User talk:Quaeler/Archive 3

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)

Why did you remove my edits?

Dear Quaeler,

 What is wrong with the very small edits I made to three Physics sites?

I only added a simple heading style description and a link to some important new work that I have done in these three areas of Physics.

If it is simply the format in which I added the links, can you please advise me what is the acceptable format?

Otherwise, did you even read the content of the papers to which the links refer? I don't believe so, because my work is original and displays some new maths that shows how the phenomena of Relativistic Mass Increase, Length Contraction and of Fresnel Dragging can be explained using Classical Physics concepts - reducing to the behaviour of energy waves that form standing waves (particles).

This information would be of great interest to readers/researchers of these pages. I am very disappointed that the edits have been removed.

Can you please consider re-instating them or tell me how to format them so that they will be accepted?

Regards, Efield —Preceding unsigned comment added by Efield (talk • contribs) 11:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for writing; in the future, please sign all comments left on discussion pages with four tilde characters - thanks.

WRT your specific question, there were a couple things at issue here:

• Foremost, the PDF links are links to (as i suspected) your own work. This, in itself, is treading on WP:CONFLICT, so please give that a read. Beyond that, were everyone to link in some writing that they though relevant to an article, we might as well have a mapping onto the XXX LANL archive. If you believe your work would greatly benefit the reading public, please bring up its addition on the articles' discussion pages to get a general consensus.
• Lastly, you attempted to link a Windows executable into a wiki article; if it's not obvious what's wrong with this idea, i'm not sure where to begin -- i suppose if i had to cite only one objection, it's that people, hopefully, view wikipedia as a quasi-authoritative reference which can be trusted. An executable linked from wikipedia has that pall of trust cast over it; unfortunately, policing executables to make sure they're not secretly nefarious is such a burden that they're not considered to be includable in articles.

So, to recap, don't bother trying to re-include executables; for PDFs of any work, please get a consensus on the talk pages - but if they are of your own work, i wouldn't even try (if you do try, you must disclose that they are your own work). Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

QR Code again

Good evening. My QR code entry in the QR code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QR_Code section Making QR codes (encoding) was recently removed. The website that I added to the list provides a unique free service that is entirely focused on QR codes. There is news, videos, forums and a social network which contains a lot of information people would find very useful. There is no other website currently offering all of these services so i'm taken back as to thy the link was removed. The website does have some Google adverts to help (to try) to fund the site. If adverts are not allowed on sites which Wikipedia reference then the Kaywa entry should also be removed as this displays an advert. May I ask for the reason the link was removed? Qrme (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)qrme QRme

First, please learn how discussion pages work on Wikipedia; there's usually a nice link at the top to add a new section, though you can do it manually - just not at the top and incorrectly formatted. (Thank you greatly for signing your entry though.).

Second, i asked in the comment i left for you that if you insist on trying to promote the site, that you please bring it up on the discussion page. That request seems to have failed miserably, so here's my personal response: I already think there's too many nonsense links on that page; were you to remove the Kaywa entry, you'd hear no complaint from me. In the ghetto that is wikipedia, some editors try to prevent more windows from being broken, and some editors go about renovating the buildings; i'm generally in the former category, and so i simply stopped the article from getting worse. Since i don't see you denying that you're affiliated with the web site you're pushing, there's little question that you cannot add the link as its self-promotion; i state, again, that were it not self-promotion, that you should make your case on the discussion page as to why this site adds something special to the article and doesn't violate WP:ELNO. Quaeler (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Felony murder

Sorry, but I wasn't trying to use the talk page as a discussion forum, I was genuinely asking a question regarding what I read in the article. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

But your question was one of waxing philosophic, not one that has to do with changing the content of the article; unless you're challenging the veracity of the statement (though, in which case it seems like google is a better quick-verify than the discussion page)... ? Quaeler (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Friends for ever? SLEEP CHAMBER

Greetings... I don't know how to reach you so I thought I would do so here. Thanks for trying to help. Your one of the good guys. And judging by your picture I see no hair in your ears. I should have just stuck with the system and worked through it. I saw Skinny Puppy Live twice... that would have been a deal closer.

