User talk:Quaeler/Archive 5

SVC

Did you actually go there? Wiserwee (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for signing your addition. In the future, please put all new talk page additions at the bottom of a page. I never went there; my problem with your edit was that it was rumor and speculation since it provided no citations. See WP:OR. Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding various rude accusations

I am not adding "promotional material." I am updating reference links (where my material was used as a source) placed by other Wikipedians to material that has moved, as a courtesy. If you don't like it, rewrite the entries using someone else's material as a resource. I never place original links to my material, even on pages where I have been plagiarized.

You can also remove your accusation of sockpuppetry, I do not use any other nickname other than infinitysnake, even if I occasionally neglect to log in, hich as far as I'm aware is not against any rules here. Infinitysnake (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for observing the chronological ordering of discussion page talk. I still maintain there's a pretty obvious WP:EL#ADV / WP:COI issue, but that will be arbitrated out in the sockpuppet case text. Once that case is closed, you are free to remove the sockpuppet templates from your accounts. Quaeler (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Reposted from my talk page: No, it's not disingenuous. When I saw you'd done it (the second time), I did not post the edit. I went to bed and revisited the issue today, at which time I DID post it, along with additional evidence. Your attitude is arrogant and I'm not sure what you're doing here, really- looking at past vituperative comments you've made to more or less innocent editors over minor gaffes in Wiki etiquette paints a an ugly picture. Power trip much? I'm not retarded, I know how wiki works, as do you, which is why I suspect your motives. My (four year) post/edit history is wide open and my identity is not difficult to discover (I've consistenly used the same username on the net for eleven years, and its cognate for the previous five!). It also should have been obvious after you whois'ed me that I was in fact the author of the original cited articles as well, and that I've made a fair enough contribution of material, research, and fact checking along the way.Infinitysnake (talk) 10:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There were two reversions, not one. I undid your reversion and began a post; in the meantime, you (or someone?) reversed it. I was TIRED and left off until today. I see/saw no need to leave a comment and these continuing accusations are weird (bordering on aspie weird) so please just drop it. People who know me know me to be unfailingly honest and your opinion is irrelevant to me at this point. If you want to label my im precise hashing of wikispeak as lies, go to town, I don't care. Infinitysnake (talk) 10:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Not doing anything to dispel the 'aspie weird' ascription, it seems like if you didn't care then you wouldn't persist. Yes, as i wrote on your page, there were two reversions, not one ("...i reverted once... Then i reverted again..."). It seems like you feel that you're being libeled here, which is not the intended avenue. Ok, i'll consider this matter dropped. Quaeler (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello

In your note to me you state, "we have a standing policy in which we don't cite works which are still in production / have not yet been released to the public." Do you mind my asking who "we" are? BTW, the musical I cited already has had a workshop production in New York City, if that makes any difference. LiteraryMaven (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(I should have left a note on your page, but in the future - keeping a discussion thread on a single talk page is a more sane policy for preserving a discussion; if there's more to say, at this point, let's just keep it here.) "We", in this case, would be the editors who regularly patrol Alice related pages. There's a note to editors in the cinema section, but we hadn't had the need to put it in the theater section previously. When you say "workshop production", what do you mean by that? Was it an event which had a public run — as in people buying tickets and coming to view productions running nightly? Or …? Quaeler (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was an Alice posse with such rigid rules and regulations! A workshop production is one in which the public is invited to see performances at a deeply discounted ticket price in order for the creative team to get feedback that will help them decide what needs fixing prior to an official premiere of the work. The musical I cited was workshopped in Manhattan last year.

I started a discussion citing WP:Crystal on the AiW talk page if you would like to comment there. Thank you! LiteraryMaven (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I just saw your last message on my talk page and would like to clarify a couple of things. You stated, "It was totally classy to make a comment on the AiW talk page that i never responded to your question about 'we', even though i did." First of all, I never said you didn't respond to my question! What I said was you never identified who "we" are, meaning in your original message. Second of all, how could I possibly know you had responded to my question when you did so on your page instead of mine?

