User talk:Notinasnaid

To make my life easier, if you post here, I will reply here rather than on your own talk page. Please add new discussions at the end. Thanks,' Notinasnaid 11:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Notinasnaid and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck! Regarding your deletion from the Planet Stories page, I put it in, of course. I started reading Science Fiction and Fantasy during the mid-'60s, when I was in 6th and 7th grade. At the time, while I was reading the magazines, my chief sources for this stuff was paperbacks from Pyramid Books, Ballentine (pre-Del Ray) and Ace--especially Ace Doubles which were the personal responsibility of Donald A. Wollheim. In the 1970s I went to conventions where I met many of these people--including Wollheim who I was by then aware responsible for most of what I read. Mercedes Lackey recently wrote about being a fan of the same generation in an introduction to a collection of Andre Norton's Witch World novels. In it she talks about an understanding of science fantasy which has as little to do with the definition of science fantasy published here as mine has. She makes the point that the Witch World books were sold as Science Fantasy because the publisher (Wollheim) was afraid to publish it as fantasy. Wollheim also published Leigh Brackett's The Sword of Rhiannon and Secret of Sinharat/People of the Taliesman from Planet Stories. The Sword of Rhiannon was originally published as an Ace Double with Robert E. Howard's Conan The Conqueror (a title Wollheim gave it). They, Robert Cham Gilman (Alfred Coppel)'s The Rebel of Rhada which unlike them was not published in Planet Stories but was related to Coppel's Planet Stories Work, and Henry Kuttner's novellas from Startling Stories were all explicitly marketed as science fantasy. There were others but I have never been well-off enough to hang on to my collection. I don't have more verifiable information at my fingertips at the moment I can provide documentation for, and if you want to rephrase what I was saying more clearly, please do.Jplatt39 14:29, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please vote, I need you. I am qualified to write the new article, but this bad man keeps redirecting it. I need the strength of the people to allow me to do my work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Subtractive_color_space

Dkroll2

Yes, the bickering should end and resources should focus on just one article. It is not helpful to talk about a "bad man", however, nobody here can see anyone else's qualifications and humility is important, in my opinion. I don't care which one is left, and which one is redirected. Notinasnaid 16:15, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) (P.S. I think that my user page is meant for me to create things to satisfy my vanity, so I have deleted your message there).

(nother message moved from my user page) Apples that appear red are not red. measurement devives don't read colors, they read which wavelengths reflect and which absorb a sample. The human being's problem IS VANITY. We interpret reflected visible wavelengths as various "colors" But it is it entirely the egotistical human that believes the color emintates from the sample.

It's a hard concept to absorb, I know. But it's true.--Dkroll2 04:42, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

I fully understand the facts that you are interpreting, but I put a different interpretation on them. If colour was a PURELY psychological phenomenon, it would be impossible to measure. But the human eye and brain can be modelled when it comes to colour, so we CAN make machines that measure colour. Colour is not absolute, and it is subjective, but it is NOT purely psychological.

And arguing a red apple is not red may go down well in Physics lectures, but it contradicts the way the word is used. I would define a "red object" as "an object whose reflected light is perceived as red". Given my definition, clearly a red apple is red. You might define it differently and have a different answer - definitions are subjective too. Notinasnaid 09:23, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's not the way the word is used in ordinary English — it embodies a certain theoretical account of a causal process that leads to us experiencing an object as red. Moreover, as an account of redness it fails; think of complementary-colour phenomena, and of pressing one's eyeball for a while and then releasing the pressure (is there a technical term for this?). It also starts by trying to define “red object” and finishes with an appeal to seeing light as red; when I say that a cricket ball is red, I don't mean that I see the light reflected by it as red.

Note also that redness can't be measured; modelling the brain isn't the same as measuring colour (no matter how loose a notion of “measure” one adopts). (The phenomenology of perception is one of the sticking points of the physicalist account of the mental.)

Oh, and by the way, I agree completely about your comment on the 1984 edit; I must admit that when I wrote “an historical” it hadn't occurred to me that it was a question of U.S. vs British English. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:41, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The question of what makes a colour "red" is a deep one, and I think there should be (if there isn't) an article examining the meaning, psychology and semantics of colour. I don't think I could write one. Indeed, I may say I see red when I mean something different. My initial argument was with the statement (of a red apple) "an apple is not red", which I feel is trying to convey something but ignoring the way language is used. In terms of the original article, it has gone now; I don't think it added illumination in its specific area of subtractive colour.

You know, I'm less sure now that "an historical" is universally recognised as correct British English. So I will change my rationale to "reverted unexpected change", rewriting (an) history I suppose. I have observed that sometimes people "correct" writing based on a limited grasp of the language. (Maybe we all do.) In an article I contributed to (Publicly funded medicine), I had used "cost" as a transitive verb (e.g. "the changes had to be costed"), and to my surprise several people kept changing it in different ways (e.g. to "the changes had to be cost" or treated as a synonym for "paid for"). Why is that relevant? I think I mean that the original change may simply have been a "hit and run" gut feeling that the English wasn't how the editor would have spoken, rather than based on a deep opinions on English usage. Of course, writers have a responsibility to be understood, so I don't know the right answer. Notinasnaid 10:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've had similar experiences. For example, "artefact" changed to "artifact" (my spelling described as a typo). Off Wikipedia, I once received an angry e-mail from someone complaining that I'd described the ideal approach to philosophy as being "disinterested and dispassionate"; I don't need to explain what they'd imagined those words meant. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:19, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is a cyan problem on Talk:Cyan that involves something you put on the article itself. Can you try to answer it in detail?? Georgia guy 23:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I tried... Notinasnaid 08:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You wrote on my talk page (and incidentally forgot to sign):

I thought I'd pop by and mention that your color info boxes are causing some disquiet, with me but others too. I really think the CMYK values in particular should be removed. There was existing talk on Talk:Purple; I also added to Talk:Cyan.

I am thoroughly aware of the problem, and indeed have noted it in several places. The best solution is not to shuffle the problem under the electronic carpet but to discuss it openly. I think the likely best solution is to agree on the appropriate range of values to use for Wikipedia articles, and also make sure we agree on the transformation algorithm. I know that some of the articles talk about values between 0 and 1, but I don't think this displays well; also in most places it is the ratio of values which is important, and the scaling is relatively trivial. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 07:11, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou kindly for your info on my difficulties with the above named article. Please do not put any more info on the halp desk - put it on my talk page at --User Talk:195.188.51.4 For your information, this is what I had intended to put in the article:

=ÉFF=

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The ÉFF is a society in Quebec that helps find out about and promote awareness of Geology and Natural History in Canada and USA.

External links

[www.eff.org/Net_culture/Net_info/EFF_Net_Guide/EEGTTI_HTML/eeg_32.html]

Okay, I posted it for discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Science_fiction#future_prediction --TomCerul 05:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I watched myself get annoyed at the whole CMYK conversation and I stopped myself just in time from getting personal.

My viewpoint is that of the pragmatic: if my current view of CMYK to RGB conversion is wrong, please advise. Do I need an extra parameter for gamma (power law)? Do I need 7 different parameters for every CMYKRGB component? "There is no formula" is just not constructive. Every RGB color on a web page is converted to CMYK when printed. So there is a conversion possible.

