User talk:User A1/Archive 2

Inkscape Screenshot

Yep, right here > Rugby471 ^talk ⚔ 17:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify this

Hi, You reverted one page I have edited (Cluster_analysis), and identified my edit as vandalism. But according to what I read about vandalism, it is apparently not. Actually I just added one relevant link to an article about a new clustering algorithm.

I appreciate very much wikipedia, and have no intention make unconstructive edits to it. I would appreciate if you could explain what I did wrong. --Phoolimin (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Misfire there on my part. Thankyou for bringing it to my attention. I hope you accept my apologies for that. User A1 (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification. I understand misfire can happen sometimes.--Phoolimin (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BatchDistill.svg

I think Image:BatchDistill.svg works now. I’ve had to add x="0" y="0" to the svg tag; it seems Wikipedia’s rsvg needs these data together with the width and height to get the correct rectangle for the image. I’ve also changed all font sizes to 16px (the ‘Cooling Water’ and ‘Purified A’ labels looked bolder than the others on my machine). Not sure how to check for this in Inkscape or make it do that automatically. —xyzzy_n 19:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that; I think I would have gone nuts trying to work that one out. I have added it to the tut that I wrote - hopefully anyone else with this issue will be able to solve it quickly now. User A1 21:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please upload images to the Commons

If you go here

http://commons.wikimedia.org/

to upload your images they will be available to people in other language varieties of Wikipedia. P0M (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering

FYI. We got another low grade edit war going on about Aerospace this time. Dr.K. (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reference needed for the paragraph you added

You added something about "shannon's formula" (sic) in the Double-slit_experiment article. Please give a citation or link to take the reader to substantiation for this claim. P0M (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pat, I had merely copied the info added by a third party from the entropy article, where I felt it was out of place - hoping that it would be corrected elsewhere, however I have changed the content and added a reference. I will be the first to say that I don't fully understand the paper, and would be grateful if someone else reviews the work more thoroughly User A1 (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's enough. You've now supplied a formula using lots of letters, not a single one of which is defined. What is available is at best useful to the physicist who already knows the formula to begin with. And if it is Claude Shannon's idea, then his linked name, or a link to the article where his work on this subject is discussed, ought to be included. Of course if someone else had the book at home s/he might look up the original discussion.

Somebody put a warning on the article a while back asking for more citations. The person has never been back and has never been more specific about what things s/he wanted backed up by quotations. I've about mined out the contents of my own library, so if you see anything that could be tied to any of the fathers in the field and/or the few really clear textbook writers out there (e.g., Sears) you might link it in.

Thanks. P0M (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that the content & referencing there is not sufficient as it stands. I am kinda hoping not to get stuck with this, and that someone else picks up the baton here. As for the reference I assume you mean Sears & Zemansky, "University Physics". I am fairly certain that this is not going to be in there and will only be found in journals, the concept appearing up some time in the 90s. The Shannon reference that is there is of course referring to Shannon's Information theorem. I'll tag it with an expert tag, and see how it goes. The formula is correct, as it is from the paper directly, although the explanation and understanding is non-existant. I will try to devote some time to reading up on and understanding the concept - probably useful to know anyway. I just don't think that it is sufficiently bad to remove it as there exists the chance that it can be improved. User A1 (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I didn't mean "Sears and Zemansky." How do you know about that textbook? I am probably jaundiced and subjective but I suspect all that Zemansky did was to condense the series of textbooks that Sears wrote by taking out all the good stuff. Surely nobody used S&Z after the mid 60s.

Anyway, anything by Sears that has to deal with classical physics or relativity physics is a good place to send readers because Sears wrote so clearly. But for quantum physics his stuff is hardly adequate. Even the relativity book was written with the help of a younger man (now an emeritus prof. at Wake Forest University). I don't think he ever did an individual volume about quantum physics.

My idea about references is to get the stuff by the real experts that illuminates the history of the field. It is possible that the quantum eraser stuff will force some of the statements by the early figures to get qualified, but it usually works out that new readers need to work through the history of the development of a major idea. In other words, you need to be able to understand the basic double-slit experiment before you can start thinking about work-arounds. Similarly, if somebody claims to have found a way to use quantum entanglement to make a real ansible it would floor the average reader to jump into the middle of a discussion of how the device manages to get around all the catch-22s in the basic experiment that make it seem impossible to use for instantaneous communication.

Even if its been qualified somewhat, the basic findings in a field are generally nicely told by the old heads like Heisenberg.

I am not sure what is left to be given references in the article. Maybe the guy who tagged the article will come back and tell us what else he wants.

I just reviewed Brian Greene's second popular physics introduction, and I see that he takes even the Wheeler experiment as one that says something deep about the flow of time, what time is, etc. I will try to use his text to give support to any main points that are left over. I don't have many books of that vintage. P0M (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sears, Zemansky and Young is a standard textbook for university level physics :) . As I type it is sitting in a pile on my desk; as for the history of the texbook, I know not. Until I have had time to familiarise myself with this quite unfamiliar topic I can say nothing more that is truly useful. User A1 (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's amazing. Or, I guess it's not amazing because Sears was such a good physics textbook writer. I got his Optics used in 1957. If you've never seen the real thing you might check it out of the library somewhere. I hope Young put some of the good stuff back in. :-)

Are you studying physics or teaching physics? I am imagining a whole stack of SZ&Y on your desk.

I couldn't relate the formula you put into the article with the formulae in the Wikipedia article you gave a link to. If you have the original it ought to say in a pretty straightforward way what I, abcos, kd, L, and gamma stand for.

There is one place in the article where some writer has given a drawing and then just copied in a formula that uses some of the same letters. Rather than adapting the letters in the formula and the letters in the diagram to each other, the writer just tells the reader not to confuse the two. Things are bad enough for the high school student out on his own trying to figure things out without throwing up artificial barriers. P0M (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

steel

compounds and alloys do NOT have allotropes. the use of the word allotrope is limited to elements. the correct word is polymorph (i.e. Polymorphism (materials science)). I just forgot the word popymorphy then so I labeled allotrope as being wrong, without replacing it. Nergaal (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in fact if you would have checked the word allotrope on wiki you would have noticed from the first sencence that the use is limited to elements.Nergaal (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not querying the technical validity of your statement, rather the way in which it was employed. Why not just remove the word from the article saying "allotropes are restricted to elements only" in your edit summary? Strikethrough of text is usually reserved to indicate that you have said something and have changed your mind, however you wish to retain that text such that the previous statement is still obvious. For articles, simply crop the word out! Thanks User A1 (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lenticular.svg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lenticular.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roll back Request

Per your request I have allocated the rollback permission to your account. Best Wishes. Pedro : Chat 09:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

multidimensional tree

You apparently understand multidimensional tree's (such as kd-trees) rather well, I am a first year computer science student (they are considered graduate student material, but I like the sound of them). I doupt you have the time but if you would like to help me understand them at some point it would be greatly healpful. --Chase-san (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chase-san,

I think a good reference for understanding the tree can be found here. It is some work done by Andrew Moore (I am not affiliated with Prf. Moore ;) ) that explains the point quite well. I have made a quick animation that I think explains the principle a little more clearly, I will upload it soon, and post a link here. If you have specific questions I am more than willing to answer them. Thanks User A1 (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for Responding. I have attempted in the past to program a kd-tree. The main problem I always had was the exact way to find the nearest neighbors, I know you traverse the map going left or right based on which is closer. After that however you somehow have to backtrack and check other sectors to see if anything in them is closer then what is the first one you found, though while you do not have to check ones that would never possibly be closer, its more or less figuring out how to do that correctly and put it into code. I know a PriorityQueue is involved, but beyond that I am for a loss on how and where to check and in which order.

To be frank I have problems understanding some things, I am learning disabled but that doesn't stop me from trying to do so, its just one more obstacle to get past for me. So I always try to ask people to put it into simple terms, which is rarely ever possible (such as a hyperrectangle after much reading equated to 'a box in many dimensions') --Chase-san (talk) 06:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made the animation, but copied the wrong file onto my disk... I will upload it in about 6hrs.... User A1 (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here you are, let me know what you think and if this is a clear illustration. Image:KDTree-animation.gif User A1 (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its a little fast, I don't have time to read it all before it flips, let alone look at the diagrams. --Chase-san —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chase-san (talk • contribs) 18:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I slowed it down such that I give each frame its own delay time, overall its about a factor of 4 slower. You may need to refresh your browser for it to update. User A1 (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite a bit better. --Chase-san (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could try explaining more about how it goes back trought the nodes, say does it search to the end and go back up through the nodes starting with the deepest, or does it consider the opposite side after its just gone down one brach, etc. Chase-san (talk) 03:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead lk

