User talk:Dancter/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

789432578947235432

437534895743258937548972957gay47534928727523489gay475234897895478gay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.124.194.34 (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? The original incident was almost a year ago. Let it go, Richboy45. Dancter (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.124.194.34 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 11 March 2009

Fuzzy Pay-Off Method for Real Option Valuation

The method is a brand new (2008-2009) fuzzy extension of the principle used in Datar-Mathews for real option valuation and is pending journal publication (due in June). Presentation of the method & a connected research paper has already been accepted for presentation at the EURO2009 conference. The work preceeding the method spans back >10 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikc75 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. And like with the Lazy User Model, I am asserting that those things are not enough to satisfy the general notability guideline. Dancter (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well if Wikipedia has higher relevance criteria than the IEEE (http://www.ieee.org/portal/site), then I would get the point, however, as I think this is not really the case I don't get the point. In the case of the Lazy User Model in the papers that have been referred to (and one is also linked) the facts have been reviewed by a minimum of four (two*double-blind-peer reviewers) experts on the subject matter, and the text presented on the model is almost direct quotes from the papers that have been reviewed. Given that the whole model is new it is impossible that there would be published books or journal articles on the matter. So if new things is not publishable in the wikipedia, because of the lack of scientific references then I think the policy escapes the point of wikipedia (to be a speedy way of introducing also the newest new interesting content - including research results). The being new-issue also applies to the Fuzzy pay-off model, however, here the model is very closely based on a previous work by Datar&Mathews -> the mathematical foundation is different, possibility theory vs. probability theory, but the "structure" of the method is very similar. I will add references as they come along - there are a number of publications pending on these both methods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikc75 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you reviewed the actual guideline? There is no requirement that there be books or journal articles, but there does have to be some independent coverage. Dancter (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly the point, the four expert reviewers in the case of the lazy are a) expert in the subject matter (peer) and they are independent (blind review). Blind review means that article authors don't know who they are and they don't know who the author of the papers are. They are making their assessment of accept / don't accept (to the conference/book/journal/other) based on the merits & correctness of the presentation (facts etc.) of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikc75 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You didn't have to repeat that the paper was peer-reviewed, throwing in the phrase, "in the case of the lazy" as if I didn't catch it the first time. I thought it would be understood that by "independent coverage", I mean independent published reporting or commentary. The guideline does indicate "published" as a criterion. Whatever the independent reviewers had to say about the paper, it doesn't seem that any of it was actually published. Even it was, based on your description, I don't think "accept / don't accept" qualifies as "significant coverage." Dancter (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well if you care to look at the link that I have provided (and the reference) on the paper that was accepted, presented, and published in/by the HICSS-42 conference in the "independent" Proceedings of the conference, published by the IEEE and that is hosted by (and available on-line in) the IEEE publication database; you can clearly see that the work is actually published. The work is also independently published in the proceedings of the IADIS (International Association for the Development of the Information Society) conference proceedings where the publisher is IADIS. These are not self-published articles, but published by the organizations that have set up the conferences => independent scientific publications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikc75 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess "independent published reporting or commentary" could be read as "independent[ly] published reporting or commentary." Would it have been less ambiguous if I had worded it, "published independent reporting or commentary?" The issue is of authorship. Dancter (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So basically what this means is the following: if I (myself) were to write a www page / feature / blog post or basically whatever, with, e.g., the name Herbert Schlangemann and I would add this to the Wikipedia page of the method it would count as independent[ly] published reporting and would suddenly make the article meet notability criteria, which publishing after an double-blind peer-review in an independently published scientific journal / conference proceedings does not... I guess that's how it is... hell, I don't make the rules, but they sure seem strange to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.248.140.87 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 4 April 2009

If you can manage to pull off a "Herbert Schlangemann", that is one thing, but something posted on the World Wide Web does not automatically pass as a reliable source, regardless of what name it is posted under. This isn't a difficult standard. I don't understand why you keep trying to debate technicalities. Dancter (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Moves vs. Cut and paste

