User talk:Indrek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

HP ProBook[edit]

Hi Indrek! Thanks for your contributions to the HP Elitebook/ProBook pages. I couldn't find any source that listed the HP ProBook S series as the essential series; the press release I referenced calls it the standard series.

Euros (Ultrabook)[edit]

Hi! Since you say it should be in $ sign, then why not we just put it as "700 Euros" or "€700 (Euros)". Just because you don't think anyone will get confused does not mean that no one will get confused. An example would be me, if you just put the sign there I would not know what currency that is. And to add to that, I used the sign to do a search on google, but since google does not search on symbols, nothing came up. Wiki is supposed to be easy to understand, even if we have to be overly-specific. So I hope you can understand my point here. ty. (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The edit was done by me, Xxxxxls2 is my wiki username; normally i dont login to edit though. this should be good enough.

Anyway, nothing to be surprised some people dont know the sign since wiki is international website. (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

16:10 ANI[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

16:10 again[edit]

You should probably get the admin who blocked Urklistre to have a look at the new guy. Or file an WP:SPI. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. For future reference, when someone gets blocked and a new user appears with similar language skills and an interest in the same parts of an article, there's a good chance it's a sock. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Pointing stick[edit]

You are right, my statement about the reason ThinkPad eraserheads are red was speculation (by way of replacing "traditionally"). I like the result. Spike-from-NH (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


Hi Indrik, I was wondering why you changed the ref access dates at Farad. I updated them to the current date as I accessed them today. Many of the refs didn't have access dates before I added them, so I don't understand why you felt it necessary to change many of them to dates from 2008 or 2009. Could you please clarify why the change was necessary? Thank you. HMman (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC).

I simply took the original access dates, based on when the respective refs were added to the article. Indrek (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Although, in case of the two Bob Pease articles, since you updated the URLs, I guess it makes sense to have the dates you accessed them. I'll change those two back. Indrek (talk) 10:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's not why you changed them, that's how you changed them. The way I understand the point of the "accessdate" template is that it shows that the url was accessed at that time and the material cited was there. By updating the dates I was showing that the content cited was still present. When the dates are changed from when they were most recently accessed, that defeats the point of the access date; does it not? HMman (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC).
My bad, I thought you were asking about where the dates came from, and assumed informing you that they were the original access dates would be sufficient explanation.
The way I see it, the point of access dates is not to confirm that the ref is still valid. The very presence of the ref in the article is enough for that, and if it's no longer the case that the ref supports the content in the article then that needs to be addressed anyway, regardless of when it was accessed. If that were not true and the recentness of the access date was a measure of the reference's reliability, I'd expect to see readers and editors being encouraged to update access dates whenever they follow a ref link, which (as far as I can see) is not happening.
The access date should help with tracking down an alternate or archived version of the ref in case it becomes unavailable or the content changes. Archived versions are usually chosen by the proximity of the archive date to the date when the ref was first added, and having the original access date helps with that. Certainly in some cases finding original access dates for all refs can be too much effort (articles with lots of references and/or a very long edit history), but in this case they were trivial to find so I saw no reason not to use them. Indrek (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I see your point, thank you for explaining your reasoning. I don't fully agree with your reasons, but after giving the MOS a brief look-over it appears it's just a matter of opinion. Regards, HMman (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC).

Redirects are not evil[edit]


The editing scripts that I use sometimes adds redirects without me telling it to do so. For example, when I removed "Microsoft's", the tool changed [[Metro (design language)|Metro design language]] into [[Metro design language]]. I noticed, but did not contest. Redirects are not evil and replacing them with direct links are frowned upon. In fact, a footnote in MOS:STABILITY hints that people are previously blocked for such compulsive edits as "fixing" of redirects. So, I advise you not to touch them.

As for reverting my other edits, I think mine was better, but I leave your way be. Such minor changes are not even worth discussing, don't you agree?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I later figured you might be using some sort of tool or script that did this automatically, so thanks for clearing that up. You may wish to review your scripts, though, in case they sometimes make other, less minor edits without you telling them to do so.
I wasn't aware of that guideline you linked to (and I can't say I fully agree with it), but I will of course try and keep it in mind in the future.
Regards, Indrek (talk) 07:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

edit to Sherlock[edit]

[Your recent reversion] to Sherlock you put in the description that you undid my recent edit because it is not encyclopedic next time could you please check who you are talking about before you post it. the edit in question was not by me but by I understand that mistakes happen, but I just wanted to let you know. Thank you (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read the edit summary again. I didn't revert your edit, I reverted back to your edit. Regards, Indrek (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that I noticed that after I sent this message, It was early in the morning and I guess I wasn't seeing things clearly. I tried to delete my message to you but I guess I screwed that up as well. Again, I'm so sorry (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem. As you said yourself, mistakes happen :) And no, you didn't screw up the deleting, I reverted back because I wasn't sure why you deleted it and wanted to reply just in case. Anyway, don't worry about it. Regards, Indrek (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Bundling of Microsoft Windows[edit]

I just replaced the list of cases section with an expanded paragraph incorporating relevant cases as per WP:PROSE. Your thoughts and suggestions on my edit are welcome. Thanks, RJaguar3 | u | t 13:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Guitar wiring[edit]

Sorry, I just wanted to let you know about the link. I highly appreciate your clear and systematic work on that page. --Borsanova (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem. In the future, if you encounter a dead link, consider flagging it with the dead link template, or searching for an archived version on a site like See WP:LINKROT for more information. Cheers! Indrek (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

HP zBook Page[edit]

You reverted an edit I made to the HP zBook page. You reinstated the incorrect information I corrected. There is not a 3200x1800 option for the zBook. All you quote are reviews that were made before the product was released. I have personally checked with Ingram Micro (a HUGE distributor) and directly with HP. A rep from HP confirmed there is no such device in existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewslaney (talkcontribs) 17:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I reverted the edit because (unlike the existing information, which you claim is incorrect) it was unsourced. Do you have any reliable sources to back your claim that there's no 3200x1800 option for the ZBook 15? The link you originally provided led to a generic HP customer support page.
If you need more information about sources on Wikipedia, please refer to WP:RS and WP:TRUTH. Indrek (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

HP Z Book edits[edit]


I just wanted to touch base with you regarding the corrections I made to the HP zBook page. Your "sources" are articles written before the release of the product. HP never actually made a 3200x1800 resolution display. I verified this personally directly with HP by talking to their support staff and their sales staff. The edits you keep making/reverting are based on false information. Please do not change the page again.

EDIT: I apparently didn't watch the previous comment I made to you and didn't see your reply. If your concern is a reliable source outweighing the truth, then I would ask that you reconsider whether a pre-release article speculating about the future specifications of a product should be considering reliable. I would argue that it is not. If you'd like for me to write a paragraph regarding my chat with HP and showing a transcript thereof and post it on my website so that we have something else to cite, I'll be happy to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewslaney (talkcontribs) 02:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


Matthew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewslaney (talkcontribs) 02:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough. Permit me to try again.
Per WP:VERIFY, all content on Wikipedia must be verifiable, meaning traceable back to a reliable source. The content that you keep removing from the article is backed by such a source (, a mainstream tech news outlet, reporting on an official HP press release), unless you can provide a policy-based reason for it not to be considered one. If you wish to check with other, more experienced editors about this, please feel free to start a discussion at WP:RSN.
On the other hand, your claim that no 3200x1800 option exists for the ZBook 15, while it may well be truthful, is simply not sufficient to merit a change to the article, unless you can find a similarly reliable source to back it up. Yes, reliability outweighs truthfulness. That's not a concern for me, that's how Wikipedia operates. You cannot simply remove content from an article because you disagree with it.
As for your offer to post the chat transcript on your website, it's unfortunately misguided (though well-intentioned), as self-published sources are not considered reliable on Wikipedia.
I hope this clarified the issue for you, and that you understand why I'm going to have to revert your edit again. If not, I'd encourage you to start a discussion on the article's talk page, where we can hopefully get input from other editors as well (see WP:BRD).
Regards, Indrek (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Indrek,
On the WP:BRD page to which you linked, it states: "Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y"." When providing false information, a source is therefore unreliable. Notice that no links are provided in that article to the original press release. The original release is here [1] and if you read it you will notice that the entire article is worded in present tense with the exception of the sentence about the 3200x1800 display, which is worded in future tense. It does not exist. I am reverting the page again. Please refrain from changing it again until you can provide a a valid source indicating that the 3200x1800 display currently exists. Alternately, update the wording to very clearly indicate that it does not exist but there have been rumors that it may in the future.
Thanks, Matthew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewslaney (talkcontribs) 21:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid you still misunderstand. The issue at hand is whether or not there are reliable sources backing up your claim that a 3200x1800 option doesn't currently exist for the ZBook 15. Unless and until you can provide such a source, you shouldn't remove content from the article based on nothing but your personal assessment of the truthfulness of that content.
"When providing false information, a source is therefore unreliable." The reliability of a source is determined by a number of factors, as outlined in WP:RS. The truthfulness of the information provided by the source is not one of them, therefore this statement is fallacious. If you feel the information reported by in their article is incorrect, you should take the issue to them, not Wikipedia.
"The original release is here [2] and if you read it you will notice that the entire article is worded in present tense with the exception of the sentence about the 3200x1800 display, which is worded in future tense. It does not exist." That the 3200x1800 display does not exist is your personal interpretation of the HP press release and therefore WP:OR, which is not allowed on Wikipedia.
"Please refrain from changing it again until you can provide a a valid source indicating that the 3200x1800 display currently exists. Alternately, update the wording to very clearly indicate that it does not exist but there have been rumors that it may in the future." I've been trying to extend to you the courtesy of good faith, but now I must inform you that such ultimatums make it somewhat difficult. The text cannot "very clearly indicate that it does not exist" because there seem to be no reliable sources that would back up such a statement. Wikipedia cannot claim something that can't be attributed to a reliable source (WP:VERIFY). You are therefore essentially demanding that I violate Wikipedia policy, either explicitly by adding content to the article that doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards, or implicitly by ignoring your edits to the same effect. I refuse to do either.
Ironically, since both the and Engadget articles clearly use the present tense with regards to the 3200x1800 option, and both are valid, reliable sources, you have just given me implicit permission to change the content back again. However, it's becoming increasingly apparent that you're not willing to accept my policy-based arguments, and I've no wish to engage in an edit war. In the spirit of compromise, I've therefore reworded that section a bit so the article no longer implies that a 3200x1800 option is available, merely that it's been announced. I hope you find this revision satisfactory. Indrek (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't use letter x as a substitute for the multiplication sign ×[edit]

