User talk:Indrek/Archive 1

Euros (Ultrabook)
Hi! Since you say it should be in $ sign, then why not we just put it as "700 Euros" or "€700 (Euros)". Just because you don't think anyone will get confused does not mean that no one will get confused. An example would be me, if you just put the sign there I would not know what currency that is. And to add to that, I used the sign to do a search on google, but since google does not search on symbols, nothing came up. Wiki is supposed to be easy to understand, even if we have to be overly-specific. So I hope you can understand my point here. ty. 175.156.211.51 (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The edit was done by me, Xxxxxls2 is my wiki username; normally i dont login to edit though. this should be good enough.

Anyway, nothing to be surprised some people dont know the sign since wiki is international website.

175.156.211.51 (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

16:10 ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

16:10 again
You should probably get the admin who blocked Urklistre to have a look at the new guy. Or file an WP:SPI. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. For future reference, when someone gets blocked and a new user appears with similar language skills and an interest in the same parts of an article, there's a good chance it's a sock. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Pointing stick
You are right, my statement about the reason ThinkPad eraserheads are red was speculation (by way of replacing "traditionally"). I like the result. Spike-from-NH (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Farad
Hi Indrik, I was wondering why you changed the ref access dates at Farad. I updated them to the current date as I accessed them today. Many of the refs didn't have access dates before I added them, so I don't understand why you felt it necessary to change many of them to dates from 2008 or 2009. Could you please clarify why the change was necessary? Thank you. HMman (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC).
 * I simply took the original access dates, based on when the respective refs were added to the article. Indrek (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Although, in case of the two Bob Pease articles, since you updated the URLs, I guess it makes sense to have the dates you accessed them. I'll change those two back. Indrek (talk) 10:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's not why you changed them, that's how you changed them. The way I understand the point of the "accessdate" template is that it shows that the url was accessed at that time and the material cited was there. By updating the dates I was showing that the content cited was still present. When the dates are changed from when they were most recently accessed, that defeats the point of the access date; does it not? HMman (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC).
 * My bad, I thought you were asking about where the dates came from, and assumed informing you that they were the original access dates would be sufficient explanation.
 * The way I see it, the point of access dates is not to confirm that the ref is still valid. The very presence of the ref in the article is enough for that, and if it's no longer the case that the ref supports the content in the article then that needs to be addressed anyway, regardless of when it was accessed. If that were not true and the recentness of the access date was a measure of the reference's reliability, I'd expect to see readers and editors being encouraged to update access dates whenever they follow a ref link, which (as far as I can see) is not happening.
 * The access date should help with tracking down an alternate or archived version of the ref in case it becomes unavailable or the content changes. Archived versions are usually chosen by the proximity of the archive date to the date when the ref was first added, and having the original access date helps with that. Certainly in some cases finding original access dates for all refs can be too much effort (articles with lots of references and/or a very long edit history), but in this case they were trivial to find so I saw no reason not to use them. Indrek (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I see your point, thank you for explaining your reasoning. I don't fully agree with your reasons, but after giving the MOS a brief look-over it appears it's just a matter of opinion. Regards, HMman (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC).

Redirects are not evil
Hello.

The editing scripts that I use sometimes adds redirects without me telling it to do so. For example, when I removed "Microsoft's", the tool changed Metro design language into Metro design language. I noticed, but did not contest. Redirects are not evil and replacing them with direct links are frowned upon. In fact, a footnote in MOS:STABILITY hints that people are previously blocked for such compulsive edits as "fixing" of redirects. So, I advise you not to touch them.

As for reverting my other edits, I think mine was better, but I leave your way be. Such minor changes are not even worth discussing, don't you agree?

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I later figured you might be using some sort of tool or script that did this automatically, so thanks for clearing that up. You may wish to review your scripts, though, in case they sometimes make other, less minor edits without you telling them to do so.
 * I wasn't aware of that guideline you linked to (and I can't say I fully agree with it), but I will of course try and keep it in mind in the future.
 * Regards, Indrek (talk) 07:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

edit to Sherlock
//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sherlock_%28TV_series%29&diff=575507416&oldid=575506412 Your recent reversion to Sherlock you put in the description that you undid my recent edit because it is not encyclopedic next time could you please check who you are talking about before you post it. the edit in question was not by me but by 24.173.73.194 I understand that mistakes happen, but I just wanted to let you know. Thank you 67.170.169.30 (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Please read the edit summary again. I didn't revert your edit, I reverted back to your edit. Regards, Indrek (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that I noticed that after I sent this message, It was early in the morning and I guess I wasn't seeing things clearly. I tried to delete my message to you but I guess I screwed that up as well. Again, I'm so sorry 67.170.169.30 (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem. As you said yourself, mistakes happen :) And no, you didn't screw up the deleting, I reverted back because I wasn't sure why you deleted it and wanted to reply just in case. Anyway, don't worry about it. Regards, Indrek (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Bundling of Microsoft Windows
I just replaced the list of cases section with an expanded paragraph incorporating relevant cases as per WP:PROSE. Your thoughts and suggestions on my edit are welcome. Thanks, RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 13:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Guitar wiring
Sorry, I just wanted to let you know about the link. I highly appreciate your clear and systematic work on that page. --Borsanova (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. In the future, if you encounter a dead link, consider flagging it with the dead link template, or searching for an archived version on a site like http://web.archive.org. See WP:LINKROT for more information. Cheers! Indrek (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

HP zBook Page
You reverted an edit I made to the HP zBook page. You reinstated the incorrect information I corrected. There is not a 3200x1800 option for the zBook. All you quote are reviews that were made before the product was released. I have personally checked with Ingram Micro (a HUGE distributor) and directly with HP. A rep from HP confirmed there is no such device in existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewslaney (talk • contribs) 17:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes, I reverted the edit because (unlike the existing information, which you claim is incorrect) it was unsourced. Do you have any reliable sources to back your claim that there's no 3200x1800 option for the ZBook 15? The link you originally provided led to a generic HP customer support page.
 * If you need more information about sources on Wikipedia, please refer to WP:RS and WP:TRUTH. Indrek (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

HP Z Book edits
Hi,

I just wanted to touch base with you regarding the corrections I made to the HP zBook page. Your "sources" are articles written before the release of the product. HP never actually made a 3200x1800 resolution display. I verified this personally directly with HP by talking to their support staff and their sales staff. The edits you keep making/reverting are based on false information. Please do not change the page again.

