User talk:Femto/Archive2

RFA
I have nominated you to be an administrator. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/Femto 2. Since you've been through this before, I'm sure you know what to do. But if you have any questions or comments for me anyway, please just let me know. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The nomination is accepted and opened. Femto 19:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Prior to my supporting, I think I ought to ask the most obvious question raised by your RfA: can you assure the community that, qua admin, you will not discriminate against those who eat manatee steaks? Joe 05:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I solemnly swear I won't discriminate against manateesteakophagism as an admin any more than I do as a plain user. Femto 12:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, luckily the manitee/is quite devoid of vanity (as Nash says). Congrats on the mop. You have now been cleared to work harder, for free, at a more responsible level. Wow, promoted to Sergeant Volunteer. S  B Harris 22:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Drinking games
Femto, thanks for your support of my admittedly drastic edit. I'm normally not a proponent of scorched-earth editing, but that list was just ridiculous. OscarTheCat3 20:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Element2
I've finished writing the code for the element infobox. It elements fields such as "color1" and "color2" and it eliminates the need for about 60+ elmentbox templates. It still hasn't been completely tested, but it seems to be working well. The next steps I propose are moving it from Template:Element2 → Template:Element, and then ensuring it works correctly. Any suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated. The usage is on the talk page. Thanks. --MZMcBride 21:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously I'm quite busy at the moment, I'll look into it during the next few days. Some unresolved special cases remain, like the two vapor pressure tables or the three densities for the allotropes at phosphorus, or the covalent radius comment at fluorine for example. Femto 12:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Feedback at Template talk:Element2. Femto 21:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Split-flap display
Hi Femto. I have a feeling that I agree in principle with removing the vendor links in this article. I am curious, however, as to why you removed them from that particular article. For example, in Nixie tube there are links to sites whose primary interest is selling kits ("vendors") – by the same token, should they not also be removed? Tyler Mitchell 00:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I came to the article to remove a spam link, and had time to clean it up while I'm at it, no specific reason in particular. Yes, there were many encyclopedically irrelevant links at nixie tube too; hobby projects not directly related to the topic, foreign language sites, and especially the purely commercial sites. Femto 12:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification, and the edit! Tyler Mitchell 06:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Adminship
If you have questions, feel free to leave a talk page message for me or any other admin. Again, congratulations! Essjay ( Talk )  20:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! I'm glad that it went without a problem. --Ed (Edgar181) 23:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Answer to Life.png|30px]] supports. Must mean something. :) Femto 12:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam
Hi. I noticed you just deleted some "linkspam" on the Parenting page. I wonder what you think of the links listed as "Sources" on the Domestic discipline page. I have some comments on its talk page. Please use my talk page if you want to reply to this message. -- thanks. --Coppertwig 19:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. That's fine; however, I made a mistake:  I actually meant the page Domestic discipline (lifestyle), which is even more so. I have comments on its talk page suggesting that the entire page be deleted. --Coppertwig 20:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

half life units?
Hi,

Don't really know where to ask this... are the units called "a" in the isotope tables for attoseconds, or angstroms at the speed of light? These units differ by less than an order of magnitude... attoseconds seem more logical but the other seconds-derived units all include the "s" raising the question of why this is different.

- thx, Potatoswatter 00:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * From Latin annum, year. It's a concession to the fact that scales like minutes (min), hours (h), days (d), and years (a) are more human-accessible than technically correct kiloseconds or gigaseconds. There is no universally accepted symbol for the year in the International System of Units. The ISO31 standard suggests "a" which is language-independent and thus gets widely used in international scientific publications. Femto 11:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Aha. Now I know… perhaps the tables could link to some explanation? (Assuming they're generated from some script.) Time doesn't mention the word annum, and year only links to annum under see also. But on that page annum is clearly regarded as a base unit. Units of time shouldn't really redirect… hmm. Talk:annum reflects the general confusion of non-scientists about this abbreviation. Sounds like a little project. Potatoswatter 03:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Suite101.com
Great response to the CEO of Suite101.com regarding his company's spam. You were so much more succinct and pithy than the rest of us. --A. B. 15:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh. You like my writing? Maybe I should apply. Femto 16:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up in Cyrillic alphabet external links
Can you give some indication of what needs to be cleaned up here? —Michael Z. 2006-11-26 18:34 Z 


 * Avoid collecting links to translation services, browser extensions, file downloads, sites that require plugins (Flash) to display, personal sites of people that are not experts or authorities and/or commercial sites that contain not much more than what can be integrated, or what already is, in the article (whew). All this is not essential to supplementing the encyclopedic content and should be avoided per WP:EL. Femto 19:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. I went and cleaned that section up. —Michael Z. 2006-11-27 01:49 Z 

School IP
Re this diff. Weren't the 3 warnings generated just yesterday, including yet another test4 sufficient? What would be the point in me issuing another test4 one day later? And if you took that opinion, why did you opt not to warn them yourself? --Dweller 18:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * PS On reflection, this could be read harsher than intended. These are genuine questions - I'm still trying to get my head round how Admins deal with this stuff. --Dweller 18:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * See the header of WP:AIV, here applies item 4 of "Do not list here if": "The recent vandalism from an IP began hours (or days) after the last warning — it could be a different person."
 * Instead of writing a detailed response, allow me to 'recycle' some explanations I gave to another user. See my post at the bottom of User talk:A. B., this may answer most of your questions. As to why I didn't add another warning, I could've and probably should've, but hoped someone else would do it, and working off the AIV list was more important at that time. Femto 20:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Elementbox proposal
When editing an element page, you're greeted with a lot of code that's unpleasant to look at and undoubtedly confusing to newcomers. I'm proposing that the element infobox be changed to something similar to what is currently used by planets. It would drastically reduce the amount of code and make the page much more user friendly. Each element would have something similar to   at the top of the page. On the actual infobox, there would be a box at the bottom that would say "Edit this template," most likely below the references section. The information provided in the infobox doesn't regularly change, so accessibility isn't a real issue. Also, the individual subpages of Template:Elementbox would still refer to Template:Elementbox, allowing the elimination of the innumerable templates currently in use, and also shortening the list of templates used on a particular element page. I'm strongly, strongly in favor of this proposal. I'd greatly appreciate any feedback you have on it. Thanks. --MZMcBride 22:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Pushed it up to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements and commented there. Femto 15:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Question on spaming / external links
you removed my links on the weighbridges articel, on the other hand within this article there are these two sentences:

Many commercial companies supply them. One example is Avery Weigh-Tronix weighbridges in the UK. There are even versions that can weigh rail wagons and freight using weight sensors built into the rails.

Another example is the British Manufacturer Griffith Elder Weighbridges. which specialise in portable full size trade approved weighbridges and other digital weighing equipment.

linking to tow of our competitors, i am asking myself where is the difference between these two links and my link i added within the external link section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.249.201.68 (talk • contribs).


 * It's simply because I overlooked those inline links. Removed those too. And you, stop adding links to your company. Femto 15:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Questionable deletion of external links
After spending a full day on Wikipedia, looking into a topic that we specialise in and seeing a lack of information. I decided to sit down and spend a day filling in the gaps in Wiki in our niche. Spent a good 3 hours reading up and writing up the compound feed page.

At the end thought could leave a link to our resource as an external link. A industry authoritative site, a free resource, with very minimal advertising - added to act as an additional resource to Wiki readers. As i said the compound_feed page was written by us and our page was supplemental information which was not necessary to add to the page but could provide extra information to the reader.

To then classify this link automatically as link spam is quite offensive and raises definite questions as to whether or not i would like to add information to Wiki.

And yes i had read of the Wiki guidelines to external links, yes i understand that adding links for any other reason than to be a true resource for the reader is not right, and that wikipedia is not to act as a link directory but an informative and current online encyclopedia. If Wikipedia wanted to be so against link spam, i mean why not just ban external links. It would make policing links alot easier and definitely more uniform and fairer. - Harrymarsden 13:22, 03 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So you know you shouldn't add links to your own company, but did anyway. Yes, this automatically classifies it as linkspam. If you tie editing Wikipedia to adding links to your company, I can only say "good bye". I should have removed these links too, but I've even those which contain actual information and which aren't commercial directories to dealers or which only promote your main page. Your problem with this is...? Femto 12:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

POV vandalism
There has been a multi year war over including elements which have not been synthesized, simply because there was a capsize moment when people weren't looking does not mean that policy - namely including notable and encyclopediac content - was not violated. The element numbers in question have references in the peer reviewed literature. I restored them, and will now go back and revert them to the correct status. Stirling Newberry 05:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no content in those articles that can't be included in a central article. Notability or not, we don't need a set of scattered and highly redundant pages. Consider a redirect to island of stability where appropriate. You can add your notable and encyclopedic content about individual elements there, until it grows enough to be split.


 * "Vandalism, even if voted on, is still vandalism" - That's and interesting view of Wikipedia's consensus process, but it won't get you far. You will not define your own 'correct status'. Nothing has changed since the deletion debate. You will respect it. And you will not accuse other editors (including me ) of vandalism for doing so. Hope that's clear. Femto 12:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
…for identifying a link added to Korean romanization as economically motivated, and for informing the spammer in a polite way. I only noticed the conversion's abysmal quality but failed to check the ad links. Wikipeditor 18:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I've noticed these ad IDs only recently myself. Looks like they're going to be useful quite often. Femto 14:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

12.172.68.114
Thanks for blocking them, but you should have followed other admins' examples and made it much longer than three hours. They were coming off a multi-week block already. And today, they were right back at it in the same two articles, although one "final warning" seems to have scared them off.

