User talk:Mrand

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

Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

Hello Mrand, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Here are some tips:

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. There are also the help pages for self-help and the village pump and IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance. You should also feel free to ask me on my Talk page.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes(~~~~) produces your name and the current date. Please do not add this signature to encyclopedia articles you may edit, however, even if you have created them. Wikipedia articles are owned by the community, not by any one person. Again, welcome! —WAvegetarianTALKCONTRIBSEMAIL 18:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


Hi Mrand,

I love that all the FPGA/Xilinx stuff is still on your talk page. Haven't so much as glanced at those pages in ages.

A long time ago, when I was revamping those Wikis you left a note on my talk page saying I can always ping you for help.

I'm writing a draft Wiki on a company called GenArts. Sells the special effects plugins used for just about every major movie. It's incredible how excited people are online about these plugins, so I'm really surprised some fanboy hasn't already made them a page. Large notable company, been around 20 years or so.

Anyways, I can't get the categories to work on the draft Wiki. I know these categories exist, but I just get broken links. The draft is on my page and here's the code:

I feel like an idiot. What am I missing?

King4057 (talk)

Howdy again. Looks like rather than "founded in 1996", you want "established in 1996". Same for technology companies: "Technology companies of the United_States". On the "Visual_effects_companies", you're really close... but it looks like it is case sensitive. Have fun, Marc
Thanks so much!! Weird. I thought I copied/pasted them directly from the category listing.

King4057 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC).

FPGA - Major Changes[edit]

Hi Mrand,

Thanks for your help on Wiki in general and on the Xilinx and FPGA Wikis.

I'm sure you have the pages on Watch, but I did want to make sure you saw the new [FPGA] Wiki. I had also started a discussion called "Major Changes" soliciting for feedback, but I'm starting to wonder if I posted it correctly (I don't see it on the page right now).

King4057 (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC);


Hi again. I just noticed your testing. While it is fine for you to do this on your talk page, it does tend to clutter up the history. You can do testing in the Wikipedia:Sandbox; that's what it's there for. You can also do testing in your own personal sandbox. If you ever want to create subpages of your user page just make a page at User:Mrand/Page_name. —WAvegetarianCONTRIBUTIONSTALK EMAIL 01:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder! Mrand 02:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Fast Ethernet and various 100BASE-* standards[edit]

Should the various 100BASE-* pages be folded into the Fast Ethernet page, the same way you folded the various 1000BASE-* pages into the Gigabit Ethernet page? Guy Harris 02:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I believe so. Having little tid-bit details spread across many tiny articles doesn't make sense to me. However, I don't know that I'll have time to do the folding, so please feel free. Mrand 14:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ethernet over SDH[edit]

While you're working on it, I recommended merging Ethernet over SONET... — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 03:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


Can you explain why you removed NI LabVIEW from the list of third-party tool suppliers on the FPGA page? Your comments said that NI is not directly FPGA related. However, like many of the other vendors on the list, NI provides both programming tools and COTS FPGA-based hardware platforms. LabVIEW FPGA works by translating graphical G code to VHDL and then automatically compiles to a bitstream using the Xilinx ISE. Also, HDL code can be used within LabVIEW FPGA using a special node. NI offers plug-in boards for PCI/PXI/CompactPCI and also a FPGA-based ruggeddized embedded system called CompactRIO. This technology opens FPGA design to novice programmers with little or no hardware design experience-- only a basic knowledge of LabVIEW is required. --AustinLiveOak 02:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Howdy... thanks for your note. I misunderstood what you were describing in the addition: when I read "a high level graphical programming language for off-the-shelf FPGA-based embedded systems", I mistakenly misinterpreted that it was for TESTING off-the-shelf FPGA-based embedded systems... i.e., the classic LabView test environment. After your detailed description and reviewing the NI website, I agree that NI definitely provides FPGA specific items. A different matter is that of listing commercial links in the article. For now, the consensus for this page seems to be to list them, so I've added the NI entry back. At some point in the future though, I suspect the list will get too large and will have to be removed. Thanks again for the civil note. I've added back an entry based upon yours. Mrand 13:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks. --AustinLiveOak 15:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing unsourced statements[edit]