Hey, A1, what's up. The link you added to WP:How to Draw a Diagram with Inkscape, commons:Tutorial_for_Vectorial_graphism, is dead, and I couldn't find the tutorial you meant in commons. Can you fix it? Thanks much, delldot on a public computer talk 05:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Apparently I needed to have commons:commons:Tutorial for ... To find it i just plugged "Tutorial for Vectorial graphism" into google and It was the first hit. I never tried clicking on the link - I thought wiki checked for the link's status and made it a redlink if it was bad; apparently not. Thanks for the heads up User A1 (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, duh, I can't believe I didn't notice that! Sorry to bother you with such an easily fixable thing. delldot on a public computer talk 12:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, not a problem - I should confirm my edits in the first place, good to have on-the-ball people to double check my work. User A1 (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of outsourcing companies

Hello User A1. I'm not the creator of this article, but I've tried to maintain it. Specifying a proper list-inclusion criterion would be straightforward. From my experience elsewhere I know that writing articles about businesses is hard; the needed information may not be readily available and a lot of digging is required. Since this is a business article, and it is not terrible, I'm tempted to do something to keep it. Would you consider withdrawing your AfD nomination if the list inclusion criterion were fixed? EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do stand by the nomination, for the reasons outlined, However the best place to voice your concerns would be on the article's AfD page. Once listed for an AfD, the deletion result should be reached by consensus. User A1 (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SELA - Semiconductor Engineering LAboratories

Why was this page deleted? This is a standard page of our company such as other companies that appear on the Wikipedia! The communication with admins whom decide what they want, without understanding what they are doing, is so bad, that I do not even have the possibility to explain. Yermi Herut (yermi@sela-semi.co.il) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.4.146 (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yermi H,

Firstly thank you for responding here. Let me try to summarise the points, in the hope that I can answer your question. It was deleted for several reasons, as outlined here. Basically I requested a discussion on the article, in which I recommended deletion (I am not and admin). You were notified on your user page about this discussion , and usually the timeframe for you to respond is a week. I then discovered that the article "content" was simply a cut and paste from some promotional material from the companies website. This (a) prevents the content from being covered by the GNU Free Documentation License, which content from wikipedia must be released under and (b) was purely promotional in nature. Due to the copyright violation the article's deletion discussion was upgraded to a "speedy deletion".

Although you have stated that you work for that company to use the content the company would be required to sign a copyright waiver, or some other IP release form. Even if they *did* sign a release form then the material still could not be used (I suggested deletion before I knew about the article's copyright issue) because of its promotional nature. Finally I would highly recommend having a quick browse of WP:PILLAR - which is really useful to understand what it is that most people here are working towards. Kind regards, and I look forward to your contributions in the future. User A1 (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SELA - Semiconductor Engineering LAboratories

Dear User:A1,

Thank you for your answer.

This is important for us, in order to understand how to change/improve so that the article will be finally set in place. Since you are the only person who answered, could you please help and advise:

1)how can I re-start again the article. 2)how can I get the backup of the article, so that I could base the changes upon

Thank you and waiting your answer. Yermi H. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yermih (talk • contribs) 13:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly doubt that an article can be made of this, as each article must show notability and must ensure that there is no Conflict of interest in it's creation. My own personal preference is to avoid writing articles about anything directly related to my employment, this makes avoiding a conflict of interest very easy. As for the return of articles that have been deleted, I undesrtand there is a process to do this (Deletion Review), but it only is used in very exceptional circumstances. User A1 (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SVG troubles

(continued from Wikipedia talk:SVG image support)

One extreme example is Image:Netball court.svg. Also, it took me several tries to get Image:Mesoplanets.svg to look right. Let me know if you want me to send you my file that wouldn't upload at all. --Lasunncty (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lasunncty,

Yeah the file that wouldn't upload at all would be good. Just upload it to some online storage space somewhere & tell me where you put it - I'll try to find it. Now I had a look at the netball SVG using a text editor to view the raw XML source code, and saw that in the lead tag:

<svg id="svg101" width="732" height="427" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">

And:

<text baseline-shift="-.3" text-anchor="middle" font-family="arial" font-size=".7" x="18.3" y="19.8">30.5 m</text>

Now for the first tag, as was explained to me, wiki's version of rsvg is a bit old, and doesn't deal well with svg opening tags that are missing the x= and y= data, so you can use a text editor to change this to (note x="0" y="0")

<svg id="svg101" x="0" y="0" width="732" height="427" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">

Which will inform RSVG where the top left of the diagram is supposed to be. Now let me talk about the second case. In the second case, I'm am going to guess at a solution and try a work-around; Now the SVG file is asking the renderer (rsvg again) to create arial text, which assumes that the server has Arial installed. For a non-windows/non Mac box, I believe due to licencing issues (now to some extent I am making this up) that you have to pay to distribute arial - so the rendering of this font may screw up (ie another different font gets substituted, or it drops it, or something, don't know, on my computer which doesn't have arial it tries to substitute and looks odd) I

In any case a workaround solution is before you upload it, you simply convert all text elements into path objects using your editors "object to path" or "stroke to path" function. This has the downside of making your text a pain in the backside to work with, so I suggest doing this, then saving that as a separate file which you upload, rather than modifying the file which you want to edit. The downside of this is that people need to ask you for the original file if they want to edit the SVG more easily, I guess you can't win 'em all.