In that vein, I have emailed the district's tech chief with a detailed account of the specific vandalism yesterday and the IP's history of being blocked here (links included, of course). Hopefully that will lead to disciplinary action (I got that to happen once last spring). Daniel Case 17:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And then it just bounced. I'll have to call. Daniel Case 17:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The last block was one and a half months ago. I didn't bother doing deeper checks of the IP's edit history, to tell the truth. Without evidence to the contrary, I'll assume it's different kids sitting at the classroom computer, so I use a default 3 hour school block. I agree it's a lot of vandalism coming from that IP. Since they returned to the same article today, blocked again, one month, anonymous users only. Femto 19:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I spent fifteen minutes on the phone with one of their tech guys explaining this, and he has started an investigation. Daniel Case 20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Very good! It's always better when they try fixing it at their end of the problem. If it's under control we may lift the current block early (though there are also cases where schools determine that all students should log in and request to block their IPs anon-only indefinitely). Just let me or any other admin know. Femto 20:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * He said they may want to do that. Have we ever thought of formalizing that as a policy? I should think it would require a formal request from the school board or superintendent. Daniel Case 23:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've relayed this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#School IP consent blocks. Femto 15:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Markussepp
Hi Femto, thanks for letting me know about this Doppelgänger. I guess his/her username choice is a kind of revenge for me removing this same Kyllini link some weeks ago. Did you check the IP's of the various "users" you mentioned on his/her talk page? Markussep 20:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the IP info for registered accounts is private, only a few officials can check it, in much more serious cases than this one. I've usernameblocked that account, and will have to keep an eye on the others anyway. There's already something about those links at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, please report them there if you find any new accounts or new links that we didn't catch. Femto 21:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Gym Floor Cover
moved to and answered at Talk:Gym floor cover

WP Munich
WP Munich Invitation Kingjeff 14:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * shrunk the template - Thanks for the invitation! However I have no particular relation to the topic at all, I've just removed some spam links. Femto 15:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Why was the Premier British Wrestling article deleted?
As it says in the title, why was the Premier British Wrestling article deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.66.96.121 (talk • contribs).
 * You obviously found my name in the deletion log, which states the reason. It also gives a link that explains the WP:PROD process. Femto 12:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for barilla article work
Thanks for doing the shuffling of the Barilla_(plant) article onto the (former) Barilla redirect page.EAS 13:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Over zealous administrator
In your zeal to fight spam you have also deleted a lot of useful links and data. Too bad! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.159.234.174 (talk • contribs).

Reversal in page 'Australia'
you changed back Australia's land mass back to 7,686,850& form  7,617,930  square kilometre. On what basis? Do you think you are helping wikipedia? Check CIA factbook and you will come to know that 7686850 is Total area and not land mass. Ignorance sucks. Dont wield your powers in a senseless way.--202.159.232.38 14:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel no obligation to check an edit that was used to cover up the repeated linkfarm spam coming from your IP range. Femto 14:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, by the way, while I've got your attention. You do know that putting these links on user(talk) pages is futile, as they include an attribute that prevents external links from influencing their search engine ranking, don't you? Femto 14:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As an editor you have every obligation to ensure that correct info reaches wikipedians and other users. In your great zeal to curb spam you are affecting CONTENT. Why should wikipedia display wrong data?

You are oblivious of the positive contributions made and just want to zap every change in an inane way. Misuse of power is what I would call it.Too bad for Wikipedia!--202.159.232.38 15:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Too bad. When a very important article  like 'Australia ' has glaring mistakes and an over zealous editor reverts correct changes made, it is time to rethink if such powers should be given to irresponsible and rogue editors like you.--59.144.112.221 06:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dude, I know by now that 202.159.* and 59.144.* are used by the same spam sockmaster... Femto 10:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That is still not a valid argument. Having said that, Femto is not one of the worst admins for this kind of behaviour. I'm sure this was an honest mistake.


 * Incidentally, where is this change made? I can't see it... Jon Harrop 22:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

name change for Pmurray_bigpond.com
I attempted to change my username to "Paul Murray" using this template:

Pmurray_bigpond.com -- ~

But the template came up looking like this:
 * Pmurray_bigpond.com → Paul Murray
 * * Current name: Pmurray_bigpond.com (talk • contribs)
 * * Requested name: Murray Paul Murray (Murray change username)
 * * Reason: Current name inappropriate as per rules. -- Pmurray bigpond.com 01:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

the "requested name" is all screwy - "Murray Paul Murray". What should I put into the template so that my name gets a space in it? Or what else would you recommend? Pmurray bigpond.com 01:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Pearl page spammed
Hi Femto, I saw you were also active on the Pearl page and I just noticed it is spammed. Perhaps you could have a look at it, if other admins haven't reversed the spam yet (some name replaced the whole article)

Gem-fanat 22:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Late reply, was right before bedtime, I've reverted it. Apparently just some newbie test, no need for admin intervention. Note that anyone can revert a page to repair the damage. Femto 11:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-Latin Username Blocks
There is some dispute as to whether these blocks are supported. There are many active editors who do just fine contributing with non-latin names. Per the discussion here, there seems be support for reccomending for to people creating a username at en.WP to not use non-latin characters. But does not appear to be consensus for blocking people on sight who already have a non-latin account at another Wikimedia wiki. Will you please start taking these non-latin username through Requests for comment/User names in order to better gather opions on the mattter? Thank you for your atttention to this matter.--Birgitte§β ʈ  Talk  17:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Water fuel cell
Thanks for your tireless efforts watching and reverting the crackpots! --Pjacobi 13:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, and more of the same to you! And to everybody else watching the page, for that matter. Oh, I think I do tire rather easily with this stuff. It just looks as if none of us would ever tire because we take turns defending the scientific method, while they can only defend their peculiar ideas individually. :) Femto 15:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, hopefully there are more of us, but what we write actually has to make sense :-)
 * I often wonder whether "Water Fuel Cell" etc (both the technology and the pages) are defended by true believers or just opportunists/trolls. Seeing the debates here, I now see the benefit of debunking such "technology" in reputable publications, even though we may think the ideas are too silly to be given credence by anyone. Abecedare 15:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Some sort of poll has been added to Talk:Water_fuel_cell. Is this more nonsense, or should I vote? Man with two legs 10:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Flashlight
Can I ask Why did you undoo my links? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.72.22.53 (talk • contribs).
 * Because I think they're inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Not every article on a product needs links to review sites. Femto 14:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Rugbyball
He didn't like my comments at Articles for deletion/Hemmings Motor News and related Hemmings publications that he put up for AfD, so he's been running around posting copies of my comments and making opposing votes to mine at AfD's I participated in, on top of other nonsensical edits. I reported him to WP:AIV and was told that what he was doing wasn't obvious vandalism (go figure), also to User:Metros232, who had warned him previously. (Note, I also left this message on talk page of User:Resolute, who'd also been asking about Rugbyball's edits) Tubezone 19:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Obvious enough for me. Blocked 24 h. Femto 20:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

jannej
Water Fuel Cell

There is very stupid text in the header by you, please remove them your self! Since water is added and that cantains energy in the form of hydrogen there is energy added SO teher is nothing against the laws of physics! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jannej (talk • contribs).


 * The hydrogen in water already has given off all its usable energy, that is, it's already burned. To extract hydrogen from water you must add again at least the energy gained from burning it. Meyer's cell claims not to have to do this, and provides no other explanation where the energy would come from, and this is against common physical knowledge. Femto 16:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Question about source
This reference classifies Stan Meyer's Water fuel cell as being of the "lowest interest" (on the authors' scale of highest, high, medium, low and lowest). Do you think it will be a useful addition to the article ? You may want to read the paper or at least the abstract, and see the authors' affiliation, before you express your opinion on the publications reliability. Thanks. Abecedare 16:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Frankly I hoped getting to step a little away from the topic. Found the whole text available at http://www.padrak.com/ine/INE21.html for what it's worth. Actually Meyer's cell is one of 11 "Promising Devices of Great Interest" worth of investing more research? But far as I see it's only an open-minded survey that didn't have any more direct sources to work with than what we already have in the article. Femto 20:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually the "padrak" article is similarly titled but differs in content from the IEEE conference publication. However the authors do seem to have questionable credibility, so it may be better not to use this as a source. Abecedare 20:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

PHPCow
Why other CMS are listed in Content Management System comparison page then? Why are they better? because someone there in your team thinks so? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Publishing (talk • contribs).
 * You are affiliated with the link and also added promotional content earlier. I reverted the link because it was added, that's all. Other links or pages have nothing to do with it. Femto 10:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Why all the changes
Why would I sign up for an account, I cant make any changes to article without someone reverting all the changes. You have reverted every change I have made to the article, thank you for simply erasing about two hours of work. You administration is not appreciated, the least you can do is take the changes that I have made that you feel appropriate and re-include them. Simply take the pieces of what I have done, that oyu actually like, and put them back in. Otherwise I have no reason to stay here at wikipedia as every change I make is just erased.24.193.218.207 14:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Frankly I dont understand how to edit a page at Wikipedia. Do all changes have to be approved? Then why are people given access to the edit tab? There should be a preliminary requirement to debate all proposed edits prior to allowing someone to edit a page. It seems that Wikipedia has a flaw in its editing policies, and an update say that all edits must be pre-approved.24.193.218.207 14:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You complained that the content of water fuel cell wasn't reviewed and full of opinions and original research. Then practically overnight you rewrite the article, with some relativizations that look like opinion - and feel attacked when it gets reverted? As the edit page says: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly […] do not submit it." Besides, your work is not lost, the revisions remain in the edit history and the changes may be re-introduced if you can establish consensus to do so. Give other editors at least some chance for feedback on each little change, otherwise there's really no point in feeling attacked when disputed content is reverted to an older version. And technically, I didn't revert you, only the reversion of a reversion (not that I didn't support it).