[2] 18:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I get it. You could have just suggested a move instead of cut and paste. Perspectoff (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't cut and paste, and I'm not the one who wants the move. I'm not even sure I agree with such a move. I believed I explained my stance sufficiently through my edit summaries and comments. You were the one who attributed my activities to a pro-Microsoft agenda, and proceeded to edit war. You even went to RfPP without even trying to discuss the issue with me. Dancter (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

SALES

please leave the sales alone unless there is strong evidence to support the new sales! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.28.60 (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Every change I made was cited. You are performing original research with poor methodology. You can't take a figure from one time and subtract a figure for a different time and slap on the newer datestamp as if it's a certified figure for that date. If readers wants to try and estimate the sales in Europe without the UK, they can do the math themselves. Dancter (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Wii Sports Resort. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I should've explained it in my edit summary, but I didn't understand why you re-ordered the list, so I reverted your edit, and arranged the items chronologically. What I don't understand is why you assumed my behavior was vandalism that warranted a template, rather than a dispute or a mistake. I think I have done enough on Wikipedia to have earned a little good faith. Dancter (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Question by Mdkcheatz

I am interested to know why you have edited forum links (which are 100% relevant to the given topic) out of the many emulators. Also, more importantly why you have removed a link from Project 64 which was placed because I had contributed some information. If you are going to make changes like the last one, at least know what you are changing. I'm not trying to attack you, I'm just concerned. You can email me at: owner@emucraze.com regarding this if you don't mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.11.217.150 (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

As indicated in the guideline page which I referred to in my edit summaries, links to forums are generally to be avoided in Wikipedia articles. In the emulator articles I reviewed, they also tend to be unnecessary, as the same forums are readily accessible through the main webpages, already linked. I did retain specific links to key posts, though. As for the Project64 article, I'm assuming that you are referring to the link to EmuCraze, which was described as "Project64 Cheat Support." From what I could ascertain, the site is a much more general emulation website. It does not relate specifically to Project64 cheat support, Project64, or Nintendo 64 emulators, making it ill-suited to the "External links" section in this particular article. Although the article does currently feature some text about Project64 cheats, the link is nonspecific, and is not useful to cite as a reference for verifying that text. Dancter (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

- Mdkcheatz -

Fair enough. I wasn't sure about the rules of Wikipedia regarding forum links. As for the PJ64 Cheats section. The previous source (the older version of emucraze) had been redone. I will recreate the article I had made for the Cheats and more specifically to the research I had done. EmuCraze is a general emulator/gaming site, but before Gent got mad at me I was the official cheat researcher (behind Gent) in charge of the cht file for the final verasion of 2.0 Thank you for the explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.11.217.132 (talk) 05:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Kistler piezoelectric sensors and C.I.P. ballistic pressure measurement

[3]

If you search for "Ballistic Pressure Measurement" at the Kistler website the piezoelectric sensors for that application emerge. The Type 6215 is the common sensor used (http://www.kistler.com/mediaaccess/en-us/000-043e-05.07.pdf) for testing cartridges. This high-pressure sensor is suitable for all ballistic pressure measurements from 100 to 6 000 bar and complies with the current NATO standards.

If the pressures to be measured exceed 6 000 bar (for example a 150% superior proof test for a very high pressure cartridge like the .300 Lapua Magnum at 7 050 bar) the Type 6213B high-pressure sensor is suitable for ballistic and hydraulic pressure measurements up to 10 000 bar. Such 6 000⁺ bar proof test requests are rare in a civilian context and not every proof house will be able to perform them.--Francis Flinch (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there an issue with me personally? Why are you posting this on my talk page, rather than the article's talk page? Are you interpreting the tag as a request for more specific facts, rather than a more specific citation? Considering the purpose of footnotes and citations, a bare link to the main page of a website is generally not that useful for sourcing a particular claim. Your response seems to indicate that a direct reference cannot be provided in this instance. If the reader needs to search for "Ballistic Pressure Measurement" at the website to verify that "C.I.P. almost exclusively uses one type of Piezoelectric sensor (named "channel sensor") made by the Swiss company Kistler International," why not point that out? Why not provide a link (http://kistler.com/gb_en-gb/searchresult/Ballistic%20Pressure%20Measurement/Search.html)? Dancter (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I interpreted your edit to the C.I.P. article as a request for more specific information. Since I want to avoid advertising, I merged the link you proposed into the article, to allow further reading regarding Kistler ballistic pressure measurement sensors. I am sorry if I aroused you in any way.--Francis Flinch (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Real Madrid roster

