User talk:Tetracube/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Fourth dimension

Let me explain why I was editing the above article.

Many people don't understand alot about math, espesially about dimensions, so I just added info. about vectors and dimensionality so people could get a better understanding of what the fourth dimension might mean. I reintroduced the 'dimensionality' section so people could see how a higher dimension would relate to a lower dimension, and vice-versa. Thanks! --219.79.88.246 (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs more work to make it accessible to people without a math background. But copy-and-pasting a large amount of text about vectors and dimensions is not the right way to do this, because there are already other articles explaining what vectors are, and what dimensions are. It is more appropriate to link to them with something like:

For a more detailed explanation of vectors, see Euclidean vector.

That way, we don't unnecessarily duplicate stuff that is already covered in other articles. The Fourth dimension article should only explain the parts that are specific to 4D vectors, instead of duplicating the material. The same goes for the definition of dimensions. And just to be clear, I was the one who wrote most of those deleted paragraphs on vectors and dimension, and I agree with the other editor(s) that it should be removed.—Tetracube (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody then help me out with this issue then? I understand what you say, but I think the article needs that information about vectors and dimensionality. Thanks.

219.78.126.250

You seem to say you are four dimensional on your user page?

Yes. It has been quite an experience to learn how you 3D people think. ;-)—Tetracube (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder what would be the analogues of our three-dimensional daily lives in 4D... Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 13:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You'll never have to cross the street again! Which is a good thing, since tying those pesky shoe-lace sheets is a tad fiddly. Now stop turning your head while looking at me; just because you 3D folks find it "cool" that you can turn your face without tilting your head or facing something else doesn't mean it's not rude! ;-) And while you're at it, please shake that network cable loose for me; I need to connect my laptop for a minute. And don't worry, the wires don't get tangled up the way they do in your world!—Tetracube (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Anything in 4D you'd recommend I take a look at? Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 05:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, for starters, fourth dimension is a good introduction to how things work in my world, and convex regular 4-polytope will get you started on the most basic objects around here. After that, you could stroll down the gallery of uniform polychora, where you get to see beautifully intricate objects in 4D. One of my favorites among them is the truncated 600-cell. From there, you may want to detour to duoprism and duocylinder, and get a taste for rounded objects in my world, and perhaps also spherical cone. Then, if you're ready to deal with more complicated objects, you could start looking at the real projective plane and the Klein bottle (though I'm not sure why you people call it a "bottle", since it holds no water, just as a Möbius strip holds no water in your world!).—Tetracube (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There are also many nonconvex uniform polychora like gogishi and gaqrit, too bad they're not on Wikipedia :-(. You can check out Klitzing's website. Hexadecachoron ^talk _contribs 04:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it appears that our fiendish friend has been blocked from editing Wikipedia due to alleged sockpuppetry, so he will probably be unable to respond.—Tetracube (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I know that, dual! I've been looking through the project pages... Hexadecachoron ^talk _contribs 13:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Mazera

I would take a look at WP:VG/I, which has a good summary about video game related images. As far as a screenshot goes, I think you can use one of the ones mentioned and use {{vgrationale|Mazera|type=gameplay|subst=subst:}} and {{Non-free game screenshot}}, but I'm also not that familiar with image policies. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

76.120.151.113

76.120.151.113 recently added surface/volume formulas to Pyramid, Bipyramid and Prism that made an unstated assumption about height. I removed them. — Anyway, it appears that the clown is on the brink of being banned. —Tamfang (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The entity's latest batch of edits include some valid ones – it's so confusing! By the way, what is {{#if ...}} for? —Tamfang (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, that's instantiated from a template.

And yes, I noticed that the entity's latest batch of edits does include valid ones as well (which I've refrained from reverting). Still, the lack of communication is frustrating.—Tetracube (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Anyway, I see that he/she/it has been introducing strange idiosyncratic terms and subtle formula errors into articles again, after the final warning I left on their talk page, so I've reported him/her/it to WP:AIV. Unfortunately, if they get blocked, we'll only have some peace for the duration of the block (the last time they got blocked was only for 24 hours).—Tetracube (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

cut it out

Look, man, I didn't vandalize anything; I made a stupid edit. You corrected me, rather rudely, I might add, I didn't dispute you, and we can leave it at that. Stay the hell off my talk page. That's my business, and you have no ownership over it. For the record, I don't like you and I think you're unnecessarily snotty. You should learn the difference between vandals and real editors. Graft | talk 21:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your statement. I'm sorry I yelled so loud. Graft | talk 05:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