--Pforret 10:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Notinasnaid, thanks for the message. I'll make some comments on the talk page. --Ngb ^?!? 09:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't revert your edits on punk music, and you don't revert my edits on comic books. You see, not only are you ignorant of the European comics marketplace, you also reverted my spelling corrections and removed an interwiki link - Pc13 12:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Sorry about my tone earlier. --Pc13 13:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hope I have the right place. Did I miss a discussion of a change from colour to color? The color article is regularly messed up and reverted to color, so I'm surprised to see this happening...? Notinasnaid 15:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you doing it anyway?? Georgia guy 21:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand, this was abuse from user 130.159.254.2 (talk · contribs) who added the template notification at the top of the page, which, forced NekoDaemon to make changes. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this and continue the discussion in WP:CFD. Thanks. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you wrote this as a response on the HelpDesk. If you look at the top of the page, there is a description asking the user to ask questions at the Reference Desk. Not too far below that is a section called "How to answer a question", which specifies that you should "Please be thorough" and to "Be concise, not terse." So really, telling someone to look at the top of the page is somewhat ironic and you give more information by simply stating Factual questions should be asked at the reference desk. It gives so much more information in less words. Thanks, though, for helping with the load at the HelpDesk. jnothman ^talk 23:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A good point, though on the other hand I suspect there is no point answering these things at all, because the way things are set up the confused user will never see the replies, and replying at all to lost souls is really a form of self-indulgence. I speculated at some length on this in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Help_desk#A_theory_of_why_there_is_so_much_junk_on_this_page . Notinasnaid 23:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm going to remove your well-intentioned addition

It should be noted that all of these methods do not actually specify exact colors. Rather, they specify recipes for making a color, in terms of red, green and blue. Since computer monitors vary wildly in their idea of "red", "green" and "blue", the result of the recipe is similarly variable. There is no way to specify an exact color for use on web pages that will work reliably for a majority of real-world monitors. Any examples below show how these colors appear on your own monitor, and can be used for comparison with other monitors.

because its factually incorrect. All colorimetric definitions are in terms of a mixture of color components, otherwise we would not get different hues. Its also incorrect to say that they are not exactly specified - they are. Rather, the fidelity of representation of the specified colors varies - and not "wildly" either, but moderately. --Nantonos 22:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends what you mean by "wildly". Just walking around the office I find colors are so different that what looks good on some machines is undistinguishable on others. If web colors are really standardised on sRGB, there is something to be said about this, but 99% of monitors are not calibrated, no matter how smart the user agents. Also, what is said may be accurate, but will go way over the head of people who really need to understand that these colors are, in the real world, dangerously variable. I will try to work with you to get a consensus, but underplaying the differences in end-color isn't the way to go, I think. Notinasnaid 08:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry about the typo I made when changing Britain -> United Kingdom. The edit box must have lost focus. - FrancisTyers 17:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any hope of some free-licensed photography? Jkelly 20:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I had photos I would probably donate them, but unfortunately I don't do photography at gigs. Sorry! Notinasnaid 20:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for handling the revert war. Sorry for the problems I may have caused, but the things written were simply of a very low quality. Good addition to the article! ^_^ Sephylight 12:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The creator code/type code stuff should probably have been mentioned on the talk page for the template. The template has a "typecode" item as well as a "creatorecode" item. "ostype" misled one person into thinking it was the type of OS the file was used on, and I'd assumed he was correct and used it for that as well; in addition, an OSType is a general four-character code, used both for type codes and creator codes, as well as for unrelated things. Both of those rendered it inappropriate for the template. Guy Harris 03:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Notinasnaid, on the PageMaker article, you wrote that "even under Mac OS X, it has problems" and you recommend running it under OS 9. Now, the last time I used PageMaker (and I admit, it was a few years ago) I had no problems running it under Jaguar (10.2.5, to be specific). What kinds of problems does it have under the newer OS X revs? Can you cite an Adobe Support document? — EagleOne\^Talk 00:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look on http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?14@@.ee6b340, with the discussion (now up to 337 messages) "PageMaker doesn't work well in OSX". There is some debate, but clearly many do have problems. Notinasnaid 07:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there ever were a case to make for use of the word unique, I think describing chameleon eyes would be one of the few times. There really is nothing else in the animal kingdom quite like them. :) -Dawson 17:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word "unique" is perfectly fine. It is the abuse of the word unique that is the problem. Nothing can be most unique, very unique, or particurly unique. See Adjective#English paragraph 3. In general, if I find "very unique" I can turn it to just "unique" but in this phrase "their eyes are the most unique among the reptiles." it does not work if one simply removes the word "most". "Their eyes are unique among the reptiles" conveys a different meaning. So rather than change the meaning, I changed the word to "distinctive". Notinasnaid 21:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point on "more unique", but distinctive (surely) isn't precise enough here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pgrieg (talk • contribs) 12:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

There's probably a much better way to say it. Notinasnaid 13:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Noticed your post on the J Sainsbury talk page. RSS stands for Retek Store Systems. Retek is a business systems company and is now part of Oracle. RSS is a brand name for one of its stock management systems, as used by Sainsbury's. The edit you questioned is very detailed (including RSS), not particularly interesting and poorly written so I've removed it. --Mark83 19:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thabks for you alert.I rolled back his edits and left a spam-msg, no need to block now. Cheers.Lectonar 12:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - there's a debate ongoing about the suitability of the Tesco example on the Juggernaut page. I wondered if you'd be able to contribute, on Talk:Juggernaut? Thanks. --Oscarthecat 06:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for uncorrecting my correction, I was on another page that it was "misspelled", and started to wonder if I always had it wrong in my head... Jancis confirmed it, and you'd already undone my wrongs... sorry about that, and thanks again! Walter Moar 03:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'd like to ask you to place a vote on the names issue in this as you raised the question. There are several parallel names issues, but the date driven category deletion process begun May 1st is begging this ebook article page title (eBook vs ebook) be stabilized as well. (see (currently partial note-while I 'spam') User_talk:Fabartus#For_Closing_Admin:eBooks as that vote is apparently deadlocked.) I'd just like to get back to content! Thanks FrankB 17:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've read your comments on the project talk page and I agree with most of it. It looks like the project was dormant for some time, even though a lot of good work and discussion was already done. Care to help me start this project back up? Anlace and MiracleMat are also on board. Aside from articles on colors themselves, there are many other articles about color in some way that we might want to take a look at, as well as Color which is possibly close to FA. Lastly, there's been at least one request that we lend advice on colors for the rest of Wikipedia. To make a long story short, I would love to see this wikiproject become a little more comprehensive, and while we hash out what to do about the colors themselves, I think there's some other places we could be doing some good concurrently. I've started a to-do list of sorts at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Color/Strategy, so feel free to take a look and make any changes you feel necessary. It might be a little on the ambitious side but you won't go very far being overly cautious :) -- Laura S | talk to me 20:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Blink*. Ok. What's your source or reasoning for this? I saw nothing on talk, and I've never heard of this before. The colorspace mapping seems to be correct, at least. Kim Bruning 20:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to print a bright green like this by mixing Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Black inks. Have you ever worked with CMYK? It's just meaningless in all cases, because there is no standard CMYK and no rule for converting even the values that can be printed. (And I am campaigning to remove all CMYK values: there has been discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Color and needs to be more). Much harm has been done by online calculators where you can plug in RGB values and out comes CMYK values, right or wrong... Notinasnaid 22:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the color does map to those coordinates, but these coordinates are outside the normal gamut of colors provided by real life ink. If we had perfect ink, these values would be the correct mapping. I do agree that a warning to that effect would be useful, I don't agree to removing the mapping altogether. Kim Bruning 10:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to get my proposal to remove all these unsourced/original research CMYK colors from all info boxes onto the Wikiproject page in the next few days. I think it is an inescapable result of Wikipedia's policies, but there will doubtless be some active discussion. I would like to ask you: do you make use of the CMYK colors in these boxes? If so, how? I think they are actually useless, being so far removed from any real world CMYK mix, but I would like to hear the other side. Notinasnaid 10:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No theoretical color model maps perfectly to real world perception. That's why there are several of them, RGB, CMYK, HSV, HSL, RYB, YUV, YIQ. Each is a better approximation for a particular situation. None will map perfectly.

