted in AIV criteria #3, {{uw-voablock}} "vandalism only account" blocks cannot be levied against IPs. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

An interesting take. In general, i issue a warning for each chunk of work i need to do to repeal someone's nonsense. Quaeler (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Issuing multiple levels of warnings simultaneously is a violation of WP:AGF. An escalated warning should only be issued if an editor ignores the previous warning. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Reporting vandalism guidance

I've seen a lot of vandalism on a page and I'm puzzled about where I can add Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. to the Edit Summary. I want to do it correctly but I'm more of a visual learner.

I'm trying to get it to look somewhat like what you did to my first edit on the Graph Theory Glossary: (Reverted good faith edits by Aarond144; See WP:EL. using TW)

In this case I'm looking to say something to the effect of (Reverted vandalism by 76.121.182.146; see Template:Uw-vandalism3)

I'm not using Twinkle.

Hello (please sign your edits using four tildes in a row). I'd recommend using Twinkle. Quaeler (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello - you are deleting my page and accusing me of vandalism

From the accusation:

Edits to interrobang continually trying to add incredibly rare made up word of 'quexclimation' (google matches 1 hit); when 192.92.94.23 reached final warning state concerning their re-adds, this user magically appears and continues the campaign.

I am misterfitzy - I have categorically stated that I made up the term: "Quexclimation Mark". I also pointed out that there are tons of words in use today in the English language that were simply "made up" and have made their way into common parlance. The reason I created the account was because the IP 192.92.94.23 is essentially anonymous and I wanted to take that anonymity away. I am as entitled as anyone to coin a phrase or term and put it forward for use. Quaeler is going against my right to free speech in his repeated removals of the term from the Interrobang page. When I got sick of Quaeler removing the edits I created my own page describing the term I created. I also fully referenced all non-original content used within the article so there can be no calls for plagiarism in this case. To my amazement Quaeler had the audacity to remove the page I created. In answer to Quaeler accusations:

Edits to interrobang continually trying to add incredibly rare made up word of 'quexclimation' (google matches 1 hit); I made this word up and I think it is just as valid as Interrobang, sounds better and also makes more sense.

when 192.92.94.23 reached final warning state concerning their re-adds, this user magically appears and continues the campaign. I added my username because I didn't want to be simply a number while Qaeler was vandalising my contributions to wikipedia.

I would like to make the following accusation against Qaeler. Qaeler is guilty of 1. valdalising all of my contributions to wikipedia 2. going against my right to free speech

Misterfitzy (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for stating your case; in the future, please observe chronological ordering and styles for adding new comments. With respect to your claims, you don't appear to understand what Wikipedia is for as far as content; it is not a place for the invention of new idea, just chronicalling existing ideas. As such, as fantastic as you imagine your new word to be, it doesn't yet belong here. Should it have caught on in a few years, feel free to re-add it. Quaeler (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you (I think)

Editor Peachey88 posted a note on my talk page saying that "there is no need" to chance the word "references" to "footnotes." You then added a comment saying "If there's been a wikipedia discussion somewhere (as opposed to your opinion that it should be that way), please cite it here." I think your comment was directed to Peachey88 and not to me. Is that correct? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually (sorry), i was siding with that Peachey88 person; there seems to be not only a majority precedent of using 'References', but also that wiki administrative page on footnotes cites only the usage of "Notes" and "References" - not "Footnotes". So i was inquiring as to whether there had been a wiki editors discussion somewhere in which it was agreed upon to do a changeover to a new usage. In retrospect, i shouldn't have indented my edit addition on your talk page :- / Sorry for the confusion. Quaeler (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I'll take this issue up at the Wikipedia talk:Footnotes page. (Hmm, the page discussing this topic is called "Footnotes" - what a silly thing to call it.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Pocket Beat is a valuable external reference for metronome because....

Hi please leave the reference to pocket beat in for the metronome article. it is very novel in is visual pulsing method, having us patent #7368651 and being the first visual metronome with a pattern so stark it is notable in peripheral vision and requires less concentration than other metronomes that rely mainly on audio. my metronome is also the first to offer song cheat notes superimposed behind the tempo pattern, set list programmability with song titles and many other innovations.

142.245.193.11 (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That's all well and good - and immaterial. Please read WP:EL: wikipedia is not a place to shill goods. I see you ignored the warning on the article again. I've placed another warning on your talk page such that you will be blocked if you conduct another repeat performance. Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Pet Shop Boys

It's not neutral POV to begin an article saying that the subject is popular. That sort of thing should be established in the prose. Similar words like "successful" or indicating any awards won ("Grammy Award-winning") should also be avoided. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(a) Did you even look at your edit? It had wrong english, and wiki linked to a non-existant article.