Don't edit-war with people on their own user page. Not to mention that good-faith edits are not vandalism. In addition, the statement that Graft removed was not supported by the cited reference. More importantly - people are free to remove warnings from their user page. It isn't OK to repeatedly reinstate them. Especially if they are are dubious as yours was. Guettarda (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hybrid rocket page

I am not sure why you deleted the links I placed to SPG, Inc's web page. While I am a member of the company, I see no reason that references to our work is any less deserving that SpaceDev or any of the other groups doing hybrid work documented on the page. In fact, if you had bothered to check the website out, you would see that we are not selling anything throught the site and that there is a significant amount of technical information available. It is, in this respect, far more relevant than anything on many of the other hybrid rocket sites that are referenced in the article. Am I missing something here? Jonny.dyer (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, after reading the wikipedia article on spamming, I think I understand your intention. Let me rephrase my question - how can I put information on this page about our activities in the hybrid rocket community without it being considered spam? Jonny.dyer (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally, edits that are possibly in conflict of interest are best discussed on the relevant article's talk page. Declaring your interest helps a lot, as you will benefit from assumption of good faith. When writing about a topic one are personally involved with, it is generally expected to be written from a neutral point of view that does not promote or put undue weight on the entity one is associated with. As far as adding links is concerned, it might be best to discuss the link to be added on the article's talk page, so that other editors can come to a consensus as to whether the link adds value to the article. For more details, see WP:COI#Editors who may have a conflict of interest.

Wikipedia editors tend to be rather suspicious of links to websites that are not directly about the article's subject, especially company websites when the article is not about the company itself. Discussion on the article's talk page will help garner consensus that the link adds value to the article, and isn't just added in order to direct more web traffic to a particular organization. Note that Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia, and not merely a long list of links to external organizations; so external links usually don't last very long unless they add encyclopedic value to the article.—Tetracube (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I will post to the discussion page although there doesn't seem to be much their for hybrid rockets Jonny.dyer (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Tetra, will you please have a look at the mods I made to the hybrid page and critique it (gently). I am trying to learn to do this in the proper way. Thanks Jonny.dyer (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, aside from a few minor points, your changes look OK to me. I apologize if I came across as overly harsh earlier---dealing with intentional vandals and spammers on Wikipedia does tend to make one's fuse a bit short. I appreciate that you are genuinely out to improve the article; I hope I didn't scare you out of making changes where you see fit. Wikipedia isn't all that formal as I may have (unintentionally) made it out to be. Having said that, though, I'd say that the references you gave, especially one on history, looks like it could use other references in addition to the SPG website. Historical events in general are well-documented in print; since you seem to be very knowledgeable in this area with regard to hybrid rockets, I'm sure it'd be easy for you to find references to, say, journals, books, and other published sources. These are generally preferred over website references, which tend to change over time. Also, website references should be dated (usually just by appending "Retrieved 2009-mm-dd" to the end of the <ref> tag), for the same reason. Other than that, there are only minor nitpicks such as punctuation, etc., which I've taken the liberty to correct. Thanks for taking the time to contribute to Wikipedia.—Tetracube (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

quick thanks

Thanks for making the chemistry articles, Acid–base reaction in particular, better today! Who knew 4D polytopes are so useful? --Cubbi (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! We do try to make ourselves as useful as possible in what little spare time we have, when not spinning in Java applets, posing in front of projectors, and confounding mathematicians (and other mortals). ;-)—Tetracube (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, yes. (You're having more trouble than me, EVERYONE likes to jump on you first, especially after A Wrinkle In Time came out...) Hexadecachoron ^talk _contribs 02:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Super Square 1

I made a few minor changes but otherwise the text you have looks good. I think that it should be part of the Square-1 article rather than a separate one. On a related note, do you think the Void Cube should be its own article or a subsection of the Rubik's Cube article?

Sorry for taking a while to get back to you; my computer's been under the weather. Hellbus (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it depends on how much you have to write about the Void Cube. If it's not very much, I think it can go into the variants section. It's a judgment call, though, since the Rubik's Cube article is already quite long, and if we start putting in descriptions of all the cubic variants (even if it's restricted to only 3x3x3), it could get quite unwieldy. But I also don't see the justification for having a whole bunch of very small articles discussing each variant either. If it comes down to it, I suppose we could always make a "Variations of the Rubik's Cube" article.—Tetracube (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

A "Variants of Rubik's Cube" article could work, since there are already some listed (calendar cube, mirror blocks, etc) in the combination puzzles article. For the moment, I'll see about photographing my Void Cube and adding it to that section. Hellbus (talk) 04:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

kindred of the duocylinder

I boldly added a paragraph to Duocylinder#Relation to other shapes. I imagine it might well be deleted on the grounds that squarinder and spherinder are non-notable neologisms. Are they? —Tamfang (talk) 03:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, "spherinder" is certainly attested, if not notable. What you call a "squarinder" is known in some circles as the "cubinder", since it shares many attributes with 3D cubes. Garrett Jones' website has some information about these "roundish" shapes. Your constructions have certainly been studied before by others. :-) In fact, there have been quite a number of discussions on the Tetraspace forum about the so-called "rotatopes" and "rotopes", which include generalizations of cylinders, cones, and other such shapes to higher dimensions. As far as terminology is concerned, however, I don't know if there are any commonly-accepted terms. One of the references I put on the duocylinder page does contain a description of higher-dimensional cylinders, although it does not use terms like "spherinder", "squarinder", or "cubinder".

On a more general note, these roundish shapes may be considered as the Cartesian product of two lower-dimensional shapes (e.g., a j-sphere with an k-polytope or k-sphere). The duocylinder, for example, is the Cartesian product of two circles, and the spherinder is the Cartesian product of the 2-sphere and a line segment. The cubinder is the Cartesian product of a circle and a square, just as the cylinder is the Cartesian product of a circle and a line segment. In that sense, they are direct generalizations of the cylinder to 4D: one by increasing the dimension of the j-sphere (from circle to sphere), and one by increasing the dimension of the k-cube (from line segment to square). The duocylinder is also a generalization of the cylinder, if one regards the line segment as a 0-sphere, and so analyse the generalization as going from (1-sphere)x(0-sphere) to (1-sphere)x(1-sphere).

If one dispenses with roundish shapes and take the Cartesian product of two polytopes, one obtains a class of shapes that include the duoprisms. For example, in 4D, the Cartesian product of a triangle and a square yields the 3,4-duoprism. Higher dimensions, of course, permit many more possible combinations.—Tetracube (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, squarinder was a mental lapse. Of course I don't claim any originality here. —Tamfang (talk) 00:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I wonder if these terms are in wide use... Perhaps Conway's book on uniform polytopes mentions them?—Tetracube (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Klitzing webpage maybe? Perhaps we could use it as a reference. Hexadecachoron ^talk _contribs 13:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Master Pyramorphix permutations

Hello, Tetracube. You have new messages at Hellbus's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Magic 5D image

I have un-undeleted the image. You should be able to put it back in the article now. I have been through all this over Magic5D before with OTRS, and the permissions are already registered with them. In the future, if you want to use images from 5D, tag the image page with {{permissionOTRS|2008080110032078}} which is the OTRS ticket number for this and everything should be ok. SpinningSpark 17:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit to Gold

Hi. With your edit here you reverted a change made from British to American English. However, the article is written in primarily American English, so the edit you reverted was in fact a proper conversion to the prevailing spelling system used in the Gold article. I have reverted back to the American spelling as per WP:ENGVAR. If you have any questions let me know on my talk page, or reply here and place a talkback template on my talk page. Thank you. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry, pulled the trigger too fast there. :-) —Tetracube (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up ...

Hi, thank you for your message. Comes just in the good moment. I'am leaving now. Could you possibly have a look at the activities of User:Logger9. He is very likely to revert everything I cleaned up today. He has dumped material from his 1983 PhD thesis and loquacious dissertations on a few topics at a considerable number of locations - and nobody has noticed for several months. His trick is quite simple: he adds tons of references, so that people are impressed, think it's their fault if they don't understand, and let the nonsense pass. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Holey Megaminx, Batman!

