User talk:Quaeler/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Huh?

Errr....I never even made an edit to Sawston Village College, I am a member of York University (UK), is it possible that another member on the network did the edit? I only came onto Wikipedia about five minutes ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.155.203 (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking; if you click on 'my contributions' in the upper right of your page, you will be taken to this page which shows that the edit was made. This is the nature of a lot of IP addresses in the world (that they are shared); you should consider making your own account on Wikipedia since one person's bad behaviour will indeed block the IP from usage by all people using that IP. Quaeler (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello - Hardeep from Technical analysis, GPG and Jumble

Recently you issued three warnings, all three together on the same date. I understand what you are saying: please do not issue me more warnings or I will get blocked. If you explain to me I will desist from doing what is not allowed. There are other pages that you havent found yet to which I made similar changes. I am willing to undo those if I understand what is wrong. Technical analysis - I understand why you removed it, no issues. On GPG - there is a GPG mailing list. Very frequently that list gets the same question again and again: how do I run GPG from batch mode. Hence I wrote a blog post on how to do that. That is why I linked it. Please advise why it is wrong to have that link. Second, on Jumble: I had created a word unjumbler which is used by tons of people already. Every single day 1000+ words are unjumbled. Please explain what that is wrong.

Lastly, I am not a spammer. I genuinely want to help people.

One last question: I have recently added a link to HSB Grapher on the LIST_OF_GRAPHING_SOFTWARE page. Is that illegal as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardeeps (talk • contribs) 16:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello - and thank you for your thoughtfully composed inquiry; if, in the future, you could place all new additions to talks pages at the end of the page, and sign them with 4 tildes, that would be equally appreciated.

WRT your message; firstly - i'd not take too much offense to the term 'spammer' as it is automatic text phrasing from a standard template when the warning has to do with inserting links to external sites which seem to violate WP:ELNO. Using that article section as a reference point, all three of the links to which i found problem seemed to be in violation of #11. If you feel that i've erred in making that decision, please ask on each of the article's discussion pages in order to get feedback from other editors. Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

response

The problem with that case is that an IP is different than an account. Two different unregistered users could be using the same IP address, and I would suggest that if some people are making good edits from that IP, that IP should be watched rather than blocked, unless the vandalism becomes extremely intense. It would be great if you and maybe another person could go over that IP's edits, but it looks to me like some of them are good, and a lot of them haven't been reverted. I hope this helps. Academic Challenger (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, ya - this doesn't address my question (and strangely this has been placed on my page as opposed to where the conversation started - to avoid further back and forth, i'll now keep the conversation on this page). To rephrase: i'm totally fine with your non-block decision and my question had nothing to do with your decision. My question was this: let's say a sock puppet case is started citing accounts A, B, and C. That sock puppet case is then addressed and closed. Following the closure, account D starts doing the same behaviour which grouped A, B, and C. Now, the question is: is the standard practice to:

(1) re-open the original sock puppet case

(2) open a new sock puppet case grouping D and one of A, B, C and citing the previous sock puppet case in the text

(3) open a new sock puppet case grouping all of D, A, B, C and citing the previous sock puppet case.

(4) something else.

Thanks again for any information. Quaeler (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

So sorry I missed your response here, and that I misunderstood your question. The standard practice, in my experience, is just to block Account D, referring to the original case about A, B and C, particularly if the actions of Account D are vandalism and if they are an obvious behavior pattern compared to the other soc-puppets. If only some of the behavior patterns are the same, it is usually best to open a new case, referring to A, B and C. The problem is that we do not want to give vandals and banned users more attension by giving them a name that everyone will recognize, because that will encourage them to make even more soc-puppets. Academic Challenger (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/192.91.171.36

I deleted it and moved it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/192.31.106.35, so that this problem user has one case instead of multiple cases spread out. —— nixeagle^{email me} 20:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Quaeler (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You sure this is Vandalism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitalism%2C_Socialism_and_Democracy&diff=269003910&oldid=263663548 - why do you think this is vandalism? I haven't reverted you, as I suspect you have a reason, but I couldn't think of any. Larklight (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for asking. I'm never satisfied with "Vandalism", nor is it a Good Faith edit, i could have used the middle ground Rollback but that would have been another modal panel and more typing and this was one of a number of such links i was rolling back— the common trait being that it was linking to a sales site which (IMO) violates #5 of WP:ELNO. You apparently think differently - what's your take on the link? Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sure, you're right. Thanks for explaining. =) Larklight (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Jimqbob

