User talk:Roguegeek

M1

That was indecently quick!

The M1 in the Rossi era can only be accurately represented in terms of its substantial and significant history in that period. I'm sure you'll agree, that most instances of the M1 being noteworthy in the 2006 season (and there were many) were intrinsically linked with Rossi, and I think Wikipedia users deserve more than a one liner about such an important Motorcycle, in such an important season, in such an increasingly popular sport. - playbike 01:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Re Block threat for supposed abuse

Bah. Do we have to be utterly humourless when we do such boring work as (constantly) reverting spammers? Isn't your precious time best spent threatening blocks on said spammers? You didn't actually think I was being abusive with my little quip? Please lighten up. I've never gotten worked up in any edit I've made, I just like to make strongly and directly, so there's no confusion. It's all a matter of style. Are you part of the new, emerging, band of personality police around here? Maybe it's cultural relativity. I come from a part of the world where we don't accept abuse and we say what we mean. It may be that you come from a totalitarian state where unless you toe the line it is not tolerated. I think with a little good will we can all understand each other's point of view. Darkov 11:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Your 8 word reply is a little cryptic. Can you expand a little? Darkov 22:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Honda Fit

Look, you asked me to put in sources, so I reverted the article and put in sources. And now I'm going to revert it back and phrase it as "A hybrid electric version is rumored to be in development for sale in late 2007, according to Japanese newspaper Nihon Keizai Shimbun."

I hope that satisfies you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ng.j (talk • contribs) 23:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

In the year that the article was written, Honda has decided to go with an all new model and will not produce the Honda Fit Hybrid. So ends our discussion.

Ng.j 23:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Suzuki Hayabusa

I just thought I would inform you that you have put the performance data in incorrectly, they both state 60-80 mph is 3.31mph and 3.13mph. This makes no sense to me. Can you please correct this? Also, I completely agree with your plan to revert it back to a more reliable test. - Century0 03:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you caught that. Definitely a typo on my part. The second time is suppose to be from 80-100 mph. Looks like another editor already picked up on the problem and fixed it. Roguegeek (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Uli Kunkel

Hi Roguegeek, the above user just reported you for vandalism at AIV. What you are doing is not vandalism (obviously) but if the user is being unreasonable, I find the best thing to do is give them another option (eg I told him about the {{main}} template) rather than threatening them with 3rr. People don't tend to react well to that :) Thanks, – riana_dzasta 02:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

SWG Edits

I am not the first person to raise issues of verifiability and neutrality on this article. I'm the most recent in a long list of people with the same concerns. Where in the Wiki policies does it require that I provide a "long and detailed" justification for adding {{pov}} and {{unreferenced}} tags? It just says you should discuss the reasons on the talk page, it doesn't say that the initiator has to provide "long and detailed" justifications. Am I missing something here? Jonawiki 23:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with your point of not having enough sources. I'm just thinking we need to be more specific about what sources for what parts are lacking. Roguegeek (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved your comments. You're the one now deleting all my past edits to the talk page. Magonaritus 02:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest people reading this to take a look at User talk:Magonaritus to see what kind of feedback they are receiving from other editors. Roguegeek (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars Galaxies

I see you're having some difficulty with Jonawiki (talk · contribs) and Magonaritus (talk · contribs). I've been dealing with "them" for over a year at Upper Canada College. I say "them" as I've reported both as sockpuppets. Please feel free to contribute comments or evidence if you wish. Thanks. --G2bambino 16:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for setting up that proper investigation - I wasn't aware of that process. I've since added my comments to it. I do, however, remain somewhat unknowledgeable about these matters, and so wonder what the next step is. The template you left at Jonawiki's talk page links to this page, which states "If the accuser hasn't requested CheckUser for ten days, you are allowed to remove the notice from your page." Does this mean you must, if you haven't already, request a CheckUser? I suppose I should notify you that I made a CheckUser request against Magonaritus back on March 8, which was deemed unnecessary. --G2bambino 15:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Image Source or Spam

I note you removed the contributors URL from a number of images today with the comment "removed spam" (e.g. [1] [2]). I note that you have a URL to your website on many of the images you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons as RichN. Could you explain how this is different? -- Patleahy 02:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

External Link and IP image

Hi Roguegeek, regarding:

... It looks ok, but it should be submitted through the Open Directory Project link listed in the external links section. Roguegeek (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

on the Honda S2000 discussion page, how do I submit this exactly? I couldn't figure it out by poking around the Open Directory pages. Thanks.

Also, regarding:

Those are excellent images of the S2000. If you are able to shoot more, we are in desperate need to get nice free use images of the interior and IP. Is this something you think you could get? ...

I can post more images, but what exactly is IP?

Template Chevrolet

- My friend who is a GM mechanic of 10 years with saw your revision of my edit to the template and wishes to confirm that the Corsica and Beretta are in fact mid size vehicles. You can contact him on yahoo messenger at whitewolf_17862.

I owned a 1994 Corsica (mid-size) until last year and I currently own a 1998 Prizm (compact) and I can assure you the Corsica is not even close to the same size or cabin space an the much smaller Prizm. My mother owns a 2005 Cavalier (compact) and it is also much smaller than the Corsica. These cars are not in the same class.