If you are so inclined, write me at theebradmiller@yahoo.com... I would love to know how to get this battle done correctly, now that I have totally screwed it up. Theebradmiller (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Rammstein data

im interested in how wikis had rammstein at 26million for months and you change it. so possibly your material is wrong. and ill say what ever i please about you. you need to speak German to get onto their real sites. my question is sprechen Sie Deutsch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wil lindermann (talk • contribs) 20:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, next time please add a new section and sign your questions with 4 tilde. Ja, ich spreche deutsche - es war meine erste sprache, aber jetzt es ist ein bisschen scheisst.. Back to the language of the wikipedia article in question. I'd totally believe that it's more than 10 million; unfortunately the referenced data in that sentence says 10 million. If you have a reference, regardless of language, cite it. Quaeler (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about earlier i thought you were just a punk that changed it. And ive Just Looked around. I know in Germany almost everyone knows them and in germany theres like 80million and a lot of people know them in the states. So idk. Anyways i Personally know its more then 10 Milli but I've s i cant prove it So what ever. oh well. Whats the reference material anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wil lindermann (talk • contribs) 02:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If you click on the superscripted 4 at the end of the sentence, it will jump to the footnotes at the bottom of the article; it's a link to the Rammstein site. It's an old link as noted in the footnote and resulting page, so it's completely plausible that it's now more that 10M - we just need a reference. I'll change the article to say something like "As of 2005, ... 10 million ...". Quaeler (talk) 09:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

sounds good. ill see if i can find some info for ya. might just have to wait on the new album. i believe ive found something.

Rammstein are honoured for sold copies in Germany in the Olympia Stadion Berlin with the following awards: Platinum for the album “Herzeleid”, Double Platinum for the album “Sehnsucht”, Gold for the album “Live aus Berlin”, Double Platinum for the DVD “Live aus Berlin”, Double Platinum for the album “Mutter”, Double Platinum for the DVD “Lichtspielhaus” and also for the album “Reise, Reise”, as well as Double Platinum for the albumat thi “Rosenrot”, which was just released in October 2005. Furthermore, Rammstein receive World Sales Awards for over 10 million sold copies worldwide.

look at this 1million on first album, 2million for second 500k for live aus berlin, 2 million for the DvD Live aus berlin, 2million for mutter, 2million for licht 2million for Reise Reise, and 2 million for rosenrot. =13.5 million in Germany and 10 million worldwide. so 23.5million. this is from the sorce material that you have btw. i think you misunderstood it though :o idk i beleive that this means theve sold 23.5million. but its your call.

my reason for thinking this is because movies, albums and books have sales in thier native country as well as world wide —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wil lindermann (talk • contribs) 06:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that paragraph could be read as "there are these awards in Germany in addition to 10M more worldwide sales"; it's really not clear though. I think it suffices that the article says '4 years ago, there were 10M sold' - it implies that the number is naturally greater now, though we can't give actual facts. As an aside, you seem pretty intent on this -- if, for some reason, you have access to SoundScan data, then that would be an excellent reference point.

Oh ya - you're under a mistaken belief what 'gold' and 'platinum' mean for German record sales -- it's actually much lower. See the general guidelines for Germany here (which actually references, partially, August 24 1998 here.). Quaeler (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My external link was deleted

Hi, my extenal link was deleted for ["vandalism"]. Looking at what is classified as vandalism, I think this is too harsh to describe the link.

1. Having my first post deleted as vandalism is very discouraging. I have no objection to my post being deleted/corrected because I am new to using the system and appreciate your support.
2. On the same page was a link that I think goes againts #6 (Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content.....) of the external link guidlines.
3. Yes, the article that the link points to is short, but it highlights issues that has help me, and will help others.
4. You have also mentioned my username being the same as the website; do you think I should change it?

Regards.Virtualcomputing (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello - thanks for asking. Also, thanks for signing your post; without being too much of an ogre, could you also add new talk sections to the end of the page and not the beginning, in the future?

WRT the issue at hand, referencing WP:ELNO, and replying to your items in order:

1. You shouldn't take 'vandalism' too personally; when rolling back edits, at least with Twinkle, one is presented with either "Rollback" which requires further typing, and "Rollback vandalism" which is the more commonly used by editors to avoid extra work when patrolling articles. It has mutated the meaning of vandalism within wikipedia.

