User talk:C. A. Russell

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

Template_talk:Firefox_TOC[edit]

I commented Widefox (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Rearviewmirror: Greatest Hits 1991–2003[edit]

This thread of conversation has been inlined from User talk:-5-/Archive 1#References on Rearviewmirror. It occurred after the following series of edits to Rearviewmirror (Greatest Hits 1991–2003) (in chronological order):

...

The article does not need that tag at the top. Only you have an issue with the article. Tell me your specific issue with the article, and I'll address it. You can't just place a tag at the top and expect other editors to guess. Work with me on what you want addressed.-5- (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding reverts, please do not remove edits without first consulting with the editor who made them or, if you experience difficulty in reaching a compromise, other editors on the concerned article's talk page. The template not only serves as a notice to you, but to other editors who may also improve the article, as well as help track these articles using Special:Whatlinkshere. As can be found in the description for Template:refimprove, it differs from Template:unreferenced in that it may be used in articles which already contain references but still need additional work to meet Wikipedia's standards. You can find proper usage for templates concerning citations on any one of the templates' pages.

The issue with Rearviewmirror: Greatest Hits 1991-2003 is mostly with the notes within the track listing. -- "References on Rearviewmirror" by C. A. Russell on 20:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it again because it is not needed. It is just lazy to stick that up that up there and not do anything about it. Who are you hoping to reach a consensus with? I have been the primary editor on the article for two years. You can talk about any issues you have with the article with me. Please be specific. Just tell me what you want done and I'll do it. That is all you have to do. I don't feel like having a back and forth with you. I plead with you to just tell me specifically.-5- (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

As noted by the first message, there are issues with the factoids in the tracklisting. I'll have to ask you again not to remove edits without first reaching a consensus. -- reply to -5- by C. A. Russell on 00:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for specifically telling me your issues. If you don't mind, I will use this page to address them.

List removed in "User talk:C. A. Russell" edit by C. A. Russell on 1:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC). (See below.)

Addressed.-5- (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather you'd not use my talk page for your work, as it clutters the history, spams me with "new messages" notices, and is more appropriate for a subpage of your own. -- reply to -5- by C. A. Russell on 01:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's too late now. I've addressed your issues. Tell me what you think.-5- (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


Addendum: Not explaining the template after my first revert was poor form on my part. -- C. A. Russell

Use of edit summaries[edit]

Replies from this thread of conversation have been inlined from User talk:-5-/Archive 1#Use of edit summaries.

Please use edit summaries. -- "Use of edit summaries" by C. A. Russell on 00:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I use them when they are needed. They are not always needed. What, are you going around following my edits?-5- (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Only one of your edits today was accompanied by an edit summary. The lack of edit summaries from you is noticeable when reviewing the history of any page you contribute to, and I notice you were asked before to use edit summaries. Regarding "needed," it's a guideline to use edit summaries no matter how small, even for minor edits like corrections of typos, although I'm not really sure what you mean since in today's edits alone, there are non-trivial contributions on your part that also lack summaries. -- reply to -5- by C. A. Russell on 00:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are you deciding to harass me? Have you done this with other editors also? Do you think I'm going around vandalizing pages? I didn't put a summary because they are trivial. If someone wants to see my contributions they can compare the edit history.-5- (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's news to me that this exchange in anyway approaches qualification for harassment. I really don't understand why you've so quickly assumed such a hostile stance.

As I already said, today alone some edits of yours consist of non-trivial contributions. There are a number of other things I could point out, but to be concise: it's a guideline, and I'm simply asking that you follow it. -- reply to -5 by C. A. Russell on 00:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I can do it, but what is the difference going to be if I simply put "addition to [blank] section" or if I don't? When I feel my edit needs a summary, I add it. Do you think I don't have the best interests of the article in mind? I've been editing for three years and have nothing but the best intentions for this encyclopedia. I find it odd that someone with less than a year's worth of time spent on here would start questioning my intentions. It was over two years ago when someone asked me to add summaries, and I started adding them where I saw fit after that and no one else had an issue. I find it odd that you would decide pick on me and not other editors. Do you still have a grudge after that little brush-up we had months ago?-5- (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "addition to <section>" would be an example of a bad summary, and redundant since MediaWiki automatically prepends that information in the edit summary field when section editing.

For edits like these, you should summarize them as something like "add Vedder quote from Spin with ref" or if you can add something about the significance of the quote, "add Vedder quote from Spin about album title."