I have to remind you and others that that guy who wears #6 for Madrid goes by the name Lass. That is the name he is registered in the rfef. I do not know if you are familiar with Spanish football, but their players tend to use nicknames instead of their birthnames. Pepe, Kaka, Raul, Guti, etc, are registered player names, Lass is too. You can go to the Madrid site that is what's listed on the site. thank you. Raul17 (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The rollback was unintentional. I apologize for any confusion. Dancter (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros. release date

On the talk page for the Super Mario Bros. article, you mentioned the game being available in the U.S. as early as November 17. What was your source? It may be useful in the ongoing debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario777Zelda (talk • contribs) 21:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

My source was a Macy's advertisement in The New York Times, dated November 17, 1985. Dancter (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Tetris logo link

Hi, the link gave in Tetris doesn't work; I get this message:

Page Not Found 

 The page - www.google.com/logos/logos09-2.html - does not exist. 

Suggestions:
Check the spelling of the address you typed
If you are still having problems, please visit the Help Center

—Tetracube (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no explanation for you. The link did and continues to work perfectly for me. I does seem that you are experiencing a Google-customized 404, which would indicate that you are managing to connect to Google.com. If you don't mind, where are you browsing from? Dancter (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh, weird. It seems that this URL only works from within the US. Both my office PC and home PC, which are in Canada, get the Google error message, but a third machine, which is located in the US, works fine. Very strange. Could it be because Google internally redirects the request to the google.ca instead of google.com, and the page only exists on google.com?—Tetracube (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you access the image directly? Dancter (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, the image works. Thanks!—Tetracube (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Road traffic safety

The link you deleted didn't really seem all that bad. I mean it did have some ads on it, but that was probably to fund the site. You don't think maybe the tests were useful, just asking. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The IP was adding the link to a number of articles that aren't directly related to it. There is a separate driving test article. Even if Wikipedia were a directory of links (which it isn't), the link still wouldn't be appropriate in the road traffic safety article. Dancter (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I never implied that Wiki is a directory of links. I was merely considering the educational benefit of the site. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:PS wand at TGS 09.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PS wand at TGS 09.jpg. 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. 72.88.107.31 (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

ADI sensors

Hi Dancter, Following your revert on the Analog page, I understand that wikipedia is not a catalog, but the information I added is no different than other pages on semi company products (see for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_i9 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_microprocessors). So unless there is a blatant problem with this type of information and you intend to remove all the other semi product pages, I will reinstate the changes I made. I would appreciate your feedback. BTW, I am NOT affiliated with ADI. Thanks Zbrei (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is neither an article about a specific semiconductor product, nor a list page. Neither example you mentioned has been rated according to any assessment criteria or quality scales. This is a volunteer community. What you or I do on one article does not create an obligation to anything else. Defend your edit on its own merits, rather than what other articles are like, or what other editors do. See WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:WAX, and WP:ALLORNOTHING. Dancter (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I am interested in these products from ADI and I believe it should be part of ADI description, simply because products are the hard of a company. I understand your arguments about WP:WAX, and WP:ALLORNOTHING, but I can only find little case for WP:NOTCATALOG, maybe price . The edit I made is

1. Focused on one topic
2. not a genealogical entries
3. not The White or Yellow Pages
4. not a Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business
5. not a Sales catalogs, therefore product prices should not be quoted unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention
6. not a Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations
7. not A complete exposition of all possible details.