Finally I noticed that the way that the text, such as the left hand distance marker "15.25m" and "backline" wasn't rotated to be vertical, I took the liberty of changing this, and the background colour, whilst I was at it, I checked the rendering with rsvg on my own computer before uploading it -> Image:Netball-edit2.svg (It worked first time!).

You can use rsvg to do this too, if you are using linux use your package manager such as apt-get or synaptic for debian based stuff (eg ubuntu) , yum for Fedora. Under windows it may be more complicated, because windows is not well suited for compiling or installing stuff, you may be able to do it with something like cygwin, or if someone has made a windows executable for it (maybe). Otherwise just keep uploading them to wiki to test them :(, or do a unix install somewhere. For mac you can use fink (mac apt-get thingy) to do the install for you User A1 (talk) 14:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes of SCADA article

Hello, I realized that you had removed link to a open source SCADA software which I added. Is there something wrong? --Mtutin (talk) 18:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was in a rush and was reverting some spam by User:Control.Optimization. It's restored User A1 (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SVG rendering bugs

Hello A1; I found you via the Wikipedia talk:SVG image support page. Is there a central place to report bugs for the Wikimedia SVG renderer (so far I haven't found such a place). An example being Image:Indicator_diagram_steam_admission.svg. I eventually managed to get to render, but only after a large number of modifications (as Image:Indicator_diagram_steam_admission2.svg). Text-on-a-path wasn't rendering; text bigger than text-frames—all very frustrating as the SVG rendered find in Inkscape and in Firefox directly. Are there any details of the renderer used? Many Thanks, —Sladen (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sladen,

I just created a page Wikipedia:SVG Help to try to help people with this. It seems you already have solved the problem in this case, but in future I will be keeping an eye on the help page. User A1 (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bernoulli's principle

Hi User A1! You have argued the case against “Bernoulli Sceptics” very well and I will refrain from using it in the future. (Ideally, I won’t have cause to use the term again.)

I recently added some text to an article but I did so without including any in-line citation. I was chastised, very gently and very professionally, by a Wiki editor who drew my attention to WP:Verifiability. As a result I realised the importance of verifiable in-line citations, and I now provide at least one for every substantial addition I make.

When I peruse the Talk pages for Bernoulli's principle and Lift I am amazed at the amount of debate about an adequate explanation for the phenomenon of lift, and the relevance of Bernoulli. Much of the debate appears to be based on editors’ personal ideas, personal preferences and ‘I heard it somewhere’ pseudo-information (Jimmy Wales' words quoted in WP:Verifiability). If contributors to Talk:Bernoulli’s principle and Talk:Lift (force) quoted a verifiable source, or kept in mind the need to eventually quote such a source, the debate would rapidly focus on the core of the issue. Extraneous personal views would disappear for want of any verifiable source. Only one side of this debate is well supported by the library of books, journals and reliable web-sites in the field of aerodynamics. (True, there is minority support for the other side of the debate, and it is covered in A common misconception about wings).

In future, when dealing with editors who are sceptical about the relevance of Bernoulli to lift, my approach will probably be to press them to quote their source. So far, these editors have revealed almost nothing about verifiable sources.

Happy editing! Dolphin51 (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CCD =

Hi, Sorry I dont know how to message you and no I dont have that CCD anymore (I tryed to desolder it and it broke) :( But I do have some other pictures of the same CCD... Uploading soon Qwertylex (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Qwertylex,

Drop me a line when you upload the images. Cheers User A1 (talk) 06:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biogasmax article

You reverted my article on the european project Biogasmax. Please, consider the fact that Biogasmax is NOT a commercial project and regroups the main places in Europe where efforts are made to promote the use of biogas as fuel vehicle. I agree to delete the link to the web site as I understand that Wikipedia is not a collection of links. But, what are we doing if we talk about biogas and biomethane without linking with the main applications in Europe? I am quite new in the Wikipedia world and I would accept with pleasure some advices. Thank you in advance. Sysife (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Sysife[reply]

Hello Sysife, and thankyou for taking the time to contact me on my user page, there are several reasons to remove this, not at least that all contributions to wikipedia must be licenced under the GDFL - directly content from a web page cannt be used in almost all cases. If you wish to write an article about the biogasmax project, it is most likely that provided you can prove WP:Notability then the article will stick around. Inter-linking this from the biogas article will most likely stick, as few editors are want to remove inter-wiki links.