For changes like No Code revision 267017842 you should explain why you're removing the text. Even for Talk:Superunknown revision 266996684 you should summarize that you're changing the template parameter.

It's not about suspicions of vandalism, because truly malicious vandals will make all kinds of subtly subversive changes with seemingly innocuous summaries so that the changes will last as long as possible. It's really about the courtesy to other editors who can benefit from explanations when presented with a long list of revisions, be it from Special:Contributions/C. A. Russell or an article history, even if you find that it doesn't really help in your own workflow. For example, if you check out my contributions, you can easily identify blocks of related edits like when an article gets renamed and I change all inbound links to reference the new name. There are a lot of other ways it can help, one of the biggest is when you want to figure out when some information was first added to the article without resorting to a binary search, i.e., phone book searching, through the revision history.

I'm not singling you out. As I said, your lack of edit summaries is apparent whenever looking at the revision history of any article you regularly edit; I noticed, so I asked. If you come across anyone else not using summaries, please ask them to.

Also, don't be fooled by the first appearance of a username. It has only been a little over a year that Wikipedia has began increasing restrictions on anonymous users, and I know I'm not alone as a person who only recently began using a username for some edits. Even now, I don't log in for every edit that I make; I generally only do so whenever I feel like it, it's required due to restrictions on anonymous accounts, I feel like some of my changes have the potential to make others want to discuss them, or when I deliberately want to make sure a series of edits are associated with this username. -- reply to -5- by C. A. Russell on 02:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I just want you to leave me alone, okay?-5- (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hunting_license[edit]

Re: yours of [1], O.K. Bearian (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Ugly-justification-Dirt-infobox.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Ugly-justification-Dirt-infobox.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Officeholder[edit]

The following thread of conversation has been inlined from User talk:Steve Smith/Archive 3#Requested fix for Template:Infobox Officeholder.

I noticed you've edited the protected Infobox Officeholder template in the past. Would you mind having a look at Template talk:Infobox Officeholder#Template is broken? -- "Requested fix for Template:Infobox Officeholder" by C. A. Russell on 02:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)]

Got your message and had a look at the conversation, but I'm afraid that the whole issue is well beyond my ken. Sorry, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

My Alleged "Plagiarism"[edit]

The following thread of conversation has been inline from User talk:TMC1982/Archive 10#Your plagiarism.

Please refrain from further plagiarizing, as you did with your 2008 March 15 edit to the Godzilla article (plagiarized from Rodan's Roost: Kaiju Scrap-yard: Godzilla vs. the Gryphon). This is an unacceptable level of commonality between the passages in question (it's verbatim, or close to it). I'm not sure whether you've done the same with other articles, but you should be able to redact any other plagiarized passages yourself. -- "Your plagiarism" by C. A. Russell on 16:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You must be mistaking me for somebody else, because I have absolutely no idea about what the hell you're talking about. So take a chill pillin the mean time! And whatever edit that I made, must have been only minimal. TMC1982 (talk) 03:59 p.m., 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no mistake. The diff I provided above shows the passage in question. -- reply to TMC1982 by C. A. Russell on 05:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

So FREAKING what! Why are you waiting all of this time to criticize me about my edits!? What are you going to do, sue me!? TMC1982 (talk) 11:34 p.m., 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You have been reported to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts for incivility and flagrant disregard for copyright. The report is at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#TMC1982 -- reply to TMC1982 by C. A. Russell on 07:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you finished, because I have more important things to do!? Again, it's awfully funny that you only know (like a year later) decided to point out one of my edits. TMC1982 (talk) 09:38 p.m., 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Re self-referential footnote in Fair Use[edit]

The following thread of conversation has been inlined from User talk:Twang.

Please refer to my 2009 October 31 09:45 edit to the fair use article. In general, entries under references should provide direct and straightforward sources. (Compare this to saying something like, "See sources used in other parts of the article.") If you'd like to cite a source that has already been cited, you can give the original citation a name, as in <ref name="grand-upright">''[[Grand Upright Music, Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc.]]'', 780 F. Supp. 182 ([[S.D.N.Y.]] 1991)</ref> and cite it later using simply <ref name="grand-upright"/>.