 * Intermingled with your edits was the re-introduction of the old rigmarole about voltage breakdown and your citation of unrelated journals. I hoped I gave a clear enough argument on the talk page why the concept of getting energy from water is fundamentally flawed as per the established scientific knowledge. Thus Meyer's ideas cannot be inferred from any source that is consistent with current science, no matter how reliable. So with your treatise why some source (unrelated at that) might be supportive of these theories, you're in violation of Wikipedia's content policies yourself. Femto 20:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Dated prod
Ok, thanks. I hadn't had that one watchlisted.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  17:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Lasagna cell
It's listed at AfD. I really appreciate how you went through discussing this with me first then DRV before unilaterally undeleting. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What should I have discussed? My undeletion is in line with Undeletion policy and needed no prior review. Your deletion however was clearly based on a wrong assumption that the page is patent nonsense. Femto 18:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What part of For other deletions, the easiest way to request undeletion is to discuss it with the admin who deleted it. If you fail to convince the admin, you can list the page on Deletion Review for further discussion. do you not understand? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I understand all of it, as well as I understand all of "If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (i.e. not in accordance with the deletion policy), then an admin may choose to undelete it immediately." I restored a page that turned out to should not have been speedyable. Why are you so piqued about it? Femto 20:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:WHEEL. And read my User page.  User:Zoe|(talk) 21:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wha? I'm sure not wheel warring, that's not an answer to my question. In fact, there would be "more collegiality and less stress around here" if one accepts that admins may correct each other's simple and obvious mistakes. Femto 21:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If I encountered an article which another admin had deleted, and I felt that the deletion wasn't right, the first thing I would do would be to go to that admin's page and discuss it with them. Only if we couldn't resolve the disagreement, would I go to DRV.  I would not undelete without discussion at all.  To undelete without discussion and then announce a fait accompli is not friendly, and that way leads to wheel warring.  User:Zoe|(talk) 22:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What you would or wouldn't do is your own preference, not mine. I for one feel no exclusive ownership for my administrative actions and would not criticize other admins for correcting an obviously mistaken deletion. I hope we agree that the page is not "so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever". You can't reasonably claim that I should have assumed there was a disagreement with you to resolve. You deleted a page for which obviously no speedy deletion criterion applied. A page for whose deletion there is no justification under the deletion policy cannot remain deleted. If you feel attacked by this, that's your problem. Alright, next time I won't notify you, if this is the response I get, but it doesn't change deletion policy. Femto 13:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Femto I support your undeletion. I really cannot understand why Zoe is upset, this is not wheel warring or anything close to it. This is an admin correcting another's admin's clear error. Such things quite rightly happen all the time. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Femto, I have a question on this deletion. Because Lasagna cell vanished instantly and generated no Watchlist warnings, I didn't have any links to follow to inspect the deletion. It even vanished from my contributions, so if I hadn't been on the Lasagna Cell talk page at the time, I might never have noticed that the article was gone. Question: are all these side-effects normal for Speedy Delete? If so, then something is very very bad wrong with the SD tool. I see that SD is in constant heavy use. I find it very unsettling that these "warningless instant removals" have been happening for all these years with nobody fixing things. Yet it makes sense: with warnings being suppressed, most people might not notice the deletions, and with all links deleted, it takes ambition to raise a fuss. Maybe if the SD process was changed so it took days or hours instead of being instant, the side effects on we poor users wouldn't be so nasty. --Wjbeaty 21:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy deletion is usually reserved for pages that are pure vandalism, attacks, adverts, patent nonsense etc. — in short, a clear decision (hence 'speedy') on the deletion of things that shouldn't really be missed by anyone. Also for newly created pages which are clearly against the content guidelines and don't belong in an encyclopedia, such as nonnotable bands/people/websites/companies/products. For these cases it should be considered good practice to make sure the creator of a page is aware of the reason for its deletion. In fact WP:CSD suggests a whole bunch of friendly templates for almost any occasion.


 * I think an easy first step to make the SD process less biting and to make misjudgements more retraceable would be to promote the use of these deletion notifications. I could also see demand for a bot, like the one for the automatic AfD warning that you got later. People really should put a note on the appropriate user talk page when they tag an article for deletion, though admins can't always check for it. You've seen the sheer volume of page creations and deletions. Quite rightly, in most cases where speedy deletion is appropriate, some 'ambition threshold' is desired!


 * Users are not left completely clueless in any case: the error message for nonexistent pages refers among other things to the deletion log and to Why was my page deleted? (though it doesn't help much when even the links in the contribution list are gone).


 * Believe me, you don't want to slow down SD. (with its eternal backlog there it would be quite a feat anyway :) The process itself is not at fault; its inappropriate application is what causes nasty side effects. There already is for example the PROD which gives a five days warning period and time for discussion, but it has much less 'teeth' than SD and thus isn't used as often as would be desirable.


 * 1. Yes, the technical side-effects are normal (though I agree it's a serious flaw of the Wiki software that page deletions don't show up on watchlists and that even contributions which were logged earlier simply disappear). 2. No, what happened with lasagna cell isn't exactly what I would call the normal procedure. Femto 14:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Doh, I totally missed the deletion log link on the error page.


 * "Bot" sounds like the sort of thing I'm thinking about. Just change the software to eliminate a class of common mistakes, but without removing the "teeth."  Trying to catch errors after the fact didn't work.   I assume that everyone is like me: error prone.  Therefore we should expect lots of inappropriate application of SD.  I've found that events like Lasagna Cell deletion are common.  --Wjbeaty 22:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For anyone interested in this issue, I've opened a comment on WP Talk:Speedy deletions Wjbeaty 01:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Speedy cat
Hmmm... I don't know. I put in a user script that allows me to quickly add a CSD tag to other articles. Maybe there's something in the script that causes it. I will look into it. Thanks for the heads-up. ... disco spinster talk  17:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Accusing Admin of vandalism
(moved from User_talk:Theresa_knott) to Wjbeaty: The term 'vandalism' has a very specific meaning, please avoid it unless you really, really mean it, even if the deletion may have been "not friendly" (to use Zoe's terminology). Femto 10:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood. I don't know the proper term.  "Admins who accidentally hurt Wikipedia?"  But because the removal happened instantly, happened with no Talkpage discussion, and very strangely with no Watchlist warnings, I lost my cool.   I couldn't see how it could be accidental that a referenced article could be "disappeared" like this.  The article was even gone from My Contributions.  This seemed to me like some kind of above-the-law, hidden action.  "Extraordiary rendition."  Aha!  That's why I got mad.  I thought that my article had been shipped off to Afghanistan in the dark of night, with all evidence very carefully removed. (grin!)  These issues overrode my normally strong AGF.  I'm a moderator on flamewar-prone listservers, and this stuff fired off my troll-detector, big time.  I'll happily apologize as soon as I'm sure that I was mistaken. --Wjbeaty 20:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "I lost my cool." You should have recorded it in infrared =). The feeling of 'getting disappeared'. I can relate to that. Femto 14:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to explain things. I have another question if you have the time.  I saw a mention of "one admin placing a speedy-delete tag, and a second admin performing the deletion."   But that's one of my suggested changes for SD!   Yet it's already implemented?   I don't understand.  Who was the person who placed the SD tag on Lasagna Cell?  Who was the second person who performed the deletion?  It doesn't appear in [|deletion log].  Is there some other page that shows the tag/delete sequence? --Wjbeaty 22:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Continued at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletions. Femto 17:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion Page
Look in the talk page of periodic table. I created three new section a while ago and waiting for you and other users to type me back. Cosmium 02:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, talk me back about 'adding triple points' section. Cosmium 00:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I already did at Talk:Chemical elements data references Femto 11:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Senseless reversal
You keep reverting any sensible changes made. OTT behaviour. No point in editing when somebody is ready to 'Femto' it. You are killing wikipedia. what a Shame!. if you have senior editors (and I am sure you have) they must watch this. Check that Australia stuff. You reverted back wrong data on Wikipedia. The idea behind wiki is to throw it open to churn out da best. You are gagging the project.--172.189.30.74 15:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, shame on me. This refers to, right? A pitiful AOL IP? You're out of proxies? Femto 18:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding to the element box
Can you please add triple point, heat of atomization, molar mass, molar volume, and atomic volume to the element box in every element articles to make the element box more advanced and complex. Cosmium 20:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Molar mass is the same as atomic mass. Molar volume is easily derived from atomic mass and density, it was found redundant at WikiProject Elements. As is atomic volume which is just the reciprocal of that. Please coordinate major additions to the elementbox with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements. Femto 12:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Nixie tube page external link pruning - Why?
I posted the question the discussion page for "Nixie tube" to keep it in context.

Nickds1 06:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing and Adding to Elementboxes
Why did you reverted back by removing atomic volume, triple point, and heat of atomization as you did in elements lead and mercury. That's your job for you to add atomic volume, triple points, and heat of atomization to every element articles' elementbox if these properties for some elements are known. Cosmium 02:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * See above, as well as my edit summaries that I gave. Your mercury triple point pressure is unsourced, and the temperature is either inexact or outdated. Atomic volume is redundant. Heat of atomization can be derived from enthalpy of vaporization, bond energy, and expansion work, and if you're interested in these chemical thermodynamics you're better off working with standard enthalpies of formation for specific substances anyway.


 * The general opinion at WikiProject Elements was that the elementbox should not be overloaded with data. Feel free to establish consensus at the project talk that this new information is nedeed, and after reliable sources are found for it the infoboxes may be expanded in a coordinated manner. I'll see what I can do about the noble gas triple points. ("My job?" You'll pay me?) Femto 13:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

How can I get reliable sources when I add atomic volume, triple points, heat of atomization, electron affinity, and others to elementboxes if known and other such things? Cosmium 22:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This data would be gathered from various textbooks, standard data collections, or original scientific publications. I can't really help with getting access to those. Look at the existing references listed in the elementbox for some examples. I hope it's clear that, before you go changing the infoboxes, you still should establish consensus that your additions are considered necessary. Femto 13:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of external link
I added an external link to Gamebase64 (http://www.gb64.com/) as this is the most comprehensive source of C64 game information on the Internet. Its a free/non-commercial site and it has taken years of hard work to get the database where it is now. I can't think of a reason why it was removed. Is there something wrong with that site? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimbowp (talk • contribs) 09:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC).