For instance, colors represented by RGB are subject to color temperature, gamma adjustment, and specific medium (CRT or TFT). Sometimes in RGB, color mappings are even spatial in nature (in the case of anti-aliasing optimised for TFT).

So by the same argument, we can argue that the RGB mapping should be removed also.

As for the HSV mapping, well, that's a very ideal artists model, and cannot be perfectly represented in reality at all. We could remove it as well.

With all the above removed, we would now be at loss as to how to represent colors at all.

Of course, the reason we're supplying these models as is, is because they give a great amount of understanding and insight into how the model works. Naturally, in real life, you'll still need to go the extra mile. But you're already pretty close.

Coming back to concrete action: The colors for CMYK were at one time all calculated using the model at CMYK. If you would like to supply an additional model with gamut corrections for specific media, that would be grand. Even so, the ideal model is still useful for understanding CMYK, so let's keep that as well!

Kim Bruning 13:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The RGB, which should be sRGB in most cases is fine because that is published; that's what a specification says. We can source it. The other data is derived; I would argue that it amounts to original research since it's Wikipedia's imaginary CMYK space. It may come to using an improved model for CMYK conversion, but I will be arguing for complete removal. I don't see what insight a set of completely wrong CMYK co-ordinates can offer! If on the other hand we have a color which a specification provides in CMYK, that should be faithfully reported; but I would argue against having a swatch for it unless the specification also provides sRGB. Notinasnaid 14:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the point of my whole issue on the Desknotes article. I never pretended to know anything about the subject. My point was that the term was used by people in general to mean a particular type of computer. Even other Wikipedia articles on personal computers do not reference Desktop replacement computer. They reference Desknote or Desknotes. Hence the need to have all that redirecting going on. KarenAnn 21:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you mentioned on the Color project talk page that you were developing a proposal for how to deal with swatches and such. Can you elaborate on that proposal will cover and about when you expect to unveil it? I don't want to do anything that might be affected by this proposal and therefore, potentially change in a significant way sometime soon. Thanks! -- Laura S | talk to me 16:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still trying to finish it; i have the proposal part but not the justifications. I'm away for a week from Saturday so my target is to get it ready by then. Thanks for your patience! Notinasnaid 17:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sooner than expected! It looks good for the most part - I have a few comments/questions/suggested changes, nothing too major at first glance though. I probably won't have a good solid chunk of time to work on a response for a day or two (by which time you may already be gone), so I just wanted to let you know I like it after a quick initial reading. -- Laura S | talk to me 20:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Notinasnaid 20:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you're back from your break, hope your vacation was nice :) Don't know if you've had a chance to read all the discussion that your proposal sparked at the Color Wikiproject. It seems we have a concensus (with only 3 people agreeing, but we are a small project and no one has dissented!). Quiddity suggested putting the proposal on the main page of the project and I agree, though I'd like to rework it a little to take some of the other comments into account as well. Would you take a look and give it your yay/nay/additional commentary?

I also noticed that you're not listed as a member of the project. Considering all you've contributed so far, I think you should add yourself :) -- Laura S | talk to me 21:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think that your user page has been vandalised,i'm not sure but it looks like vandalism to me.--Captain ginyu 11:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. That is actually how I left it. I didn't want a user page at all, because I consider them all vanity, but someone left me a message on there by mistake. Since I can't delete it, I left it that way! Thanks again, Notinasnaid 12:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the lyrics that used to be on the Canned Heat Blues article and put them on Wikisource. Kschwerdt514 2:43 5 June 2006 (UTC)

So wikipedia can't be used to make a point. Isn't the whole (and you'll excuse me here) 'point' of the project to provide an encyclopaedia of the highest quality possible. To provide that quality the project must continue to evolve and improve itslef. To do so there must be suggestions and debate and discussion which by the very definition of those terms involves making a point. I did not change the article itself, rather I used the correct channel of utilising the discussion page. To say using a discussion page to make a point about possible improvements to an article is a misuse of wikipedia nullifies the entire purpose of discussion. AntonioBu 04:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is an interesting one. Since I was not challenging your use of the talk page, I have copied your comment to Talk:Color and responded there. Notinasnaid 06:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notinasnaid: Sorry, N, I just found out (Ezeu)that I'm suppose to use the bottom of the page. So I'm replugging at the bottom. Here goes:Hi! Now who are you? I just got through replying at some lenghth to Ezeu (sic). I hope there is a way you all have to benefit from one another's "User talk" pages. It sure would shorten up the writers who are trying to massage each's brilliance at editing. A little shot there, because after a while, that's what it seems like. I can't let you brand me as a newspaper writer. Unless you're the perfect writer I'm sure your style reflects something. I can see at least two of you using this brand and cling to it until "the bum gets thrown from Wikipedia." But, still you may very well be the perfect writer, which in that case go to it. I have other stories to write and share. I wrote Aamjiwnaang: A Can..." and provided it to Wikipedia to help broaden our knowledge base, and hope at the same time enhance the joy of reading and learning how other's put so many words together for the benefit of all. If you can't learn that, perhaps you are not the perfect writer. Have you ever read an article written by writers from other lands (they are translated into English for your benefit). The way they choose their words and phrases is wonderful (I'm not saying my article is wonderful). It is not the way we would write, but because the way they put it is so interesting and seemingly creative we like it. It's their way of talking English language on paper. At the same time, when they read our's (to them we are from "other lands.") they enjoy the way we construct the English language as they understand it, and find it facinating as well. I am Lenni Lenape, I speak Lenni Lenape. If you don't know what that is look it up in the Wikipedia. There are good descriptions of who we are and our history. The people of Aamjiwnaang are Ojibwe. If you want to re-write Aamjiwnaang, the story, go ahead. If you need my permission that is. If it disappears from the Wikipedia, that's fine too. It was there for awhile for others to use, learn and perhaps enjoy. I know you love to edit, so, happy editing. There seems to be a million stories here; you have a big job in front of you. Yours Truly Bud Whiteye 20:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Bud Whiteye PS., I asked some important Q's in Ezeu, I hope they can get answered.[reply]

Hi! My name is S-man, and I have just created a series of books that can be read online on one of my subpages! To read them, go here. To join my fan club, go here. To leave a comment on my stories, go here. Thanks! --71.252.134.171 16:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the spam from 200.118.15.91 (talk · contribs) on Mortgage and Printing. It's also helpful to put a spam warning template on the user's talk page after reverting the spam. (e.g. {{subst:spam1}} , {{subst:spam2}} etc.) If they accumulate three or four warnings, they can be blocked. Thanks! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this sauce is not from Bologna... If you go there, they'll look at you as you were crazy if speaking about "Bolognese sauce"!--Attilios 11:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the case, but if so it flatly contradicts the entry for Bolognese sauce. I propose putting back my original text unless or until the other article changes. I suggest continuing this on Talk:Bologna. Notinasnaid 11:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have to ask: what is the etymology of your name? I always misread it as "Notannsaid" as in "Not an NSAID" -- as if you are a steroid. =) --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 19:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, that's usually how I read it too, but that's probably cause I work for a pharmaceutical company. Or perhaps Not In Asnaid? (Um, maybe not.) Please enlighten us! -- Laura S | talk to me 20:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too! I read it as "not in as 'n aid", but, um, that doesn't make sense.   :(   Shenme 22:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Notinasnaid 15:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My contribution to discussion to resolve the issue: [1] Notinasnaid 15:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re your tweaking of gallery. The words that were needed to make a full sentence out of each picture title were intentionally omitted, because the "notes" accompanying each pic were already longer than is usual. However, to save confusion, I have added "HBB window" etc!