I didn't notice that until after I had made the edit. So yeah, I made a mistake. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(b) What it the world is the point of splitting a discussion between two talk pages? Now i have to go reply on your page too just in case you're not watching this page.. Quaeler (talk) 09:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone continues discussions on one talk page. Most editors I talk to reply on mine, and I reply on theirs. I don't watch user talk pages, so it's better for me that way because I get that handy-dandy talk page message notification when someone writes on my page. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Truth

I placed an NPOV tag at Truth. I understand that you understand that my previous edit had strong basis. I shall revert to it after some time has elapsed whenever no changes are done to address neutrality problems. Thank you for your understanding. Walter Ching (talk) 09:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Complex number spam

Hi, just for your information : the "spammer" of that Dimension-movie-or-whatever-it-is on the Complex number article has been spamming dozens of other language wikipedias as well. Maybe there might be something relevant on his site, but this way of working doesn't give people much credit indeed. The movie I see when following the external link, doesn't directly lead to anything very interesting on the subject of complex numbers, so I think your reverts were appropriate. Well, I'm off, I'll have to revert a few more other language articles ;-) Regards --LimoWreck (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

semih aydilek

hello you deletd the links i added i will revert them back. ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.51.181 (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No, please learn how to make wikipedia edits to articles, including adding links and signing comments prior to actually changing wikipedia articles; you'll notice that even bots are able to recognize your incorrect edits. Quaeler (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

no the page is up for the deletion i added the correct links. please stop. rverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.51.181 (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You really have no clue on how to edit wikipedia; use the discussion page for the crap you're adding to the article - not the article page. Additionally, try signing your edits instead of being lazy enough to hope a bot does it for you. Quaeler (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Zeitgeist

What constitutes a reliable source? I hold a PhD in philosophy so please explain how a PhD does constitute a reliable source?--Charles vanier (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

See your talk page; learn to note patterns like new additions go at the end of talk pages; etc. Quaeler (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I did as you suggested with regards to adding my addition to the discussion section, but I am unclear what the next step is since no one has commented. Thank you. --Charles vanier (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It could be that you ignored both of what i said two above; in your comment just now, you didn't indent and, more pertaining to your root gripe, you just slapped your comments at the top near 2007.. Once again i ask you for a little bit of rule following in your editing styles. Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You and I both know that making minor mistakes in a discussion board does not warrant the exclusion of an addition to an existing article. I would appreciate your honest response and site what Wikipedia policy warrants you blocking the addition I am suggesting. I am beginning to wonder if you are blocking my addition for personal reasons. Thank you. --Charles vanier (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

My honest response is that you're pretty damn tiresome, incapable of researching anything about wikipedia yourself, and seemingly unable to grasp the most simple concepts of human behaviour. Addressing your last entry in order:

• Putting something in the wrong order on a discussion page, especially when it's so simple and straightforward to put it in the correct location, makes the contribution look sloppy; it's pretty basic human response to give the contribution little weight/value — as such, it's unsurprising that no one has bothered to comment on your addition.

• To cite (as opposed to site) the exact wikipedia policy that you're ignoring, read this. (Which one assumes you would have found by starting here had you spent an eensy fraction of the time you spent formulating your repeated attempted additions in attempting to learn how wikipedia works)

This is the end of our interaction; i've provided you with enough hand holding and, again, suggest you pursue the issue on the discussion page, or give up. Quaeler (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Why deleted this information on Tuned Lamborghini ?

Hello,

I do not understand why you've deleted the info on the Lamborghini Murcielago IMSA GTR ? I think it is interesting for people to read about this kind of customizing, I have nothing to do with IMSA, but imagined it would be a nice addition to this page. WikiBull (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for asking. I reverted the changes due to following reasons:

• Poor punctuation (possessive on Lamborghini at line 101; ellipsis usage in an article (at the end of the tuning entry))
• Sentence run-on (line 101 and at the end of the tuning section)
• Wrong capitalization (at one time it's 'IMSA', the next time it's 'imsa'; 'carbon fiber' is capitalized for some reason)
• Non encyclopedic text (referring to the car as "their Raging Bull"; weasel word adjectives/subjective descritors like "strikingly aggressive"; vague descriptions that mean nothing without quantification ("significant reduction of the drag..."))
• Point of view additions ("... and it looks amazing by the way")

In short, the tuning section is an edit which is doing little more than advertising for the company (albeit in a poor copy). Wikipedia articles are supposed to maintain some semblance of encyclopedic content. Please see WP:SOAP. Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I understand your point in this, I was however planning to add some more companies and probably shorten the one on the IMSA, as you are right it was a bit elaborate and pointed only to IMSA, so I can see how you imagine it was a poor advertising attempt (it wasn't, trust me) ... an error on my side, sorry for that. But can I at least add a Tuning section to the page, I think it would be really interesting for people to read about it (also put a request up on the talk page of the article, hope you don't mind ?)