The user has made constructive edits in the past. They may be going through bad times. The 31 hour block is my way of saying the game is over with the nonsensical edits, or the hammer will come down harder. They've never been blocked before and I'm a believer in everyone deserving a chance to behave once warned/blocked... I'm watching the editor. The next block won't be so lenient if it's required. Hope this helps you to understand my reasoning in dealing with this recent vandal. -- Longhair\^talk 12:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation (though i have no idea why i bothered to write that i'd watch your discussion page for follow-ups.) Quaeler (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, old habits die hard :) -- Longhair\^talk 12:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(No problem - i'll use bold text next time :- ) ) Quaeler (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You are hereby permitted to make use of flashing text if you like :) Cheers. -- Longhair\^talk 12:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Not Spam

According to your guidelines on external links: Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. The Nagl review strikes me as meaningful and relevant content to those with an interest in the man, i.e. anyone who bothers to read the page all the way through to the External Links at the bottom.

From the Spam page: Wikipedia is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of products, services, Web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or other memes. The link was none of these things. It was a reference to an article by the subject of the page. It promoted nothing, except perhaps John Nagl himself, which, of course, the page itself does as well.--Benjamin canaan (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Because of the rudeness of your message to me, I have complained about you on Wikiquette alerts.--Benjamin canaan (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Aleister Crowley

Hi - you deleted the link to The Aleister Crowley Society on the basis that it "looks like spam". LAShTAL(dot)COM is the definitive Thelemic news and media site and it's been online since 1998, receiving more than 20,000,000 hits and 5,00 members in the process. As home of The Aleister Crowley Society it is consulted as the definitive source of contacts and research material. It is non-partisan and includes only copyright-approved materials. Acsociety (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for observing the chronological ordering of the discussion page. The link you added does look like spam - please read both the aforementioned link and WP:ELNO. I'd posit that your link violates 4 & 10. At this point, you should get a consensus on the article's discussion page as to whether the link is applicable for the article. Thanks Quaeler (talk) 08:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I obviously strongly disagree that the link to the site constitutes spam, or that it violates either para 4 or 10 as mentioned. Given the seriousness of the site, featuring not just discussion Forums but also the most extensive Crowley galleries online, news relating to Crowley going back a decade or so, and so on and so on. All on a non-profit site. And this is a Wikipedia page that includes a Rotten.com link and a link to a site making rather foolish allegations concerning Crowley's (alleged) racism and sexism. Almost as if you're encouraging only links that are negative in tone. Acsociety (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, to say it again: get a consensus from other editors - you definitely don't want solely my opinion at this point. Quaeler (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I understood your instruction and have done as you requested. Acsociety (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I note that LAShTAL.COM has now been blacklisted as a "spam site". I am relatively new to Wikipedia and can only look with astonishment at the links that remain. Acsociety (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that 'new to Wikipedia' may be one thing but as that administrative ruling seems to document pretty well, you appear to be somewhat cognizant of efforts to manipulate a system (as is detailed in the meat puppet section). It's a bit hard to feel bad for you in that situation. As i've seen stated elsewhere, individual page citations which refer to your site will be whitelisted on a case by case basis; so if there's interest in making the article content itself better, there's nothing preventing that from occurring. Quaeler (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note of clarification. Is there an appeals process in respect of the blacklistng? It still seems surprising to me that Will in China was able to escalate from advice relating to my user name to blacklisting the whole of a well-respected website within a matter of hours, especially given the supportive remarks regarding the site by another admin. In short, I guess I feel rather aggrieved! Acsociety (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm.. it seems like you're looking at this from a distorted view. Yes, you had an admin come to your defense; however, you had a number of shills (apparently at your behest, from what documentation i can see) also come to your defense. (Also, i have no idea what the opinion of that admin is in the mind of other admins - perhaps his defense was discounted for some reason). At any rate, administrators and editors in general really don't like feeling that they're being gamed over an issue and what's gone on in this situation feels like that.