The problem with making a well-intentioned cleanup that's outside ones area of expertise is that in copying a form from one place to another, one creates errors. The small pic of the Good Shepherd was indeed a "panel".

But the accompanying images, including this four-light window that's in the vicinity of twenty feet high, are not mere "panels". This example is one very large window constructed of 8 large panels and 8 small panels (each one nearly as big as that Good Shepherd panel) and 13 smaller tracery lights. 29 in all.

About the inclusion of commercial and non-English sites:- that commercial site didn't appear to add anything. But in some cases commercial sites can add valuable information that can't be found elswhere, eg a commercial site may describe the manufacture of glass in detail and accompany it wth pictures that are not available through Wikipedia. Likewise, a non-English website can add valuable pictorial information that can't be found elswhere. I'm not sure what the non-English site was. I'll go back and see if I can find it.

--Amandajm 05:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English site

I just took a look at it. It's a case in which the fact that it's not in English hardly detracts at all from the visual information that it contains. It's all pictures. I wouldn't have removed it. But it IS a commercial site.

--Amandajm 05:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I introduced errors, and thank you for correcting them. I do feel, however, that captions should be complete sentences. Notinasnaid 07:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to look for the link, it's in the history [2]. Notinasnaid 07:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Please be aware that I added a request for deletion on absolute color space, and listed my reasons there--since you initiated the article, I thought it would be fair to notify you on this.

Cheers, Gutza ^{T T+} 11:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you tagged some images with {{wrong-license}} when {{fairusedisputed}}, {{nsd}}, or even {{db-badfairuse}} might have been more appropriate. Just wanted to let you know about those templates... --Fritz S. (Talk) 14:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the matter with the idiot?! How can anybody be that persistent?

--Amandajm 12:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the spam? Actually pretty minor. For instance, see this current incident, which isn't that big still...: [3]. Notinasnaid 13:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You reinstated part of my revert in the credit card article. I simply said "rv linkspam", but I forgot to mention that my revert also consisted in removing the redundant Bankcard (credit card) wikilink. So, I respectfully re-reverted it. -- AirOdyssey 22:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting my reply: ah, I see, redundant because it was there already, not because the network has folded. Got it! Notinasnaid 23:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! -- AirOdyssey 23:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you could take some time to weigh in on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Norman_Technologies

Thanks much. -- MyWikiBiz 14:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed you changed the links on John Lee Hooker from The Healer to The Healer (album), which is great, but then you left the Healer article where it was. Basically, it just broke the links. I went ahead and moved The Healer to The Healer (album), but next time, that seems like the sort of thing that should be done when the links are changed. Sorry for being so nit-picky. Sir Isaac Lime 15:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, but at the time I did this, there didn't seem to be any The Healer article. It was created at 09:43 today, but I made my change at 09:40. I noted it as a "redlink" (i.e. missing article) in the change summary. Notinasnaid 16:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, sorry about that. For some reason I remembered there being one already. Guess I was wrong. Any way, it's all taken care of now. Sir Isaac Lime 00:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's great. Thanks for editing my grammar. Now it looks much better. ;-) — Indon (reply) — 19:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Notinasnaid 20:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refers to your edit on 6th September '06 where you removed the words "or may be in the world" stating the example of Corrour railway station in UK. However after vieing the two I see a big diffrence. Matheran has motorable roads but vehicles have been banned to protect the eco-sensitivity of the region (By the Govt. of India). To my knowlage there is no other place where this has been done. - Wheredevelsdare

You may be right. However, I misunderstood the words "hill station". According to hill station most are in India anyway, so it is a small qualification...? Notinasnaid 12:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you got it wrong there. Hill Stations are holiday destinations set in the mountains, they are called hill stations in India but may be called something diffrent in diffrent places around the world (Countires like Malaysia and Switzerland etc. too have holiday destinations set in mountains). After doing some research I have found that there is one place in Switzerland which does not allow vehicles except for cycles. In Matheran even cycles are banned. I do not know of any other such place(s) (Read Place not hill station) anywhere in the world which has banned ALL VEHICLES. If you do know of some place(s) please enhance my knowlage of the same or please revert the article. Thanks - Wheredevelsdare 08:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message. Let's see what we can do to make the Matheran article better. But let's start with some details: according to [4] you can get a bicycle rickshaw into Matherin, which suggests it is wrong to state "even cycles are banned". Another point is that to support any uniqueness a source is needed. It is not enough for us to do a web search and not find any other cases: in fact that is Original Research, as I see it, and banned in Wikipedia. If an article in a suitable place (e.g. a national newspaper) repeats this statement, though, that is a good source and should be quoted. Notinasnaid 10:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know where this has come from - cycle rickshaws are banned in Matheran - it is man-pulled rickshaws that are allowed ( See [5])... Wheredevelsdare 05:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the only source. Consider [6]

"However, as cars are prohibited in Matheran, you will then face a 40-minute walk into Matheran or you'll have to hire a horse or cycle-rickshaw. Only the toy train goes right into the centre of the town." Now, I've read enough links to be convinced these two are wrong, but it does point out the problem with using web searches as sources. However for other places where motor vehicles and bicycles are banned, if we are to believe what we read, see Gulangyu Island and Hydra, Saronic Islands. Notinasnaid 08:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming the same. However Im not sure about the 2 examples you gave me. In Gulangyu Island it says "The island of Gulangyu is a pedestrian only destination, where the only vehicles on the islands are several fire trucks and passenger transport vehicles." and in Hydra, Saronic Islands there are garbage trucks and water taxi's. None of them have totally banned vehicles. Anyways I think as you earlier said we should find a more reliable source like a national newspaper or something to confirm the same ... Wheredevelsdare 10:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say that Green is not possible in CMYK. Well, is there any alternate to CMYK in which all visible colors are possible?? Does any Wikipedia article talk about it anywhere?? Georgia guy 14:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For printing, this color is not possible if only CMYK inks are used. A special bright green ink would be needed. There is some detail in CMYK color model. You might find it useful to take your question to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Color where this is the plan, not yet acted on, to remove CMYK from all color boxes. The reason for removing from this specific one was partly because it is so very impossible in CMYK, and partly to generate more discussion on that page. Personally, I'd be very interested to know why you would want CMYK values (given that they cannot be right, in general). Notinasnaid 15:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to a page is not a copyright violation, even if the content on the page linked to is. The web would be quickly destroyed if you were supposed to check the legality of the content of every page you link to. —Chowbok 21:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legal views differ, but Wikipedia:External links is clear: "Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page is not violating copyright per contributors' rights and obligations. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States." So I think it was important to remove this link. I intend to remove it again, unless a discussion reveals we should do otherwise. (Please reply on Talk:Harrison Bergeron to keep the discussion in one place.) Notinasnaid 07:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good edit.Dolive21 18:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the direct link that works: http://nakedgord.blogspot.com/2006/10/some-chas-addams-from-new-yorker-and.html

The / at the end of the link was screwing it up.