 * See the external links guidelines. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a web directory. Femto 12:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I've checked the guidelines but still see no reason why this external link was removed. Could you please explain which guideline it breaches? Jimbo 13:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Answered at user talk. Femto 14:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop removing FluTrackers.com
You are removing FluTrackers.com from pages related to Avain Flu.

You are referring to FluTrackers.com as spam and this is entirely incorrect.

FluTrackers.com, Inc is registered non-profit corporation that provides information on pandemic influenza and other infectious diseases.

FluTrackers.com is used daily by people in over 100 countries and has members from the top health institutions in the world. 66.166.91.226 15:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Jeremy


 * See your user talk page User talk:66.166.91.226. Femto 16:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

FluTrackers.com
Why is is that FluWiki stays and FluTrackers does not?

If you remove FluTrackers you must remove FluWiki.

If I am forced I will go to the Administrators for mediation on this subject. 66.166.91.226 16:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Jeremy

Then I will have this mediated
If you block me than I will go the administrators and resolve this issue at that level. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JerFT (talk • contribs) 16:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

FluTrackers.com dispute
Femto,

FluTrackers.com is a nonprofit site.

It is used by WHO, CDC, NIH, FAO and many other international organization in the fight against H5N1 pandemic influenza.

It is not selling a product and makes NO money.

I understand that Wiki has a nofollow policy.

It just seems rather odd that you would allow one site for pandemic information and disallow another even though they are both non-profit sites.

Explain to what is wrong with FluTrackers.com.

Thank You. JerFT 16:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Jeremy


 * Why don't you have a look at our WP:EL and WP:SPAM guidelines. Thanks! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 16:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * FluTrackers.com is a blog with unreliable comments attached to content copied there in violation of copyright laws. Your claims about WHO, CDC etc are unsourced and laughable. WAS 4.250 19:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The only thing that is laughable is your attitude and comments. Individuals of those organizations are members of FluTrackers. It is a fact, deal with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.166.91.226 (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Isotope tables
Just curious. I've only looked at the tables for tin and lead, but I noticed that the tables do not include decay modes, and for other than meta-states, they do not contain decay energies either. Is there a reason for this ommission, or is it just because nobody has yet been willing to make the effort to add this to all of the element isotope tables? Karl Hahn (T) (C) 18:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Isotopes where my personal excuse had been documented earlier. :) Femto 18:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

zealous edits of "singing bowl"
Hey Femto, Maybe you aren't aware of what has been happening with the entry for "Singing bowl." You attacked me for spamming, but actually I'm just trying to replace a lot of bogus new age nonsense with some actual facts. The real spammer is this insane B9 Hummingbird whatever person from Australia. He continually fills this entry with a lot of new age mumbo jumbo nonsense. Myself and some other noteable experts in the field have been fighting him for months - replacing his ramblings about trance induction with facts that are verifiable. So, Please stop reverting my edits, attacking my edits and telling me I'm spamming. I'm referincing the top experts in the field. Yes - one of the sites I references sells products, but they also happen to provide the best information on the subject anywhere in the world. SO, please get over your zealousness and let us work on this post in the interest of presenting facts instead of conjecture. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.2.168.136 (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC).


 * If there is an Accuracy dispute, you can add the appropriate tag instead of revert warring, both of you. Debating the facts is not my problem, you may do that on the talkpage (re "insane": please see No personal attacks). However I will tell you that you're spamming whenever you continue placing links to your online business in the article. For the second time, your shop is not a reliable source. Femto 11:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, it's not a shop, it's a living museum. Click on the link and you'll see it leads to essays and videos about these objects. This is the most reliable, thorough and accurate source of information on the subject in the world. It's not spam.

Vandalism
You sent me a message accusing me of vandalism. Why? What vandalism have I comitted? ---Revolver66 20:00 08/02/07
 * answered at User talk:88.111.49.188 Femto 21:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It isn't me, i've never even visited the page on rabbits --- Revolver66 20:05 09/02/07

Linkspam
Hi Femto,

I just received your notice of not hyperlinking to external websites to which I'm affiliated (like Matbase). I do agree with you on the point that I should have discussed this with other users / editors. To start a discussion right away, with you, I would like to ask you:

Was I right to publish the links I put on those specific Wikipedia pages? Or, to put it in other words: does the website linked to from Wikipedia provide the users with other unique, useful or well organized information?

When I look at the discussion about Glass for example, I see one user (unknown to me) who asks for Glass Properties. The link I submitted today contains exactly the information he is looking for (Matbase: Environmental, Physical and Mechanical Properties of Glass). True, the data lies two clicks away (follow Type -> Name/Norm) and the page linked to has text from wikipedia. Still, I chose to link there because else I would have to submit four direct links to the data tables and that would be arrogant (my point of view). The unique data promised as noted in the hypertext is there, nothing more, nothing less. What's your point of view on this?

Secondly, if I feel an incredible and irresistable urge to submit an external link to a website to which I'm affiliated, what is the correct procedure in this. So I won't make the same mistake twice :)

Thanks. Bret77

Bret77


 * 1. Wikipedia's articles are not a directory to websites with information related to the topic. The primary goal is to create content, not to link to that of others. External links that are added for the purpose of 'providing information' are only detrimental to this goal. If some information is useful, it should be integrated into the article. Even if you do this, online databases such as yours should not be cited as source, there are more direct references available. Femto 19:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * - The links I submitted cannot be integrated in the article due to the type of information or for copyright reasons (see below). For example, on the Wikipedia maps pages I could have listed a thousand external links to maps or I could put 1 link to my site where the information is completely structured. Or do you think a user looking for 'world maps' is misled by my link to (more) world maps (which the entire wikipedia page is about)? So, to me, there's only one discussion left: Does providing this link help Wikipedia become a better Encyclopedia?


 * Anyways, all this made me clear you are right on starting discussions about this sort of thing :) Bret77


 * >> Does providing this link help Wikipedia become a better Encyclopedia?


 * No! These kinds of links degenerate the free encyclopedia into a directory to proprietary information that is restricted by commercial motives, and under exclusive control of small groups that necessarily act out of self-interest.


 * Why not matweb.com too? Same arguments, the site "provides useful information". By this reasoning, there are thousands of "useful" sites that should be linked in tens of thousands of articles. By the way, external links to maps are already structured through the Map sources page of WikiProject Geographical coordinates. Likewise, there are hundreds of sites that claim to be specialized directories that make thousands of other links unnecessary. No, an encyclopedia needs to link to none of them. Femto 15:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right Femto. I was just trying to point the users of wikipedia to my evil commercial and 'one of many' websites. You convinced me, to not 'contribute' anymore to wikipedia. Do whatever you like with the links, I don't care anymore.


 * 2. You can suggest your links on the appropriate article talk pages, and let neutral editors decide whether to add them, as per WP:EL. But sorry, I don't see why matbase.com links would be justified anywhere. Femto 19:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * - I'm not going to discuss the usefulness of scientific data from Delft University with you right here. I will save that for the discussions when I submit links. Data from this site cannot be published on Wikipedia due to copyright reasons, but the information is there, well structured and free for anyone who wants to know and wants to use it for selecting materials or other engineering purposes. The site is still young and needs more main articles, but the most important part, the scientific data, is all there (example). Again, I will follow your advice on starting discussions. Thank you for your tips. Bret77


 * You mean 'The site is still young and could need more traffic'. So the elastic modulus of float glass is 50 to 74 gigapascals. It's a simple fact that can't be copyrighted. If this data is copyrighted, you're in violation yourself, as I see no attribution of sources. Unless your site itself claims copyright, in which case it would be rather arrogant coming here to generously offer your links, and Google ads, and upcoming listings of commercial suppliers, but not your data. The usefulness of scientific data is beside the point anyway, either it is relevant to an article and should be integrated, or it is not and collecting lists of further sources is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Femto 15:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, the site is young and under construction, but the data is already there. That data, that suddenly falls out of the sky, right? Let us worry about our site and you worry about the boundaries of wikipedia. We're all information suppliers, so Google Ads or DONATE buttons, it's just a different business model. Yeah right, more traffic. Across all my sites wikipedia delivers 0.24% - 4.9% of the visitors. The links from wikipedia are like you said: not necessary at all.

You have a strange way of scaring of newcomers at wikipedia by turning their mistakes in unvergiveable Sins and by slapping their faces with regulations. Obviously you know what's better for wikipedia and its users. I need to focus on my sites now, because I'm wasting my energy here. I'm done talking Femto, goodbye, Bret77


 * You are welcome to stay as an editor, expanding the articles with cites from your original sources, to which you obviously have access. Such contributions are of incomparably higher value than bare links. Alas, yes, properly expanding the articles wastes more energy than placing a link to your business. As soon as a site owner realizes there's no easy deal, there's another theatrical exit. I get used to it. Femto 20:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Look in discussion pages
Look in the talk pages: periodic table and chemical element. Cosmium 21:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, talk me back in following discussion pages as above. Cosmium 18:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I already made myself clear on your user talk. Stop your unencyclopedic element naming nonsense. Femto 20:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Scutfargus
If you will re-read wikipedia guidelines, this does not automatically make such a link spam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scutfargus (talk • contribs).
 * If you just go and include them again, yes it does. Femto 16:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[He] in electron configuration
I'd putted [He] in place of 1s<sup&amp;gt;2 in electron configuration in list of elements with electron configurations and all element articles from lithium to neon. [He] should be used instead of 1s2 just like elements in higher periods or more quantum states. I observed in apsidium.com and some other websites that elements from lithium to neon uses [He] in electron configuration instead of 1s2. Using [He] is better to Cosmium than 1s2. In the occupying p-orbital, if we using 1s2 instead of [He], it would have three orbital configurations in electron configurations, but if we use [He], it will reduce the number of orbital configurations to 2 and include noble gas symbol in bracket. Cosmium 17:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's just because it's getting late in my timezone, but I can't make much sense of what you say. What do p-orbitals have to do with it? [He] is an abbreviation for 1s2, same meaning, and the latter is more clear and thus preferable in an encyclopedia. Femto 22:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
For the followup to the language link issue - appreciate backup in that stuff - one wonders.... SatuSuro 13:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Femto 14:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Mark your opinion
I hav given a request fo adminship.click her to mark your opinion. I think you will help me fighting against spams and vandals —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaseemum (talk • contribs).