I believe you are misunderstanding MOS:COMMONMATH when you say that the letter "x" is the substitute for "by". What it says is that you may use an unspaced letter x in some common expressions such as 4x4, although the consensus in that particular article is in fact to not use letter x, and in that context the x or × doesn't even imply multiplication.

Beyond a few common expressions such as 4x4, for example when discussing the myriads of display resolutions, the rule is to not use letter x as a substitute for the multiplication sign ×, very clearly stated in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Mathematics#Multiplication_sign.

It doesn't matter whether × is pronounced "by" or "multiplied by", the correct character is still ×. Consider cases such as array dimensions, "a 4 × 4 array", always pronounced "4 by 4" and could very well refer to a pixel array's dimensions. And consider equation such as in 2 × 2 = 4 which can be pronounced either "2 multiplied by 2 ..." or "2 by 2 ...". WinTakeAll (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

There was no misunderstanding on my part. At the time when I reverted your edit, MOS:COMMONMATH stated that, quote, "the unspaced letter x is the substitute for by in such terms as 4x4."[3] There was no "may" in there at the time, that was added by you later on,[4] apparently without any consensus or prior discussion.
As for WP:⋅, that applies to mathematical formulae, which display resolutions are not. The horizontal and vertical pixel counts are generally not given for the purposes of multiplication, and are almost universally pronounced with simply "by", therefore the letter "x" would be the appropriate substitute. Indrek (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
On a related note, User:Makyen has started a discussion about this at WT:MOSDATE#Revisit: the use of "×" and "x" for indicating "by" in arrays and dimensions, so please respond there. Indrek (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Guitar potentiometers[edit]