Government website listing the Corsica as a mid size. [http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byclass/Midsize_Cars1991.shtml

Also the Prizm was sold as a subcompact from 1989 to 1992 in 1993 a new larger body style was introduced and the car was from then on marketed as a compact. K_Watson1984

Lucy Deakins

Google searching, and confirming info with revised searches. Example: One Google search showed her at an event. I google the event and add her name. The resultant info gives me more info about her, or confirms other info that didn't have citation. Most of the info exists of various fan sites, but it was all verifiable. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC) (who had a major league crush on her and Diane Lane as a kid)

Suzuki TL1000R

Have tried to add one source and clarify another in the Reputation section. The widow-maker term is frequently found in forums, but they are not "verifiable". An alternative term is "handling problems", also easily found with Google. If it is still suss, why not delete that section, as belonging to a TL1000S article. Suzuki said at the time that there was no fault, but added a steering damper to subsequent bikes. This was before the TL1000R was released. Seasalt 05:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

PanoTools vs Panorama Tools

The PanoTools group was created in April of 2003. Prior to that, Helmut ran the Panorama Tools list. The NG group is using our group name and domain name as a shortcut to kicking of their new group. The word "original" is being used in the correct context. John Spikowski 22:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets leave the one line as it is and give it a break. The NG group has dominated the page so the reader has more then enough info to make his/her own choice as to where they want to point their browsers. If they want to join the Panotools forum then great. If they find a mailing list is more their cup of tea then that fine also. I'm just trying to continue on with what I started 4 years ago and get past the nasty split of the group. John Spikowski 00:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The Panorama Tools developemnt is maintained on SourceForge with a home page and mailing list of it's own. The only other group that is actively involved in the Panorama Tools project is the Hugin group. The PanoToolsNG group is a Yahoo Groups mailing list about general panorama photography. As I mentioned before, there hasn't been a reference to the Panorama Tools library or viewer in months. Why should this new group take credit for the work of others? John Spikowski 03:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the developers recommend those mailing lists and wiki. This is shown to be referenced correctly through the source I have cited in the article. It's a verifiable fact. Roguegeek (talk) 04:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Tell Thomas and Carl to let other have some say to what is 'legal' and what isn't. Everytime we make progress and it looks like we have come to a middle ground, Thomas or Carl will delete the PanoTools group link and it starts all over again. John Spikowski 03:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thomas (NG facilities manager, list moderator and owner) is user:wuz . Carl (NG list moderator and owner) is user:Einemnet

> Also keep in mind I didn't delete your link. I, in fact, have always recommended it should stay. > Thanks !

Defender of the Wiki

Rogue - some time ago you deposited a barnstar on my talk page. I figured it was about time I got round to thanking you. So - cheers for the barnstar! --G2bambino 15:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Date formats

Hi Roguegeek. In this edit, you reformatted dates to yyyy-mm-dd format, supposedly "per WP:MOS". I looked at WP:DATE, though, and it specifically suggests not using that format: "new users and unregistered users do not have any date preferences set, and will therefore see the unconverted ISO 8601 date." (WP:DATE#ISO date formats). Can you clarify your reasoning? Powers ^T 12:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What looks like spam? Golden Gare Bridge

Did I offer to sell something? The pictures are unique and very special. Many people are interested in these phenomenas, but do not know where to see them. You offer it for discussion and we'll see.--Mbz1 04:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1 You telling me to be civil? You called it a spam! Of course I do not know English as well as you do, but what in world it has to do with spam? I agree discuss the section, but do not remove it because the discussion ends.--Mbz1 04:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

• • • What about using the word "Spam"?--Mbz1 04:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
      • • It is very complicated. I'm still not sure what category of spam the section was under. Advertisements masquerading as articles, External link spamming,Source soliciting,External link spamming with bots,Inclusion of one spam link is not a reason to include another,Canvassing? Which one of them? Can you, explain it to me please?--Mbz1 05:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
          • Hello, Roguegeek. I removed the section from the GGB page not because I agree with you(I do not), but just because I'm too tiered to fight over it. If you do not remove it now, somebody else will later. I guess it is how Wikipedia works. I believe that at that point the dispute is resolved and I do not expect to get a reply from you. Regards--Mbz1 17:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
            • I just copied and pasted your own exact words from the talk page you have created to discus the section to explain why it was removed. If yo believe your own words were not "civil", sorry I cannot help you. I'm really not interested in getting any more of your messages. If you like, you could report me to an administrator, or better yet please request the pictures to be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm not going to foght it either.--Mbz1 02:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Attribution