What is the copyvio thing you wrote in the edit and how would I go about recifying it so it'd be acceptable to wikipedia?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.28.205 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your message. Copyvio = copyright violation. Wikipedia has to be ultra cautious here in a changing legal scene. Wikipedia does not link to pages that contain copyright violations (see Wikipedia:External links,Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works and also Hyperlink#Legal and moral issues concerning hyperlinks). (Wikipedia also doesn't much like links to blogs, but that's a separate issue). Now, I realise that you are just presenting images from other people's sites, but at least some of those sites are copyright violations themselves. What Wikipedia can do is link to authorized sites, and I've just updated the "Charles Addams foundation" link to indicate it has a gallery on it, which is good news for we Addams fans. However, other guidelines mean an article shouldn't become a collection of links to every Charles Addams cartoon we can find. So... good luck with your site, but I don't think Wikipedia can link to it. Notinasnaid 11:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the links I place on the bookbinding page are justified, relevant and on topic, how dare you keep on deleting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibliopegist (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your comment. Please continue this discussion on Talk:Bookbinding, so that the editors of the page (not just you and me) can reach a consensus about whether they meet Wikipedia's guidelines. See you there. Notinasnaid 06:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This edit summary made me laugh. :-) Well said, Irongargoyle 22:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya - saw your change of the redirect from PI lawyer to a stub with a Wiktionary definition. I don't have any problem with it, but when I did a "what links here" for Ambulance chaser, all of the articles were using it in the context of a PI lawyer, so I thought the redirect was the most appropriate thing until someone fancies doing a real article. But I don't have any really strong views on the issue. Legis 07:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it would be useful to see which of these links are quoting and which ones are applying a point of view. I suspect this wouldn't be a useful use of our time, though: ambulance chaser was moved to wiktionary before and deleted, so the chances are that the same deletion process will be repeated when someone notices. I guess. Notinasnaid 07:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've deleted the contributions I made to the Memory Leaks article. Your justification does not make sense. Of course memory leaks occur during program execution! But I don't see your point. By definition the memory that hasn't been freed after the program exits is leaked memory. I suspect you are probably a non-programmer, as you don't seem to fully understand the subject.

Memory not freed at the end of execution of a program is indeed likely to be leaked, but this is very rare, since modern operating systems do release all of a program's user space memory when the program is completed. The rare care where this does happen is already covered in "Cases where leaks are much more serious include...where the program is able to request memory (e.g. shared memory) that is not released, even when the program terminates".

(The system freeing user space memory is vital, since a great many programmers don't bother to free all of their memory when quitting a program, knowing that the system will reclaim it.)

Yeah, that's a poor habit to get into, some OSes don't free the memory.

I observe you also changed the words "modern operating system" to "some operating systems". Do you have an example of a modern operating system (other than for embedded systems) that does not free user space memory?

AmigaOS is one that springs to mind.

Your new addition "One way of determining leakage without access to the source code is to compare the free system RAM before and after execution of the suspect program, or to examine the memory lists in a system monitor." is likely to suggest that people can test for memory leaks this way. But the vast majority of memory leaks will show no symptoms with this test, because the system does free their memory. In addition, some small variation in free system RAM is likely because of system activity and other programs; this would therefore lead to people who aren't programmers deciding they have a memory leak. Overall, I cannot support this addition. Notinasnaid 08:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the system is freeing the memory, then by definition the memory has not leaked.

Nevertheless, when people talk about a memory leak, they mean a leak in a program that has not yet completed – as the article says. This is a potential problem with any long running program. Some programs of course run for years, so must not leak. Notinasnaid 10:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I created the above article without noticing the article you created on the same subject. I would propose the merger of the two. Your article has the superior discussion of construction, while mine emphasises numerous examples and a more worldwide perspective. I would be glad to do the work of the merger. Let me know your thoughts. Cheers. Anlace 19:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please respond to this query. Anlace 14:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Merging is a good idea. Notinasnaid 15:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

done, subject to your review and approval. Anlace 21:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! Of course, the really tricky thing will be sourcing it. (I spoke to my roofer for some of the details). Notinasnaid 09:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you removed some external links to the polyol(dot)org site on the basis the site's provenance was unknown. The site claimed to be created by Kellen Interactives, a website design and promotion firm who also happen to be the registered owner of the IP address adding them to the articles. The same IP address also added two sites, fructose(dot)org and aspartame(dot)org which are Calorie Control Council sites. The Calorie Control Council is a group representing the diet food industry. I've removed these two sites as well. --Siobhan Hansa 19:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update! Notinasnaid 20:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I copied it over from the list on Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Castles/Progress, when I was trying to ensure they both had the same coverage. Thanks for picking it up as an intruder! ::Supergolden:: 10:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that makes sense! Here are three more things that might interest you having checked the Buildings of Argyll And Bute:

• Lachlan -> see Old Castle Lachlan in Garbhallt; there is also a New Castle
• Dunyvaig -> in the index as Dunyvaig, Lagavilin
• The status of Torosay Castle is questionable, but it does match the specification (it calls itself a castle, in other words)

Hope this helps. Notinasnaid 10:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for that POV insertion, I forgot WP:NPOV for a second! sorry! SunStar Net 18:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't I put I new one? That was one that I use VERY often. This is FF6666. I don't see why it can't be added to the list, it is part of the colors.

The Web colors page lists the official color names in international standards like HTML and CSS. These are the colors which can be used by name in all browsers, so it is an important list for web designers. You cannot add colors to those standards, so new colors have no place on the page. The table you changed is just a copy of http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/#svg-color, in a different order. If you do think you should be able to add your favourites, please start a discussion on Talk:Web colors, thanks. (Remember that there are 24 million different colors, each one of which may be someone's favourite). Notinasnaid 07:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean there are too mnay to put all of them up. I understand. 4myself4

About green, I understand 24,000,000 colors, but I thought some colors were exactly alike. Is that so, or not? 4myself4 01:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the 24 million colors is different, but the human eye is not sensitive enough to see all of them as different. Also, many computer monitors are not good enough to show them as different. From RGB color model: "It is claimed that the human eye can distinguish as many as 10 million discrete hues (this number varies from person to person depending upon the condition of the eye and the age of the person). However, at the resolution of current screens and at a standard viewing distance people cannot distinguish more than a few hundred hues." Notinasnaid 13:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will repost with more facts stated from more sources in a more formal manner (I tend to try to become persuasive in my arguments, because humans can't make their own decisions) - but it is better because it is more natural - do you need to trust technology in everything you do? Radiotherapy is completely unnatural and probably has many bad side effects - fruit has zero bad side effects. - this whole Wikipedia site seems pretty bogus for destroying other's articles - every individual has an opinion and a right to share it - just because one opinion has been supported by the government or other sources doesn't mean that the one that isn't government sanctioned is less truthful - some opinions haven't been tested by the government, but should be known as potential options - how do you think we know the world is round? If Wikipedia had existed back in the day of Galileo, it would've kicked his information off immediately, but clearly his discovery was much more truthful than that of government at the time. THINK.

No, every individual has an opinion, but Wikipedia does not provide you with any right to share it. Wikipedia is not for opinions, or original ideas. See WP:NOT. However, if you are able to quote reliable sources, the place to propose this is the talk page of the article.Notinasnaid 23:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said in your edit summary, "Experimentally removing new tags. If I can remove them, the sprotect was a fake." Not necessarily - you're an established user, and sprotection only prevents new and anonymous users from editing an article. But, yes, that sprotect was indeed a fake. I don't know a better way to check than either (1) ask an admin or (2) go searching through the protection logs. Or, I suppose, (3) try editing the page with a fresh clean sockpuppet. Cheers, FreplySpang 10:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Just as well it really was a fake! Notinasnaid 11:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just noticed you included the mention "citation needed" in the Neneh Cherry article, regarding the name of her husband. Here is the quote from the Neneh's official website : "Cameron Mc Vey aka Booga Bear married Neneh in 1990. They have two kids together, Tyson and Mable. ". What am I supposed to write in the article? The whole quote? Cheers, Godescalcus

The important thing is not the quote, but where it is from; the idea is that anyone can independently check it. Would you like me to try and add that reference? Note also that what you quote only supports the "husband" bit, not the alias Burt Ford = Cameron McVey. Do you have a reference for that? Notinasnaid 18:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, thanks for the answer! For the reference, yes, please do add that reference for me, it will be the opportunity for me to learn how to insert it! For the 2nd reference (McVey=Burt Ford... and =Booga Bear, btw!), the only serious source I've found is in French, sorry for that! It comes from Les Inrockuptibles, a very famous French music magazine : "Cameron McVey, alias Booga Bear ou Burt Ford selon les jours" (that means "Cameron McVey, aka Booga Bear or Burt Ford, varying from day to day"). I've also found the info in English, but on a personal blog whose author is not especially famous : [7].