EDIT: I apparently didn't watch the previous comment I made to you and didn't see your reply. If your concern is a reliable source outweighing the truth, then I would ask that you reconsider whether a pre-release article speculating about the future specifications of a product should be considering reliable. I would argue that it is not. If you'd like for me to write a paragraph regarding my chat with HP and showing a transcript thereof and post it on my website so that we have something else to cite, I'll be happy to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewslaney (talk • contribs) 02:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks,

Matthew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewslaney (talk • contribs) 02:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough. Permit me to try again.
 * Per WP:VERIFY, all content on Wikipedia must be verifiable, meaning traceable back to a reliable source. The content that you keep removing from the article is backed by such a source (Geek.com, a mainstream tech news outlet, reporting on an official HP press release), unless you can provide a policy-based reason for it not to be considered one. If you wish to check with other, more experienced editors about this, please feel free to start a discussion at WP:RSN.
 * On the other hand, your claim that no 3200x1800 option exists for the ZBook 15, while it may well be truthful, is simply not sufficient to merit a change to the article, unless you can find a similarly reliable source to back it up. Yes, reliability outweighs truthfulness. That's not a concern for me, that's how Wikipedia operates. You cannot simply remove content from an article because you disagree with it.
 * As for your offer to post the chat transcript on your website, it's unfortunately misguided (though well-intentioned), as self-published sources are not considered reliable on Wikipedia.
 * I hope this clarified the issue for you, and that you understand why I'm going to have to revert your edit again. If not, I'd encourage you to start a discussion on the article's talk page, where we can hopefully get input from other editors as well (see WP:BRD).
 * Regards, Indrek (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Indrek,


 * On the WP:BRD page to which you linked, it states: "Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y"." When providing false information, a source is therefore unreliable. Notice that no links are provided in that geek.com article to the original press release. The original release is here and if you read it you will notice that the entire article is worded in present tense with the exception of the sentence about the 3200x1800 display, which is worded in future tense. It does not exist. I am reverting the page again. Please refrain from changing it again until you can provide a a valid source indicating that the 3200x1800 display currently exists. Alternately, update the wording to very clearly indicate that it does not exist but there have been rumors that it may in the future.


 * Thanks, Matthew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewslaney (talk • contribs) 21:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you still misunderstand. The issue at hand is whether or not there are reliable sources backing up your claim that a 3200x1800 option doesn't currently exist for the ZBook 15. Unless and until you can provide such a source, you shouldn't remove content from the article based on nothing but your personal assessment of the truthfulness of that content.
 * "When providing false information, a source is therefore unreliable." The reliability of a source is determined by a number of factors, as outlined in WP:RS. The truthfulness of the information provided by the source is not one of them, therefore this statement is fallacious. If you feel the information reported by Geek.com in their article is incorrect, you should take the issue to them, not Wikipedia.
 * "The original release is here and if you read it you will notice that the entire article is worded in present tense with the exception of the sentence about the 3200x1800 display, which is worded in future tense. It does not exist." That the 3200x1800 display does not exist is your personal interpretation of the HP press release and therefore WP:OR, which is not allowed on Wikipedia.
 * "Please refrain from changing it again until you can provide a a valid source indicating that the 3200x1800 display currently exists. Alternately, update the wording to very clearly indicate that it does not exist but there have been rumors that it may in the future." I've been trying to extend to you the courtesy of good faith, but now I must inform you that such ultimatums make it somewhat difficult. The text cannot "very clearly indicate that it does not exist" because there seem to be no reliable sources that would back up such a statement. Wikipedia cannot claim something that can't be attributed to a reliable source (WP:VERIFY). You are therefore essentially demanding that I violate Wikipedia policy, either explicitly by adding content to the article that doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards, or implicitly by ignoring your edits to the same effect. I refuse to do either.
 * Ironically, since both the Geek.com and Engadget articles clearly use the present tense with regards to the 3200x1800 option, and both are valid, reliable sources, you have just given me implicit permission to change the content back again. However, it's becoming increasingly apparent that you're not willing to accept my policy-based arguments, and I've no wish to engage in an edit war. In the spirit of compromise, I've therefore reworded that section a bit so the article no longer implies that a 3200x1800 option is available, merely that it's been announced. I hope you find this revision satisfactory. Indrek (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't use letter x as a substitute for the multiplication sign ×
I believe you are misunderstanding MOS:COMMONMATH when you say that the letter "x" is the substitute for "by". What it says is that you may use an unspaced letter x in some common expressions such as 4x4, although the consensus in that particular article is in fact to not use letter x, and in that context the x or × doesn't even imply multiplication.

Beyond a few common expressions such as 4x4, for example when discussing the myriads of display resolutions, the rule is to not use letter x as a substitute for the multiplication sign ×, very clearly stated in Manual_of_Style/Mathematics.