 * You need to follow the procedure of Requests for adminship, though a nomination would almost certainly fail at this point for lack of experience. Femto 14:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

RE:Userwarning headers
Hello. I looked at those pages, but was unable to find what you were referring to. It appears that you had edited them to remove the heading function, so it was a little harder to investigate, but still I didn't see anything not working incorrectly. Also, is this a persistent problem, or a freak occurence? If it is a freak occurence, I wonder what would trigger it? I also might have to ask someone more experienced.-- Esprit15d  (talk ¤ contribs) 18:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Gotcha now - thanks for the demo. Going to work on it.-- Esprit15d   (talk ¤ contribs) 18:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Figured out the error and fixing it in the different templates. Thanks again for the heads up.-- Esprit15d   (talk ¤ contribs) 18:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Pages
I think I know why. I'll try and fix is asap. Mkdw talk 12:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Flow Battery Page
I added a link to vrbpower.com a manufacturer of these types of batteries on the Flow Battery and the Vanadium Redox Battery pages. It was removed as spam. I disagree with that. This is not exactly a well known topic and a link to one of the few big names in the field would help give some context. Femto seems a little overzealous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.99.63.218 (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Wikipedia is NOT a business directory. The articles are not about that company. A link to their website does not add to the enclopedic content and is not appropriate per the external links guidelines. VRB Power Systems Inc. spammed before, and their links were removed, not only by me. Interesting that only 6 days after, a corporate performance training company, also Canadian, inserts the same links again. Femto 13:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

From user page
What I listed was not spam an more than the current Plasma.com listing. If I cant be on there with relivent articles that help people with the most asked question in the industry then either should they. Please help me understand the difference. I am not spamming, I know that you guys use the no-follow tag so it has no value and I'm not sure how you can make the determination that I am spamming if the article is relivent. And how would you know what people ask in this industry anyway? I'm concerned that this is being used to block good companies and protecting others. Isn't the idea of wikipedia that anyone can edit it as long as it is decent reliable content? That's what the terms of service says. Please don't take my comments as a rant or slam toward you just asking for clarification and what makes you the expert in this field Hdinstallers 14:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hdinstallers.com exists to promote a company. Judging from your name you are affiliated. You added another link after receiving a notice that the links do not comply with our guidelines. Yes, it's spam.


 * If you find other inappropriate links you can help to remove them; it doesn't mean you can overwrite them with your own ones. Anyone can edit, but links are not content. I can't much clarify what the guidelines say, you should read them if you're really interested in contributing more than links to your company. Femto 14:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Femto.. Plasma.com exist to sell and promote a company and so in reading the Guidelines and seeing them listed I thought I was ok based on the fact the article provided value to the reader and is something not currently listed on wikipedia. I wasn't trying to brake any rules I thought the articles where of value. Thank you for your help. I won't bother posting any more articles for that site. Hdinstallers 20:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

HHO gas
I have started a Deletion review you might be interested in. — Omegatron 14:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/Urod 2
We've now accepted this case. You've been named as an involved party, so you may wish to add a statement on this issue, either at the above link or you can E-mail me. —Pilot guy (go around)  15:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not interesting in this dispute anymore, because 2 of 3 pages in question had been deleted. --Urod 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad code
This edit introduced some bad page code (unclosed div tag and table) which affected the text of subsequent edits. Did you include this code from a template? If so, it needs to be fixed. (By the way it's spelled vandalism). Femto 15:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up......I'll get the templete fixed. And by the way, we Philly boys spell phonically (fonically) :-) Shoessss 15:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Tungsten
I do not know what caused the issue. Thanks for fixing it. --Allen3 talk 19:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

My bot
Why did you block my bot? Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 20:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

HI five
Thanks for the tip about the spammy whammy. Cbdorsett 15:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Element info boxes and atomic mass/atomic weight (relative atomic mass)
Hi. I think you are involved in the elements project and the relevant templates. I would like to ask for your help in correcting some persistent errors. The first is the use of the abbreviation amu which should be u for unified atomic mass unit. The second is the use of atomic mass in place of relative atomic mass (see atomic mass). Also, less relevantly, there are some problems with the use of molecular weight and molar mass floating around. I have made an effort to correct these errors where found but have trouble correcting templates etc.. Although some of these errors are somewhat common, especially the molecular weight/molar mass problem, we should generally follow IUPAC and/or NIST definitions and style guides.--Nick Y. 18:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I can only refer you to the 'real' chemists at the Chemistry WikiProjects for deeper discussion. Rest assured, the pronounced absence of replies to your earlier posts there is not due to a lack of interest; the whole atomic mass/weight thing is simply such a muddled topic that no one really feels qualified to say something. :)


 * Regarding the 'amu's, there were so many of them because they were introduced with a very early template for all of the element articles. I think it's less a matter of awareness, but (mostly) of plain laziness, no one ever bothered to correct them until now.


 * The infobox templates themselves are edited easily enough - ah, I see you've already found Template:Elementbox_atomicmass_gpm. Another one is Template:Elementbox, for the recently introduced single-template version of the infobox. Just be bold. If no one's going to complain, it's called consensus, I guess. Femto 21:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Seems you are mostly aware of the situation. No need to go too far out of your way but help when you can. I think I have changed most of the amu's to u's via google searching.--Nick Y. 23:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Periodic table (electron configurations)
I saw your edit summary at the above article. The table is currently up for featured picture status. Would you care to elaborate on your objection at Featured picture candidates/Electron shells? Thanks, trialsanderrors 19:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Vegetable-Gardening Links
I found a note on my Talk page concerning links I had added to some pages on vegetables commonly grown in home gardens. Included was the statement ''[T]hat's not how it works. First you establish consensus on the talk pages, and if independent editors decide it's encyclopedically appropriate, then you may add a link to your site. I was unaware that all edits on a WP page are considered to require prior'' approval on its Talk page. That is certainly not the way I have found things to work in previous years, but perhaps things have changed. Am I mistaking the apparently plain meaning of these words?

"Don't be afraid to edit — anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold! Find something that can be improved, whether content, grammar or formatting, and make it better.''"

That advice notwithstanding, I carefully reviewed Wikipedia's External Links policies. Of the 4 types of links that that page says should be included are those ''that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to. . . amount of detail. . . .'' That seemed to me to apply exactly. Of the 13 reasons why links should not be included, I saw none that seemed to me to apply. I thus, in good faith, thinking the links useful additions to their pages, added them. I was adding them about one a day, because I was re-reviewing each to make sure it fit the context of a good external link for the corresponding WP page.

Now I find your message berating me--rather savagely, I feel--for "spamming". So far as I can see, your grounds are, #1, that the linked pages carry a small adsense text block ("small" meaning both small absolutely and small relative to the page size), and #2 that among the dozen personal sites I operate is one on SEO.

The exact words of the pertinent WP policy warn against "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services." It is beyond my comprehension that anyone could possibly consider a long page of informational material to be converted by a small ad-text block into a page existing primarily to sell something.

As to my also owning an seo site: guilty, m'lud. In fact, I own a good dozen sites, on thoroughly diverse subjects all of which represent interests of mine for which I am vain enough to think that some of what I have learned over the years about those things might be of interest to others; my email correspondence certainly suggests as much. Those subjects range from sound English to genre literature to vegetable gardening to, yes (dear me), search-engine optimization. It is a subject that everyone who operates a web site should know something about; that does not make those who have a little such knowledge into spammy scumballs, and I rather resent the guilt-by-association implication that it does.

Most of my sites were up years before it occurred to me to try to partly defray their hosting costs by placing adsense blocks on them. The clear implication of your rather strongly worded denunciation is to the contrary; you slander me by implying that I make my sites to cash in on them. (If you had any idea what adsense revenue is like perhaps you'd know better.)

I am not saying any of this because I want the links I placed back up. Life is too short to argue about things that don't matter to me. Wisely has it been said that no good deed ever goes unpunished. It was (and remains) my honest opinion that many visitors to the pages in question would have been pleased to find those links, and would have considered them a definite augmentation of the articles. You prefer to censor them, on grounds that seem to me clearly not derived from Wikipedia's rather clear and exact principles about External Links. Fine. So be it.

I write this whole post not to advance any subterranean cause of my own, but in the hope, however faint, that it may give you at least some slight pause the next time you set up to unload calumny on some poor soul so misguided as to believe the Wikipedia words I quoted at the outset.

WP daily becomes more and more like dmoz. God help us all.

Eric Walker 08:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Boy, are you wordy. You "carefully reviewed Wikipedia's External Links policies"? Then you know what a conflict of interest is, and that "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked." - You were asked not to link to your sites yourself. You continued linking to your sites. That simple. Femto 11:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If he reverted vandalism to a version that already contained a link to his own work then it is not that simple. Jon Harrop 05:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Femto. Jon Harrop is posting these same sort of random comments all over my talk page and it is quite annoying. He has posted them on other talk pages I've commented on too. It almost seems like a strange sort of WP:CANVAS violation. (Requestion 06:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

Re: Elementbox
Yes, I guess I forgot that tags can't be used in templates, a known bug in Cite.php. I'm not really sure what to do about the issue, though. Obviously the tags shouldn't be used any more, but I don't know what to do instead. If you think of anything, let me know... --MZMcBride 22:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wavelets
I was considering putting more of my PhD thesis on Wikipedia but you just convinced me that it would be a waste of time. Jon Harrop 04:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You know what? Proper citations (that is, not self-published, peer reviewed, and by a confirmed expert) would be fine with me for any substantial content that someone adds to Wikipedia.