Additionally, in general, if you find yourself using external links to link to Wikipedia pages, and the subject is not Wikipedia itself, keep Wikipedia's self-references guideline in mind. Articles shouldn't point to other Wikipedia articles for references. However, you can usually supplement good external sources by using internal links if Wikipedia has an article about the external source itself. I feel like you know this, but the way in which you linked to the Audio Home Recording Act in the fair use article is a bit awkward. -- "References" by C. A. Russell on 16:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi C.A.,
Someone put a citation needed there; in my opinion the article itself already answered the question raised. The edit I placed was intended as a *footnote*, not a *reference*. Whether you regard it as "awkward", it's standard, ages-long practice in plenty of good books. If in your opinion the article doesn't answers the question at that point, it's a minor quibble. 'Being bold', I don't care about breaking general rules if the result is potentially helpful to readers.
I don't need people citing chapter and verse at me, I've been doing this for quite a while. Twang (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Cynthia Lennon[edit]

The following conversation has been inlined from User talk:Andreasegde#Cynthia Lennon.

OK, here we go... Could you explain (on my page, if you would be so kind) why you think "Not even close to approaching cause for removal; and I did count them" means? A note on the Cynthia Lennon talk page would also be helpful. When the references are evenly balanced with around 49/50 for her book against other refs, I can not see what you are getting at. The article is up for a GA review, as I'm sure you know.--andreasegde (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"I did count them" means that I counted the references, before placing the template on the page. At first glance, the article appears to be very well-sourced. But around fifty percent of all references are not merely from the same person, but from a single source written by that person. What's surprising to me is that you are consciously aware of these numbers, and believe that it is evidence of adequate balance. I'm aware that there aren't many other sources for this stuff, and I sympathize. But, look, my concern is of copyright infringement.

The article is a play-by-play of Lennon's book, replete with consecutively summarizing the content of individual pages, as well as using multiple photographs, which don't meet the criteria—specifically, the de minimis requirement, and they certainly fail the lower resolution requirement—given on their respective pages. Essentially, the article serves to displace Lennon's book; there is hardly any reason for the layperson's interest after having read the article. For more on this form of copyright infringement, see Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, which concerned an even smaller infraction than the Lennon article.

Honestly, I don't expect to make any headway with you on this, as just a few minutes glancing at the article history, and aimlessly perusing its discussion page and then your own reveals that you are quite hostile to anything that you perceive as criticism, however impersonal and constructive it may be, along with a dubious position on plagiarism, as can be found at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 38#Copyright Infringement. And I'm well aware that you are quite prolific as an editor, and passionate about these articles, with all the accoutrements of a "good" editor, but such is Wikipedia. Your position can be summed up as something like "It's not plagiarism if you don't use the exact words," which is easily counter to any introductory talk one would experience as, say, even a high school freshman in the United States.

Do note that I wouldn't dare claim that this is one such instance of an impersonal criticism, and in fact, I myself would likely be quite riled up were it directed at me. This is merely the state of things. -- reply to andreasegde by C. A. Russell on 21:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I have absolutely no personal stake in the article, only the integrity of our claim that all of this can be distributed under a free content license. -- "PS" by C. A. Russell on 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I knew this was coming, especially after reading other comments on your page."You are quite hostile to anything that you perceive as criticism, however impersonal and constructive it may be". What gives you the right to make such a very personal evaluation of my good self? Do we like playing the Wikipedia psychiatrist in our spare time? Your arrogance is shocking, and you should refrain from personally attacking (for that is what it is) other editors in this manner. You have only been here since January 2008, but talk about "A few years back" on your own page, which makes me wonder if you were previously blocked because of your attitude, which is autocratic and insulting.

Plagiarism: "The unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work." I take it you are saying that I closely imitated the language and thoughts of Cynthia Lennon? This is laughable, because her book is full of the very personal viewpoints of a woman who was born in Liverpool, and was once married to John Lennon. I fail on both counts. A "play-by-play" of Lennon's book? It's an autobiography of her life, for St. Pete's sake, as is the Wikipedia article. Lives are lived that way, but maybe you would disagree.

By citing, "It's not plagiarism if you don't use the exact words," you are putting literally thousands and thousands of articles on the chopping block. Why bother at all if one can buy the book? By your token Wikipedia would look like Amazon.com.