It doesn't matter whether × is pronounced "by" or "multiplied by", the correct character is still ×. Consider cases such as array dimensions, "a 4 × 4 array", always pronounced "4 by 4" and could very well refer to a pixel array's dimensions. And consider equation such as in 2 × 2 = 4 which can be pronounced either "2 multiplied by 2 ..." or "2 by 2 ...". WinTakeAll (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There was no misunderstanding on my part. At the time when I reverted your edit, MOS:COMMONMATH stated that, quote, "the unspaced letter x is the substitute for by in such terms as 4x4." There was no "may" in there at the time, that was added by you later on, apparently without any consensus or prior discussion.
 * As for WP:⋅, that applies to mathematical formulae, which display resolutions are not. The horizontal and vertical pixel counts are generally not given for the purposes of multiplication, and are almost universally pronounced with simply "by", therefore the letter "x" would be the appropriate substitute. Indrek (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * On a related note, User:Makyen has started a discussion about this at WT:MOSDATE, so please respond there. Indrek (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Guitar potentiometers
The use of potentiometer tapers in guitar electronics as you edited in the "guitar wiring" page is incorrect. Linear potentiometers will consistently perform more as a tone on/off switch in the bottom quarter of rotation, leaving very little effect through the upper range, and therefore tone pots are consistently audio taper. Volume controls can use either linear or audio (Gibson switched to linear volumes in 1973 and the majority of guitars manufactured today use the same), but tone pots remain exclusively audio taper in order to spread the range of control over a broad range of the rotation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.221.196.226 (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure what exactly you're basing these claims on, but volume controls are almost universally logarithmic pots, not just in guitars, but in any audio circuit (e.g. amplifiers). That's because perceived loudness does not increase linearly with volume (or, more specifically, sound pressure), but linearly with the logarithm of sound pressure. Therefore volume controls need to provide ever increasing amounts of volume for each unit of rotation, in order for the control to feel linear to the human ear. Strictly speaking, the taper is exponential, but by convention these pots are called logarithmic, or log.
 * Tone controls can be both, and the choice seems to be largely subjective. A tone control is essentially just a variable low-pass filter, and turning the pot simply adjusts the cut-off frequency. Unlike the volume control, there's nothing that requires the tone pot to be logarithmic in order for the control to be functional and useful.
 * The only reason linear pots sometimes get used as volume controls is for financial reasons - they're generally a bit cheaper due to simpler construction, and if linear pots are used for tone controls as well, it allows the manufacturer to stock only one type of pot instead of two, reducing overhead costs. But that's the exception, not the rule. Indrek (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The reference you provide (The Science of Electric Guitars and Guitar Electronics) credits use of tapers to Craig Anderton's book "Do-It-Yourself Projects For Guitarists", a Guitar Player publication which is know to contain factual inaccuracies. If you follow to Figure 4.3 on page 253 of Jarmo Lahdevaara's book, you will see how a linear tone control pot will deliver results exactly as demonstrated in the linked youtube demonstration videos - virtually no noticeable change in the top half of the sweep, with the vast majority of effect in the bottom 10% of the pan. Tone pots are exclusively audio, but volume pots can employ either linear or audio (and most makers use linear). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.221.196.226 (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding Figure 4.3, did you consider that the chart is logarithmic? What might seem like "virtually no noticeable change" on that chart is actually very noticeable in a real circuit. To deduce from those charts that linear pots don't work as tone controls when the source itself does not say that is original research, which is also forbidden on Wikipedia. Indrek (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, I disagree with your claim that the information in Lähdevaara's book about pot tapers is sourced to Anderton. Yes, he refers to Anderton's book regarding the overall structure of the tone circuit as well as specific potentiometer and capacitor values, but as far as I can see, the assertion regarding pot tapers carries no such association. Just so we're clear, this is the excerpt in question:
 * "In audio applications, logarithmic potentiometers are almost always used as the volume control potentiometers, whereas the type of the tone control potentiometer is chosen according to design."
 * I see no reference to Anderton's work that would apply to the above statement, rendering your point about the reliability of said work moot. Indrek (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for not being up on wikipedia standards for reliable references, but the data presented in these videos (regardless of the platform they are broadcast from) is unbiased, accurate, and verifiable data. http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLO33g8sM_b8V2Z25rI2VPWFOb00X79wIn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.221.196.226 (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not Youtube per se that's unreliable, it's the fact that anyone can publish videos there, with no peer review or verification for factual accuracy whatsoever. See WP:SPS for more information. If you can find a reliable source backing up the claims you're making, then that would be different. Also bear in mind that Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. In other words, Wikipedia can only contain material that can be verified to be true, not what editors believe to be true. Indrek (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Please take no offense, as this is a bit tongue in cheek, but if only reliable sources which can be verified to be true are allowed, then how did the rule of audio pots for volume and linear for tone make it on here? ;) I'll leave it to others to correct on this page, but I can assure you that this assertion is 100% patently false. It is a belief which has been repeated by enough sources to be considered fact. Jarmo's Figure 4.3 shows very little change between 500kΩ and 250kΩ (settings 10 and 5 on a linear tone control), and the vast majority of change appearing between the 50kΩ and 500Ω settings (settings 1 and effectively zero on the control). These predictions are verified in the demonstration and data presented on the videos referenced. Furthermore, inspection of guitars as manufactured will show audio pots as standard in tone controls, and linear pots more commonly used than audio for volumes. If you have the time - even if the videos are not suitable as a reviewed reference - I strongly recommend watching them. Linear pots will predictably function more as an on/off tone switch between 2 and 0 when used as a tone control, and are rarely used in this application for this reason. This is a verifiable fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.221.196.226 (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll leave it to others to correct on this page, but I can assure you that this assertion is 100% patently false. It is a belief which has been repeated by enough sources to be considered fact. And I can assure you that this is not mere belief. If you've the time, I recommend learning the physics behind this, and you'll understand why logarithmic pots are used for volume-related controls. A few manufacturers cheaping out and using linear pots instead does not change anything. Nevertheless, in the spirit of compromise and collaboration, I've amended the article text slightly, to acknowledge that other tapers are sometimes used.
 * As for the taper of tone controls, without looking through the edit history of the article I cannot say for certain whether it was me or another editor that added this claim. It may well have been me; it's certainly been my experience that tone controls are mostly linear. But that's not really important, since that part of the article has now been revised (and I fully acknowledge that, before looking into this as a result of your edit, I may have underestimated the popularity of audio taper tone pots).


 * This is a verifiable fact. Then you should have no problem finding a reliable source that verifies this. If you can't, then it's either a) not fact, or b) not relevant enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. I've already given you policy-based reasons why neither the chart in Lähdevaara's book nor the Youtube videos can be used to support the claims you're making. Personally, I also believe you're misinterpreting the chart (specifically, how it translates to actual circuits), and as for the videos, I've seen enough self-proclaimed experts demonstrate such monumental ignorance of basic electronics and acoustics — for instance, on one occasion I had a luthier of 25+ years repeatedly assert that the guitarist earths the guitar, not the other way around (and no, it wasn't 1 April like today!) — that I hope you'll forgive me if I don't rush into taking anything said on Youtube as gospel. And yes, I fully realise that from your point of view this might look like a case of the pot calling the kettle black, but that doesn't matter anyway, because it's Wikipedia policy you need to satisfy, not me. Indrek (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

And so goes the wikitruth. With all due respect, it's all yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.221.196.226 (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