 * My PhD thesis is not self-published (it is freely available as a PDF from the page I linked to) and was peer reviewed by experts (my supervisor, internal and external examiners). Moreover, having a PhD on the subject makes me an expert. Don't you think it is just a little bit stupid to delete the only link to an expert's work and then add a request for an expert to look at the article? Jon Harrop 05:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The question remains, aside from your own company website, who else publishes you? And yes, if a self-proclaimed expert has a commercial interest and a propensity for self-promotion, the view of another person who is familiar with the topic may need to be requested in order to establish consensus that an article is not in violation of the conflict of interest, no original research, and neutrality policies and guidelines. Until independently established otherwise, any self-references should be treated as inappropriate. Femto 14:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know all of the people who reference my work but a lot do. Believing that all peer-reviewed research is biased seems insane to me. I suspect this stems from not knowing what a PhD is. Jon Harrop 18:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The real waste of time here was your incessant linking to your company website and self-promotion of your books. Femto 12:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I replaced the deleted link to my book on the OCaml page. Nothing to do with wavelets, my PhD or this discussion. Jon Harrop 05:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (You complain about adding irrelevant discussion?) Requestion removed the links for a very valid concern. Your book plug at the OCaml page is one of the most egregious examples of your product placement and self-promotion campaign. You got nerve to still defend it. Femto 14:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't realise that adding a link to a book in a list of book links was wrong. Jon Harrop 18:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So you got this warning and happily continued reincluding a link to your book, without ever suspecting that it might be considered inappropriate. ...How did you get that PhD? Femto 20:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've never seen self-promotion this blatant and defiant on Wikipedia before. I guess when a person is this amazing the Wikipedia rules don't apply. (: (Requestion 20:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

Private Sözlük
why did you remove private sözlük link? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hebele (talk • contribs) 15:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC).


 * It was irrelevant to the slang dictionary article and not appropriate per the WP:EL guideline. Femto 15:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Libel
Please stop making false accusations on my talk page that I cannot possibly defend against. I have no idea who these other people are and I am not responsible for what they do. Jon Harrop 18:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My goodness. That appears to me to be a subtle legal threat. Jon, what is it with you not being able to follow rules? WP:LEGAL says "Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia." I think you owe Femto an apology. (Requestion 19:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC))


 * Ah, I'm sure it wasn't meant as serious as it sounds. No, I'm not accusing you of anything beyond what is already documented by your contributions, namely that you are quite fond of linking to yourself. Pointing out the fact that there are other IP addresses, some from your geographical region, some signing with your name, and all of them adding your links, is just circumstantial evidence. Femto 20:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Bad revert
Femto, please elaborate regarding your message on my talk page so that I might assist you further. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 02:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Commodore 64 potential bad edits again.
It looks like with this edit the anonymous proxy editor problem has come back again. Do you think it is time for a longer period of protection of the article? Fnagaton 14:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And again it looks like the proxy is back on this page. The last good edit is this one. [] I'll be reverting back to it but the anonymous user may start doing its thing again. Fnagaton 10:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Cigarette resources
Hello Femto,

To answer your question, User:Tutonhamon2006 is a friend of mine. We've been exchanging cigarette packs for quite a long time and he's really contributed to the enlargement of my collection. I've noticed that recently you've been actively engaged in removing the links to http://www.cigarettespedia.com. I'd really like to know why you consider these links irrelevant and are acting to the detriment of Wikipedia development and content improvement.

Cigarettespedia is an open resource with more than 20,000 cigarette packs images and useful information regarding the HISTORY AND EVOLUTION of cigarettes. This is the best resource ever for people who are really interested to find out more about various brands all over the world and for collectors seeking for brands issued a long time ago. Cigarettespedia content is strictly neutral: it is not against cigarettes, nor does it encourage smoking. Furthermore, Cigarettespedia content is licensed under GFDL.

So, why do you delete links to Cigarettespedia? What arguments can you provide to explain your actions?

Unfortunately Wikipedia can't describe all information regarding this topic, unlike Cigarettespedia. If you think that Internet users shouldn't have access to texts, images and articles about cigarettes, then so be it.

--Diana2006 14:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Internet users don't depend on Wikipedia's articles as a mere link directory in order to have access to your site. Please read External links per which links to minor wikis are not appropriate.


 * Oh, and while I've got your attention: Could you tell your friend that the visual identity of the Wikipedia puzzle ball Image:Wikipedia-logo.png is copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is not licensed under the GFDL and requires permission for third parties to associate themselves with it. Femto 15:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well Femto, thanks for your explanations. Oh, and while you've caught my attention, I have a question for you: Do you work for Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., since you've diligently been "contributing" to Internet community development by removing useful sources of information?
 * By the way, according to the link referenced by you - External links, links to Cigarettespedia can only fall, with huge reserve, under "3. Links mainly intended to promote a website.", absolutely similar to any external link placed on Wikipedia. If links to Cigarettespedia were deemed irrelevant, I apologize to all Wikipedia users. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diana2006 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC).


 * You seem to have missed the part about open wikis in the guideline. No I'm not a Wikimedia employee, I'm just another Wikipedia user. So, uh, apology accepted... Femto 18:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding "12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.",  could you please let me know how you assess the notions "substantial history" and "substantial number of editors". Is there a specific minimum limit to measure these values?
 * --Diana2006 08:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Think Uncyclopedia or Memory Alpha, and note that even those don't need to have their links scattered all over Wikipedia just for the sake of "linking useful resources". There is no size limit above which a site should be linked in an article, and if there was, I'm sure it would be a little higher than some 15 editors in the last 30 days. Femto 14:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Your sarcasm is duly noted, however your hint about links to Cigarettespedia being scattered throughout Wikipedia is totally inappropriate. I've placed them only where deemed useful and relevant. All in all, I understand that you are the administrator, therefore you are the one who make the rules. It's worthless fighting against your opinions. The only thing I can do is just to resign myself. --Diana2006 09:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: it appears that User:Caftni (contributions) began edits on May 2006, same time as Diana2006. This user was engaged in promoting cigarettespedia as well. Maybe these two accounts were related in some way. —Tokek 00:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Another friend, of course. We're not hinting that we should look out for socks or single purpose accounts like User:Emma2525 trying to create the illusion of broader support than actually exists, are we? Femto 14:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

acdlabs.com
Hi,

I realise that Wikipedia is not a link farm and I apologise if my adding the links to acdlabs.com was inappropriate. I must say though that firstly I did not add all the links that seem to exist for acdlabs.com on Wikipedia and also that I simply followed suit of other people that had put in specifc URL's to related campanies and their products on certain pages. In fact this morning I came across a wiki about a company SciTegic. The only reason I can imagine is marketing. May I suggest though that if you decide to remove my links to acdlabs.com would you please also remove all the other links to commercial products too please? Thanks Sanji (User:Sanji Bhal)


 * No one can possibly check all the other links they come across, so I usually focus on reverting specific ones that were recently added. If you find other inappropriate links, you can help removing them. Femto 18:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Elementbox question
There seems to be an increase in vandalism to the infoboxes that use this template and my guess as to why involves there being an "edit" link at the bottom of the infobox. What are your thoughts about removing just the "edit" link, while preserving the "talk" and "view" links? I don't usually watch element pages, so I can't speak to previous levels of vandalism, but I do watch the templates and the vandalism happens at a pretty constant rate. I understand that these templates should be easy to edit so that average users aren't prohibited for contributing to them, but I think direct access to the edit page is causing people to be more bold and vandalize more easily. If you don't like the idea, I won't take offense, it's just a suggestion. : - ) Let me know of any thoughts you have. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I don't think it's that bad, compare the changes to the infoboxes with the elements. Even if you factor in the as yet uncreated pages, it's pretty much the vandalism ratio that should be expected. A better solution (and more wiki-like) would be to simply get more people to watch these pages. (I've cross-posted another request to WikiProject Chemistry.) If the vandalism turns out to be a pain to manage after all, removing the edit button always remains as an option though. Femto 12:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, sounds good. --MZMcBride 20:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Commodore 64
I understand why you semi-protected the page but could you explain why you reverted the changes made by the anonymous users ? Even if it's not the correct way to do it, the edits themselves are IMO correct. Sarenne 13:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I reverted the edits of the anonymous proxy sock to a previous version regardless of the content. Personally I fully agree that the current consensus at the MoS seems clear enough - which makes it even more important for me as the acting administrator better not to make it appear as if there was any partiality on my part involved in the protection of a particular version. It wouldn't have solved the 'main' problem in any case, since registered users remain able to edit and still need to fight it out between each other. Femto 15:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it a general rule for admins ? you "have to" revert an edit made by an unwanted editor whatever the edit is ? Sarenne 16:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The general rule is to exercise caution with protections. My choice was to act neutrally in the actual edit warring. Femto 18:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Jon Harrop (User:Jdh30)
Hey Femto, I know you are a dedicated spm fighter, but if you will read the comments on Jon's page I think you will see that we are attempting to engage him and retain him as a reformed wikipedian. Could you lighten up for just a while, yelling at him will only serve to get rid of him at this point--Cronholm144 16:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering that Mr. Harrop has been warned before about being just one link away from a block, I think issuing another last warning instead of a block is quite lightened up already. He posted another blatant conflict-of-interest selflink whose purpose—by his own words—is to promote his consultancy company. Excuse me when this action doesn't exactly convince me of his claims that his edits to Wikipedia would serve any other purpose but to create publicity for himself and his business. Femto 18:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Listen, he is about to leave Wikipedia for good. Is this the outcome we want? I think that reforming him civilly is the way to go. Your edits, this is just my opinion, make me think that you don;t want him here at all which is just too bad. Sorry we seem to be at odds--Cronholm144 20:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The outcome depends on whether his edits are tied to the notion that he deserves some promotion for himself and/or his website in return. I've no problem with him editing Wikipedia so long as he would recognize its simple rule that he has absolutely no business here adding links to his company. Sorry you consider it a lack of civility on my part to issue a second final warning after his clear violation of the first.


