User talk:Restepc

Duff Beer (The Simpsons)

If you feel that strongly about deleting the article, go to WP:AFD and follow the steps listed there. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR

You may need to know about WP:3RR. But hopefully you don't William M. Connolley (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Civility

This [1] could easily be seen as incivil. You might want to remove it William M. Connolley (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have just struck it out (before I saw this warning btw), I was just in shock at your actions Restepc (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This [2] could easily be seen as incivil. You might want to remove it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Indention

Please learn to indent your comments on talk pages. You are disrupting flow of discussion by starting at the margin for (almost) every comment. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm - it seems like you do it for every comment - so perhaps you aren't aware of how its done. You insert a colon (:) at the margin for each level of indentation that you want your comment to be at. Normally you would indent to one level of indentation more than the comment that you are replying to - here is an example of a discussion:

First poster comment

Second poster comment on First

Reply to second poster

A reply to the above

Another reply to second poster

Third poster comment on First (#3)

I think you get the point. Once a sufficiently deep indentation is reached - its common to return to margin with "(dedent)" inserted in front of the post, so that readers can see that its a reply to the outermost indented comment. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional comment to the above, if you want more than one paragraph, then indent each one..

like

this (notice two paragraphs)

Thanks --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to The Gene Illusion has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Two One Six Five Five ^τ _ʃ 17:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll take this back if you explain your drastic cutdown in The Gene Illusion. Two One Six Five Five ^τ _ʃ 17:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hahahaha, what vandalism filter? 100% human, sitting right here... XD Two One Six Five Five ^τ _ʃ 17:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I thought you were some kind of anti-vandalism bot, my apologies, that's one fast revert you did there....

Basically the article had a tag saying multiple issues: too long a plot summary, too long/the existence of a criticism section, and too many quotes, after reading the talk page it seems extremely tenuous whether it deserves an article at all. I decided the best course of action was to remove the 'plot' summary, the criticism section, and then work on the remaining few paragraphs Restepc (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I see. (Also, thanks. Hehe. The last time a vandal recognized me was...um....) Two One Six Five Five ^τ _ʃ 17:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to The Gene Illusion constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 18:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

Oops. Sorry about that. When you go through many pages a minute looking for vandalism, large removals of content do look a lot like vandalism. But do keep up the good work - it's nice to see editors being bold. Feel free to point out any other mistakes I make. :) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 19:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries, as you can probably see you're not the only person to think the same :) Restepc (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [3] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

re: problem with teddybearnow

Well, I can understand why he would feel that I have a conflict of interest, however I do not like how he is making up poor excuses to remove the criticism section of the article. I'm here because I seem to be the only real expert around on web desktops, and I'm adding technical information to the eyeOS article. I actually was the author of the structure section (although I may have done it under an anonymous IP by accident). But, I feel that the flat files vs a database server is an important issue that should be stated somewhere in the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychcf (talk • contribs) 14:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Linux Windows NetBSD OpenBSD FreeBSD SunOS All this operating systems, and KDE GNOME fluxbox all this desktops, stores his configurations in xml or plain text format, instead of databases, and you are not in his articles, trying to add criticism section. Please, you have to understand that thousands of systems use flat files instead of relational databases, (there are some reasons to do it). You are the owner of a project who is competition of eyeOS, and User:Jaymacdonald is also a part of your project, and you have a clear conflict of interests. I can't understand why we are still discussing this. Psychcf has accepted to stop in his behavior, but now, another known member of the eyeOS competition comes here and start to have the same behavior of Psychcf some days ago. We will have to talk with all the developers involved in all projects competition of eyeOS? Teddybearnow (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The difference between a regular desktop and a web desktop is that a web desktop (or any web application) can be accessed by hundreds of thousands of people at once. A database server is a workaround to the bottleneck that flat files have, because a DB server will cache query results, keep indexes of values so it's faster when looking up values, allow multiple users (or a single user with multiple connections) to access multiple parts of the database at once, etc. The issue with that is that it's a pain to set up, especially to the average user. Take a look at [4] if you'd like to read more about this. I'm just making a friendly suggestion, don't get so crazed. ;) Psychcf (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to your question

No, i'm not involved with eyeOS in any way. I'm a user who likes eyeOS, and don't like to view the article edited with lies and trys to give bad reputaiton, written by Psychcf and Raymacdonald, who are developers of a competition project (psychdesktop) that is known to have a non-friendly relation with eyeOS. I think that competition problems between psychdesktop (Psychcf and Raymacdonald) should be solved in other ways than starting flames in wikipedia. Teddybearnow (talk) 05:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: about the agreement

I have a feeling the issue here was that we weren't communicating the reasons why we were removing eachother's edits. On top of that, I just feel like dirt since I caused all these neutrality fights, and I wanted to make up for it by correcting my contributions. Psychcf (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

re:eyeOS

This situation has been resolved in private. Jaymacdonald (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Jaymacdonald, this situation has been resolved in private, now, there are nos discussions about the article. I have to apologize with Jaymacdonald because he feel attacked personally in the discussion. I'm sorry, it wasn't my intention at all. Teddybearnow (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comet