You mentioned above "There's a note to editors in the cinema section" but I'm not sure what you mean. Could you please direct me to the page where this note appears? Thanks! LiteraryMaven (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly why people who use Wikipedia make sure a discussion thread is on one-and-only-one talk page; worst case, if they're dodgy enough to split the discussion into two pages - they at least watch the split page for changes (as i'm presently watching your talk page). Neither of which you did, and as a result we get your charmingly snarky text in the AiW talk. It would make everyone's life much easier if you ramped up a bit more on the common practices in participating in Wikipedia. As far as the note in the Cinema section, go to this section and edit it. Scroll to the bottom of the text. Quaeler (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know understand why you're getting so nasty about this. My comment wasn't intended to be "snarky" at all - it was a simple statement of fact that you hadn't identified who "we" were. I recently saw a fascinating documentary called The World According to Wikipedia, in which Jimmy Wales talked at length about the type of individuals he hoped never would dominate the website, including people who try to control articles and those with holier-than-thou attitudes who find it necessary to lecture others. To paraphrase you, it would make everyone's life much more pleasant if you learned a thing or two about practicing common courtesy when participating in Wikipedia. As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over. Thanks! LiteraryMaven (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Article edit

I did not deliberately introduce incorrect information into the Rational number article. I was simply correcting what looked to be a wrong number. How is 3/6 equal to 2/4 equal to 1/2?

--68.99.73.13 (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

An editor totally abysmal at math should not edit articles dealing with math; if they for some reason do, they should spend 15 seconds with a calculator to verify their edit. There's no more to be said about this — i'm going to presume you're trolling; if you continue, you'll get warnings and eventually be blocked from editing. Quaeler (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Carrot Top

I reverted the edit made by an unregistered user (72.88.53.93), so it was removed in that context. The fact that NO free image is available, is clearly stated in the rationale section. User 72.88.53.93, hasn't done anything but tag a handful of images that didn't need it. --Tacosunday (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether the editor is registered or not, they're allowed to put up the tag questioning the legality / usability of content; as the template states, it's not to be removed until the issue is put to rest - so yes, Mr. Burns, as crazy as it seems you would be the one sent to jail if you killed them.. Sorry. Quaeler (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Question on uploaded file

Hi

I have uploaded a file here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PottedFlower.jpg

Please let me know in case I have violated something, I do not want another warning.

Regards Hardeep Hardeeps (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello - the photo itself seems fine: you cited a valid copyright attribution, etc. So that all seems fine. This is not saying that someone may not object to its usage in a particular article (not on copyright issues, but on content or advertisement bases), but that would be an article-by-article basis. Quaeler (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your response. What is "advertisement bases"? What exactly is considered an advertisement? Hardeeps (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello - (please try to keep threads indented by adding one more ':' than the previous section had - thanks). As some of my previous warnings on your talk page listed, there is a Wikipedia article detailing what would be considered spam / advertising. There are editors who would see the article inclusion of an image which has a URL pasted across it as an obvious advertisement for that web site (and so would then reject it under the bases of advertisement / spam). Quaeler (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see now - its the URL across the image that is the issue. I will remove it - it was unintentional (the site I host images on - I have a setting for it to automatically add the site name). 192.8.220.9 (talk) 06:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

apologies

I made the mistake of getting caught up in a digression while editing the unkle al page. My apologies. Not my usual, these days! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slarty2 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem - ya, your other edits don't seem to portray you as nefarious nor incompetent — figured it was some sort of lapsus… Quaeler (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

IP 77.101.61.196

I notice you've admonished the above IP address for vandalism in the past. You may care to note they are at it again with some bizarre changes to James Masterton. --82.69.72.182 (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Atlantis Computing should be included in Desktop Virtualization

Hi - I'm writing in response to your note to me about Atlantis Computing having a non-notable product and therefore not deserving to be listed in the Desktop Virtualization section. I would like to point out that Atlantis Computing has more users worldwide for its ILIO product than 4 of the other companies in that list - i.e Pano Logic, Ringcube vdesk, Userful and Ericom Power connect. They have also been widely covered by Virtualization experts like Brian Madden, Gabe Knuth and Scot Lowe on their respective blogs and publications. I would think that these points would make their company and products notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takenkept99 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for writing. (In the future, please sign all of your talk page additions with four tildes.) I referred to the company as non-notable because the article you attempted to add to Wikipedia was speedily deleted; in terms of Wikipedia, it is 'non-notable'. This isn't a condemnation nor commentary on its place in the world - just that the case was not made that the article should be kept. It's a bit of a domino effect after that (if it's non-notable in that aspect, then mentioning it in the DV article should be avoided, etc.) You could try re-adding the company article and defending its existence on Wikipedia (and then re-add it to the DV article once it remains non-deleted)... Quaeler (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: My Integer Rollback