It seems to me that the style of editing changes from article to article. What I mean is that some editors allow statements to stay without proper sources, but tag them as such for other editors to hunt them down and some editors simply remove them instead of tagging them. Both ways are fine, but I thought the Corvette article was one in which we tag instead of just remove. Your last edit has shown me it's the latter and, therefore, I'm going to just start removing unsourced statements from the article. Just thought I'd give you a little heads-up so you understand my edits. Roguegeek (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Howdy - Tagging is fine with me. I was really just pointing out that the cite that was included in that link did not make any mention of "and have many publishers speculating that there may not be a higher performance C6 in development", nor have I heard or read that from anywhere else. Mrand 15:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

MA Userbox[edit]

Today, there was a merger of Category:Martial Artist Wikipedians into Category:Wikipedian martial artists. This resulted in a userbox {{User:TonyTheTiger/Userboxes/Martialartist}} being added to the category. This userbox is available to you. TonyTheTiger 21:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Aikido has been submitted to FAC. Lets take it that final mile.Peter Rehse 02:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Links removal from Field-programmable gate array‎ article.[edit]

Dear Mrand. I agree that Wikipedia is not a link farm, but I think that the links to the relevant software tools were useful without adding unnecessary visual information to the article. Now a visitor will have to perform a search to reach each tool's web page. I just do not understand the harm in these links. Respectfully Michagal 16:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

I agree that the lists can be useful, but lists of links have to be maintained. We can see what opinions others have on this topic on the FPGA talk page... Have fun, Mrand 16:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


I started an AfD for Vertex4. I think, if the creator disputes the prod, that's the better way to handle the situation than simply adding the prod back. —David Eppstein 15:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I'll watch it there. Mrand 22:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi I just resubmitted the Aikido article for Featured article status. Hopefully we can get over the hump this time.Peter Rehse 09:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Contradict flag on Qi[edit]

I suppose so, the original editor has allowed it to be taken down from aikido, but there haven't been any significant changes. Feel free to take it down. Bradford44 14:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

about the william L. Whittaker article[edit]

sorry, my bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

NoMoreLinks template[edit]

Coyedit from my page: "Howdy Bzuk, I agree that I wouldn't have written it in quite that tone, but the nomorelinks template has been discussed and is generally accepted: see TfD:NoMoreLinks. Of course, that isn't to say that it couldn't be improved (and shrunk!). I'll see what I can do.—Mrand T-C 14:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)"

Thanks for the clarification, I thought it might be a "home made" version but even if it is the standard "tag," I agree that it could be written in a bit less aggressive fashion. Take care. Bzuk 14:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvin Perry[edit]

Well said. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete AfD[edit]

Hi. You forget to create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madelyne Woods, where a rationale for deletion is supposed to be provided. Tizio 11:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


I know what you mean. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleting important information[edit]

Why was the information I placed on the site deleted - and then the article locked??

The 'Renewable Energy in Scotland Inquiry', compiled by the Scottish Parliament, was one of the most detailed and important studies into wind power. Yet every time I put so much as a snippet of this report on the site, it is deleted. Tell me - is this for eco-political reasons?

The Scottish report concluded that:

When a wind power station is connected to the grid a similar conventional capacity must be maintained as spinning reserve to cover the uncontrolled intermittency. The presence of an increasing number of distributed intermittent and unreliable micro-generators to replace more secure forms of generation leads to grid instability.[1]

Wind energy will always be a secondary, intermittent, unreliable energy source and can never satisfy a base load demand. (Wind energy) is a profligate waste of our most precious resource - wild land.[2]

This is a good honest report into the benefits and pitfalls of of wind power, and if this report does not deserve to be on this Wikki page then nothing does.

In addition, my section on grid storage was also deleted. As it stands, the information given makes it look to readers as though there are storage mediums available that could store enough energy to cover for a few windless days. This is utter nonsense, and so this Wikki page is giving a dangerously biased view of wind power. Is this Wikki's directive - to give out biased information to conform to some eco-political viewpoint? This page needs to add something like the following, in order to balance the information given.


