User talk:Quaeler/Archive 2

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)