Don't know if you'd come across it or not, but Meffert is going to do a limited run of the "Holey Megaminx," a Void Cube-like version of the puzzle. It doesn't look like he's doing any more than what people preorder, so I wanted to make sure you knew about it. The deadline is Monday. It's the last one on the list. Hellbus (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Tribromoamine

Hello Tetracube, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Tribromoamine - a page you tagged - because: Tribromoamine shows in google as a synonym, if my understanding of the search results is accurate. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Chemical names

Perhaps these should all be put into an redirects for discussion. They seem to have some usage as synonyms, even if rarely used. What do you think? --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, if that's a better approach. The real problem is that although some of these redirects are marginally plausible, some of them are outright ludicrous (such as methanedione for carbon dioxide? I mean, come on!). This is part of a larger pattern of adding redirects of questionable value to Wikipedia involving convoluted, obscure names obtained by applying IUPAC rules in an unusual way. See the recent discussion at WP:CHEMS. While a few individual redirects may happen to be useful, I think that overall, these redirects are unconstructive.—Tetracube (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Some of these redirects are not unreasonable. For example, trichloroborane.[1]. --Itub (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I concede. The questionable ones have already been deleted, so that's good enough for me.—Tetracube (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hydrofluoric acid

Hello!

You removed this [2], saying the contribution was inaccurate. Now the reason that you can digest silicates with hydrofluoric acid (and not at all with other mineral acids) is the extraordinarily high bond enthalpy of the Si-F bond, which makes tetrafluorosilane and the hexafluorosilicate anion thermodynamic sinks. This is as much as was said in my contribution. Merely saying that aqueous HF is "corrosive" does not make that point. "Corrosive" does not mean much in fact, because it describes a reactivity between two substances, one cannot really say that something is corrosive, something is always corrosive in regards to something else. (Besides, beyond glass and living tissues, HF does not attack that much, in fact it is pretty tame.) 128.226.130.90 (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The way you worded it in that edit makes it appear as though fluorine has some kind of special relation with silicon that would cause it to react with silicon specifically. The way you worded it here is better: due to the high bond enthalpy of the Si-F bond, the dissolution of silicate in HF is highly favored, thus leading to the corrosive behaviour. Fluorine has a high bond enthalpy with a lot of things, which is what makes HF dangerously corrosive in general.—Tetracube (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There is something of a special relation between silicon and fluorine. If you look at a table of bond enthalpies (a comprehensive one is here: [3]) you will see that the Si-F bond is very strong, in fact it is the strongest single bond that exists. The word "affinity" (Wikipedia article at Chemical affinity is an out synonym for "bond enthalpy". 128.226.130.90 (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Formulae

Hi. I notice that you go around a lot replacing things like H[AuCl₄] with things like HAuCl
₄. However, the latter is wrong, and I'd be grateful if you stopped doing it!; see [4] for a discussion at the wikiproject. Thanks! Chris (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! I'll undo those changes.—Tetracube (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Much better! Thanks. Chris (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Platonic solids

I agree "sides" is not clear, but how can a face be congruent with an angle? The point is that the faces are congruent to each other. How about my original wording but replace "sides" with "surfaces?" Bucksburg (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

True. I've tried to reword it such that edges, vertices, and angles are clearly (I hope) treated as separate sets. The congruence of faces have already been mentioned in the preceding sentence, so I omit it. Is this better?—Tetracube (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Periodic table (wide)

I've looked through the history, put the article in my watchlist and will keep an eye on it. The current version (with Y on the right side) seems Ok. Don't hesitate to drop such notes - I simply missed to add that article to my watchlist before. I'm sure I am missing many others. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle & Huggle

If you revert a lot of vandalism, it makes it easier to use an automated tool such as Twinkle or Huggle. With Twinkle it will automatically warn the user as soon as you revert their edits ... so I would recommend Twinkle if youre just starting (Huggle is an external program that browses the wiki for you, automating essentially everything). -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip; I'll probably look into Twinkle since I don't really feel like running a separate program just to revert vandalism. :-)—Tetracube (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Columbian Exchange

Hello-- Not sure why the changes I made to the Columbian Exchange page were reverted. The list as it currently stands (post-reversion) has blatantly incorrect information, which can be corroborated through other Wikipedia pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.31.203 (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. The edits I reverted only added some spurious blank lines and reordered some items. Looked like test edits to me.—Tetracube (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Semiconductor

