User talk:Mwarren us/Archive 1

Archive 1

OLPC Non-Vandalism

Hi mwarren u says "I'm not trying to remove information or vandalize the OLPC article; my intent is simply to clean up the article, exercise a NPOV and give the article better flow. Reviewing the edits one at a time instead of all together makes it easier to see how the changes work together and how the article is improved."

well u did few nice job in OLPC article but side by side u also Remove and Manipulate some critical negative points. its clearly shown in ur editing patterns. so i dont believe in ur words. i hav a very close and focused eyss on few wikipedia articles where no body can vandalish . OLPC is one of them . Blogsd^Contact--Blogsd ! 11:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's talk - which edits in particular were of concern? Mwarren us (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

URLs of interest in response to Ivan Krstić's disappointment about OLPC adding Windows XP as an option for the XO-1:

http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/20711/page2/ "[Nicholas] Negroponte says that within OLPC, the open-source scrap had become a distraction. "I think that means and ends, as often happens, got confused," he says. "The mission is learning and children. The means of achieving that were, amongst others, open source and constructionism. In the process of doing that, open source in particular became an end in itself, and we made decisions along the way to remain very pure in open source that were not in the long-term interest of the project."

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/blog/globespotting/archives/2008/06/olpc_the_educat.html [Nicholas] Negroponte says he told Krstić no such thing. "That's the opposite of what I told him," he says. "I said we're not promoting a model, we're promoting several models, including some we don't like--such as drill and practice."

http://www.olpcnews.com/people/leadership/olpc_new_president_laptop_project.html ""The OLPC mission is a great endeavor, but the mission is to get the technology in the hands of as many children as possible," he said. "Whether that technology is from one operating system or another, one piece of hardware or another, or supplied or supported by one consulting company or another doesn't matter."

"It's about getting it into kids' hands," [Charles Kane, OLPC CEO] continued. "Anything that is contrary to that objective, and limits that objective, is against what the program stands for."

Mwarren us (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mwarren after reading your and blogsd's comments, with due respect to both of you , i think ( my personal thinking) its logical to disagree "that controvesial comments i never says". Is it logical that someone says something contradictory to in internal conversation and then if some asked do you really say that . he will never accepts his sudden mistake . he should take care of his public image . every person is doing that so as Mr. Negroponte . but if u r a fanboy of something or some one , then it will heard to accept it . why lots of founding members & employees leaving this Organization . if there is no problem . is OLPC has software team, a hardware team, or a deployment team going forward. if yes then from what time ( reliable ref plz ). if not then why not yet ???? --Skynet7 (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully the referenced quotes above will serve to explain why Mssrs. Bender and Krstić left OLPC - they have a more fundamental attachment to open source software than to the mission to deliver laptops/education.

Regarding the software and deployment teams, I think it suffices to read over OLPC'sjobs page to discover that they have an active software and deployment team. For hardware and software, see [1].Mwarren us (talk) 05:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:AC Propulsion eBox left front.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AC Propulsion eBox left front.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have animage tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message atWikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AC_Propulsion_eBox_left_front.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:AC_Propulsion_eBox_left_front.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 12:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:AC_Propulsion_eBox_right_rear.jpg, Image:AC Propulsion eBox left front.jpg

I have tagged Image:AC_Propulsion_eBox_right_rear.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, onthe image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed atWikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. MER-C 12:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:AC Propulsion eBox left front.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AC Propulsion eBox left front.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go tothe image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.effeietsanders 12:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have already explained the justification for fair use; please provide specific details explaining why you do think the existing justification is insufficient.

Hi, thank you for your comment. I have responded on my talk page.effeietsanders 01:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:AC Propulsion eBox right rear.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AC Propulsion eBox right rear.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go tothe image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.effeietsanders 20:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Effeiets, your wiki lawyering is too annoying and I'm simply not going to participate in that article any longer. If you had *read* the comments for the image, you could have easily have translated the plain English text into whatever Wiki tag convention is needed. Too bad you did not take the time to suggest anything specifically useful.

Tesla Roadster

Hi.

No, I never ordered a Tesla Roadster. It's just that I was so optimistic about their promise, so I was disappointed when it turned out to be false.

I made a similar type of complaint about a broken promise right[2] on the talk page for Thermal depolymerization. I also createdthis section in the article called, "Status as of May 2008," where I talk about a broken promise.

I love technology. In both of these cases, I was very excited and optimistic about these promises, so I was very disappointed when they turned out to not be true. People shouldn't promise to deliver on technologies that don't actually exist.