I recommend having a perusal of WP:PILLAR for a bit of an idea of what contribution to wiki is about and where it is going. Having a read of WP:SPAM and WP:Noteability is a good place to start if you are concerned with having this reverted.

Best of luck, and happy editing User A1 (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that your userpage indicates whom you are. You clearly have some involvement in the project so I also suggest you read Wiki's conflict of interest (WP:COI) policies carefully if you intend to write about the project. As I have stated in previous communications with other users, I tend to avoid areas directly related to my employment to help me avoid any conflict of interest. This is a personal choice and is not mandatory by any means. User A1 (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and your advices. I read WP:SPAM and others as you adviced. I consider being free of conflict of interest as I am not paid to write this article and there is no collateral benefit coming from this kind of article. I intend to rewrite my article to be included in APPLICATION paragraph. I could talk about realizations from each partner as Göteborg, Stockholm, Bern and Lille inside the BIOGASMAX project but I do not want to overlap with information yet present on the website. Sysife (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article Revisions

Hey, You reverted the page Wikipedia:Graphics tutorials. I decided to edit the page for various reasons. Firstly, there were spelling mistakes such as 'opimisation'. Also I though the general flow of the article is lack luster. I though something like optimization need its out section and not two. I agree that my explanation of optimization was a little incorrect, but I tried generalizing in as few words as possible. Spin-docta (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spin-docta,

Thanks for replying on my talk page. Honestly I didn't spot the spelling errors at all; although as I stated on your talk page I was a little concerned at the incorrect explanation of optimisation. However I was more concerned that you removed several "image editing" capable programs, such as popular word processing packages. Now I'm the first to agree that these programs are probably the worst way to edit images, bar MS-Paint, but still it is unclear as to why you removed them. Thanks User A1 (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resistor Color Code Calculator Link

Hi,

I am the developer of myresistor.com. I tried to add it to the external links section of the [Resistor] wiki page but you removed it. This link is not spam. I created this website based on the information in the wiki to help users with both 4-band and 5-band color codes. This feature does not exist in the calculator currently linked in the wiki. I am also planing to support back conversion from resistor values to color codes very soon.

I really appreciate it if you can rollback to the last version containing my link.

Iyad Marzouka

admin@myresistor.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imarzouka (talk • contribs) 14:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Imarzouka,

I will have a closer look at the pages soon, however one form of spamming that I have reverted previously is where editors (particularly editors with little editing history) switch out external links with their own. I will examine the two sites in more detail in about 12 hrs. User A1 (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Imarzouka,

So the web-page has support for more tolerances and the 5 band resistors, so so far so good, but it also has google-ads which as we all know allow the author to get small amounts of funding for clicks. However there are no-other links to products or services (this is good). I have restored the link, and will visit the site from time to time to ensure it maintains its suitability as an external link. Honestly if you were a more active wikipedian, or put "Linked to a much better calculator" in the link it is unlikely I would have questioned the edit. Thankyou for taking the time to talk to me about this matter.

Swish little bit of ajax mind. User A1 (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, It seems that i cannot resotre the link, as it has been added to the global blacklist due to repeated spamming activity. You will need to sort this out if you want the link restored. This is something you will need to discuss with an administrator. User A1 (talk) 09:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking the time to evaluate the website :) I will try to remove it from the blacklist and restore the link. Please feel free visit the site from time to time to make sure that it is suitable. I will keep on maintaining it and offer more features. Thanks again --Imarzouka (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I am very sorry to bother you again. They have blacklisted myresistor.com and ledcalculator.net websites due to this. :( I had no intention of spamming. I tried to convince the administrators to remove the websites from the spam list but they refused [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#myresistor.com]. Since you are a good contributer to wikipedia, I thought you can help me get the websites unlisted. I would really appreciate your help. If you cannot, I would also like to thank you for your time. --Imarzouka (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to say it Imarzouka, but it is unlikely that you will get that in there. Posting the same link to multiple wikis, and that being the only activity, especially when a lot of it is coming from one domain will not stand, and definitely violates WP:SPAM as the edits appear to support the concept that the goal is to advertise a website rather than improve an encyclopaedia. User A1 (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]