Cheers! Godescalcus

Do you know how to recover the ASCII text from a PDF made from an OCR. The New York Times articles in their archive are OCR scans with the text embedded. I dont have a version of Adobe that works with XP. Is their a freeware version that recovers the embedded ASCII text from OCR? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I recommend Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing? Notinasnaid 18:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For a large amount of work at the help desk! -- Lost(talk) 17:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just letting you know that an RfC has been opened on Mattisse, here. As it provides strong circumstantial evidence that Timmy12 is a sockpuppet of Mattisse intentionally using two computers to evade checkuser, I thought you might want to comment. I don't really care what side you weigh in on, but I know you've been in a position to observe at least part of the situation and any view would be helpful. —Hanuman Das 10:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely. In particular, the Cancer wiki amounted to little more than a forum. I find that many wikis have at most a handful of editors, often just one, making them no better than blogs. Maybe wikis need a mention on WP:EL? -- Mwanner | Talk 18:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"You don't think" the use of this poster to fairly illustrate a form of satire (on the Satire main page, I point out) constitutes fair use. Or did you mean to say "You don't believe".

If that is what you meant, then that's what you should have said, to describe what is after all just your opinion, one opinion amongst many opinions; and no more worthy an opinion than anyone else's opinion. That's the great defect of freedom of thought; we all have thoughts that are different.

Coming to the substantive issue though. If you believe that the use on the satire page is not a fair use of a satirical cartoon, just where would you ever consider it as fair use? And what PRECISELY were your reasons for your belief. The reasons that you "forgot" to state when inserting comments on the Image page. There is a Talk page for you to pose your thoughts and seek concensus first. But you "forgot" to do that too. 81.132.242.136 12:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I have responded on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Reagan-digitised-poster_PNG.pngNotinasnaid 13:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the tag put on 15 days ago has not been responded to by any editor. I was under the impression that there would be no precipitate action by anyone until an editor gave a ruling. But it seems that others are not willing to adhere to that understanding. I would welcome suggestions as to how we proceed now. 81.156.90.133 20:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody could give a guarantee like that. Wikipedia isn't organised in any particular way, and probably only the two of us know about this conversation. Other people may have come to other conclusions and taken other actions. I will see if I can accelerate the fair use review, but whatever the result, I suspect that there will not, eventually, be a consensus not to keep it in Satire, after which, if it is orphaned, it must be deleted. I recommend you login (rightly or wrongly, people tend not to communicate with IP addresses), and participate in the ongoing discussion. Above all do not edit war: this is an almost certain way to lose an argument. Please remember that we are here for only one reason: to build a good encyclopedia. Not, for example, to bring pictures to a wider audience. Notinasnaid 20:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Notinasnaid,

You said: Jack, your name seems tied in to marketing on www.theBar.com. I feel that there is at least a possibility that you are therefore working directly or indirectly for Diageo. If you are, your factual contributions are more than welcome (especially if you can provide sources). However, you should note that according to Wikipedia:External links, you should never add links for pages you are in any way connected with. And if you are not, of course this does not apply, but the site, as supplementary brand marketing, is unlikely to qualify for inclusion. I hope this information helps your time here be fruitful. Notinasnaid 15:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

While I understand your concern, I do not believe that links to thebar.com are inappropriate additions to these brand pages. A wikipedia user comes to the brand page (let's say Captain Morgan, for example) to learn more about Captain Morgan's rum. The purpose of the page is to provide this user with as much information as possible, including external links to official sites.

According to Wikipedia:External links, What should be linked to:

  1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any. 

Thebar.com is a website which has been designed by Diageo as an official informational resource. There is nothing for sale on thebar.com. The website provides additional brand information, responsible drinking tips, drinks recipes, and party planning tips. All of this content is a useful resource to the Wikipedia user searching for information about Captain Morgan's rum. Thebar.com qualifies as an official site. No different, in fact, than posting a link to the official Captain Morgan's website in the external links section.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

--Jack The Bartender 22:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, your reply isn't clear on one point. Are you here as a representative of Diageo or their marketers, or in any other way connected to the campaign? This is relevant, even if you think it is not. Notinasnaid 22:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notinasnaid, I am indeed connected to Diageo. However, I am interested to know why you think it is unacceptable for me to post links. I am not editing the content of the Wikipedia entries or giving an opinion. I am simply supplying an additional resource for users, for the exact same reason that another user added the existing external links. Whether I am associated with Diageo or not should not make a difference if the link is official and useful to Wikipedia users.

--Jack The Bartender 21:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, Jack. I have to point you to Wikipedia:External links. "Restrictions on linking" point 1 means that you must not add these links to articles. Sorry. Advice on an alternative that is open to you is offered there. Notinasnaid 21:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping you can help me clear up some questions that I have related to external linking on Wikipedia. I not only understand why linkspamming should be discouraged, but I agree that companies should not be able to edit their articles and change the point of view. And I can understand why adding links could be considered similar to changing the POV.

However, I truly believe that adding usable content (much like the way the official sites are almost always linked to under a corporate article) is a benefit to Wikipedia users. Therefore, there must be a way for corporate entities to let the Wikipedia editors and writers know about content that is useful to the article, even if the representatives cannot add it directly to the article themselves. The truth is that oftentimes companies are the authority on certain topics since it is the area in which they live and breathe.

In this case, I am suggesting a link to a web resource that has not been officially launched and therefore the public does not generally know that this resource exists. While I will certainly stay away from adding the link myself, I would like to do my best to let people know that this website exists. A heads up or sneak preview at something most people don't know about. However, in doing so, and suggesting the link on discussion pages for articles, I am met with discrimination simply because I am related to Diageo. The usefulness of the link is not even considered for a second.

I hope that you can provide some insight, because at the moment it seems that the core of Wikipedia, which is providing useful and related information on all topics, is not being upheld by it's own editors and writers in an effort to exclude anything related to a company or organization.

Thanks.

--Jack The Bartender 16:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I too had noticed the anon IP posting links in several articles to "Philosophy Talk", and I also followed up. I reverted one link that was broken, but the rest appear to be both genuine and relevant to the articles they were posted to (each of the links leads to a different "Talk" which is closely related to the specific article it's attached to). It had caught my attention because it looked exactly like a linkspammer action, and that's one of my favorite things to seek-and-destroy. However, these really don't seem to be linkspam. I think they are good additions to the articles, but the delivery method aroused our suspicions. I don't want to revert your reverts, but would you take a closer look and perhaps consider replacing them? I think we should encourage links that strengthen the articles, while ruthlessly eliminating true linkspam. BTW - nice to meet you :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 20:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take a rather different view. (1) Before a link is added, the editor should have carefully reviewed the article to make sure that the link is relevant, and adds new information. So many links were added in so short a time, that this cannot have taken place. (2) Any bulk adding of links really needs discussion in a suitable place. (3) If links to a company's site are added in bulk, the company's reputation can suffer as they may be accused of spam and finally (4) if it turns out to be a representative of the company, this isn't allowed! So, personally, I make no exceptions for bulk linking, not even reading the linked page. Notinasnaid 12:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did a nice job cleaning out the links here. It looks a lot better now. Joyous! | Talk 03:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit to add....) I noticed your comment above about not wanting a userpage. I can delete it for you, if you'd prefer not to have anything there at all. Joyous! | Talk 03:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer! I realised since then that having a redlink for my name isn't really desirable, so I'll stick with the minimal page. Thanks again, Notinasnaid 08:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey-

I was trying to figure out why you flagged my entry for the word "Liming" as vandalism. I understand that it is lacking in resources but is this the same as vandalism? Im not trying to agrue, I just want to know more about it. Thanks Luke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.22.138.12 (talk • contribs)

Hi Luke, could you let me know which article this was, and the date and time of the change (from the History)? I've been working on a lot recently, and I don't remember the specific word. Your contributions [8] don't show any changes for the last month. It may also have been my mistake. Notinasnaid 08:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just regarding your comments about not listing every store in the UK. I totally agree but just can't help wonder what you class as an example of a store that should be noted on the webspace. I added the Blackpool department store because as said it has been advertised as the flagship store of the north-west with more retail space than Manchester, plus the multi-million pound expenditure on the project must surely classify?