Hi, Roguegeek. Here, you revised a sentence to remove a direct quotation from MMORPG.com and replaced with a generic "Some media organizations" phrasing (retaining the reference to MMORPG.com). Can I ask why? It seems that it's best to quote a specific source when making references such as this, rather than to rely on "Some media organizations." Powers ^T 16:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your desire to keep it NPOV, but my understanding was that the preferred method of doing that was to assign the statement to a specific source. I may be misinterpreting "avoid weasel words", though I'm fairly sure I saw that written somewhere. =) I'm also not too worried about POV in this case because the MMORPG.com quotation itself was careful to say "probably". I don't think anyone's really disputed that SWG really has invoked more controversy than any other MMORPG (though the uncertainty inherent in any attempt to measure "controversy" necessitates the use of words like "probably"), so there's really no opposing view that we need to worry about presenting. Powers ^T 01:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources

Hello there. I have reverted your undo on the 675 page due to incorrect source information. Please check out the policy on original research and how it defines a secondary source:

*Secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or original interpretive, analytical, synthetic, or explanatory claims. A journalist's analysis or commentary of a traffic accident based on eye-witness reports is a secondary source. An International Herald Tribune analysis and commentary on a United Nations Security Council resolution is a secondary source. An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, constitute secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable published secondary sources. This means that we present verifiable accounts of views and arguments of reliable scholars, and not interpretations of primary source material by Wikipedians.

Sport Rider and Motorcyclist are most definitely secondary sources according to this definition. The only way we could present the primary source (manufacturer claimed info) is if we can find reliable secondary sources that will back up the claims. I've just done a quick look at other sources and they all claim approximately the same info as SR and MC. I you disagree, let's discuss to avoid the possibility of an edit war. We can request advice from an admin on this issue if you would prefer. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Sport Rider is definitely a primary source. They do not analyze, generalize or comment on other people's data, they present their own measurement results. They measure dry weight differently from the manufacturer (simple arithmetics - 417-389=28 lbs - exactly the weight of 4.8 gallons of gasoline), that's why their results are different. --Itinerant1 05:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a couple of points and questions from your last comments:

1. Can you explain why you consider publications like Sport Rider and Motorcyclist are primary sources and not secondary sources? From my point of view, it seems very clear they are secondary sources due to them (1) not being the manufacturer themselves, (2) don't use first-hand material, (3) are offering original interpretation through editorials in their reviews, (4) do their own analysis through product reviews in their publications, and (5) present their own claims of the subject in question. The actual means of their testing, whether it's to a certain standard or not, don't have any weight on defining what kind of source they are classified as.
2. Even though it doesn't have any bearing on defining source, are you able to identify a source that shows how Sport Rider and Motorcyclist take their measurements? I just want to make sure what you are claiming is true.
3. Are you just disagreeing with weight claims or is it horsepower/torque claims as well? I'm asking because you didn't make mention of it in any comments yet and I was simply not sure.

Respectfully, Roguegeek (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of their material is secondary. But they are primary with respect to information that comes out of tests they conduct: "a primary source is a document, or other source of information that was created at or near the time being studied, by an authoritative source, usually one with direct personal knowledge of the events being described." They definitely do measure things like dry/wet weight themselves: [3] "Test numbers used here are generated by the Motorcyclist staff using a Dynojet 150 or Superflow CycleDyn (noted in red) rear-wheel dynamometer, Intercomp SWII digital scale and Los Angeles County Raceway's quarter-mile strip utilizing a Chrondek timing system."

Regarding HP measurements - I'd like to have both figures in the article - manufacturer-claimed engine horsepower of 123 bhp and tested wheel horsepower of 110 hp. --Itinerant1 19:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}} Could use someone with more understanding of secondary sources to help clarify my understanding of the subject. For the purpose of organization, I have consolidated the entire conversation above. Thanks. Roguegeek (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources are ones created after the event by someone who did not witness it, see Secondary source for more information. GDonato (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

1991 Camaro models

I really like 1991 Camaros. They are so cool. I always wanted one of those and I will probably buy one someday. I would like to know, in a few words, what is the difference between the RS, the Z28, the IROC-Z and the IROC-Z28. I am not an expert and I would like to be able to tell the difference between the various models offered.

ICE77 -- 84.222.102.37 21:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

186mph

did you actually read the source I provided for the statement? anyway, since you clearly own the article, I won't bother you again. it's generally considered polite to leave a comment for people when you're reverting their edits. your mileage may vary, of course. 69.143.136.139 21:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

GSX Hayabusa

Just wondering why you added the GSX Hayabusa to the GSX-R range after I removed it

Replaceable fair use Image:Honda_RC212V.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Honda_RC212V.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Photos

Do you have Adobe Photoshop or another image editing program that can rotate images? If so, I invite you to name any image that would be the best for use in the article except for its angle, and I can get you the original uncropped version. (I have PS, but for the life of me I can't see what the concerns are with some of the photos that have been criticized, and haven't had any success when I tried to fix the ones I did notice.) Let me know if you can and would be willing to help. I'm also extending this offer to User:Daniel J. Leivick, as he also brought this up on my Talk page. IFCAR 10:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Uploading over leaves a lag time in which there's a massively uncropped image appearing in articles. Also, I'd prefer the differently-cropped and -rotated version be uploaded in addition to the original. If I could email them, I think that would work best. IFCAR 11:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

PanoTools Deletion Process

The deletion process for the this page has already started and your not a administrator to make final judgment. John Spikowski 23:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)