Would you please read the other version of the Comet article, and try yourself to understand what Comet is, before you insist on maintaining a version of the article which has been cut to 15% of its former content? Thanks. —jacobolus (t) 00:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've already mentioned this on the talk page of the article, feel free to reply there, FYI I think the article NEEDS to be cut down considerably from the length of your version Restepc (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you did a great work and showed how to keep a cool head in the discussions! I must admit that I only contributed technically to Wikipedia so far (between vandalism/advertising cleanup) and stay out of time-consuming discussions. But this time I really learned something about Wikipedia discussion processes, even though I lost a couple of hours of sleep over the last days. Perhaps I should go and add "Comet" to my CV. *just kidding* ;) - 83.254.208.192 (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

When you [jacobolus] started edit warring to preserve your article I decided based upon your long edit history to try my best to keep discussion civil and prevent this from escalating up the dispute ladder; I am finding this increasingly difficult. I allowed your version of the article to remain for several days in order for you to address our concerns, I have tried to engage in calm discussion on the talk page and have taken things slowly giving you time to respond. I intend (although real life sometimes drags me from wikipedia) to give what help I can making the comet article respectable and working on improving the mess that area is in on wiki. If you would like to help in a non-disruptive manner I will continue to attempt to have the other editors forgive (or at least not react to) your past problems with this article. Otherwise; feel free to edit some of the many other articles on wikipedia. I know it sucks when consensus is against you and something you have put work into is destroyed, but you have to accept the wikipedia system. I do not appreciate being accused of vandalism or being canvassed against, if you continue in your current vein I do not think I will have any alternative but to get a neutral* admin involved. You've been on wikipedia long enough to know how COI conflicts usually go, try to look at it from my point of view and think about how you would view your actions.

• Neutral as in not one either of us have previously interacted with. If you're surmising from this footnote that I no longer trust you not to get some admin-friend of yours to come in on this you're dead right.

Restepc (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have remained civil, engaged in discussion on the article talk page, stopped the edit warring (despite it being IMO more than justified, as the edits I was “warring” with were purely destructive), certainly have not been disruptive in the manner you suggest, and I have not undertaken any canvassing, nor have I accused you of vandalism. I find the accusations insulting, and I suggest you stop with them. As for “I intend (although real life sometimes drags me from wikipedia) to give what help I can making the comet article respectable and working on improving the mess that area is in on wiki.”, I would like to see such actual help. I haven't seen much if any so far, but you and anyone else are encouraged to work on these articles constructively. [Edit to add: You seem despite your lack of experience with the subject to have good intentions at least, so I trust that once you have researched it more fully you will recognize that what I wrote is accurate, valuable content.] Cheers! —jacobolus (t) 02:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Please try to be civil, saying that people are pushing for an articles destruction/vandalism/mangling or calling them jerks isn't helpful Restepc (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I find this statement incredibly comical. Listen, at this point, I don't care. If you and Damiens would like to insist on having a stub of an article, riddled with inaccuracies, go ahead. It is not worth my time to attempt to work with him, and your good-cop bad-cop double-team, despite the comic relief it provides, is not productive. I hope that you both do research and write a decent article. Unfortunately, I peg the odds of that at about 0%. Good luck! —jacobolus (t) 19:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you find it laughable that people object to being called jerks perhaps you shouldn't be on wikipedia. If you really don't care; your stopping interfering with the article and discussion would I think be extremely helpful. Restepc (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Restepc, I have just replied at length to your good advice regarding the comet debate on my talk page. While I accept your advice, I think it also needs to be given to damien.rf and others. The coment below this one by damien.rf is typical and completely contrary to your advice regarding suspecting others of ulteria motives. The contributor to cometdaily know that the best way to improve a sites google ranking is to put good content on that site. Indeed if you search for "ajax comet" on google, the wikipedia page is first and my own "Why Ajax Comet" paper self published in 2006 on my own companies site is second (without the benefit of a link from wikipedia (but I have one now :-) ). If I wanted to improve my google ranking then the best thing I could have done would have been to agree with the argument to remove the comet page, so my own page would be first. Some editors of wikipedia have to remember that it got it's google ranking by people GIVING to wikipedia and others linking to those contributions. So I hope you can delivery your good advice to all involved. Note also that the advice I have been given from the cometdaily editors is to stop wasting time on wikipedia and to write some more articles for cometdaily instead. I think I will take that advice and I hope that one day I will be able to link from those articles whenever I use the word comet. Gregwilkins (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Good advice

Ok. Good advice. I'm walking on eggs in this case... but it's disturbing to have your contributions called "destruction" and being otherwise attacked and called names on every edit... I'm very thankful to your interference on that article. But still sometimes I think it would be better if we were having more visibility on that case.

...for now, the article's talk page with all those links is serving to increase Comet Daily's google rank... at least it's no longer the article itself being used for that (at least not as much as it used to). --Damiens.rf 00:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)