The use of potentiometer tapers in guitar electronics as you edited in the "guitar wiring" page is incorrect. Linear potentiometers will consistently perform more as a tone on/off switch in the bottom quarter of rotation, leaving very little effect through the upper range, and therefore tone pots are consistently audio taper. Volume controls can use either linear or audio (Gibson switched to linear volumes in 1973 and the majority of guitars manufactured today use the same), but tone pots remain exclusively audio taper in order to spread the range of control over a broad range of the rotation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what exactly you're basing these claims on, but volume controls are almost universally logarithmic pots, not just in guitars, but in any audio circuit (e.g. amplifiers). That's because perceived loudness does not increase linearly with volume (or, more specifically, sound pressure), but linearly with the logarithm of sound pressure. Therefore volume controls need to provide ever increasing amounts of volume for each unit of rotation, in order for the control to feel linear to the human ear. Strictly speaking, the taper is exponential, but by convention these pots are called logarithmic, or log.
Tone controls can be both, and the choice seems to be largely subjective. A tone control is essentially just a variable low-pass filter, and turning the pot simply adjusts the cut-off frequency. Unlike the volume control, there's nothing that requires the tone pot to be logarithmic in order for the control to be functional and useful.
The only reason linear pots sometimes get used as volume controls is for financial reasons - they're generally a bit cheaper due to simpler construction, and if linear pots are used for tone controls as well, it allows the manufacturer to stock only one type of pot instead of two, reducing overhead costs. But that's the exception, not the rule. Indrek (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The reference you provide (The Science of Electric Guitars and Guitar Electronics) credits use of tapers to Craig Anderton's book "Do-It-Yourself Projects For Guitarists", a Guitar Player publication which is know to contain factual inaccuracies. If you follow to Figure 4.3 on page 253 of Jarmo Lahdevaara's book, you will see how a linear tone control pot will deliver results exactly as demonstrated in the linked youtube demonstration videos - virtually no noticeable change in the top half of the sweep, with the vast majority of effect in the bottom 10% of the pan. Tone pots are exclusively audio, but volume pots can employ either linear or audio (and most makers use linear). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Figure 4.3, did you consider that the chart is logarithmic? What might seem like "virtually no noticeable change" on that chart is actually very noticeable in a real circuit. To deduce from those charts that linear pots don't work as tone controls when the source itself does not say that is original research, which is also forbidden on Wikipedia. Indrek (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, I disagree with your claim that the information in Lähdevaara's book about pot tapers is sourced to Anderton. Yes, he refers to Anderton's book regarding the overall structure of the tone circuit as well as specific potentiometer and capacitor values, but as far as I can see, the assertion regarding pot tapers carries no such association. Just so we're clear, this is the excerpt in question:

In audio applications, logarithmic potentiometers are almost always used as the volume control potentiometers, whereas the type of the tone control potentiometer is chosen according to design.

I see no reference to Anderton's work that would apply to the above statement, rendering your point about the reliability of said work moot. Indrek (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for not being up on wikipedia standards for reliable references, but the data presented in these videos (regardless of the platform they are broadcast from) is unbiased, accurate, and verifiable data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not Youtube per se that's unreliable, it's the fact that anyone can publish videos there, with no peer review or verification for factual accuracy whatsoever. See WP:SPS for more information. If you can find a reliable source backing up the claims you're making, then that would be different. Also bear in mind that Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. In other words, Wikipedia can only contain material that can be verified to be true, not what editors believe to be true. Indrek (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Please take no offense, as this is a bit tongue in cheek, but if only reliable sources which can be verified to be true are allowed, then how did the rule of audio pots for volume and linear for tone make it on here? ;) I'll leave it to others to correct on this page, but I can assure you that this assertion is 100% patently false. It is a belief which has been repeated by enough sources to be considered fact. Jarmo's Figure 4.3 shows very little change between 500kΩ and 250kΩ (settings 10 and 5 on a linear tone control), and the vast majority of change appearing between the 50kΩ and 500Ω settings (settings 1 and effectively zero on the control). These predictions are verified in the demonstration and data presented on the videos referenced. Furthermore, inspection of guitars as manufactured will show audio pots as standard in tone controls, and linear pots more commonly used than audio for volumes. If you have the time - even if the videos are not suitable as a reviewed reference - I strongly recommend watching them. Linear pots will predictably function more as an on/off tone switch between 2 and 0 when used as a tone control, and are rarely used in this application for this reason. This is a verifiable fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave it to others to correct on this page, but I can assure you that this assertion is 100% patently false. It is a belief which has been repeated by enough sources to be considered fact. And I can assure you that this is not mere belief. If you've the time, I recommend learning the physics behind this, and you'll understand why logarithmic pots are used for volume-related controls. A few manufacturers cheaping out and using linear pots instead does not change anything. Nevertheless, in the spirit of compromise and collaboration, I've amended the article text slightly, to acknowledge that other tapers are sometimes used.
As for the taper of tone controls, without looking through the edit history of the article I cannot say for certain whether it was me or another editor that added this claim. It may well have been me; it's certainly been my experience that tone controls are mostly linear. But that's not really important, since that part of the article has now been revised (and I fully acknowledge that, before looking into this as a result of your edit, I may have underestimated the popularity of audio taper tone pots).
This is a verifiable fact. Then you should have no problem finding a reliable source that verifies this. If you can't, then it's either a) not fact, or b) not relevant enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. I've already given you policy-based reasons why neither the chart in Lähdevaara's book nor the Youtube videos can be used to support the claims you're making. Personally, I also believe you're misinterpreting the chart (specifically, how it translates to actual circuits), and as for the videos, I've seen enough self-proclaimed experts demonstrate such monumental ignorance of basic electronics and acoustics — for instance, on one occasion I had a luthier of 25+ years repeatedly assert that the guitarist earths the guitar, not the other way around (and no, it wasn't 1 April like today!) — that I hope you'll forgive me if I don't rush into taking anything said on Youtube as gospel. And yes, I fully realise that from your point of view this might look like a case of the pot calling the kettle black, but that doesn't matter anyway, because it's Wikipedia policy you need to satisfy, not me. Indrek (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