Grundle2600 (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: INRConvert

Hi Mwarren us, thanks for your message. I've replied on the talk page. Thanks AreJay (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Tesla's efficiency graph

I removed your graph from the Tesla Roadster page because it was misleading. The values you used to create the graph were of two different types: battery-to-wheel and plug-to-wheel. You treated them as the same, which isn't correct. Fresheneesz (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the problem with the March '07 value. Uploaded a fixed version of the graph and put it back in the article. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for consolidating the references in PEPCON disaster, would've done it myself had I been able to figure out how. Aplomado ^talk 22:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Cloud computing

Thanks for helping out. -- samj _in^out 22:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. What do you think are the technical distinctions between cloud computing deployed over a non-public network and cloud computing deployed over a public network? Both the ZDNet and the IDC definitions cited on the talk page include both types of deployment and both networks meet the technical requirements in the article. Perhaps there are other, non-technical reasons to avoid including both in the article? Either technically or non-technically, I'm interested to discuss the distinctions, if any, and I think the article would be improved by including both. Thanks! sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Transition® image size discussion

hello. per MOS:TM, trademark symbols are not to be used. with regard to sizing, per WP:IMGSIZE, standard default sizing should be used. this is particularly an issue with smaller articles with infoboxes such as this one, because formatting results become erratic and unpredictable when considering the many different monitor sizes and pixel resolutions used. cheers!. --emerson7 03:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. Hopefully the gallery box is better. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 07:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to User_talk:SamJohnston. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- samj _in^out 00:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully the comment accompanying the reversion explained the reasoning sufficiently; vandalism was not the intent. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Legend for red/green lines in oxygenation summary graph

For the graphic, when I read the associated article, it was really looking like low/high concentration of oxygen, and I guess that made me forget to identify the lines in the graph. I'd have to agree with you, would you like me to add labels for the lines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TiCPU (talk • contribs) 14:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll also try to contact Professor Holland too to see what labels he might suggest. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ(talk) 07:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I wrote to Professor Holland asking: "Thank you for contributing figure 10 from your paper The oxygenation of the atmosphere and oceans to Wikimedia. I am interested to know if it would be correct to label the upper and lower lines on that graph as the upper/lower estimates for the atmospheric concentration of oxygen..." to which he replied "Your interpretation of the curves in Figure 10 is entirely correct.". I've updated the description for the image and if you'd like it might help to add a legend for the red (upper estimate) and green (lower estimate) lines. Thanks. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Pickens Plan cites

I noticed the citations you placed for the "some" in the article, but you need to add who these people are into the article so the the weasel words are gone. This is not just to follow the rule, but so it is easily known who believes the statement. Thanks! Diderot's dreams (talk) 12:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; and both of those paragraphs also need to be rewritten for many NPOV problems; I'll leave this here as a reminder to look at it again later. Please feel free to edit as needed in the meantime. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Volt marketing

How about blow the current redundant para away, first of all. I think the Volt has been an interesting marketing exercise, but have not read any analysis of it /as such/ in a RS. So just lose the whole section for the time being. I wonder if anyone has done that for prius, which must rank as one of the most successful automotive marketing exercises for a long time. Greglocock (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Toyota has done a great job of green marketing the Prius. If the Volt article's Marketing section is there just for the MPG info, then I'm in favor of removing it; I'm new to editing the Volt article and so stopped short of an outright deletion. Would it be worth noting the green, 23(:-)) 8.11 pseudo-guerilla marketing campaign. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 04:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Electric Car

But this article is specifically about electric cars. It links all over the place to EVs, BEVs etc etc etc. It is about electric cars. Not electric bicycles or trams or traction engines. So why change it to EV when it is specifically about electric cars?

My best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps my edit summary for that edit tickled some dispute I wasn't aware of? In my opinion, the summary could have just as easily read "Cars powered by fuel cells are Electric cars". Otherwise, I'm somewhat confused by this question; anyway, I'm not interested in changing the article from Electric car to EV. Thanks. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

SpaceX and Mars

You should add some explanatory text to the SpaceX article to justify the Mars categories. As it stands, those categories look like non-sequiturs; SpaceX has no published current or future plans to do anything to directly aid Mars exploration. They are purely a low-earth-orbit space company.

On the other hand, I would have no qualms adding those categories to Elon Musk's article. He has often expressed his interest in colonizing Mars and the rest of the solar system in interviews, and he himself is probably a member of theMars Society. But don't confuse Elon Musk with one of his companies. --IanOsgood (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

SpaceX's company FAQ says "Falcon 9 Heavy will be capable of carrying up to 29,610 kg to LEO and up to 15,010 kg to GTO. Falcon 9 Heavy could have important implications for Mars exploration and even settlement" and I've added a citation for that in the SpaceX article. With that said, I'm not a big proponent for or against the Mars categories, I just think that from an NPOV, Mr. Musk's statements about his motivations for founding, funding and leading SpaceX, including the statements about settlements on Mars, are important information about SpaceX. While Mr. Musk and his companies are legally separate, his extremely prominent role in SpaceX (founder, majority owner, CEO, and CTO) means that his statements in interviews are very likely to reflect the actions he takes in his role with SpaceX. –sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ(talk) 23:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Litl OS

A tag has been placed on Litl OS, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spamas well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}}to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Power hour

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Power hour. 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/Power hour. 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) 01:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1