User talk:voidxor

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

Amusement rides[edit]

Are you OK with this? 86.144.117.148 (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Seems immature of them, and a violation of WP:AGF. – voidxor 22:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

User talk:78.147.5.140[edit]

Re: User talk:78.147.5.140. Not me, guv. You got the wrong person. I didn't make any changes to Glossary of United Kingdom Railway Terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.5.140 (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I left that message for your IP address, not a person. Somebody at your IP address made changes to that article. As I said, "If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices." Thanks. – voidxor 22:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

V set[edit]

Hello,

I wish to clarify the meaning of the edit I recently made to the Australian glossary of rail terms. While "V set" is the accurate and official name of the NSW TrainLink V set intercity train fleet, I didn't see why it should be there if other set names (e.g. A/B set for Waratah trains, M set for Millenniums, T set for Tangaras, C sets, K sets, S sets, etc.) Besides, it is only a designation representing a type of train. Those train's common names (e.g. Waratah, Millennium, Tangara, Red Rattler, etc.) I have already added. If those were to be included, so would a lot of other technical terms and that isn't really needed. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Offset printing[edit]

Hello Voidxor,

thank you for checking my work. I saw you reverted my changes in "See also" links. Please, consider that the referred "Media Standard Print" is a worldwide applied standard, its download is free of charge (the only one in English language), and it is provided by a non-profit organization. This organization, bvdm, is one of the founding members of the ISO Technical Committee 130 "Graphic Technology" where are developed all standards for offset printing and other printing technologies. There is no reason for your advise "WP:ADVERT". Greetings, Smokeonthewater (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Smokeonthewater: Just because the publication's free doesn't mean you're not trying to promote it. The Media Standard Print article reads like an advertisement, and I tagged it as such. And (speaking from 13 years of experience editing Wikipedia) see-also sections in articles about a broad topic (such as offset printing) typically don't link to articles about publications that cover said topic. – voidxor 04:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Advertisement for what? There are no financial interests behind. This standard is an intelligible recommendation for a worldwide smooth cooperation in the printing industry resp. between creatives and print service providers. It is a collection and interpretation of ISO standards, tables and figures, target values and tolerances as well as well known tools to measure them. There you can read nothing but facts and hints. It is simply a help for free, not advertisement. The independent and non-profit International Color Consortium based in Reston, VA (USA) appreciates this help and lists the permalink to this standard here: http://www.color.org/info_profiles2.xalter. The logos at page 2 are logos of non-profit organisations, Fogra is an independent research institute. In the German Wikipedia they understand the scope of this article and publication. You mentioned your experience editing Wikipedia? Then please respect the expertise of such articles. By the way, I am here since 2009. And it's not a new problem that Wiki articles are misinterpeted and misvalued. Smokeonthewater (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Further arguments for a better comprehension: There is a fee-based publication "Process Standard Offset" from the same organisation (bvdm). It is a de-facto standard in the European printing industry. But I did not linked it because that would have been advertisement. Instead I linked to the free of charge Media Standard Print. This publication purposes the same objectives like Wikipedia: to provide knowledge for free. Please, reconsider your positions. Smokeonthewater (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Smokeonthewater: Again, financial motive is not a prerequisite of advertising. You are clearly using Wikipedia to promote something, even if not for financial gain. In fact, you keep returning to my user page to go on and on about how great it is! Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. This is not "[my] position", but rather an established content policy. Each language of Wikipedia has different policies, which is why I referenced my experience on the English Wikipedia. You have only been here since 2012, and only made 41 edits (10% of which have been on my talk page). If you disagree with my interpretation or application of the policy, the correct course of action would be to start a topic on the article's talk page to let other editors weigh in. – voidxor 18:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The Media Standard Print (English version) is in worldwide use since 2006, without any promotion in Wikipedia. The 2016 and 2018 editions were the reason to write resp. update the Wiki article. Of course, that may be seen as promotion. But is the worldwide use not a criterium to mirror it in Wikipedia? Smokeonthewater (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Smokeonthewater: You keep missing my points (choosing instead to focus on why this subject deserves coverage). Firstly, the Media Standard Print article reads like an advertisement, not an encyclopedia article. It sounds like you are trying to promote something (regardless of financial motives). Secondly, it is a minor subject compared to the much more broad topic of offset printing. It is so minor in comparison, I don't believe it deserves mention in the See Also section. That would be like Computer linking to PC Magazine in the See Also section. – voidxor 19:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Nice catch![edit]