I am probably the one that inserted the statement "A semiconductor is a compound whose electrical conductivity is inversely proportional to temperature." Apparently you disagree, which is fine, but you might recheck your source. I learned my definition from an materials prof and need to recheck on the source. It has the advantage that the slope of the conductivity vs T dependence is unambiguous whereas a definition based on conductivity at any given temperature requires comparisons. There are lots of poor metals. I'd be interested in your thoughts. I checked the IUPAC goldbook which does not agree with my definition, but the Goldbooks is probably written by chemists, not materials scientist. Thanks for removing it. What I meant to say that "A semiconductor is a compound whose electrical conductivity is proportional to temperature."

I also noticed that you are working on Molecular electronics and related areas. I took these articles off of my watchlist because I became frustrated by User:Pproctor and his very close friend User:Drjem3. Both are admirers of John McGinness, Proctors thesis advisor. At one time, these articles emphasized McGinness' work and tended to diminish contributions by the Nobelists by highlighting fairly obscure papers. Check out Conductive polymer. Feel free to ask for help if you need it. Good luck,--Smokefoot (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I do only copy-editing and other wiki-related fixes in those articles, as they are not my area of expertise. Sometimes I may look up something on Google and/or correlate them with info from other articles in order to catch inconsistent statements, but that is the extent of my contribution in that area. As for users who highlight obscure papers over more generally-accepted publications, I think WP:UNDUE gives you the right to revert and/or cut down the amount of material they put into the articles. You may be able to recruit other more knowledgeable users, like User:Materialscientist, to help sort out these kinds of issues.—Tetracube (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Transition metal

I've just seen some edits to the formlulae in transition metal that give the wrong notation. There are rules for round and square brackets. VO₄^3- and [V(CO)₆]^- are correct notation. Petergans (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Where can I find these rules? The instance I think you're referring to is a case of punctuation (the outer parentheses are part of the sentence, not part of the formula); is this visually confusing? Maybe the entire sentence should be reworked to avoid this notation clash.—Tetracube (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Potassium amide-azide fuddle

Hi Tetracube,
Apologies for my mistake; Big thank you for your corrections!
--Shirt58 (talk) 11:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, no harm done. :-) It was a good excuse for me to do some online research on azides.—Tetracube (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

<humour> No harm done? Speak for yourself! It served to remind me yet again that there were very, very good reasons why, sometime last century, I was lucky indeed to pass Senior Chemistry (52%!) in High School </humour>  ;-) --Shirt58 (talk) 10:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Topological computing

I removed the references to WSEAS conferences from the article on topological computing regarded as unreliable. The introduction will be expanded shortly

Fact

Please check the documentation of Template:Citation needed. the correct way to use this template is {{Citation needed|date=November 2024}}. I have been cleaning up after you, but better you should get it right yourself. Debresser (talk) 11:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Gecko

Hey sorry about editing the GEcko page with something that was considered "vandalism", but the geico commercials are funny, and putting in some information about them from the commercials isnt harming anyone....unless there are people who are doing things that are hurting someone, but seriously who thinks that a gecko talks with an accent and eats potato chips from a bag? I see wher you are getting at, but also, why can't there be any humor at all?

Tjgnumber13

Wikipedia is not a random collection of trivia, funny or otherwise. Only notable, properly-sourced material can be included.—Tetracube (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Tetracube. You have new messages at Rifleman 82's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Advertising Sounding Content

Tetracube this is User talk:99.7.172.132 responding to your concern that I posted advertising sounding content on the Vaporizer page. I will work on toning down the superlatives in reference to the vaporization system approach to vaporizing that is not well represented on the page but is 100% encyclopedic in its need to be included. There are multiple companies that sell modular "vaporization tools" that function as a "vaporizer" when assembled and I am not doing marketing for any of them. Hope that clarifies and I hope that my next attempt at expanding the encyclopedic content of the page is more neutral in read and satisfactory. please let me know. Thanks---Vapor Afficiando —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.7.172.132 (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you continuousy delete links to pages marking them as spam?

Why do you continuousy delete links to university founded non-commercial pages marking them as spam?

What is your special interest in doing so?

Who are you?

Why are you publishing entire articles advertising stupid commercial software on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.64.138.41 (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:EL.—Tetracube (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)