A quick search on factory schematics will show you lot's of makers using audio volumes (Fender, PRS, G&L, etc), and plenty using linear volumes (Gibson, Carvin, Ibanez, and many others). What you won't find is any broad use of linear tone pots, because they don't work for this application. Try wiring one up and you'll see what I mean.

http://www.gibson.com/Files/schematics/lpdswiring.gif http://www.gibson.com/Files/schematics/dsbhwiring.gif http://www.gibson.com/Files/schematics/Dot%20Studio%20sch.pdf http://www.carvinservice.com/crg/schematics/502g.pdf http://www.cortguitars.com/downloads/pdfs/G254.pdf http://www.ibanez.com/supportResources/wiring/W96037.gif

If you understand the physics of these electronics, you would certainly see that while an audio pot may be the only viable option for an active or power amplifier volume, once you assign the pot to split the signal between a coil and amp on one side while also loading and shorting out the amp input on the other side, the sum result is no longer an ideal logarithmic taper. A tone control however, working only from one side of the pot, does behave in the logarithmic fashion that is expected of it. I would be interested to see what reliable source can be referenced to demonstrate a linear pot being preferred or performing superior to audio in a tone circuit.

Just trying to correct an error where others may seek reliable information. I've never ventured in to editing wikipedia before, and I doubt I will again. Let the myths and errors continue if you will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.221.196.226 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Capacitor
I was considering good-faith reverting your edit to Capacitor for changing the prefixes, but I'll bring it up here. Although I cannot currently find any sources, capacitors are almost exclusively measured in micro- and picofarads. Rarely do they use nano- or millifarads. Although I am not sure why this is the case, it is the standard. Let's discuss this! Piguy101 (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I found some sources. It turns out that pico, nano, and micro are okay to use with farads, according to this and this. However, milli is strongly not recommend to use, for its confusion with micro according to this. The source says "Vintage equipment never used more than maybe 200uF so using mfd = μF wasn't very confusing!" However, modern capacitors make this distinction confusing, so I strongly urge you to convert the millifarads that you changed back to microfarads. Have a good day! Piguy101 (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, I didn't change the prefixes, did. I simply changed them back because his edit was unwarranted. Some of those prefixes he changed had been in the article for at least a year, if not more, with no evidence of any confusion.
 * Most of the world doesn't actually avoid the nanofarad, only the US does (for whatever reason). Use of the millifarad is uncommon only because capacitors in that range are relatively uncommon. Neither is a reason to avoid those prefixes on Wikipedia.
 * As for that radiomuseum.org link you gave, I see nothing there about avoiding millifarads. In fact, it explicitly uses mF for denoting "Modern thousand micro Farad capacitors". The comment about vintage equipment that you quoted only applies to the obsolete "mfd" abbreviation.
 * Ultimately, though, usage of unit prefixes on Wikipedia is governed by the Manual of Style (specifically, WP:UNIT), not external websites that may or may not even be reliable (case in point, the three links you posted all appear to be self-published). If you feel that nano- and/or millifarads should be avoided on Wikipedia, the proper place to take that up would be WT:MOSDATE.
 * Regards, Indrek (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Starting a new section at Talk:Capacitor —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 21:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Matt200055
My edit was constructive, so why don't you just leave the aspect ratio page alone, you......I don't even know. But I do know more about editing than you do, and if you revert my edit again, I will make sure I get you kicked off this wiki. -Matt200055 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt200055 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but your edit was not constructive. This has been discussed on the article's talk page and the consensus was to use equal area, not equal height. If you disagree, kindly explain your position on the article's talk page instead of engaging what's beginning to seem like edit warring.
 * Also, if you know so much about editing Wikipedia, I'm sure you're aware of its core policies, such as:
 * WP:AGF, which states that, lacking convincing evidence to the contrary, all edits are to be assumed to have been made in good faith.
 * WP:CIVIL, which calls for civility when interacting with other editors. Threatening to get them banned from Wikipedia is not a sign of civilised conduct.
 * WP:OWN, which states that no editor should act as if they *own* a particular article, which is precisely what you're doing when you're telling me to "leave the aspect ratio page alone".
 * Please take those policies into account and let's try to resolve this on the article's talk page. I look forward to hearing your arguments as to why you think equal height is better than equal area.
 * Regards, Indrek (talk) 06:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Note that their response to this was another unexplained revert. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

non-standard use of "@" and "×"
Hello. Can you please give me a link, explaining that the use of "×" in Wikipedia tables is non-standard and is prohibited? The question rose after your edit of the Surface Pro 3 article. TranslucentCloud (talk) 10:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. Per WP:MOSNUM, "×" (being a binary operator) requires a non-breaking space on both sides, as well as a unit when describing the dimensions of something (as opposed to expressing multiplication). Hence why I changed it to "x", which is not subject to the same requirements and is an acceptable alternative to "×" when expressing display resolutions.
 * As for "@", I'm not sure if it's explicitly covered in the MOS, but as far as I know, its use as replacement for the word "at" is entirely colloquial and thus unsuitable for use in an encyclopedia.
 * Best regards, Indrek (talk) 10:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I've read this guideline. Obviously, you refer to the following particular guideline:


 * The unspaced letter x may be used in common terms such as 4x4.


 * As the example of the aforementioned common term a 4x4 four-wheel drive is mentioned. And I agree this is rather appropriate for the terms like that, but inappropriate for display resolutions. So, I suggest to leave × signs in the table and to add units to the table heading, as Style Guidelines require. Here is what it will look like:


 * {| class="wikitable" align="center" style="text-align:center;" text-align="center"

! colspan="4" | Surface Pro 3 External Display Connectivity (maximum resolution (horizontal pixels × vertical pixels) and refresh rate shown in brackets) ! CPU model !! Display 1 !! Display 2 !! Display 3 (2560 × 1600, 60 Hz) || DisplayPort (2560 × 1600, 60 Hz) || DisplayPort (2560 × 1600, 60 Hz) (2560 × 1600, 60 Hz) || DVI (2560 × 1600, 60 Hz) (1920 × 1200, 60 Hz) || VGA (1920 × 1200, 60 Hz) (4096 × 2304, 24 Hz) || WiDi (1920 × 1080, 60 Hz) (3200 × 2000, 60 Hz) || DisplayPort (3200 × 2000, 60 Hz) || DisplayPort (3200 × 2000, 60 Hz) (2560 × 1600, 60 Hz) || DVI (2560 × 1600, 60 Hz) (1920 × 1200, 60 Hz) || VGA (1920 × 1200, 60 Hz) (4096 × 2304, 24 Hz) || WiDi (1920 × 1080, 60 Hz)
 * rowspan="4" | i3 || rowspan="4" | eDP/DisplayPort
 * rowspan="4" | i3 || rowspan="4" | eDP/DisplayPort
 * DVI
 * DVI
 * VGA
 * VGA
 * HDMI
 * HDMI
 * rowspan="4" | i5/i7 || rowspan="4" | eDP/DisplayPort
 * rowspan="4" | i5/i7 || rowspan="4" | eDP/DisplayPort
 * DVI
 * DVI
 * VGA
 * VGA
 * HDMI
 * HDMI
 * }
 * TranslucentCloud (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * TranslucentCloud (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I refer to a number of style guidelines, actually.
 * From WP:MOSNUM:
 * Length–width, length–width–height and similar dimensions may be separated by the multiplication sign (×) or the word by
 * With the multiplication sign, each number should be followed by a unit name or symbol (if appropriate)
 * The unspaced letter x may be used in common terms such as 4x4
 * From WP:COMMONMATH:
 * Spaces are placed to left and right when a symbol is used with two operands, but no space with one operand
 * an unspaced "x" may be used as a substitute for "by" in common terms such as "4x4"
 * From those guidelines it can be seen that unspaced "×" is prohibited, which is why I changed it. Although I should note that I don't consider it to be so big an issue as to go out of my way to change it in articles; in this case it was mainly because I was also making other edits to the table.
 * Also, please note that drivetrain configurations such as "4x4" are not meant to be the only use for unspaced "x". Indeed, until fairly recently that example wasn't even wikilinked to the 4x4 article. Current consensus is that the "common terms" mentioned in the guidelines where unspaced "x" is acceptable include display resolutions (there was a lengthy discussion on this earlier this year at WT:MOSDATE, though I can't seem to find it in the archives right now). It may look odd to you, but consider that even the Intel support page linked to in the table header uses "x" for resolutions (albeit in both spaced and unspaced forms), rather than "×".
 * I respectfully disagree that the example table you posted above is an improvement over the one currently in the article. For one, listing the units in the header makes the note unnecessarily long, without actually improving anything (we all know display resolutions are listed in pixels). Spaced "×" in the table body also seems to have no effect other than to make the text take up more space horizontally. Could you first clarify what exactly is wrong with using unspaced "x" (other than that you don't like it)? Thanks. Indrek (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The Intel's webpage can never look odd to me, because it exhibit a very poor style. I agree with you, that the majority of resolution notations on the Internet are in the 4x4 format, but Wikipedia isn't just a brief vendor's support page or a blog. Wikipedia has style.
 * As per my first proposal, I thought a bit and decided, that words vertical and horizontal referring to pixels are unnecessary, because nowadays many screens can be rotated, so we can shrink the long line to just maximum resolution (pixels × pixels) and refresh rate shown in brackets.
 * Apart of me not liking 4x4-format personally, I do believe that this is what you may say entirely colloquial. People doesn't bother to find a way to type multiplication sign, many even doesn't knew about it, so the common agreement to use something similar to it — the "X" letter. It's acceptable, but should be avoided, if possible. And here it's completely possible. TranslucentCloud (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, the Manual of Style doesn't currently support your statement that lowercase x "should be avoided, if possible". If you wish to change that, then by all means start a discussion on the appropriate talk page (WT:MOSDATE). But as it stands, one cannot choose to disregard parts of the MOS on a per-article level. Not even if we both agreed to it.
 * As for the "x" character to replace "×" being colloquial, that's of course true to an extent, but that's not reason enough to prohibit it. The Manual of Style permits, and in some cases even encourages, a number of similar uses of common characters instead of specialised ones (for example, three periods instead of the ellipsis character, straight quotation marks instead of typographic ones, or italicised letter f instead of the function symbol ƒ). Indrek (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The Manual of Style doesn't currently support my statement that lowercase x "should be avoided, if possible". Manual of Style states what should and what shouldn't be done. According to the Manual of Style, both 4x4 and 4 × 4 formats are acceptable and allowed to use. Obviously, you missed my whole point: I not pretend to advocate one format over another and to demonize latter; I'm about the style refinement. If different formats can be used, the stylistically superior one should be used instead of a colloquial. In this case 4 × 4 is superior. TranslucentCloud (talk) 09:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Obviously, you missed my whole point: I not pretend to advocate one format over another and to demonize latter Perhaps I did misunderstand you, although with you declaring that "x" is "inappropriate" and "should be avoided, if possible", it certainly seemed like you were advocating against its use. Either way, thank you for the clarification.
 * If different formats can be used, the stylistically superior one should be used instead of a colloquial. That's actually not true - the MOS explicitly discourages changing from one acceptable format to another based on nothing but editors' personal stylistic preferences. If different formats are permitted (as is the case here), articles can use any of those formats, and the only requirement is that consistency within an article is maintained. Indrek (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If different formats are permitted (as is the case here), articles can use any of those formats Good to hear, let's use the format, which was used initially, when the table was added to the article. Thanks for a fruitful discussion and sorry if I took too much of your personal time. TranslucentCloud (talk) 11:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That sounds good to me. Since the table originally used unspaced "x", we're actually already good to go. Glad we were able to reach a consensus here. Happy holidays! Indrek (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Damn, I completely forgot, that I used the lame x at the table introduction! Okay, let's stick to the x, the lame, witty, colloquial, easy-to-type poor man substitution for the original × sign. TranslucentCloud (talk) 12:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

ECW28
That's my old account. I've been trying to find a way to get rid of it, but I realized I can't delete it, so I'm just gonna let it fade into obscurity. Btw, read my user page :) Dohvahkiin (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed your SPI post. I'll leave my comments there. Indrek (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

These are valid sources that the Samsung galaxy S5 sold 12 million and not 11 million?
1)http://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-galaxy-s5-said-not-selling-as-well-as-s4/

2)http://www.ibtimes.com/samsung-galaxy-s5-officially-flop-flagship-sells-4-million-fewer-handsets-galaxy-s4-1728452

3)http://www.technobuffalo.com/2014/11/24/samsungs-sold-40-fewer-galaxy-s5-units-than-expected/

4)http://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2014/11/24/unloved-unwanted-unsold-samsungs-failed-gamble-with-the-galaxy-s5/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.255.94.42 (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, good. But sources need to be added into the article itself, not to a talk page or edit summary. See WP:CITE and WP:RS for more information. Indrek (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

18 July 2015
Hello Indrek. We had some disagreements about some parts of Nokia's phones, especially the successors. The wikipedia is not convenient to talk. So I want to contact you in order to discuss them and reach a consensus. If you don't mind it, please contact me by adding the skype account:andylaw5@live.com or leaving other contact information in my talk page if you want. Wind-waves (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I would prefer to discuss this on Wikipedia. That way other editors can chime in, and the discussion can easily be referenced later if needed. Also, I do not find Wikipedia inconvenient for discussing things, quite the contrary.


 * While we're on the subject, could you explain, instead of reverting, why you do not find the Lumia Icon and 1520 to be related? The review I added as a reference states that, quote, "For all intents and purposes, the Lumia Icon is a Lumia 1520 jammed into a smaller, more nimble device." Or if that's not enough for you, then from PhoneArena: "with [the Icon] the prayers of Lumia 1520's awesome specs but in a more manageable body, have seemingly been answered". Or from Ars Technica: "It's like they took the other flagship, the Lumia 1520, and shrunk the screen." Or from HotHardWare: "We review the Nokia Lumia Icon, which is essentially the Lumia 1520, but for Verizon only" (description shown to search engines). Need I go on? The Icon is a variant of the 930, which in turn is widely considered to be a smaller version of the 1520. How can you not see the relation? Indrek (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * All of these reviews were published after Lumia Icon announced. In that time Nokia did't have any flagship devices with reasonable size of screen, and Lumia 930 is not released. The reason most of reviewers thought Lumia ICON is the smaller Lumia 1520 was its performance is similar to Lumia 1520, and the screen size is smaller i.e. they only have similarities on hardwards not all of the things.If you say Lumia Icon is the smaller Lumia 1520, that could make sense in not rigorous extent. So what you are misinterpreting is that you have ignored the things expect for hardwards and size. For example, How could Z3 compact be the smaller version of Z3? The similar appearance, similar properties, similar performance and smaller size, in a word, only the size is the main change. Therefore your statement and their statements are not rigorous or even wrong.Wind-waves (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That is an interesting hypothesis, but that's all it is. And, whether you like it or not, Wikipedia does not report on editors' personal opinions or hypotheses, it reports on what reliable sources say. As I've demonstrated, several sources are comparing the Icon with the 1520 and indicating in no unclear terms that the two devices are very similar. You might disagree and say those comparisons are no longer valid, but unless the sources publish redactions to that effect, that's just your personal point of view and cannot influence what does or does not go into the article.


 * Consider also the usage of the "related" parameter of Template:Infobox mobile phone: "Other devices from the same manufacturer or retailer that share key characteristics with this device". Notice where it says "share key characteristics"? The Lumia Icon, 930 and 1520 share many of the internal components, most notably the camera, which is arguably the key characteristic of Lumia flagships. By any reasonable definition of the term, the Lumia Icon and 1520 are related.


 * Let me also ask you this - what problem exactly are you looking to solve here? Assuming for the sake of argument that the Icon and 1520 are indeed dissimilar, what is the harm of erring on the side of being exhaustive and listing the 1520? Are you worried that someone might accidentally click on it and read about the 1520? That someone might rush to purchase a 1520, expecting to receive a clone of the Icon and ending up disappointed? I just don't see what the big issue is here. The 1520 was added to the infobox 10 months ago, and so far no one has contested that, which establishes silent consensus. It's a weak form of consensus, sure, and can easily change, but if you're the first to voice disagreement, you should at the very least provide (policy-based) reasons for your disagreement, instead of simply saying "I don't think they're similar enough", which is essentially what you've been doing. Indrek (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand what you have said, but what I want to say is that all of the reviews contain the author's own opinions, such as these comments from references you have shown to me, which are just the simile or metaphor from reviewers that aren't suitable to prove Lumia ICON is the smaller version of the Lumia 1520 at all, as well as Nokia never assert or claim that Lumia ICON is the smaller version of Lumia 1520. So that's kind of not making sense that you disguised replacement of concept here. Therefore I disagree the saying about your first paragraph.


 * The wekipedia has the definition about the term "related", but the phrase "key characteristics" is really vague, and the Wikipedia doesn't have a clear definition about it. If you see this site, the Lumia ICON only have two same things with Lumia 1520, which are the SoC and the camera. The SoC and the camera can't be a good evidence to prove that they have this kind of relationship, because that's common to use the same SoC for phones of a specific price hierarchy, as well as the camera unit. For example, Sony Xperia Z2 and Z3 also use the same SoC and camera unit. So if you think in that way, all of the Lumia phones can be related by satisfing two key characteristics:they run windows phone systems, they have colourful cases. That's what I want to do is giving the most relative device in the information box. You have ignored a lot of details of key characteristics.


 * Reversely, what is the harm of not listing the 1520? I am more interested in contributing the minor parts rather than major parts. So what I want to disscuss with you is that Lumia Icon and Lumia 1520 are related or not, even though that isn't a big issue. Although my opinion is in the minority, it's still valid and perhaps better substantiated if examined in detail. And my reason is clear, these references aren't rigorous, or they are not reliable.Wind-waves (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * all of the reviews contain the author's own opinions, such as these comments from references you have shown to me Debatable. To me, the similarities between the Icon and 1520 are clearly presented as fact, to establish a background for the review. The same similarities are also reported in other, non-review sources. For example, from Windows Central: "Right now the most advanced Windows Phone device is a tie between the Nokia Lumia 1520 and Lumia Icon. They pack nearly identical tech, just in different packages.". Or from AAWP: "In technology terms the Lumia Icon is essentially a smaller sized version of the Lumia 1520".


 * Further, saying "it's opinion not fact" is not a valid argument against the inclusion of something, as Wikipedia policies do not forbid reporting on opinions. In fact, WP:NPOV requires that all significant views on a subject that have been published in reliable sources be covered appropriately in the article.