Hi there! Nice work! One thing I get totally flustered by is the inline citations or references. When I look at the code people use for that, I give up. If you have any time to spare, if you could consider converting the external hyperlinks in that article to references? It is tagged as having no external sources because I struggle to use references. I also see your point concerning the revert of the link to the fire barrier page on the NERC page. Another good catch on your part. One item, which I thought I would ask your advice about: When referring to public domain standards, such as those of ASTM, UL, ULC, NFPA, there is a limit to how much one can put inside an article without violating copyright. So I paraphrase in order to make my points without causing a problem. I sit on a bunch of those committees as well. But then people tag content saying it is unreferenced, which is not true. But to find out one would have to either be on the committee, where one gets the standard for free, or a UL customer, where one gets those standards for free, even without being a member of one of their STP committees, or buy the standard. But is that considered too much trouble as a reference? Is it the expectation that the only acceptable reference is one where the content can be had for free with zero effort? Mind you, nothing prevents anybody from joining such committees, and then they would get that for free. But it takes EFFORT. I got criticised here by someone who clearly did not trouble himself to even look anything up and cannot answer the simplest question on the topic but just tagged, too detailed and unreferenced, but was unwilling to expend the remotest effort to check into the matter. I figure that if it is a public domain standard, ANYBODY can look it up. It does not take secret society membership or superior breeding. In fact, membership is typically encouraged. I would love to see some more members of the general public take an interest and join ASTM and take part in meetings, rather than just special interest groups. Not every scrap of information out there is free by mouseclick… Maybe it's a Millennial thing, I don't know. What do you think? Best regards,--Achim Hering (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Achim Hering: Thank you for the kind words! Yes, the syntax for citations is a bit daunting at first. Until you get comfortable with it, I would recommend using the RefToolbar, which is an easy way to format references automatically using the toolbar at the top of the edit window.
Copyright laws are complicated. Most industry standards (ASTM, UL, NFPA, etc.) do have copyrights, though. You cannot copy copyrighted text to Wikipedia verbatim, but you can paraphrase as much as you like. Just remember to cite your sources.
Wikipedia is a tertiary source. So even if a standards committee reference a primary source, we (as a tertiary source) need to reference the standard (as a secondary source). That's why other editors are tagging the article as needing citations; you need to cite sources as you write content on Wikipedia. You can't just go off what's in your head because that's not verifiable.
Yes, you can reference standards and books that cost money. There is no expectation that the source be free.
I agree that the article is poorly cited and far too detailed for a high-level encyclopedia, based on the linked Wikipedia policies. There is no rule about needing to be an expert on a subject in order to edit or tag an article. Wikipedia is a volunteer project and we are expected to work together to improve it. I think your best bet it to spend some time adding as many citations as you can. Ideally, every sentence should have a citation. – voidxor 22:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks bro. I see your point. However, in this regard, I believe that one should actually have read the referenced documents before tagging. If you haven't read that, and have zero experience in the realm, then the only way out is to call it a name and cite Wikipedia regulations. and for that, there is support in spades around here. But I do appreciate your input and will endeavour to figure out the inline citations. Best regards, --Achim Hering (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you know how to do re-directs? I would like to fix it so that searches for "transformer firewalls", "transformer fire wall", "transformer ballistic firewalls", transformer ballistic fire wall" and "transformer blast walls" default to this page. I'm up to 24 inline citations by now... --Achim Hering (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

We're up to 35 inline citations. Is the Pope now Catholic enough for the reference tag to go?--Achim Hering (talk) 03:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Achim Hering: Unfortunately, no. Like I said, ideally every sentence should be cited (not that we have to achieve such perfection in order remove the {{More citations needed}} tag). Keep up the good referencing work, but don't forget that the article is also overly detailed. I would remove some of the details, thereby trimming the article to a high-level overview of the topic. Doing that will reduce the amount of referencing work that lay ahead.
See this guide to creating redirects. – voidxor 23:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Please bear in mind that there are reasons for this level of detail. If you immersed yourself in the topic, you would see those.--Achim Hering (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Achim Hering: Please lose the holier-than-thou attitude. I have a master's degree in electrical engineering and work as a substation reliability engineer for an electric utility (not that it matters; there's no requirement to be a subject-matter expert to edit a given article). Myself and other experienced editors keep providing you with constructive criticism (such as the importance of citing), but you keep rejecting much of what we're unanimously telling you. Until now, I have been patiently trying to help you with the nuances of the English Wikipedia. Perhaps try listening instead of acting like you own the article. – voidxor 03:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Voidxor, good luck, this guy has a looong history of believing he does not have to pay attention to WP goals because be believes he is an expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.182.229 (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Would you buy a transformer fire barrier that was not UL or Intertek listed for that purpose? Ever witness an E119 test? Ever witness any ballistics or fragmentation tests? Forget about Wikipedia for a minute.--Achim Hering (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Apologies[edit]

I had no intention of being rude or insulting. Sometimes I let the fundamental absurdity of this project get to me and forget myself. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wtshymanski: Apology accepted, but do keep in mind that the only way we can combat Wikipedia's poor reputation is to better enforce the long-standing verifiability policy. Those of us who tag articles and "lay down the law", if you will, are not the enemy. – voidxor 23:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)