 * He grumpily announced his leave about three or four times already. Those who see Wikipedia primarily as a promotional tool, as soon as they realize there's no easy deal, present themselves as the "pissed off" victim leaving in a huff. Truly reformable vanity spammers never do that, I've seen a few. In fact, this behavior is so typical that I have a hard time believing it's not the case here. Of course: this is just my opinion based on my experience, and I'll gladly be convinced otherwise through the appropriate actions. Posting another spamlink, however, was not such an action. Femto 15:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw the link that showed that Jon had been doing this for years now, unfortunatly I was under the impression that he was a relatively new user and acted accordingly. sorry--Cronholm144 16:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Femto 16:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Femto. I submitted Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam today. Hope that's the end of this horror. Did you see the AfD? (Requestion 00:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC))


 * Yes I've seen the AfD (about time too) but I'm deliberately keeping out of it. Anything I could say would of course be due to prejudice - less opportunity for attacks elsewhere. I'm confident that consensus between independent editors will just confirm what we've been trying to say all along. Femto 14:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What stops you from offering the constructive advice that a link to his thesis would be accepted if it were to a non-commercial site? - unsigned comment by (User:146.96.245.151 23:50, 15 May 2007)


 * Is this a real question? Or is this a troll? What does non-commercial have to do with anything? I suggest reading WP:NPOV. (Requestion 00:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC))


 * Who was talking about his thesis anyway? No, it wouldn't mean that when your website is non-commercial (which Mr. Harrop's site certainly is not) the gratuitous self-promotion may commence. Femto 14:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Mal Beare, and his head
I haven't got a strong opinion about this, but you should be aware that Mal's engine is real, and that it has lately been (um) coopted by some people with a dubious financial background, and a history of web based threats (yes, I've been on the receiving end). Therefore it may well be that reverts of his edits are not in good faith. As a professional engineer I can't afford to get involved, but my impression has always been that Mal is an absolutely A1 straight shooter. So cut him some slack, please. Greglocock 11:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Self-promotional edit warring and blatant spamming like this cannot be tolerated, plain and simple. I've left his Beare Head content at six stroke engine, which already is cutting a lot of slack, considering WP's fundamental policy on neutrality and its conflict-of-interest guidelines. He's invited to make his point and establish consensus with other editors on the article talkpages. Femto 11:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Thanks! Nyttend 15:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Split-flap Display
Hi Femto

I commend you an your attempts to remove spam links but the link you removed from Split-flap display is relevant.

The link was to http://remotesign.mixmox.com which is a software program that will emulate split-flap displays.

I have read the guidelines to adding external links and I think if you look at http://remotesign.mixmox.com again you will see its relevance to the topic. Somebody interested in the topic would value finding out about software that is related.

Please consider replacing the link, perhaps a better description of the link would be in order:


 * Software to simulate Split-flap signs

Dale


 * "Relevance to the topic" may suffice as an inclusion criterion in a web directory, but not in an encyclopedic article. I see no reason to link to your site. Femto 10:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

J14fusion
You have left a warning on this user's talk page back in Feb regarding his vandalism. This account has since been inactive, but has just reactivated and is being used for vandalism again. This user seems to solely exist as a vandal. Aliasd 07:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked as vandal-only account. Femto 10:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of External Link in Uninterruptible power supply
Hello Femto,

May I ask why you removed my external link under the Uninterruptible Power Supply category? I believe it contained very useful material for a wide variety of users.

The link in question referenced a glossary of UPS terms and if it is because of the Google ads on the page I will gladly remove them.

Also, I do apologize if it appeared as if I was spamming the page earlier today. I was unaware that you were removing the link and thought that the change had simply not been committed. The external link had been on the UPS page for several weeks prior to you removing it.

Thank you for your help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ditirro (talk • contribs).


 * I'll just have to believe you that you didn't receive these warnings User talk:71.33.153.24, since Wikipedia's notification system currently is a bit buggy. See WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:COI for the guidelines regarding the addition of links: As the owner, you are not supposed to add your own links, and the primary purpose of your site is to reach customers and to conduct business. Besides, any glossary terms of relevance will have their own articles that can (or already are) linked directly, so there is no encyclopedic need for an external site in the first place. Femto 17:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the response Femto,

I am merely providing reference material for users of my site that I believe also benefit the users of this site. I have seen no comparable reference material on this site to the glossary of terms on my site. Proof of the usefullness of the material would be through the numerous users who have visited my site from this one and have since come back without the referral through Wikipedia. So... I can only assume they either memorized the link or bookmarked the page. Either way, it lends credibility to the usefullness of the material.

I also question how some of the other external links got to be put on the UPS page if not from the owners of those sites. Furthermore, how would you know if I am indeed the owner of the linked site? I am not saying that I will try to spoof the addition of the link, but if somebody out there were to add an external link independently what would be your reasoning for removing it then?

Also, unfortunately no- I did not get the warnings you mentioned.

Thanks again for your help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ditirro (talk • contribs).


 * It will suffice that external links should not be in the articles until there is consensus for their inclusion. If you find other inappropriate links you can help removing them. Femto 18:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for the reply,

In that case I have to ask: What would be the preferred method for petitioning for consensus? At least through you. The reason I ask is because that link had been on there for several weeks without anybody else removing it, thereby qualifying for consensus (at least in my opinion since "Silence equals consent").

Also, I have to admit that I am having problems understanding how the link I added does not qualify as being appropriate. If that is the case, I would be led to believe that all the external links on that page (and probably the vast majority of other pages) should be considered inappropriate since almost all refer to commercial sites whose primary purpose is to attract customers and conduct business. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ditirro (talk • contribs).


 * You can try to convince other editors of the encyclopedic necessity for this link on the appropriate article talk page. Regarding the removal: there are no binding decisions through implied consensus, especially when the decision was never discussed on the talk page. By default, WP:EL applies: links should be kept to a minimum. Femto 19:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, I will proceed with your recommendation.

FYI- I have opened a discussion here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Uninterruptible_power_supply#Request_for_External_Link_Inclusion

and am awaiting feedback.

Follow-up FYI: The warnings you sent earlier just showed up. Again, I apologize if it appeared I was spamming the UPS article- it was not by any means intentional. I was simply trying to re-add a link that had previously existed on the page for quite some time. I have started a discussion regarding the re-inclusion of the pre-existing link.

Ditirro 22:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The binary prefix vandal reverts
Hi there! Thank you for the reverts of that vandalism. You might be interested to know I've requested semi-protection for a bunch of pages that are showing this problem here so if you notice any more pages they can be added to the growing list. :) Fnagaton 16:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked proxies
I generally block confirmed 'permanent' open proxies for 5 years or some other long duration that is not indefinite, because eventually these IP addresses will change, and every IP that is blocked indefinitely is an IP that will eventually have some collateral damage or that will need to be manually unblocked by some admin from the future. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft had changed IP addresses within 5 years, and these are open proxies which, however permanent an anonymous proxy service they could be, are rather unstable and fly-by-night. —Centrx→talk &bull; 18:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, reblock as appropriate. I'm just starting to find my way around in the proxy-related projects - which sure isn't easy. Are there some ...definite guidelines? Much of it seems to be personal preference.


 * meta:WikiProject on open proxies/Help:blocked says "open proxies are indefinitely blocked", No open proxies says they "may be blocked indefinitely". Doesn't really make sense to me either. Any rules for when an IP can be considered permanently assigned for the purpose of proxy-blocking it? And when not? What if I block a proxy whose IP I suspect may (or may not) be reassigned tomorrow? Any clearly defined threshold for those IPs that "typically warrant blocking for a shorter period of time" as per WP:NOP and our Blocking policy?


 * So, should it be hard block or soft block? Far as I figured out, there isn't even much of a consensus yet? Some parts of meta:Editing with Tor seem to date back to when the softblock feature wasn't implemented. Personally I'd say it shouldn't matter if your IP is a proxy so long as you log in. I for one get a different IP each day anyhow, and could set up my ISP to reassign my IP every minute if I wanted. And what about preventing account creation?


 * As an aside, WikiProject on open proxies says "only proxy checks by verified users will be accepted", so even when I block a truly obvious proxy (no port-scanning needed and such), I feel a little 'guilty'.