 * Nokia never assert or claim that Lumia ICON is the smaller version of Lumia 1520 Irrelevant. Secondary sources making that assertion, such as the ones I've linked to above, are sufficient. In fact, per WP:PSTS, secondary sources are generally preferable to primary sources. However, if you absolutely must hear it straight from the horse's mouth, here you go. From the official Lumia Conversations blog: "The new Nokia Lumia Icon, like its slightly larger cousin the Nokia Lumia 1520 ...". A cousin, just so we're clear, is a relative, and therefore related. Q.E.D.


 * If you see this site[1], the Lumia ICON only have two same things with Lumia 1520, which are the SoC and the camera. Irrelevant. Judging the similarities between two devices based on a spec sheet is original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia.


 * Reversely, what is the harm of not listing the 1520? Reduced amount of useful information in the article. Granted, by a fairly small amount, but still the overall net effect is negative. Conversely, the overall net effect of listing the 1520 ranges from neutral to positive. Therefore, logic dictates that the 1520 be included.


 * Although my opinion is in the minority, it's still valid I've said this before and I'll say it again - your personal opinion on a specific matter cannot influence your decision on what does or does not go into the article. If you want to argue against the inclusion of the 1520, you must base your arguments on Wikipedia policies. So far, you have not done so. Indrek (talk) 06:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * What I could say is that you are reapeating what you have said. They really have similar properties, but how do wikipedia define the term "key characteristics"? and to what extent? I didn't deny they have similar properties on SoC and camera unit, so why are you entangled with this point? All references you showed are only they have similar properties.


 * I'm not doing original research. Instead, I'm proving the references you have given are not applicable.


 * What I can tell you is that these authors from Lumia conversation blog are external recruited, like this guy, who was the editor from chinese version Lumia conversation blog (now has been closed, the reference mentioned about it) and he isn't the employee of microsoft mobile at all, so how can this author's article replace an offical claim?


 * Why do you thing that is a useful information to the article? or how can you prove it? We did't reach a consensus that it should be appeared or not. So whether it will do harm to the article or not, must be defined after our discussion, not now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wind-waves (talk • contribs) 06:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * What I could say is that you are reapeating what you have said. I know, and it's a bit frustrating, but I feel like I have no choice because you're not really addressing the points I'm making, at least not with arguments that have any basis in Wikipedia's policies.


 * I didn't deny they have similar properties on SoC and camera unit, so why are you entangled with this point? I'm not entangled over any specific similarities (although I will point out that the similarities do not end with the SoC and camera). In fact, I would very much prefer that we not discuss exactly how similar the spec sheets look because (and yes, I'm about to repeat myself again) that would be original research. My point is that reliable secondary sources consider the two models to be related, therefore Wikipedia should as well. That's the point I would like you to focus on addressing.


 * I'm not doing original research. Instead, I'm proving the references you have given are not applicable. Oh? And how exactly are you doing that? How are the references not applicable? They are relevant to the subject and published in reliable sources. The policy that deals with sources is WP:RS. Can you refer me to a specific section or sections of that policy that you believe the sources I've provided fail to satisfy?


 * he isn't the employee of microsoft mobile at all, so how can this author's [5] article replace an offical claim? Simple - his article is published on the official Lumia blog. By the way, at the time the blog was called Nokia Conversations and was located at conversations.nokia.com, as can be seen from this archived version. That makes it as official as can be. But if you want, we can discard that particular source - I was merely refuting your claim that Nokia had never asserted any relation between the Icon and 1520. As I said above, the multiple secondary sources that make the same assertion are more than sufficient.


 * So whether it will do harm to the article or not, must be defined after our discussion, not now. There's no reason we cannot debate the usefulness of the addition now, but whatever. I suppose it would be nice to get the bigger disagreement out of the way first. Indrek (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Seemed like all of the problems are focoused on two points: the reference, and the limit on the extent of key characteristics. But I want to say that your saying about Lumia Conversation could be a bit funny. I have started put Lumia Conversation blog (aka Nokia Conversation) in feeds since 2013, and I know the editor of the chinese version, called Aikon. The article written by author will be sent to the auditor to examine. So what can a article written by a external person represent? and the auditor will mostly check on the grammar or spelling. Therefore I don't think they can't really affect to the truth. Also some mistakes of their articles will appear (the chinese version have many mistakes but english version seemed not). If the person(s) who design these 2 phones or the high officer of Nokia admit they are related, I will admit too. If just a nobody claim that, I do not.Wind-waves (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

An article about wekipedia
Hello, Indrek. First I'm sorry that I have no energy and time to translate this article into English, this article is written by a Chinese wekipedian. So please read it by google translate or your friend who know Chinese if you have time to do that. That's kind of unfair is that I'am a Chinese and my English is not good as you. For me, to write something would take up a lot of time and energy. I watch the English sites seldom, therefore that's a big disadvatage to me because I know nothing about these English sites and I can't give you Chinese version reference with the language difference then translate it to English. Also the quality and quantity of Chinese medias are worse than foreigners. Even these famous reviewers such as the verge and PHONEArena also may have some miss understanding about these models of Nokia's phones, because they are not only focused on Nokia but also others, so the mistake they made would spread to others and become generally acknowledged. The Nokia blog, seemed the only english media only focus on Nokia didn't say about Lumia 925 is the successor of Lumia 920, either. Therefore for a person who collected the whole Lumia series and did a lot of research on Nokia, can give more accurate information than famous reviewers, but the power of one person is too tiny to overthrow the statements asserted by famous reviewers. You have been here a lot of time, but I'am just a beginner here without any experience. Therefore I want to stop the disscuss whatever the final edit is, and I don't mind about it. So please take some time to read this article, that includes what I want to say. Thank you.Wind-waves (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