I've never had to deal with a blacklisting appeal; from just reading the headers on the admin blacklisting page, there is reference to appeals being filed - so it's possible. I supposed you could initiate via asking for a removal of the blacklisting as mentioned here. Quaeler (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. Acsociety (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

The definition of Vandalize is; To destroy or deface (public or private property) willfully or maliciously. When I "added", not "defaced", to the list of Alice in Wonderland movies, I most certainly did not "ignore" a warning to refrain. For a first time user, the warning I received was extremely harsh and cold blooded. I apologize for the minor infraction of innocently overlooking the rules of Wikipedia Wgrolfson1 (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Also as a side-effect of your newness, you'll eventually become used to the modern and loose usage of 'vandalism' at Wikipedia (as you learn about reverting, templates, tools, and so on ad nauseum). As far as your reading skills, the edit which you put exactly next to the warning you were supposed to read (it would be funny if it wasn't so sad — i mean it's right there... even everyone who looks at the diff can see it) was simply poor behaviour. It's a bit of failed logic to expect you to realize the penalties for something you couldn't be bothered with reading, but had you looked at the Alice template discussions you would have seen that the penalty was an immediate 'only warning'. Quaeler (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess I just assumed that since the edit function was present and, as About Wikipedia states, "Most of the articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet, simply by clicking the edit this page link. Anyone is welcome to add information, cross-references, or citations, as long as they do so within Wikipedia's editing policies and to an appropriate standard", then there was nothing more to be said. True, I do admit my negligence and will use discussion forums in the future. I just don't understand how someone without proper permission (Myself) CAN edit something that they are not supposed to. Shouldn't there be some kind of block or password prompt in place? Again, I'm brand new at this and will probably answer my own question in the near future. Wgrolfson1 (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Oooph... no, it's true: anybody can edit most articles on Wikipedia. That being said though, there's all sorts of default rules about making edits (WP:POV, WP:ELNO, WP:COI, manual of style, edits have to be encyclopedic in content, ...). Beyond that, a lot of articles, like the AiW article, have a long history over which certain rules of acceptable content have arisen. If the per-article rules are especially stringent, editors will often leave notes for other editors as HTML comments - as in the AiW article section which is the root of our discontent. Welcome and sorry your first experiences were so crappy. Quaeler (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And another clarification: it's that you're not supposed to edit the section you did, it's just that you're not supposed to, in Alice related articles, add movie references to movies which haven't been released to the public yet (a result made necessarily uniform, stemming from Manson never releasing his dumb version which has been regularly slated for release in (current year + 1), since 2005). If you were aware of some, for example, hitherto-unmentioned Javanese film adaptation of AiW released in the 1970s, you'd be totally in the right to add it to that section. Quaeler (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Strasbourg Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art

Hi, so you have been to the MAMCS? I hope you liked it. Here is a very interesting link, the museum's electronic database: http://mamcs.videomuseum.fr/Navigart/index.php?db=mamcs&qs=1. Cheers, --RCS (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link (except for the evil browser window resize it did, of course). Ya, went to the MAMCS yesterday, after many years of wanting to, and 20+ years of admiration for Dore's woodcuts. I was totally disappointed; the architecture of the building is great — but my trek to Dore mecca met with a small-ish room and 15 paintings. That's it. No idea where the rest of the collection is, and similarly no idea if i'll ever make it back to Strasbourg again. :- / Quaeler (talk) 09:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of the collection is drawings, etchings, woodcuts, etc. This kind of work is never shown under normal conditions because it is much more sensitive to light than paintings. Even Europe's greatest collection of graphic art, the Albertina in Vienna, is a major disappointement in this regard: only samplish samples of the belongings are/can be shown! --RCS (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

D'oh.. tant pis. Well, at least you've got a damn cute (and friggin' cold) city there. Thanks for the information. With regards, Quaeler (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Euler identity

Simply not true - it is a constant and, shockingly, it is listed on the constants page ---> yes, and it is listed as sqrt(-1) which is again faulty:) 'i' is a sign as minus sign. it should be used as a notation, using it as a value causes problems as in 'proper use' section of imaginary unit. it is not scalar, however sqrt(-1) is scalar since it includes a number, namely '1' (Ati7 (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC))

This reads like it's definitely WP:FRINGE and so i imagine it will continue to get reverted. If you have a better written paper somewhere outlining the point you're trying to make, i'd be interested to read it. Otherwise, i have to agree with User:EmilJ's actions (and will replicate them again, since it appears that you are introducing new information to Imaginary Unit, as opposed to preserving pre-existing information). Quaeler (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

ok, I see your point. apparently, current definition is i equals ${\sqrt {-1}}$ in many papers. therefore, I give up for euler identity. because ${\sqrt {-1}}$ has a value.. however, I still think that adding a paragraph about using imaginary unit as a sign will help people to understand it easily. i always confused me in the past because of this ${\sqrt {-1}}$ definition:) anyway, I stop changing those articles effectively as of now (Ati7 (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC))