User talk:Fourohfour/Archive 22 Dec 2006

('Reversal film' addition-deletion)
We


 * Who does "we" represent here?

don't understand why the last edit the Reversal film page was deleted!


 * Because I weighed up the evidence and came to the conclusion it was probably spam. (We get a lot of anonymous users adding spam to Wikipedia all the time.) Also, saying "The dr5 lab in Denver Colorado also process much scala with  an improved [over Main photo] processing quality." didn't help; it's not very neutral language.


 * Your posting from a Colorado address (the company is also based in Colorado) suggested to me that you may have been a spammer. I could well have been wrong, but it's often a case of balancing the evidence.

I am new to WIKI. Your deletions are a slap in face to those 100's of photographers in need of this labs special processing.


 * Please note that lots of people argue that "XYZ" or "ABC" is important, but "says who"?. I'm sure a salesperson would argue that lots of people "need" a certain product, but this doesn't make it so.

We have been using dr5 for many years and this lab is THE only resource of it's kind in the traditional photo market. Agfaphoto is out of business and the labs left are running remaining scala with non-agfa chemistry. It is only fair to list this labs unique constitution to photography, if not list them as something unique.


 * Wikipedia doesn't exist to give companies equal exposure, it exists to help people and include notable information. Of course, dr5 should still be judged by the same criteria as Main photo; that is, if they're very similar in size and business activity, both should probably go in.


 * Please note that I don't judge everything that goes in (including the Main photo inclusion); I judged your edit on its own merits.

If you list the one lab you should allow the other. If not, delete all listed labs! Main has not hold on processing this film. There are several in Europe still running scala. As with many listings to other companies on WIKI, your action does not make sence. Reversal film 19:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Rob        picoblv@hotmail.com


 * I have reverted the reversion(?!) for now; dr5.com is still in there, but I will mention it on the talk page so that more people can decide if it should be included or not. Fourohfour 19:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 'we' meaning my wife and I.
 * 'we' are customers of this lab.
 * The wife frequents WIKI, and wondered why this process and lab was not mentioned here.
 * 'yes', 'we' are located in Denver.


 * Okay, no problem. As I said, with anonymous editors, it's often hard to tell who they are.


 * (BTW, I'm nitpicking here, but "Wiki" is the generic name for a type of editable website and/or the software it uses; Wikipedia ("WP") is a Wiki, but there are other Wikis out there...)


 * 'we' find this labs service exceptional, superior to any other providing this kind of service. It is possible that my wording looked to be biased.


 * You might find WP:POV to be useful; with respect, your (or my) personal opinion doesn't belong here, unless you're a particularly noted photographer. On the other hand, if it can be clearly shown that a lab has a generally high reputation, this can be mentioned in a neutral manner.


 * I will try to be informational instead of spamish. I assure you that 'I' wanted to see this one of a kind service listed in WIKI. Spam was not my intention, and I did not ask the labs owner to list this.


 * I believe you now.


 * A question; should the other worldwide labs that process scala be listed as well? OFF TOPIC; In general, why does a company get listed in WIKI at all? Many many companies are listed here, 75% of them should be considered spam as well, yet they stay in. What makes a company worthy of listing? Should a company be worthy of listing if they have provided something unique to an industry? What would be that criteria? Regards,
 * Rob Marks picoblv@hotmail.com


 * I don't believe that there are any hard and fast rules. Generally, external links should add some utility to the article and/or something special. For example, some random lab that processes C41 but does nothing out of the ordinary probably doesn't belong in the C41 article, because there are countless such labs in existence. OTOH, if the lab was only one of three in the world that processed C41, or if it was by far the largest in the world, or exceptionally highly-regarded, then it might belong.


 * So, *if* the Scala lab is one of very few, it probably belongs. You might wish to discuss this specific issue at Talk:Reversal_film.


 * You might also want to browse the help pages; they're quite useful and describe important parts of Wikipedia policy (I just had a discussion with someone who'd been editing for almost a year and still wasn't aware of No original research). All the best,


 * Fourohfour 12:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

(Nestle comment)
Hi, does any of you work for Nestle? Is there any official position? Have you seen or linked to their corporate documents?

If you could answer these questions it would be easier to understand the neutrality of your article. Thank you very much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.105.18.13 (talk • contribs).


 * No, I don't work for Nestle. I'm unclear why you asked me about that question on documents; I haven't linked to any. My role in the Nestle article was pretty much limited to spotting what appeared to be  surreptitious PR work, you can see my contributions on the talk page. Fourohfour 17:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Nursery school
Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. -- Paul foord 16:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you're trying to be helpful, but since I've been contributing to Wikipedia for well over a year I'm well aware of all this. :)
 * I believe that I already explained my reasons for not making the changes to that article myself at the time (see article talk page for more details). The "be bold" advice is good for getting newbies involved, but I don't see it as a reason to make changes I believe someone else would be far better making. Anyway, the article has been rewritten now... Fourohfour 18:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The wording is a result of the template:sofixit, no offence intended Paul foord 04:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * None taken (^_^) Fourohfour 12:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Kodachrome and DSLRs
I am aware that most DSLRs use an APS-C sized sensor (even more aware as I shoot Nikon), I was being generic as the numbers seem to be based in a 35mm frame. Comparing the medium format digital back to a scan of a 35mm frame made no sense. Anyways that entire section is Unreferenced, and could use references to clear this kind of stuff up. PPGMD 14:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Page move
On this page move of yours: I see your point; but no, I don't like the name. Using "Carrousel (essays)" for the article on this booklet, only two of whose three texts are essays, is a bit like using "Carousel (songs)" for what's now "Carousel (musical)". "Carrousel (booklet)" would be better. I'll make the change, if you don't mind. -- Hoary 14:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem; I'd considered "(booklet)" anyway. So long as it does the job, the actual title isn't a big deal for me. Fourohfour 14:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

110 film
Please forgive me for bringing the conversation here but, as you have not replied on my talk page, I chose to solicit your attention here.

Please forgive my cluelessnes.

Regards,

TDKozan 01:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops :-(
 * That was *my* cluelessness, not yours. After making a point of keeping conversations in one place, I should really have done better; sorry. Reply is on your talk page. Fourohfour 10:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you please see the reply on my page as well please, id also like to know if you can give me a basic idea of what people edit the barnstars in, to create a better quality one this time, as I was usig paint —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoot2 (talk • contribs).


 * (Bangs head on wall). Sorry about that; I thought I'd checked that all my talk responses were up to date, but I must have only set it to display the ones that had changed in the past week. :-(
 * Reply is at your page. Fourohfour 00:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The Leigh City Technology College
Hello, I would like to apologies for our Students vandalism of this site, As one of the Systems Administrators of the College i have placed the site onto our blacklist to prevent any further mis-use of the Wikipedia. If you wish to contact me via email, you can do so by emailing jba@leighctc.kent.sch.uk Jbarker uk 10:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it, there's always at least one idiot in any school; fact of life :-)
 * If the block is preventing your students from using Wikipedia altogether, it might be preferable for us to simply block editing (but not viewing) at our end instead. Please let me know if this is the case.
 * It's not our intention to stop responsible (i.e. non-vandalising) edits, and the garbage seemed to be coming exclusively from one machine's IP (this may be due to NAT, but I noticed you seem to have other addresses associated with the college, which suggests otherwise).
 * It's not my place to say what the school should and shouldn't do/block/etc., as it doesn't reflect on me, but let me- or an administrator here- know if you need any help.
 * Thanks for taking this seriously and letting us know about it. Fourohfour 11:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You are very correct, we have a range of IP addresses for various use but student machines will always come from 194.74.190.162.
 * If you could block editing access from that ip address, it would be an amicable solution, as it would allow the students access to this resource, while preventing the immature few students that find it funny to deface articles with pointless comments.
 * Also, i noticed you removed the College logo from the Wikipedia page, what was the reason for this, i suspect the orginal uploader ( a student & friend ) did not provide the copyright infomation? If this is the case, i can verify it for him.
 * If you find or have any issues with anything related to the CTC please don’t hesitate to contact me and i will attempt to resolve any issues immediately. Jbarker uk 13:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't remove the image file itself; someone else had already removed it- possibly automatically, as can happen after 7 days if the license/copyright isn't specified. All I did was to remove the thumbnail box that held the (now missing) image. If you want to re-upload it, please do so, although you'll have to select one of the appropriate licenses/uses from the list.


 * I couldn't see your email address listed anywhere on the website; is there any way for us to confirm that this belongs to a member of staff before we block the page- possibly via someone else whose email *is* listed?


 * Nothing personal, I just want to double-check before we go ahead with a block. Thanks! Fourohfour 10:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats fine, i understand. My email address is not listed as i am not a member of the teaching staff, if you wish to speak to me you can ring the main switchboard and ask to speak to Jay Barker, alternativly visit this url: LCTC Site which i have added just to show you i am who i say i am :) Jbarker uk 12:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The website's enough, thanks. I'll get the admins to block that address ASAP. Fourohfour 13:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fourohfour, I've blocked the IP address as requested, and posted a message to User talk:Jbarker uk regarding e-mail confirmation and the possibility of reblocking with registered edits enabled. Cheers, Tangot a ngo 14:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I should point out that I was satisfied that this user was (at least) a system-admin at the school, as they were able to add their name to the website (it wasn't there before) in response to my question. Fourohfour 14:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem! Right, I'm personally satisfied too, but I think it's good practice to keep a record of requests like this in case anybody has any questions later, and OTRS is often used for this purpose. Cheers, Tangot a ngo 14:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

about merging Petri and company Kuribayashi..
I think it was a good idea that you merged Petri Camera with the Kuribayashi company. I started both articles, but i dont think it is needed to have two of those, because Kurib. did mostly Petri Cameras SNx 20:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem, thanks. Regardless of the title chosen, I agree it's probably better to have the info together. I'd probably have called the merged article Petri Camera Company given the choice (since it was about the whole company "Kuribayashi"/"Petri Camera Company"), but IMHO it's a minor issue and not worth moving/re-linking stuff around for :-) Fourohfour 20:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

ooops, i didn't reed that i should not start a new heading here to reply to your comment. Im Sorry. SNx 20:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it, it's not a big deal. Fourohfour 20:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Kodacolor
As far as I was aware, there were no double redirects. There's generally no need to correct the links otherwise, so long as the clicked link goes directly to the proper page. Girolamo Savonarola 10:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I realise that. No big deal, but it's generally preferable not to rely on redirection. Fourohfour 10:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Somerfield
You wrote:


 * If you're renaming a page, can you please use the standard "sentence" style; i.e. capitalisation at start and for names/abbrevs only. In the case of your recent moves, I'd have called them "Somerfield (UK retailer)" and "Somerfield (suburb)" instead of "Somerfield (UK Retailer)" and "Somerfield (Suburb)". Thank you.


 * I'm not moving them again because it's not that big a deal and I can't be bothered dealing with the links :-)


 * Sorry, my mistake. Capitalisation issue completely slipped my mind. Equipoise 02:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it; like I said, it's hardly the end of the world. (^_^) Fourohfour 10:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverts by User:Lawsonrob
You may have noticed that I've also had maintenance tags (for citations) reverted by this user. These reverts came after your discussion with him. Do you care to work together on this issue? WVhybrid 03:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean this unexplained removal (no references added, justification for notability given, nor comment made as to why the tagging was unjustified) or this one, right?


 * To be fair, in the second case an explanation was given, although it was almost wilfully simple-minded. It should have been obvious that all that was needed was evidence that the person was a South Shields resident. However....


 * It's a list, and if the articles themselves contain sufficient evidence, it might be better to simply refer people to that. Those whose articles still don't contain adequate refs/evidence can then perhaps be marked as or  - or removed from the list altogether.


 * Since you brought up the issue in the first place, I'd suggest the best move would be to comment on the user's page. If this starts to become a serious problem, we can open a request for comments (with a solid basis).


 * Fourohfour 11:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A far more appropriate and practical suggestion fourohfour. To reference every item on a list like that is totally impractical and if a non-resident is ever added it is very rapidly removed by another user.


 * To clarify my position, I still expect reasonable evidence to support any claim implicit in the list (e.g. that someone lives in South Shields) via the parent article. I just don't consider it necessary to duplicate the same reference in a "derived" article.
 * I still support the use of (or similar dispute tags) where there is good reason to dispute an entry (i.e. parent article doesn't provide references). That, or removal of the entry altogether if the author kicks up a fuss, but still refuses to (or can't) back up his/her "facts".


 * It is the purpose of the entry on each individual ito tell their life story and to prove their residency on what is effectively a reference page is completely ridiculous. The reason this has not been done is surely that no user will have the time or the inclination. It seems to me that people are going around the site doing nothing but adding these references at the top of every page they can think of.


 * Information published in Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable; see Verifiability. That there are major articles which don't include references is not a good thing.


 * Far fewer individual facts and articles as a whole actually get tagged than would be expected if strictly following the rules. Personally, I don't add them all the time, only where particular facts don't ring true and I want the source confirmed, or if it makes a controversial and/or specific claim. But I'm getting much more picky on this and I make no apologies for it; Wikipedia's credibility is only as good as its references.


 * The alternative is removing the facts altogether; tagging gives the author (or someone else) a chance to back them up.


 * This surely only demeans the credibility of the pages to external users, who cannot know that it is only the view of one individual. (lawsonrob) 13:24, 14 December 2006


 * If that individual editor has a poor case, this should be addressed properly, not simply removed without comment as you did previously. If a particular author is (in your opinion) tagging excessively without good reason, take it up with them, or discuss it on one of the appropriate pages.


 * Issues ought to be addressed, not covered up for the sake of making Wikipedia look good. The way to make Wikipedia look good is to have concrete verifiability. People adding facts ought to be able to back them up if challenged in good faith. Fourohfour 14:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that it is impractical to provide references for each fact in an article, or each person on a list. I would agree that providing valid references would be hard work, but impractical, no, it is not impractical to work hard to make good, well referenced articles. Without the references, what we have is Original Research, which is supposed to be prohibited on WP. Take a look at the Featured Lists; they all have extensive references.


 * Maybe I'm wrong, then... I guess (IMHO) the issue is whether they're "derived" articles or not. If so, the parent article should already have a supporting ref, else the entry should be tagged "dubious" or removed.


 * I've checked a few of the folks listed on the famous people page we've been discussing, and so far 1/2 of the wiki-linked articles assert the fact that the folks are from South Shield. It will be a lot of work to provide references to all the listed persons. WVhybrid 06:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OTOH *if* they're doing something new that isn't referenced in the parent article, then they should definitely include references themselves. Fourohfour 11:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have started the references to the list in question, by finding and referncing a single fact. Perhaps I'll do one a week, and in a year or two we will be able to remove the tag. B-) Have a good evening. WVhybrid 23:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I pretty much agree with what you're saying. However, unreferenced material isn't *necessarily* Original Research- it might be, or it could just be that the reference isn't listed. The point is that we don't know and shouldn't have to take it on trust.
 * There needs to be a "more verifiability" culture on Wikipedia, even if it means less material being added. I'm quite picky when it comes to newer articles (including those which I started myself), and articles with references already- particularly high-traffic ones.
 * The question is how much tagging is appropriate for existing articles; I tend to review things on a new-edit-by-edit basis, but I support "This article does not cite its references" for major articles which have few or no refs, and/or individual tagging for questionable facts.
 * (To be fair, I've been less than perfect in the past, although I've since added proper refs to some of my older articles to bring them up to scratch, and will continue to do so. I've never included Original Research).
 * As I already said, I consider myself moderate- I don't go around tagging every existing unreferenced fact, let alone removing it- despite the fact that Wikipedia makes perfectly clear to newcomers [via the "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" link on each edit window] that material should be backed up with references or may be removed. It also makes the position on Original Research quite clear. Fourohfour 11:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)