The problem that all grid energy storage systems face, is that wind-power generation system can go off-line for prolonged periods. For example, meteorological reports for Newport Rhode Island, a typical coastal site favoured for wind generation, show that in the month of September 2006 the wind rarely got above 4 kts (5 mph),[3] whereas a typical wind generator requires at least 15 kts (8m/s or 18 mph) to start generating significant amounts of power.[4] This means that significant amounts of energy need to be stored to cover these outages, which none of the methods cited above can fulfil. At present, pumped water storage systems have the greatest energy capacity, and the Dinorwig is the largest example of this technology in the UK; but about 140 Dinorwig-sized plants would be required to fulfull Britain's energy requirements for just two days. See grid energy storage systems for further details.

End quote.

Narwhal-tooth (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

NOR in Wind power article[edit]

I found your NOR removal policy very harsh in the Wind power article. I looked up the old version to check out the passage you deleted and it seems that whoever wrote it had made an effort to include references. Writing in a neutral fashion is not a natural skill and I feel that one should not simply remove original research. At the most, that passage could have been trimmed down to include the facts, especially considering that the point being made is indeed a well known problem. I'll try adding a trimed down version of the passage. Let me know what you think. Ga2re2t (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the fair tone of your inquiry. The main reason I felt justified in removing that paragraph completely was exactly the same as what Wtshymanski later points out in his editing: the article is full of references to that very topic. Also, I thought that most of that data is already contained where it really belongs: in the grid storage article. I hope that makes my edits more clear! If you feel something is missing and can be added in a concise manner (the article is already too long), please feel free - I have no agenda for or against any of the topics in the article. Best regards —Mrand T-C 04:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not editing by Mrand, it appears to be the imposition of a Wikki eco-policy. Mrand has reduced my item on the Energy in Scotland Inquiry to: "the Energy in Scotland Inquiry noted the intermittent nature of wind power"

No they did not - they condemned the entire industry - they said that wind power was 'a waste of space'. Is this what Mrand wants to cover up?[1]

Likewise, he has reduced the summary on 'grid storage' to only items which suggest that grid storage is a viable system for storing energy to cover for windless days, which it cannot do. Again the summary on this page is far from balanced. Either Wikki is neutral, in which case it presents both sides of the argument, or it has a political agenda. Which is it?Narwhal-tooth (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel others have responded to and addressed this topic acceptably here: Talk:Wind_power. If you have a specific question for me, please let me know. —Mrand T-C 14:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Rosa Parks Peace Prize[edit]

Hi. I saw you tagged Rosa Parks Peace Prize for speedy deletion. I never saw the page you tagged so I'm not quibbling even a little! Still, I'm curious because the article on Rosa Parks mentions this prize but it's staggeringly undocumented. (Plenty of mentions that she received it, but nothing obvious about who awarded it etc.)

Did the article you tagged for deletion say anything useful in respect of this? Thanks. Nick Levine (talk) 10:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the article was a hate page. You can see a few words of it by going attempting to edit the page and looking at the deletion log.—Mrand T-C 14:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


Hello, Mrand ... I ran across the comment you left on Template talk:Nn-warn back in July, and I have replied there ... Happy Editing! — (talk · contribs) 16:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)



Thanks for making the corrections on the City of Phoenix section on the MUTCD page. It seems to flow better.

Thanks again,

Midnight XII (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wind Power[edit]

You're quite right, the Wind power article had grown in the last year without adding any really useful information. I'm still going to whack away at it over the coming few days. I strongly suspect it should be around 64k, down from the 109 K it had ballooned to over the last 12 months. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for your help with removing the TV links. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome - glad to see that it got caught before it got really out of hand!—Mrand T-C 00:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson[edit]

Hey i havent altered your edit to Michael Jackson because I like most of it, but now there is NO mention of Thriller in the lead, that really needs to be there, would you rectify this please. YoursRealist2 (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a few words would seem to be appropriate... I added it. —Mrand T-C 17:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 :-) Realist2 (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage; keep up the good work! --Farosdaughter (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Same to you!—Mrand T-C 22:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message![edit]

Thanks so much for the message! I really get exited when people look at my page. I was very interested in the akido article. I love to read about martial arts and was very exited that a martial arts article was featured. I encouage you to take part in some disscussions on my talk page! I really like to discuss things with other people on the net!Historybuffc13 (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, someone else has this?[edit]

you know, I just discovered I have a talk page really, much more that others did. As you can tell I just kinda flow in and out of articles.