 * Oh, no, I'm not asking you to answer all these questions right now, just pointing out what confuses me (and presumably many other 'minor' admins interested in the topic), and what I think is missing from our current guidelines. Femto 22:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue is that "Open proxies are banned" was written down as "Open proxies are indefinitely blocked" which was interpreted as "IPs that are now open proxies are blocked indefinitely".
 * The guidelines are to judge the likely length of time that an IP might remain an open proxy. IPs that can be considered the most certainly "permanent" are websites that are anonymous proxy services; these I block for 5 years. IPs that can be considered the least permanent are dynamically assigned IP addresses, e.g. PPP, which can be seen via whois, though some can be DSL, etc. but still static; these I block for 1 week or 1 month, depending on the situation. In between are a lot of different cases, like hacked servers, common http-proxy, etc., all of which it really boils to judgement based on the portscan, Complete Whois, whois, and contribs, and I might block for 6 months, 1 year, 3 years, or 5 years. Anyway, if it seems like I'm making it complicated, don't worry about it.
 * Regarding soft blocking, there was a discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. Ultimately, a soft-block is effectively no block at all for many vandals, edit warriors, etc. who seek to use open proxies. Vandals simply create a whole bunch of accounts on their own IP address, then use them on the open proxies. So hard block is the way to go. Though, I forgot to do it for the last bunch.
 * The "verified user" verbiage on WikiProject on open proxies is to allow for select trustworthy and knowledgeable non-admins to check for open proxies and clear them or flag them for blocking, and to discourage admins who are ignorant of technical issues from blocking IPs as open proxies or removing IPs from the page that they have supposedly cleared of being open proxies, etc.
 * While all this information should probably be added to a page somewhere, I am loath to call it a "guideline" when it is really just a how-to and, like all guidelines ought to be without the baggage of being a "guideline", just a recording of best practice. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, semi-protection I think is only going to lead him to make the changes on other articles. We can't semi-protect every computer-related article. I think it more effective to block all the open proxies until he runs out or it becomes difficult for him to find more open proxies, which also has the benefit of blocking problematic open proxies in general. —Centrx→talk &bull; 20:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * They can try out new proxy IPs faster than we can block them. Even though this guy is helping us to find new TOR nodes to block, that's just a useful side-effect. As for hoping for the Internet to run out of fresh proxies, well... We can slow them down, a little, but we'll never stop them, not by a long shot. I see it this way - What do you think is more frustrating and more likely to make someone stop: Having a realistic chance soon to find an unblocked proxy and make another batch of edits - or knowing that you won't be going to 'complete your mission' because you simply will not be able to edit two or three of your favorite targets? Femto 22:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Since his edits are reverted, I think he is just doing it to be annoying. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I really feel for you guys, it's a really tough call to decide what to do to combat this. Here is another Tor proxy for you... Special:Contributions/85.179.28.48 Even semi-protecting Commodore 64 multiple times didn't help when the block was lifted as the "anonymous" user, might as well call him Sarenne there's little doubt now, just waited and then continued. For what it's worth I'll continue to watch these pages and other related ones for suspicious activity just in case you guys are asleep or something. :) Fnagaton 22:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I went to bed after the last post. :) Centrx, thanks for the explanations! Femto 10:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed today you removed a few semi-prots on older computer systems. Just to keep you updated there was a small outbreak of anonymous proxy edit warring again where the suspect is Sarenne doing his KiB/MiB edits again and avoiding the ban against his account. Have a look at my recent contribs for the "action". :) Fnagaton 20:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Netvouz as remarkable as other social bookmarking sites
Please see for yourself: [large images reduced to links --Femto]


 * Image:Netvouzcomparedtoothersocialbookmarkingsites.JPG: (Shoutwire, Kaboodle, Rojo.com, furl)
 * Image:Netvouzcomparedtoothersocialbookmarkingsites2.JPG: (Spotback, Ma.gnolia, Simpy)
 * Image:Netvouzcomparedtoothersocialbookmarkingsites3.JPG: (Newsvine, GiveALink.org, Bluedot.us)

Shouldn't either each and every article for the social bookmarking sites in the graphs below all be deleted, or Netvouz also have an article? --Victor falk 20:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I speedily deleted the page because its entire content was "Netvouz is a social bookmarking site.", plus a link. - Which fails the WP:WEB criteria, miserably, even as a stub. I admit I have no idea what these graphs say to me, besides, web traffic does not establish encyclopedic notability. Yes, someone who is familiar with the subject matter may want to review one or two of the other articles. Femto 22:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose you can work out what "page view" and "traffic" are by yourself (what alexa reach is not as intuitive. It is the normalized account of the number of visitors per million, essentially the proportion of visitors for a site from the total online population as predicted by their sample base.


 * It's true, as you say, that web traffic does not establish encyclopedic notability, unless it is on such a massive scale that it is notable by and of itself, but neither does this for any of the other sites; a possible solution might be to merge together those articles in a "list of social bookmarking sites", like the "list of social networking sites".


 * I've now written a more comprehensive article with a "notability:web" template; this conversation is now linked in its talk page, and I believe further discussion should take place there.


 * Your suggestion that it should be referred to someone familiar with the subject matter is a good one; do you know who should one contact? --Victor falk 12:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Can't help with that. WikiProject Websites perhaps. Femto 13:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Blacklisted links
You broke a link on the page et:Arutelu:Richard Cheney. The link was there in order to ask what was wrong with that link. If you break the link the question gets ununderstandable.

And why should other wikis ban links on our wiki, and without explaining what is wrong? Please answer on et:Arutelu:Richard Cheney. Andres 19:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

And what is wrong with [http:// www.spearsfan.com/ this site]? [link deactivated] Please answer on et:Arutelu:Britney Spears. Andres 19:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Replied there. Femto 22:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there any way to supersede the spam filter? Andres 19:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * For individual editors, no, for obvious reasons. Like I said, there are whitelists. Administrators of some local Wikis maintain custom MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist pages that override the global meta:Talk:Spam blacklist. Femto 12:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate contributions for PBS links, consensus
Hi Femto:

Thanks for the links and info on contributing to Wikipedia. I'm doing my best to judiciously add appropriate links that are a definite fit with the content, but this is the second time an admin has come in behind me and reverted.

The science stories I have linked to are created by PBS for the public benefit; I would argue that finding the most appropriate page and adding a single (when there is such a page) link does not constitute canvassing for links. KQED and PBS are both non-profit entities that are not deriving revenue from the content being produced. In fact, they are required to disseminate it and give it away.

That said, if the community doesn't wish me to contribute as I have, that is no problem - it's all a learning experience and I want to do what's best. I need clarification on what "consensus" means.

Shall I from now on just post all external link proposals to the talk page for consideration? Is one reply with "Yes" enough for me to then post?

Again, I'm not complaining I just need guidance.

Craigrosa 17:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * replied at your talkpage. Femto 21:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Stained glass
Well Femto, you really fixed that one! Make sure you keep it on your watch list because we have self-promoters every other week and some of their work is really appalling.... --Amandajm 00:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh, just a drive-by revert and a friendly standard message to an IP. Now I fixed it. :) I've added a template that was designed to discourage overenthusiastic link additions, it may be useful here. Femto 11:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Francium todo
By listing these books, I meant to suggest that they should be read and incorporated into the article ASAP. I believe that Francium would greatly benefit from the inclusion of the information in them. I was addressing this suggestion not to casual readers but specifically Cryptic C62 and other editors of the article. Thus was the list appropriate for such a public noticeboard. I apologize that I did not explain the motive behind this recommendation sufficiently right away. -- Rmrfstar 13:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Murloc
An editor has nominated Murloc, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. - Tiswas (t) 13:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (Please remember to subst: your user message templates.) Sorry, I did only one revert and am not involved with the topic in any way. Femto 14:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm always confusing what to subst and what not to subst. The AFD note is a courtesy - unfortunately, as there are hundreds of contributors to the article, I chose to adopt a scatter gun approach. I'm afraid that you were an innocent bystander. - Tiswas (t) 14:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't seem to have any "major contributors", no need to go out of the way with the courtesy messages. I don't know what other editors expect, but by my interpretation of the AfD guidelines you would have been fine not to notify anyone at all, perhaps with the exception of one central message at the WikiProject talkpage. Femto 15:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Normally, I would leave it at an entry on the afd log page - In this case, another user expressed concern, considering the scope and popularity of the parent topic - Tiswas (t) 15:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Manatees in popular culture
A "" template has been added to the article Manatees in popular culture, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Sean William @ 18:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hydrogen quackery
In case you haven't seen it mentioned on Omegatron's talk page, I've saved the Brown's gas talk page at User talk:Pjacobi/Hydrogen quackery, mostly because of the references. And started a more or less related brainstorming page at User:Pjacobi/Hydrogen quackery.

Note also (I'm rather sure you've already noted) who actually sells this stuff.

Pjacobi 07:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify my Interest: At the moment I provide information via a website. I have in storage common ducted electrolyzers that produced common ducted oxyhydrogen in accordance with the oxyhydrogen article. Yull Brown's patent pertains to common ducted oxyhydrogen. It is general consensus that Brown's Gas is oxyhydrogen; I do not argue otherwise. My opinion is that HHO is a bullshit attempt to patent common ducted oxyhydrogen; HHO is a manipulation that in a court of law may eventually be determined to be fraudulent. I have ZERO/NO/NADA involvement with HHO, the HHO company, and I sure as hell do not promote HHO. On my website I specifically state HHO is common ducted oxyhydrogen, which is in strict accordance with the Brown's Gas patent, and also appears to be in accordance with the general consensus of various Wikipedia editors.

My official position is: I have commercial interest in "common ducted oxyhydrogen"

Noah Seidman 15:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hang in there, Femto
I know you've taken some abuse and had a rough week. As you look beyond those, I hope you will realize there are many of us who really appreciate your contributions here. They are many orders of magnitude greater than the word "femto" would seem to imply. -- A. B. (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ya, hang in there "Femco." (: We all know that the "spam project is communist complot" but the important question now revolves around this quote: "some spam project members being self declared communists and/or Anti-West Islamists." OK, time to fess up, I want to know who is both? (Requestion 19:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Right, last time around, everybody got those cool warnings on their talk, and I didn't. All I got was a mistyped reference to my name. Rub it in! Femto 12:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

See also Administrators' noticeboard/Archive93 which hopefully helps explain my motives. Femto 12:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible spamming
Hey Femto, I know you are anti-spam so I thought I'd let you know about this.--Cronholm144 09:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm having some off time at the moment, consider giving it a mention at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam instead. Femto 10:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer and sorry to be a bother.--Cronholm144 11:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No bother, just timed badly. :) Femto 10:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Indian brass spam
FYI, a blacklist removal has been posted at: by meta:User:Yogeshsoni. He also has an en.wikipedia account; you may be interested in his talk page: User Talk:Yogeshsoni.
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist (permanent link)

This was a spam problem you cracked a few months ago.

I'd run this one down myself but I'm traveling. I leave a few notes at the blacklist request. If you get the chance, can you look into this? Otherwise I'll handle when I return. -- A. B. (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Gave some info at meta. Femto 16:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Periodic Table layout
Please check out Template_talk:PeriodicTable and add an opinion if you have one. Flying Jazz 09:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that template is about to be speedy deleted. Thanks for reminding me of past history! The discussion about the table might (or might not) continue at Talk:Periodic table (standard). Flying Jazz 18:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

from Pmpa
I'm sorry to not know how to use Wikipedia's features. I have message for you in my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmpa (talk • contribs) 06:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)