You know (because of your years of experience) that Cynthia Lennon's article hasn't got a hope in Hell of passing a GA review with that tag on it. I suppose the only thing to do is to take this up with an admin, who will give his balanced viewpoint. Que sera, sera...--andreasegde (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have asked admin LessHeard vanU to look at this thorny problem.--andreasegde (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(Copied from my own page)

I think you are confusing a whole range of issues, and are actually striking out in the direction of your own personal version of Wikipedia. This is an Encyclopedia that everyone can contribute to (as you obviously know), which is why Cynthia's article is not mine alone, and never was/will be.
All I can say is that I await the judgement of an admin. If it is deemed that you are right, I will take Cynthia Lennon from the (to be reviewed) GA list.--andreasegde (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply from admin LessHeard vanU (copied from my page):

  • I have been asked to comment upon the above posts [on both pages], in my capacity as an admin. In doing so, I am not commenting upon the Cynthia Lennon article or any particular edits or actions - since that is the function of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (and doesn't need an admin, anyhoo). Since Andreasegde is well known to me, as evidenced by my posting in the section immediately above, I did ask whether he was happy for me to comment regarding application of policy and guidelines by both parties, which he agreed to.
  • Re C. A. Russell's comments: I see no reference or deference to Wikipedia policy or guideline, and especially Wikipedia:Assume good faith, in your comments. You appear to have posted with the assumption that your comments would be dismissed or responded to inappropriately - whatever your expectations, you should have approached the issue in a neutral manner and given an indication that you expected a good faith response. I feel your reading of Andreasegde's talkpage history to be somewhat biased, in that you have obviously missed all those comments which allude to the co-operation and collegiate efforts by the editor in improving very many articles (including GA and FA nominations) but instead referred only to the disputes that also appeared. I will return to the copyright/plagiarism comments specifically later, but would now comment only upon the failure to refer to any WP policy or guideline in your post; you have simply placed your interpretation of how the article might fall foul of your interpretation of these concepts. Per AGF those concerns should be addressed, but it should not be the task of the respondee to determine what WP policy or guideline is not being adhered to.
  • Re Andreasegde's responses: Again, a lack of WP:AGF and neutral tone. Even if another party does not apply the required standards of civility and collegiate discourse, the responses should. Again, similarly, there are no or little references to WP policy in the reply. As soon as a dispute is personalised then there is little scope for there to be a discussion and thus a resolution. Abrasive styles of commentary do not help the encyclopedia.
  • Re possible copyright violations, but especially allegations of plagiarism: I will deal with the latter point first - this is complete rubbish. I am no lawyer, and I am not even much of an content contributor these days, but I am familiar enough with the concept of plagiarism to dismiss the accusation. Plagiarism is the use of other peoples material and passing it of as one's own. By the complaint that much of the information is cited to one source, then it is clear that nothing is being presented as the original work (which is contrary to WP idealogy anyway) of the editor Andreasegde. You can quote any legal precept you like, as soon as someone denotes they are quoting or summarising from a third party source (and link to same!) then it is not plagiarism. As for copyright violation, I will comment that the last GA reviewer showed no major concern with the article in this respect. Again, since this is an encyclopedia which uses cited third party references and sources, and disallows original research, there is going to be a considerable similarity between what a source says and what the article says; that is pretty much the intention and purpose of the project. Limited use of direct quotation is permissible, especially in regard to what people are recorded as saying, and otherwise the source is going to dictate the manner in which it is reported - otherwise would be to misrepresent the source. If there are concerns regarding possible copyright violation, then there are processes by which it can be determined if they are legitimate. It is disappointing that neither party appear to be inclined to avail themselves of them.
  • To conclude; I find the specifics of C. A. Russell's concerns to be either invalid or disproportionate. I consider the editor to be unfamiliar with the Wikipedia ethos, and of its policies and guidelines. I feel that their initial and subsequent posts to this page were lacking in good faith and collegiate tone. I feel that Andreasegde also failed to apply good faith, or conduct themselves in a collegiate manner - and that in being a long term contributor, with a good knowledge of the environment, that this is an unfortunately recurring aspect of their interactions when faced with commentary that might be regarded as ill considered or incorrect. Whether or not the template should be removed from the article, and whether concerns do require review and discussion by third parties or the two editors is a matter for them to decide upon - but hopefully with a great deal more good faith and reference to policy and guideline than has been the case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Some comments regarding those by LessHeard vanU: It appears that the brashness of my comments has tainted your evaluation of their contents.

In your own comment, you speculate that I've "obviously" neglected to consider any comment which frame andreasegde in a pleasing light. This can be plainly seen to be untrue. (See "accoutrements".) In particular, I was referring to exchanges similar to andreasegde's now archived responses to a bewildered Jezhotwheels and andreasegde's ensuing aggression when he felt that user threatened the GA status of the Lennon article.