The reason I was cursing, and insulting, and doing as I do, in the Corvette page is because I am tired of the misuse of Wikipedia. huh, I guess you could say I am a militant Wikipedian.

I hold this personal motto: "Society should not operate at the level of its lowest common denominators." When I see those people running roughshod all over human intelligence and sanity, I tend to lose a bit of that last one.

Also, I am a member of the Cult of Jeremy Clarkson, and stating it as it is is sort of what we do. Yah.Scryer_360 (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


Before you go to a lot of trouble adding macrons to names like Tokyo (c.f. Kenji Shimizu), please note that the MOS recommends not macronizing certain words, including Tokyo, essentially because they are well-established in foreign languages without the diacritics (I believe aikido would fall into this category as well). Please check this link, under number 9. Thanks for editing aikido articles. I feel like I'm working alone lately :-) Djiann (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out - I hadn't had a chance to look it up myself. I copy and pasted it within that one article from one instance to another so that the article would be consistent, but had no plans on doing it elsewhere. Be sure to pipe in on the "uke vs. attacker" terminology discussion on the aikido talk page if you get a chance.—Mrand TalkC 11:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the invite, but that sort of argument is exactly why I avoid the Aikido article at all costs :-) Djiann (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

GM Vortec engine[edit]

Hi. You recently reverted my edits of ft-lb/ft-lbf. Please don't change these back. I know that the templates say ft-lbf, however this is incorrect. The accepted forms are either ft-lb or lb-ft. If you take issue with this, please let me know. I'll refrain from changing anything until I hear back from you.--Flash176 (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Howdy - thanks for discussing before reverting. The problem that you are changing the input to the template - which expects ft-lbf. If you'll go back and look at the rendered version of your edit, you'll see a red-link (i.e., missing template). What you really want is to change the output of the template - if you really are interested in gaining consensus for changing it, you would need to take it up with the template maintainers. Best regards!—Mrand TalkC 16:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

FPGA Inventor...[edit]

Mrand: whoever put the Xilinx founder down as the inventor as the creator of the FPGA was highly misinformed and failed to do their due diligence. Ross Freeman references the Petterson/Page patent's in all of his patent's and their work predates his by a minimum of five years. In fact all FPGA design patents reference the foundational work. There are two patents by Peterson/Page done at this time, one for shift programmable and one for Ram programmable. Where Freeman expanded the number of gates at the programmable node the single gate approach shown in these first patents clearly show that the design for field programmable logic( or re programmable logic) was patented and in use years before Freeman made his marketing claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mrand and unsigned user,

I'm not familiar with the Petterson/Page patents mentioned above, but my understanding is that Xilinx invented the first commercially viable FPGA. They founded the industry/market and were the first to make money with FPGAs, but some form of FPGAs existed prior in labs or some such.

Therefore, I added the phrase "commercially viable" to the FPGA Wiki in the sentence in question.

On that note, the history section of the FPGA Wiki seems to start with Xilinx's first product and if there are notable patents that pre-date Xilinx, I think it's an important historical note.

I'll do some research; if the patents are notable and references are readily available, I'd like to add some info to the FPGA Wiki. Mrand, since you've been around the block a few times than I, especially in the FPGA Wiki specifically - if you know of any reason not to include these patents, it could save me a lot of time ;-)

Appreciate your oversight of the Xilinx Wiki btw. Your edits all make sense and it looks like you've been watching out for the Wiki for a long time.