WikiBull (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A tuning section which was encyclopedic somehow seems like it would be fine. That being said, i would also see what other editors say on the article's discussion page (i think it was a good idea to raise the question there as well). Thanks again. Quaeler (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Editting The Shadows (vandalism)

So, rather than accept my revisions to The Shadows as being entirely in the spirit of Wikipedia (albeit not doing said revisions "properly"), you'd rather revert my edits back to the VANDALISED state which begins:

"The Shadows are English strippers and prostitutes rock and roll and were sexualy active from the 1950s to the 2000s The band started with two old farts raping there dog"

Perhaps, a little pointer to little old me on how to undo a LOAD of vandalism in one go, rather than each at a time. They were NOT "test revisions", they were an attempt to remove a load of vandalism.

I'm really upset that the time and effort I put into doing so has been wasted, all in the name of doing things in the prescribed way. Please contact me to discuss this further so that I don't make the same mistake - I'm anxious to be a more useful contributor.

Best regards, Paul.

p.s. Sorry to drag this on, the offensive edits were made by a "Benjamin12345200", it might be a good idea to review his history and then politely tell him to grow up ;o)

Ya, this was totally sloppy on my part - i'm sorry. I removed the bogus warning from your page and warned the asshat who did the actual vandalism. Thanks for your patience. Quaeler (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being snappy - got made redundant and found out my landlord is a fraud... and it's my birthday!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mongoletsi (talk • contribs) 20:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

X-Plane

There is X-Plane for iPhone. Please do not delete edits unless you are sure they are vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.206.227 (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. In the future, please sign your comments instead of letting a bot do it for you. WRT the edit, it was (and still is) my opinion that iPhone is not an operating system, but is a platform. There does not seem to be a trend to separate all devices which run different forms of the Linux OS, for example, so i don't see why it should be done with the osX/Darwin OS.

Lastly, editing from multiple IPs automatically casts a pall of smarminess, unfortunately - consider making an account of wikipedia and operating through that. Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 09:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Solar Pages

Hi, I have no intention of adding promotional material. The links i included go to useful technical information covering PV technology. Yes, these documents are posted on our company website, however, if you are familiar with EAG Labs you know we provide many, many technical papers (posted in technical journals), technical (not sales) presentations, and a wealth of data that helps people to develop new science. So, i am trying to make this material available. Any suggestions and guidance is appreciated. I am new to posting on Wikipedia although I have posted many documents successfully. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaglabs (talk • contribs) 16:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comments (please sign them in the future with four tilde characters in a row). In this situation, i do not seem much of a way around your conflict of interest - the articles are, as you point out, on your own web site, and that web site is the public / consumer face for an entity providing products for sale. There are a few seemingly universally accepted exceptions to the COI guidelines (like Wolfram's MathWorld) but, basically, edits such as those in question here (and the Semiconductor one which i'll rollback as well) are not allowed as they do, at the end of the day, advertise for your company (to be pedantic in example, i'll paste the first sentence fragment of the semiconductor link: "Evans Analytical Group® (EAG) is the world's foremost materials characterization laboratory for the semiconductor industry..."). I'll not issue a final warning when i rollback the semiconductor link, though, but please do stop lest you end up blocked. Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Addition of Rammstein Trivia Section

Just wanted to say thanks for the advise. I fully understand how it might've been deemed irrelevant to Rammstein. However, it can be notable in some respects when listing out all those who are notable fans of the band. Still, I full appreciate the explanation given. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.47.64 (talk • contribs)

• Thanks for the kind reply - i'm glad to help. Quaeler (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Vegetarian pho

That's a good question about the broth--I have had veg. pho in Little Saigon (Orange County, California) and it does exist. Not sure what the broth is made from, but probably a lot of the same spices and aromatics, but without the meat. The meat isn't the sole defining characteristic of the dish (the noodles and broth are others). Badagnani (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

About Alice

Mr. or Ms. Qualer, I do not understand why you've deleted the extra info on Alice In Wonderland w.r.t The Matrix. Your message to me advised 'add stuff in the Works Influenced'. Confusing because I believe this is where my edits were made. My addition was factual and correct. I have yet to find those comments for editors , will keep looking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerixau (talk • contribs) 09:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)