You've noted that I failed to refer to any Wikipedia policy or guidelines. This is true; I—perhaps mistakenly—assumed that context indicated that the relevant policy is Wikipedia:Copyrights. Wikipedia policy is to yield to United States copyright law. In this regard, I was clear: the images used on the Cynthia Lennon page fail to minimize unnecessary usage in both frequency and resolution. Text on the images' pages advertises compliance with the latter point, despite the fact that they quite clearly do not. Additionally, the policy requiring compliance in these aspects can be found in the Wikipedia policy requirements for non-free content usage, detailed "minimal usage" and "minimal extent of use".

To address the discussion of plagiarism: I regret using the term, because doing so has derailed the focus of my message, which was one of copyright infringement, and not plagiarism. My initial use of the word was not in error, as it was in an attempt to relate to the topic at hand. However, my second response did nothing to correct the focus, and actually contributed to confusion.

My original concern still stands, that is, one of copyright infringement. The extent to which the Cynthia Lennon article relies on Lennon's book (see "play-by-play") diminishes the market for the book itself. Verbatim copying need not occur, and extensive copying, even non-verbatim, is sufficient grounds for copyright infringement as determined by United States copyright and case law, and so, too, Wikipedia policy. Guidelines dealing with these concerns can be found on the previously given policy page.

Regarding the template and the Good Article certification, it seems I have to repeat again that it is absolutely of no concern to me (see "two shits"), although I will point out the subsequent edit to the Lennon page implying that the result of the comments in this area was a mandate to remove the template, when, in fact, that is not the case:

My only concern is the promise that Wikipedia content is available under the given free content licenses, which is hardly "invalid or disproportionate", and the no-one-else-has-brought-it-up-till-now argument is a poor one indeed. I have no need to fulfill a desire for the use of the template in the article, nor do I have any deeply-held position about the Good Article process or the badges that result from it. I don't care. But the absence of the template and the presence of the Good Article certification don't make the copyright issues go away. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message on my talkpage. I have reviewed your comments, and would take the opportunity to respond. Firstly, the people who review articles for Good Article status (and Featured Article status similarly) are familiar with Wikipedia:Copyright and would raise the matter if they had concerns. It is possible that they may have missed it in this case, but their experience is generally such as to make this unlikely. When added to the editors experience in creating articles around sourced material, it provides a reasonable argument that your interpretation is too strict - not saying it is, only that it is a possibility. As I noted previously, where there is an instance where one source is the only or major reference point it beholds the editor to strongly follow that source in "mannerism", because otherwise would be to potentially misrepresent that source. It is also the case that an article is going to note the most salient parts of its source, since this is where the notability of the subject lies. However, it cannot be held that an article that would perhaps take up six or seven pages of its sources typeface is going to diminish a publication even if it is only some 60 pages - the article is a tenth of its length. The "flavour" of the source cannot be reproduced within such a condensed summarisation. That is, of course, my opinion and it may be wrong. You are welcome to evidence why you think differently. It would be appreciated, also, if you would approach the issue with an equally open mind to being persuaded by discussion. That is, of course, only if you are so minded. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2DBoy logo white-small.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2DBoy logo white-small.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Say hello to Ravpapa, Mr. Russell. :))--andreasegde (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

For a quicker response, you could have linked to User:Ravpapa or given some sort of indicator. I'm not following the Cynthia Lennon article, and given the timing, I thought you were wishing me a happy Hanukkah. -- reply to andreasegde by C. A. Russell on 19:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And a happy new year, too! --Ravpapa (talk) 06:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Net Applications[edit]

I noticed you linked to "Net Applications" in the Mozilla Firefox article. This page does not yet exist in the main name-space but I have started an article on Net Applications in my user-space under the sub-page User:Thorenn/Net Applications. If your interested in contributing I would appreciate your edits and/or feedback on what can be done to make this article a reality in the main name-space; alternatively I am open to the possibility of an article on web analytics firms in general given how prevalent they are in the browser and usage share articles and in news sites that cover internet news. Any feedback on any of this would be greatly appreciated. Thorenn (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Microsoft v. Lindows[edit]

Done... Shimgray | talk | 18:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Mozilla Add-ons[edit]