-King4057 —Preceding unsigned comment added by King4057 (talkcontribs) 02:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Aikido housecleaning[edit]

Right, and it can be hard to keep an open mind about new additions when I've been gone for months and months (I started a new job that has been keeping me very busy) and I had previously worked hard to get articles to feel "just right." It's easy to feel like different=worse, but of course that's not necessarily the case. There were many other changes to the aikido article that I wasn't thrilled with, but can't justify changing back just because I liked it better "my way." Bradford44 (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


I know you've final-warned this user already. They've continued their attacks so do with them as you will (Cluebot already got the vandalism). padillaH (review me)(help me) 17:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I final warned because of the vandalism that cluebot fixed. Let's hope they stop. —Mrand TalkC 17:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


Your recent edit removed the template {{dubious}} from the page Phrogram, even though the required changes have not been made. Please be careful not to remove any maintenance templates from articles before the issue is satisfactorily resolved. If you disagree with it or you are not sure if any more work needs to be done, discuss the issue on the relevant talk page and allow time for a consensus to be reached before you remove the notice. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page. -- Smjg (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. What exactly is "the required change?" I didn't disagree with the note, and I wasn't unsure about the note (not to mention that I don't think {{dubious}} is the correct thing to use in this situation). Their website lists it as it is listed in the article. If they used it a different way previously and there is some reason that you think it is really that important, we can mention that in the article as well. —Mrand TalkC 17:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

2nd AfD nomination of Michael Q. Schmidt[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Michael Q. Schmidt, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Q. Schmidt (2nd nomination). Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

ZR1 times[edit]

Let's try and avoid an edit war here. Go to Talk:Nürburgring lap times‎ and discuss the problem you have with the info. You are removing info that you find dubious. This wouldn't be a problem with Wikipedia policy if the info didn't have cited sources. The problem is it does have cited sources. Removing cited statements is a problem and admins (if brought into this) would definitely not rule in your favor here. Have you also looked into tagging statements with a proper tag instead of a blanket revert? In any case, please try to stay constructive. roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Tenshin Shōden Katori Shintō-ryū[edit]

A link to the British or American national org I would, get but dojo link lists just get longer... glad you agree. --Nate1481 17:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk: Aikido[edit]

Sadly, I think "Ron" believes me to have some form of authority or sway that I - quite simply - lack. I don't know much about the art, and thus can't cite credible sources for his statements; this is probably met with frustration and a willingness to assume malice on my behalf. The plain and simple truth is that I'm just not that interested in Aikido; even if I was, I doubt I'd have the kind of time to research citations to back his statements for him. It's frustrating to me quite simply because I don't want to see another Featured Article lose its status over instability brought on by ambiguous statements. I'll probably post this to his Talk page to get some idea where he stands on core policies before seeing where this discussion will end up.

Orethrius (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your succinct response on my talkpage. Perhaps I *am* a bit too close to the issue, but I wish to inform you of my personal experience with academic endeavors. Personally, I have been involved in a number of projects where controversy tends to lambaste even innocent bystanders, and I find it difficult to WP:AGF when I perceive another as willing to both insert their own content and assume bad faith on the part of others that are unwilling to research their statements for them. It is this fundamental problem that I have with what "Ron" is attempting to do on Aikido; if he wishes to insert the information on the page, he should provide appropriate citations or simply leave it be. Upon close inspection of the parties involved, it is my firm belief that you have things well in-hand, and that I would be best served by either researching the matter further or simply leaving the subject alone to be handled by parties more familiar with the subject (in this case, you and other interested editors). As my own time is rather limited, and I feel I've already spent too much time on a passing interest, I leave this article in your capable hands. I trust that you'll do what you feel is best. :) Orethrius (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


Hello- I'm reconstructing C1-C6 articles with new text and images. Started Chevrolet Corvette C1. How does it look so far? Text in first two sections transferred from Chevrolet Corvette as per discussion. The rest is all new text. Will make lead section larger; also will add a gallery (for C1-C6 articles) not to crowd text. Happy Holidays. (Vegavairbob (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC))

Howdy again. The C1 article looks great. Super use of references. After seeing the history section being moved over there, I'm torn about more of it not being in the Corvette article. I suppose it is best to leave it as is for now, and then decide after the revamp. BTW, Did you know that you can re-use references? On the first one, you name the reference, like: <ref name="CAGS"> , and then you can reuse that name [5]. Keep up the good work! —Mrand TalkC 17:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello There are over 2k hits per day on the Corvette article and only 200-300 hits each on the C1-C6 articles. It's a good idea to keep the Chevrolet Corvette with enough info about each generations as that's the article that gets the attention regardless of the links provided for the main articles on each generation.(Vegavairbob (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC))
Howdy! I'm all for keeping a few items of neat/unique stuff per model year, but to be perfectly honest, most of the sections are still burdened with far too many details. I think the C1 and C2 sections look pretty good - thanks for that! C5 looks good too. I believe that other sections, especially C3 and C4, are burdened with way too many details. For example, the C3 "summary" has three full paragraphs which detail a huge number of engine variations. I'll take a stab at it shortly... thanks again for your hard work! —Mrand TalkC 03:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The Editors of Consumer reports publish the most books on the History of Chevrolet (Chevrolet Chronicle), Corvettes (many including the 50th Anniversary of Corvette), Cars of the 50s, Cars of the 60s, Cars of the 70s (also in magazine form) They use mostly archive factory images and I haven't found any historical errors in the text compared to other books. Also all the text and images in the auto articles in the "How stuff works" site is directy taken from these mentioned publications.Vegavairbob (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Newspaper vs. Encyclopedia[edit]

Hello, I hope you don't mind helping with a couple questions - I found your user page after your contribution on Talk:GM LT engine.

You indicate on your user page that Wikipedia should be thought of as a newspaper where all articles are rife with online references. My understanding is that it was supposed to be more like an encyclopedia where articles are researched and written by well-educated, well-informed content experts. I ran into this editing the GM N platform article - there are tons of stuff (ex. HP and torque figures) that don't have references. Maybe the reference doesn't exist? Maybe it is on a copyrighted document that can't be posted? How does that work. Additionally, some editors have specialized knowledge (see "content experts" above) that does not exist anywhere. For an example take a look at the talk page of the N platform article. This "content expertise" may not exist anywhere referenceable on the internet. How does that work?

Not tooting my own horn here - I am only a jack.

Similarly I found what I considered to be bias on a few other (albeit more controversial) articles. I suggested some changes and found myself attacked by editors which came across as technical folks with a definite bias against the article. These editors were not "content experts" but rather (no disrespect meant) wiki geeks defending their opinions. What gives there? I was completely outnumbered - the article had no experts to come to my defense - so I abandoned the effort.

Thanks for posting your tenants on your user page.

Thanks in advance for your time and advice.Toneron2 (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Howdy, and thanks for asking. In a perfect world, all those HP and torque values would be backed up by one or more references at the bottom of the article - after all, all manufacturers publish that info. We probably wouldn't need to have a <ref> next to every value... instead the source would be simply listed at the bottom, perhaps with a note that it was the source of those values. But the reality of the matter is that it's a lot Said another way, my understanding is that any editor should be able to add a Template:Citation_needed to nearly anything. Of course, that should be tempered with the fact that, as you kind of imply, there is much knowledge in the world that we can't easily provide references to, and if citation_needed were added to every instance, the article would be useless.
I could probably clean up the statement you mention ("Wikipedia need to be approached as if they were well researched items for a major nation-wide newspaper. They need to be objectively written and they need to summarize EXISTING reputable published sources.") some. I made it up on the fly when I was trying to explain more about objective reporting (hence the newspaper article) than on sources. Have fun, —Mrand TalkC 23:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Wiki needs support![edit]

Hello, I own a wiki called [2] (Automobile Wiki)a wiki about cars. I know you are a car enthusiast and I am hoping you can help by editing or creating some of our articles. thanks! --Amerq (talk) 10:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

October 2012[edit]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Aikido, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. SudoGhost 23:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of what minor edits are, but thanks for the reminder. I'm in the habit of marking reversions as minor, and it simply skipped my mind that I shouldn't tick the flag when there are still questions about it. —Mrand TalkC 23:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

General Motors Generation 5 (LT) engine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ecotec3
General Motors Small Block Gen 5 Engine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ecotec3

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Floyd Mayweather[edit]

You need to edit his wins from 48 back to 47 since he lost his welterweight title Jahdarlin (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I am most certainly not an expert, but the brief reading I've done doesn't imply that his win count goes down. He wasn't stripped of the win, only stripped of the title (because he didn't pay the fee, and can't hold this title and the other at the same time). —Mrand TalkC 19:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Mrand. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Mrand. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ [3]
  2. ^ [4]
  3. ^ Rhode Island weather report.
  4. ^ Wind turbine specifications.
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference CAGS was invoked but never defined (see the help page).