And so goes the wikitruth. With all due respect, it's all yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

A quick search on factory schematics will show you lot's of makers using audio volumes (Fender, PRS, G&L, etc), and plenty using linear volumes (Gibson, Carvin, Ibanez, and many others). What you won't find is any broad use of linear tone pots, because they don't work for this application. Try wiring one up and you'll see what I mean.

If you understand the physics of these electronics, you would certainly see that while an audio pot may be the only viable option for an active or power amplifier volume, once you assign the pot to split the signal between a coil and amp on one side while also loading and shorting out the amp input on the other side, the sum result is no longer an ideal logarithmic taper. A tone control however, working only from one side of the pot, does behave in the logarithmic fashion that is expected of it. I would be interested to see what reliable source can be referenced to demonstrate a linear pot being preferred or performing superior to audio in a tone circuit.

Just trying to correct an error where others may seek reliable information. I've never ventured in to editing wikipedia before, and I doubt I will again. Let the myths and errors continue if you will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


I was considering good-faith reverting your edit to Capacitor for changing the prefixes, but I'll bring it up here. Although I cannot currently find any sources, capacitors are almost exclusively measured in micro- and picofarads. Rarely do they use nano- or millifarads. Although I am not sure why this is the case, it is the standard. Let's discuss this! Piguy101 (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I found some sources. It turns out that pico, nano, and micro are okay to use with farads, according to this and this. However, milli is strongly not recommend to use, for its confusion with micro according to this. The source says "Vintage equipment never used more than maybe 200uF so using mfd = μF wasn't very confusing!" However, modern capacitors make this distinction confusing, so I strongly urge you to convert the millifarads that you changed back to microfarads. Have a good day! Piguy101 (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't change the prefixes, AlanM1 did. I simply changed them back because his edit was unwarranted. Some of those prefixes he changed had been in the article for at least a year, if not more, with no evidence of any confusion.
Most of the world doesn't actually avoid the nanofarad, only the US does (for whatever reason). Use of the millifarad is uncommon only because capacitors in that range are relatively uncommon. Neither is a reason to avoid those prefixes on Wikipedia.
As for that link you gave, I see nothing there about avoiding millifarads. In fact, it explicitly uses mF for denoting "Modern thousand micro Farad capacitors". The comment about vintage equipment that you quoted only applies to the obsolete "mfd" abbreviation.
Ultimately, though, usage of unit prefixes on Wikipedia is governed by the Manual of Style (specifically, WP:UNIT), not external websites that may or may not even be reliable (case in point, the three links you posted all appear to be self-published). If you feel that nano- and/or millifarads should be avoided on Wikipedia, the proper place to take that up would be WT:MOSDATE.
Regards, Indrek (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Starting a new section at Talk:Capacitor#Units —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


My edit was constructive, so why don't you just leave the aspect ratio page alone, you......I don't even know. But I do know more about editing than you do, and if you revert my edit again, I will make sure I get you kicked off this wiki. -Matt200055 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt200055 (talkcontribs) 22:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your edit was not constructive. This has been discussed on the article's talk page and the consensus was to use equal area, not equal height. If you disagree, kindly explain your position on the article's talk page instead of engaging what's beginning to seem like edit warring.
Also, if you know so much about editing Wikipedia, I'm sure you're aware of its core policies, such as:
  • WP:AGF, which states that, lacking convincing evidence to the contrary, all edits are to be assumed to have been made in good faith.
  • WP:CIVIL, which calls for civility when interacting with other editors. Threatening to get them banned from Wikipedia is not a sign of civilised conduct.
  • WP:OWN, which states that no editor should act as if they *own* a particular article, which is precisely what you're doing when you're telling me to "leave the aspect ratio page alone".
Please take those policies into account and let's try to resolve this on the article's talk page. I look forward to hearing your arguments as to why you think equal height is better than equal area.
Regards, Indrek (talk) 06:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Note that their response to this was another unexplained revert. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)