Thank you for your charming message and quick grasp of the notability guidelines. User numbers is irrelevant if it isn't covered by multiple, reliable sources or similar; furthermore, if you have a problem with the quality of Add-on (Mozilla), can I suggest fixing it? I apologise for the redirect-without-merging, not quite sure what I was thinking at the time, but you might like to consider a) whether the topic is notable and b) whether it would be best placed elsewhere before blindly reverting in the future. At best, it needs to be merged; if this is the case, why not kill two birds with one stone? Merge the article into Add-on (Mozilla), thus improving that article. Ironholds (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Or you could, y'know, just be polite. The article makes no attempt to make notability guidelines, in that the "attempt" is something completely irrelevant. It reminds me of spammy articles, where tag it for deletion as an advertisement and the author comes out with "but I own the copyright!". Yes, they've made a good-faith attempt to save the text. Does that mean the good-faith attempt is worth two pence?
The option you've picked is the worst possible, in that this is an article that shouldn't be there. Can I suggest either a) tagging it with a mergeto template or b) I'll look around for some sort of firefox wikiproject. Option c is, of course, both. Ironholds (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Alice in Chains album chain[edit]

I went ahead and reinstated Jar of Flies to the studio album. The rules that Libs keeps trying to enforce are perfectly clear about excluding live albums and compilation albums from such chains but not so much with EPs as you pointed out. Shaneymike (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Too-short articles[edit]

Hi. Please don't create single-sentence substubs. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the kind note. Since it's clear you're planning to expand these, I'll go ahead and restore them. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

krier[edit]

dont tell someone to fuck off. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.47.2 (talkcontribs) 15:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference[edit]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Binary numeral system in Leibniz article[edit]

Hi C. A. Russell,

You have recently made two changes in Leibniz article, concerning binary numeric system. The first, I fully agree with, since it is an improvement on terminology precision. For the second, I accept that it was "poor prose", as you say, but then I think that the best practice would be to improve it. I am reluctant to do it myself, without previous comment with you as to what do you mean exactly by "misguided at best".Auró (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I will try to answer your two questions, as I see it.
  • Computers make calculations in base two system mathematics, and to do it they use the technology that is based in two different states, either there is signal (1) or there is no signal (0). If the base two system had not existed, computers would not exist.
  • In connection to binary system, Leibniz work was almost exclusively related to the mathematics, not to the technology. For instance, his "stepped reckoner" was a calculating machine that worked in base 10.
So, I think that it is fair and safe to say that Leibniz work and interest in base two numerical system was consequential for the ulterior development of computer science.
My statements about Leibniz are based in information contained in Wikipedia, since I have not read Leibniz mathematical works.
The history of base two numeral system, to my knowledge, is not covered in Wikipedia. :Therefore, I do not know if other mathematicians, previous (not likely) or ulterior (more likely) to Leibniz were more or less instrumental than he was.Auró (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

RE: Golden Plates.[edit]

Please refer to discussion I have opened regarding this case. I am hoping to avoid (another) edit war over this. This was very clearly discussed years ago, over a span of months, so I would really require an explanation why you wish to dismiss this discussion. Thank you for your time. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Please refer, again, to discussion regarding this topic. With this page being a hot button, I try purposefully to avoid edit wars. When I asked you to engage in discussion, you did not. That sentence was added to please those who wanted a statement that explicitly states the plates existence is up for question and cannot be verified. Various, maybe dozens, of Mormon apologetics signed off on this sentence and changing it without discussion is going to cause people to re-add it, which only will lead to an edit war. I am hoping my explanation of this now also helps avoid an edit war. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Sortable tables and sort keys[edit]

Hi Colby, I see that you are currently normalizing the unit prefixes in Comparison of memory cards in order to improve sortability. While sortability is desireable, I don't think, it is particularly helpful for readers to learn that they can store up to 134217728 TiB on a card, where 128 PiB was used previously. Fortunately, it is possible to achieve both goals, readability and sortability, at the same time using sort keys. See: Help:Sorting#Specifying_a_sort_key_for_a_cell. Greetings. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Matthias. Thanks for the message. (A quibble: 128 PiB is 134217728 GiB, not TiB.)
I originally planned to fix up the values to include the "human-readable" form in parentheses, but I got distracted shortly after my last edit. data-sort-value is neat though, so I just did the same thing, but backwards, in edit 613612383. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your work, looks great. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited .NET Framework, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grey area. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)