I'm sorry, the changes were two minutes apart and my internet was running on a lag for a while, so I might not have seen you revert that already. It's hard to be going around removing this kind of thing on one bar of Wi-Fi signal, and I really don't have the patience for neither slow load times nor the vandalism itself. Thanks for pointing that out, I'll be more careful about that. ^(C/SGT)G2sai 20:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Stock Market article revisions

Hi Quaeler,

I removed two phrases from the Stock Market article that were subjective partisan opinion; that FDR's tax increases caused a second depression, and that tax increases on the wealthy increase unemployment. Obviously many factors are at play in the economy and making simple linear correlations between cause and effect ignore the complicated nature of the subject. I felt those statements were partisan agenda-driven and have no place on Wikipedia.

Respectfully,

trappem —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trappem (talk • contribs) 23:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The Devil's Ractrack article

I inserted a picture of The Grandstand that i took when i was there many years ago. It seemed appropriate to have a nice picture of the subject of the article. But you removed it and made comments about me like, "shilling" and "Vandalism." I am not sure what you would say these things? I was simply trying to enhance an article on a area of the world with very few good pictures. Is there a more appropriate way to place the picture in the article? I reduced the size of the picture.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.19.232 (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume that you are Nordattack despite leaving this comment as an IP. In the future, please remember to sign in to avoid the appearance of acting as a Sockpuppet. Also, please remember to sign your posts with 4 tilde. WRT your edit actions, there were a couple issues: (a) it's a short article which already has a number of images so it's not clear that there need be more images, (b) the image you added (twice) consumed a ridiculous amount of screen real estate (both times you added it) - avoiding these sorts of things are what the preview button and sandbox are for. These two issues combined with the third (which is that it is your photo) paints a picture of an editor who just wants to get their content published on Wikipedia regardless of doing proper edits or thinking about the article as a whole.

Imagine, for a second, that any person who is a hobby photographer insists on squeezing their photos in an article, regardless of photo quality or article layout — it is clearly a scenario which needs policing. I don't see, remotely, what your photograph would add to the article which is not already present. Again, if you really disagree with this, please bring it up on the article's discussion page for a broader consensus for i've obviously made my mind up.

Lastly, "Vandalism" is a broad term at Wikipedia and it is that way due to available reverting tools which only feature one one-click revert template (and that template is classified under vandalism). I wouldn't use that term had i another template. Quaeler (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Quaeler, yes I am nordattack. This my very first attempt to try to put something on wiki. Sorry about my stumbling around. I just wasn't sure how to do it.

I have spent extensive time exploring and photographing death valley. The present article on the Devil's race track did have a couple of good pictures, but the article fails to show what the racetrack really looks like from first approach and the specter of the ominous Grandstand sentinel. The view that I captured in my grandstand photo is what all people first see on arrival to this mysterious place. Presently there is no clear picture of the grandstand on this page so I felt this important feature should be included.

My motives were honest, I was not trying to sneak "my" work in. I don't even want any credit for the pic, I just want people to have the opportunity to see something that is extremely rare and unique and that the page at present does not offer.

If you should change your mind could you please advise me of the most appropriate and proper way to include the grandstand picture in the article?

Thank you, Nordattack —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nordattack (talk • contribs) 22:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(Again, please sign your talk page additions with 4 tildes.) The beauty of Wikipedia is that you can really get on the wrong side of any given editor (such as myself) and still have successful edit placement (by garnering a consensus on the article's talk page (this being the third time i've written that)). Quaeler (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Quaeler, you really need to talk down to me. What is a tildes? How would i sign with such a thing? What is a talk page? I am a total newbie and all this is a maze to me. I copied how you signed, hope this is what you mean. nordattack (talk) 06:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Just click on one of the above "unsigned" links left by the bots which signed your previous edits for you. Quaeler (talk) 06:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Asiaing.com

I noticed you removed a link to asiaing.com from the third Taiwan Strait Crisis article as part of a reference. Going to that site, I noticed that it's possible to download a copy of the report in question. So I was wondering whether you removed the link because it was a copyright violation, or for something else? Ngchen (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for asking. Links to content on that website were removed pretty much En-site-wide yesterday as a counter against the distributed spamming effort made to promote that site's interests. A bit of the meat-puppet tracking commentary can be seen here. Quaeler (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)