Let me know

Thank :-)Bpoollad22 04:49, 03 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think part of the problem is that this section, once it was added, became a magnet for everyone to add their local store. In fact, I think the whole section really needs to be taken out: you don't see similar sections in other comparable articles... And shop groups typically spend multi-millions over and over again on each store. But of course, you are free to re-add anything, other editors may have different views to mine. Notinasnaid 18:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, what constitutes a spammy link? I noticed that you removed a link to a PEST analysis page that i found for my son doing his GCSE business studies essay which he found pretty useful.

I have no affiliation with this webmaster but just wondered if i had done something wrong?

The Wiki search was PEST Analysis and the link was to thetimes100. co .uk

I am new to Wiki so please forgive my ignorance.

Kindest regards

OK I take the rap for being a bit keen on adding links. Thinks: "Hmmm, great article on business ethics - lets stick it in business and ethics." Now thinks: "The man's right, I should think before I link. But did he have to delete all links to the site :-(". The link to SWOT analysis has been there for months, and all the SWOT guys are happy with it or it would be gone. So why fly in with the big admin. mallet and delete it?

http://lorenzen.blogspot.com/2004/09/critical-views-of-wikipedia.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pgrieg (talk • contribs) 16:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not an administrator. Anyone is free to interpret Wikipedia:External links, and to take action against what they see as spam. Please take great care in posting multiple links: the site owner may not thank you for the potential harm to their reputation. Notinasnaid 18:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An insight into why this was removed may be helpful to other editors. Of course I may have made some mistaken conclusions along the way; Wikipedia is beseiged by spammers and people with a point of view to push so one tends to be quick on the draw.

The journey started with the discovery that anon User:85.210.245.233 (Contributions) had added links to a single page as

• "Tesco and business ethics" to Business ethics
• "retail ethics and the third world" to Ethics
• "how supermarkets create poverty" to Poverty
• as an inline link as an example of consumer reports to Consumer Reports, an article about a named magazine.
• "Tesco and globalization" to Globalization

It is hard not to avoid the suspicion that this represents someone pushing a point of view, as well as spamming.

I did not think I was pushing a point of view, and did not perceive myself as spamming. I will not be adding the links back to these pages, and will be much more circumspect about adding links in future. Thanks for making me think more deeply about linking issues.

Further research showed links to Tesco pages on this site from a lot of Wikipedia. This includes the Tesco page itself, where it remains, under "Critical sites".

I concluded that the other links to this page, in entries such as SWOT analysis represented a serious breach of WP:NPOV as the links were simply presented as neutral examples, rather than anti-Tesco material. As such, and because of the spamming, I made a point of removing them all over.

After stimulating discussion I have added the link back to this page, where it has been for many months with no complaints from active subject specialists. This and other business analysis pages, using Tesco as an example, are not anti-Tesco in any way. I have also restored three other long standing "analysis" links after, or with encouragement for, discussion.

After this I found a pattern of what I considered to be a sneaky reinstatement of the link. For example [9] shows some minor edits, then the original external link replacing another one; this is entirely legitimate, but referring to the edit with a summary of "polishing the prose" seems less than completely above board.

I will enedevour to be more explicit in future.

Similarly [10] shows a good repair to some vandalism, then the link coming back (this, however, could just be a deep revert). Notinasnaid 18:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One good turn deserves another?

Seems this old linkspam campaign has been uncovered, feel free to join this conversation at WPSPAM--Hu12 19:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey--not sure about your recent revert to J.G. Ballard. The reference seemed okay to me. I realize it was an anon. user, but it wasn't vandalism but a legit. resource. Freshacconci 15:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But how can it be a reference? References are the things which were used in the creation of the article, not just things of interest. A new editor cannot have previously contributed, so I don't see how they can add a reference. (It may be a useful resource for a different category). I would never claim it was vandalism, by the way: it seemed to be a good faith change, but misplaced. Notinasnaid 11:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

changes were in good faith, as I used to judge the competition

if you believe it still comes accross as ads please contact me, however I think the group had done a decent job of linking themselves to related articles —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackofwiki (talk • contribs) 21:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

What do you mean by "the group"? Notinasnaid 21:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've noticed one of this user's edits. He seems to be making numerous minor changes that, like in the Red article, make some difference in meaning which is often incorrect. I've had some words with him, but am done. But perhaps you could review his edits and if needed discuss with him. —Hanuman Das 21:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment onGray-Tea Green, the steps to list multiple pages for deletion are found at Wp:afd#How to list multiple related pages for deletion. Let me know how it turns out; I'll be watching your talk page. :) --Адам Райли ^Talk 22:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Notinasnaid I think the website AoneArticles.com is a notable ebook resource. It has been created few days back keeping in mind the target to make this website an ultimate resource for ebooks. The database is increasing day by day with many categories in it. I hope this website will be very useful for all the viewers.

Hope to have a positive response from your side

Qasimirshad 14:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I must point out to you the guidelines in Wikipedia:External links. If you are in any way connected to a web site you should not add links to Wikipedia for it. Notinasnaid 15:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I will keep this in mind. Regards.

Wiki Raja 09:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. There is in the US and UK a cultural unwillingness to correct people's language, which I think this arises from. In some cultures (e.g. France) it is considered perfectly reasonable to point out another person's language errors. Notinasnaid 10:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more question. Would it be safe then to edit (spellcheck) Users pages or pages outside the article namespace? Wiki Raja 10:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User pages are considered to be very much the user's property, mistakes and all. People can be very annoyed at even the most trivial change (though Wikipedia policies do allow or require certain changes). User talk pages are similar to article talk pages; there is some debate about whether users can remove things. I'd recommend sticking to the article namespace, where nobody can object to things being made better! Notinasnaid 10:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks. Wiki Raja 10:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up my thing on James Charles Kopp. I have a problem. I first added the new info that was all in my own words and correctly sourced. I posted this at 2:35am EST. I then came back and noticed that someone who just left an ISP number deleted my post added inaccurate information such as "jury selections are now underway..." and "pictured of aborted" as opposed to the corret "pictures of aborted" that I originally had. Right now the trial is underway not jury selections. The persons ISP address is 128.277.1.39 I was wondering if there is anyway to report this person. His change was made at 2:53am EST. YourJessicaLynn 11:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this was a single edit, there is no real point in reporting a person; this is just a normal part of working in Wikipedia. It only becomes worth trying to do something if someone does this repeatedly. Notinasnaid 11:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a photograph of a Rube Goldberg sketch. I changed it to the art license. --DavidShankBone 15:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy request for a block on this IP. Beat me to it !! Pedro1999a |  Talk  14:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we were both editing at the same time and possibly saved at the same time. I was doing it earlier but something made my PC throw a wobbly. Richard Harvey 19:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I've built on your changes, especially in changing lists into prose style, which seems more the Wikipedia style. I've also trimmed a rather excessive listing of venues (only really relevant for the Homecoming series), and inline linking to Academy web sites. I've wikified the first sentence (it didn't define the article title), and restored the unreferenced tag, as there are still no references. It still looks rather promotional, but no longer quite so much as written by Carling. Notinasnaid 20:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just wondered what your reasons were for deleting a link to a 3rd party b2b site with specialist knowledge of the restaurant industry (CatererSearch)? I appreciate that people don't want Wikipedia to get spammed, but feel that it was a perfectly relevant page (useful information, written by professional journalists, for anyone interested in the UK Michelin Guide) - especially as the Michelin site doesn't actually give details of who has the stars. I'm not going to try and put it back as it keeps getting removed, but would just appreciate some insight as to why it got taken out. Cheers Ciaran