Should this list be instead be separated and added as the list of products for ADI? Because the article is still short it might make more sense to keep it here, but the reader might prefer to have a separate page for a company's products.
As a newbie I'd like your constructive comments:-) Maybe we should use the article talk page WP:TPG Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject

Zbrei (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the excerpt you cited, I did not "criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject", in the article talk page or anywhere else. I actively edited the article itself, removing material which I felt has no place in an encyclopedia article. You started this thread on my user talk page to dispute my edit based on other pages, and I replied in the thread. I pointed out that the pages are not good examples to base one's edits on (particularly the one you made), and that there are guidelines explaining why that type of argument is a not particularly useful one to make on a project such as Wikipedia. My comments in this case have all been purposeful; at no point did I make any idle complaint. I have no objections to discussing the matter further in the article talk page, but I doubt that any constructive comments I have regarding the article would be seen as constructive to your ends. I do not believe that information such as TMP36's temperature error at 25°C is significant to the overall subject. Dancter (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

When you have a chance, can you answer my question?

Zbrei (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you suggested using the article talk page, it would be best to conduct any further article-related discussion there. If the matter for discussion is of user conduct, then we can continue to discuss it here. Dancter (talk) 03:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do assume that your beliefs are better than anybody else's? If others believe this is relevant information, then, please guide them to where the information should be located (list? or somewhere else?). This is how you build the community and the content. Removing content posted by a newbie with 5 edit words is not a constructive conduct that motivates newcomers to contribute.Zbrei (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I considered "this is not a catalog" to be self-explanatory, given that the table was directly from an Analog Devices sales catalog. Why would you consult an encyclopedia for that sort of information? The Products section of the article was already marked as problematic for using a bare bulleted list, rather than the contextual prose expected of an encyclopedia. A raw table of sensor specifications does not help that. Even with the prices removed, Wikipedia is not a mirror of source material. It is an encyclopedia. It is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I've cited several policies and guidelines, which are based on a general consensus among Wikipedia editors. If the threshold for content on Wikipedia was simply that someone believes it to be relevant information, then Wikipedia would rapidly cease to be an encyclopedia, and would hardly be any different than Knol or Wikia.

I didn't consider you to be much of a newcomer, as you already appeared very comfortable with things such as page histories, jargon (using "revert" in the Wikipedian sense), talk page conventions (threading format), and advanced syntax (tables). While important, the community is a means to an end. Not all types of contributions are to be encouraged. As I mentioned earlier, I doubt that any comments I have to offer that would be seen as constructive to your ends. That is because you seem to be operating under the assumption that the particular information you added belongs somewhere on Wikipedia, and I do not. Unless there is a established consensus in the overall Wikipedia community that compels me to, I am not going to guide someone to do something I don't agree should be done at all. I was trying to point out project pages which I believe support my case. People interested in specifications for that specific subset of products can find it the same way you did: at the company's website, which is linked to in the article. Dancter (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer Zbrei (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Wii Series

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Wii Series. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wii Series. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

PlayStation Store

The "This date’s for the launch party only. Sorry. The date’s still under wraps – Ed." comment on the VG247 article was clearly added after I used it as a ref. This is illustrated by the word "Update". No need for the condescending edit summary. Cheers. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 15:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. It's just that I added a source, complete with a quotation, specifically in anticipation of you changing the date to that of the recently-announced launch party, and yet it still happened. This wasn't the first time you overturned an edit of mine regarding the Video Delivery Service. Dancter (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps frustrations with respect to the Sony–Ireland vandal are factoring in, as well. Again, I'm sorry. Dancter (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I just wanted to make sure you didn't think I was deliberately being awkward. The VG247 article didn't originally state that they were basing their assumption on the launch party invitation so I thought they had actual confirmation that it was also the date of the actual launch.

What's this about a "Sony-Ireland" vandal? Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 16:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The other edits related to the Video Delivery Service, by Irish IP addresses, are deliberately intended to sneak in subtle errors into the article. The vandalism tends to be Sony-related and/or Ireland-related, and is often crafted to thwart superficial fact-checking. My attention was drawn to the PlayStation Store article following the vandal from other articles. Dancter (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 10)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 10). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 10). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Why am I receiving this message? Dancter (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)