2. On WP:ELNO, i would wave my finger at the following classifications listed there

1. (See my original comment to you when i reverted the link)

4. (Following from 1, as there's nothing unique or lengthy, the reason for not including its content in the article would seems like it would be only to serve to drive traffic to your site)

5. (The website is designed to generate revenue -- obviously the books page, and some editors even have issues with Google ads)

11. (... since it has a professional blog feel to it; you might be able to argue that the author of the article meets notability, but it would be somewhat futile since the other 3 objections would still exist.)

3. This argument is kind of specious, no? An obvious counter would be: it will help others even more if the short content existed simply in the wiki article itself.

4. You definitely shouldn't change it now; if you do - i'll track you as a sockpuppet and it will turn into a series of blocking across multiple accounts. Related to this, please also see WP:CONFLICT.

Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

prestonp

You left a message on my user talk that I had "vandalized" your page. Which doesn't answer my question as to how adding referenced historical figures to who were critical of fiat money to the "criticism" section of fiat money constitutes original research. --Prestonp (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Please look at what you added and read WP:CITE; your edit utterly lacked proper citations (and, amusingly, deleted well referenced copy) - there's no two ways about that. I'm not sure how to make this any clearer, and not sure that i should bother as it was already apparent to another editor what the problem was (as is evidenced by their choosing to leave you further hints on your talk page). Quaeler (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What's amusing is that you did not answer my question for the third time. The text that I replaced was cited a book and author that has little creditability on the topic with references to American Presidents, Alan Greenspan, and the Economist's book "Human Action." NOTE: My text had more references that what replaced it, yet you accused me of original research. You have yet to explain how this is in any way original. What is evident is that you are a wikipedia busybody who want to tell us all how to do things, yet has precious little to add other than some random cautionary citations that have little to nothing to do with the topic being discussed. As I have given you an opportunity to state your case and you have not, I will assume that this discussion is concluded and go about my business. --Prestonp (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Linking to other Wikipedia articles in the midst of synthesis is not citation (as you might see in WP:CITE, as was recommended by myself and one other editor at this point). I'm not sure how many more times any one can say read WP:CITE - or for that matter follow regular discussion protocol, which you again failed to do on this last edit which featured non-thread-indenting.

To recap, because you write a couple paragraphs which link to other wikipedia articles, and you transcribe from a book for which you don't provide a citation, then yes - you made an edit which doesn't stand up to the standards under WP:CITE. What's more peculiar is that when you then proceeded to reinstate the edit i was complaining about, you did indeed add a quasi-citation to the article. While not robust, one might interpret the action of you attempting to add a citation as you recognizing that the original edit was not up to par.

As a side note, personal attacks on editors will get you blocked. Quaeler (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted link on Cloud computing

I noticed that you deleted the link I added to the article Cloud computing and said it was vandalism. The link I added is a concept website to the first real cloud running.

Every body just talks about Cloud Computing and we did an Implementation for a world wide company. That seems to me much better then just talk about it. The link was added because I believe it belonged there. Could you please tell me why you believe the link I added is vandalism?

With regards

Erik

Keep Wikipedia clean, but don't keep it empty :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikw11 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello - thanks for inquiring. Thanks especially for adding a new section correctly, and at the end to preserve chronological ordering. (To push my luck, please sign your additions with 4 tildes.) WRT the link you added, presumably as 86.80.97.78, it shouldn't be considered the large-scale category of 'vandalism', but rather the specific issue being cited on your talk page. The site being linked looked like it was designed to sell a service, consulting or otherwise. Combined with other facets found on the site, and using WP:ELNO as a common reference point, i would posit that the link falls afoul of #1, #4, #5, #10, #11. If you really believe it violates nothing under WP:ELNO, please make your case on the article's discussion page to get a consensus from other editors. Thanks again. Quaeler (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Erikw11 (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC) My thanxs for the quick and apropiate comment. I will make my case at the discussion page. To see what everybody thinks about it. The site www.virtualstorm.org is not about selling consultancy, services or products. It is about a concept we implemented. The site were we sell our products is a different one, and that is not added at Wikipedia. Eventually you should also have noticed that there is no adds, banners or any other form of promotion on the site. The site will eventually explain al the various actions and products that we used to build a cloud computing. All the products together are becoming a great way of doing this kind of computing platforms. Regards ErikErikw11 (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)