Hi, thanks for asking. This is how Wikipedia is supposed to work, but for future reference, it might have been better to have started the discussion on the article's talk page; that way it invites more people to join in, and becomes a record of the discussion that other editors can easily check if reviewing the same link.

I'm sure you'll realise Wikipedia is under siege by spammers and it means sometimes editors can be a bit trigger happy. Here are some thoughts.

• • The web site (http://www.caterersearch.com/) doesn't make it clear that it is an offshoot of a magazine. Anything but: it looks like another search engine, many of which are generated automatically on thousands of topics. Even a close reading doesn't really show whether is specifically liked to Caterer and Hotelkeeper, or whether it is just carrying adverts for the magazine and some editorial content. However, the owners, Reed, are indeed a respected publisher.
  • The page linked to, http://www.caterersearch.com/Articles/2007/01/24/306085/top-michelin-rated-restaurants.htm, doesn't make the best impression. It seems to have many missing graphics which adds to the initial impression of something thrown together. It also begins by just reproducing verbatim what the Michelin Guide says about stars.
  • The links to UK based starred restaurants may be interesting, though it is open to the criticism that it doesn't reflect a broad world view. Also, Category:Michelin Guide is how Wikipedia already presents this information. You'd be forgiven for now knowing this, as I didn't, and it wasn't linked from the article! Now it is.
  • There isn't much editorial content on this page to suggest a magazine: even the links to "tipped restaurants" are nothing but external links. Only http://www.caterersearch.com/Articles/2007/01/24/311054/michelin-stars-released-by-the-new-michelin-guide.htm is an actual editorial page. Indeed, this page might be a better link (except that editors would probably prefer to see the same content in a general newspaper site), because it is much more obviously part of something produced by journalists.

In conclusion, provided you are not associated with the web site in any way, I wouldn't stand in the way of your adding it again, but nor would I speak up to keep it, especially given Category:Michelin Guide. (So I won't put it back myself, because that would put me in the position of defending my edit). I cannot, of course, speak for other editors. Feel free to copy this content to the article talk page.

Notinasnaid 04:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for the response - it all makes sense. The only thing I'm not quite sure of is what you mean by 'editors would probably prefer to see the same content in a general newspaper'; do you mean that links are preferred to general newspapers rather than specialist ones (with the caveat that the site may not make clear what connection it has to a business magazine)? Thanks again, Ciarán

Let's see. Wikipedia editors (it seems to me), like to see "names they have heard of" if they are available. Well, actually best of all is things like academic journals, which doesn't apply here. If dealing with press reports, the better known the publication, the more likely the link is to be welcomed. The BBC web site seems to be about top of the tree; after that major UK newspapers, New York Times,etc. News aggregators like Yahoo are not always welcome because links may be rather transient. If the publication hasn't been heard of, each editor will ask themselves about the purpose of the link: to convey the content, or promote the linked site. Nothing is a foregone conclusion, and the talk page in each case can be used for discussion, but I hope that gives an insight into what I meant. Notinasnaid 21:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i noticed you tagged the page about Adelaide psychobilly group The Hoodoo Voodoo Dolls for notability. there are no sources i can quote for a small band like this but i will expand it as the band produces more recordings or anything. however i feel that deleting it on the basis of notability is a little harsh. also i noticed u deleted the trivia section because it is supposedly too trivial. its a trivia section for a band. why not cut me some slck? it hardly constitutes pollution of wikipedia and it adds to the page so y not leave it in?

I thought I had cut some slack. I didn't nominate it for deletion - I added the notability flag as in invitation for interested people to change the article to meet the notability rules. Otherwise, one day, an editor who cuts no slack will just delete it. I recommend you read the guidelines for notability. If there are no sources, it may be that you should accept that the band is not ready, just yet, for an article. I have to say that the trivia section is so trivial it really works against the chances for the article: it just makes the whole article look like fan writings rather than an encyclopedia article. Good luck in finding the sources you need. Notinasnaid 17:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, fellow The Apprentice UK fan! WikiProject The Apprentice is up and running, so if you are interested feel free to put your name here and start editing! Dalejenkins 17:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why anyone would think I am a fan of a programme I've never watched... Notinasnaid 11:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please read WP:3RR. Notinasnaid 23:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ongal 19:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC) The problem is that these people created a wikipedia entry about themselves and will not allow me to edit it. They also refuse to enter any discussion about it and deleted my comments on talk page many times. It is my opinion that the article itself is a one-sided PR job written by the same people who run the site which is a clear conflict of interest. They even call it our article. I made several polite offers to discuss this to no avail. I will not re-enter the external link not because they don't like it, but because I realised it's not in keeping with wikipedia rules, but then the article itself isn't either.

Ongal 19:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC) It also transpires that the site cableforum was created by (at the time) NTL employees. Please look at the talk page for nthellworld. Shouldn't this fact be in the article? It's clear that some NTL employees were given admin rights and the ability to remove user complaints about NTL. Seems a strange way to run a neutral user forum.[reply]

re.: ICC Profile and your edit: 2007-02-09T03:42:13 Notinasnaid (Talk | contribs) (See Also: - Fix formatting. No view on whether link is suitably worded)

Upon reflection, I decided the wording was definitely NOT suitably worded, but only because there was no context for it.

Instead of tinkering with it and probably making it worse, I put together my best ideas, and posted them at (the newly created) page: Talk:ICC Profile

BTW, thanks for fixing the formatting. I could see that it was wrong but didn't know how to fix it. (What did you do?)

Badly Bradley 11:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is impossible to see on a "diff", but it was simply that there was a space in front of the "*".

• Paragraph starting with no space

*Paragraph starting with a space 

Notinasnaid 11:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! I've been shooting myself in the foot, intentionally putting a space there because I thought it was required. Live and learn! Thanks for the help.

Badly Bradley 12:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[15] don't know how that happened. Some malfunction while multi-tab-popup-using...--BSI 19:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably my fault. I deleted the whole text as it duplicated something in the header, changed my mind, put it back, then added a reference. Notinasnaid 19:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't know if you still follow this article and its talk page, but some interesting things have happened there since you last edited that article:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Time to shine a light on Plastic Pressure Pipe Systems

I thought you might be interested. It looks like you worked hard on that article but ran into a lot of opposition. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. I think I would prefer not to become involved with that article again. I can think of no article where obtaining such small improvement has been such hard work. It would be rude for me to talk about other editors behind their backs, but I have to say I smiled a wry smile at the idea that (editors, presumably including me), were seeking to "[make a] name for themselves with Wikipedia". Notinasnaid 15:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping the commercial link bloat out of the external links on this one. --Orange Mike