第一点我想附和 @talich，很多时候贡献内容是很费时间的. 尤其是需要和一些不愿意被说服的人争论的时候. 维基百科中民主的程序是因为它是个多人合作的平台， 而这个属性根本上是不可能被排除的. 说难听话，如果既成的文本存在错误， 而那个页面是一个不太懂行而又高度自信的高度参与者在关注和维护， 一个很懂行，但是参与度低的人，想要改正这个页面，就需要花大力气去教育其他人. @horseface 提到的讨论页使用很少的问题或许也与此有关， 一些高度自信的编撰者总是以为自己的修改不需要解释. 中文世界的参考资料少，而且质量低，因此这种情况可能就更加突出， 没有客观的证据的话，就更难互相说服. 不过与其说这是维基百科的问题，不如说是某些过度自信的参与者的问题， 以及中文世界权威且公开的参考资料缺少的问题. 另一个问题，各位没有提到，或许我认为是问题，其他人未必觉得是问题. 中文维基百科有一种很强的翻译英文维基百科的倾向，这本身不是问题. 但翻译过程中也出现了中文页面与英文页面一一对应的倾向. 唯一的问题是，中文世界知识体系的概念和分类，与英文世界并不是一一对应的. 我觉得「图版游戏」这个条目 (http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%9B%BE%E7%89%88%E6%B8%B8%E6%88%8F ) 或许就可以当例子，中文世界里有一个很好的概念叫「棋类」， 实在不知道为什么需要把 board game 直译过来， 生造成一个概念放在维基百科里. （<- 个人观点） 另一个例子，在英文里叫 Samosa，中文对应的页面是东南亚小吃「咖喱角」. 而「咖喱角」这个东西只是 Samosa 概念的一个子集. 更多例子举不出来了，如果你感觉到这个问题了，就不需要举例子， 如果你没感觉到这个问题，还需要举更多例子才行呀…… 这应该不只是维基百科的问题，中文的知识体系整体上似乎都面临着英文世界的渗透呢.


 * First of all, do not worry about your Wikipedia experience. Everyone is new at some point. As for language, I'm not a native English speaker either.


 * As for the article you posted and linked to, for some reason online translators are having trouble with it, and I don't know anyone who speaks Chinese. From what I managed to understand, it's a list of criticisms of Wikipedia, correct? If so, I'm not sure why you wanted me to read it. I'm aware of the limitations and drawbacks of Wikipedia's processes, and know very well how easy it is for even an experienced editor to become stuck and frustrated, much less a novice one.


 * Therefore for a person who collected the whole Lumia series and did a lot of research on Nokia, can give more accurate information than famous reviewers If that person can get their opinion published in a reliable source, then it can be referenced in a Wikipedia article. Otherwise it can't, no matter how much that person believes themselves to be right. Please refer to WP:TRUTH, which states that one of the minimum requirements of material in Wikipedia is verifiability. It also says that, quote, "Wikipedia editors are not indifferent to truth, but as a collaborative project, its editors are not making judgments as to what is true and what is false". In other words, articles are not written based on what editors themselves believe to be true, but rather what people in reliable sources believe to be true. I know this can be a difficult concept to wrap your head around, but it's one you have to accept if you want to contribute to Wikipedia.


 * Therefore I want to stop the disscuss whatever the final edit is, and I don't mind about it. Do you mean that if I restore the Lumia 1520 to the list of related devices in the Lumia Icon article, you will not contest it and will not revert my edit? Indrek (talk) 10:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That person is me, who nearly got all of the Lumia phones which could be brought in China, and I'm an administor from a well-known BBS called "Nokibar" in China. If my article post in there can be used as a reference, and reliable enough, I could write it immediately and use it. As you said, and also a small part from the article, wekipedia is a place recording the things which are supported by most people, and it could come up with many mistake or miss understanding. So a person who got the right thing and doesn't have participate in wekipedia, must do much work to turn people's mind. I think the language is not the biggest barrier, is the way how we think, the western and the eastern are essentially different. Finally, I will give my reference written by me soon, and I can guarantee that it will be reliable and valid, so you can keep you edit of Lumia 925 and Lumia ICON before I finish my reference article. Wind-waves (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If my article post in there can be used as a reference, and reliable enough, I could write it immediately and use it. Please be aware that, per WP:SPS, self-published sources like forums and blogs are not considered reliable.
 * you can keep you edit of Lumia 925 and Lumia ICON before I finish my reference article I'm going to take that as a yes. Indrek (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It said "group blogs and Internet forum postings are largely not acceptable as sources." Even though our organisation "Nokibar" is a forum but we can also be reliable, because many famous reviewers such as WPDang, WPCentral, The Verge, GSMArena etc. have cited our picture. Do you know who is the first person leaked the model of Lumia 535 before it released? -Me. So please believe my source. I will write the article in the weekend and publish it.Wind-waves (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Microsoft Office 2013, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages GB and MB. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Surface (first generation)
We are trying to reach consensus here, so if you could vote, that would be much appreciated. Thanks, Ians18 (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Explanation
I am so sorry for what happened. I didn't know that I wasn't supposed to be adding dots after the abbreviation for "inch" and didn't see your reverts until after I finished reading the whole article (since I'm using the mobile site which is significantly more limited). If you haven't beaten me to it, I'll reverse the remaining offending edits. -Jesant13 (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Jesant13 (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No harm done. Thanks for understanding, and for self-reverting. In the future, when doing these kinds of style/formatting edits, you might want to check the Manual of Style first. Good luck, and hope you continue contributing to Wikipedia. Indrek (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Browser wars
Hi. I did you revert my change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lombardi.leo (talk • contribs) 16:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. I reverted it because a) it's incorrect (10 feet equals approx. 3 metres), and b) it's not really necessary to aid in understanding the sentence, but instead makes it more cumbersome. If you disagree, that's fine, and I encourage you to explain on the article's talk page why you think the addition is necessary. Indrek (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nokia 808 PureView, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NHD. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Abbreviations, initailisms, and acronyms
From your recent edit summary, "Display resolutions are acronyms, though (formed from initial letters of each word)." That's actually an intitialism, not an acronym; as mentioned in the article you linked, viz., "Although the word acronym is often used to refer to any abbreviation formed from initial letters, many dictionaries and usage commentators define acronym to mean an abbreviation that is pronounced as a word, in contradistinction to an initialism (or alphabetism)—an abbreviation formed from a string of initials (and possibly pronounced as individual letters)." Many acronyms are initialisms, but not all initialisms are acronyms. Acronyms and initialisms are both subsets of abbreviations. Scuba, radar, and UNICEF are acronyms; VGA, HD, and WUXGA are abbreviations. However having said that, I have less trouble with using "Code" in that table header than using "Acronym". 72.145.214.34 (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Something "formed from initial letters of each word" could be either an acronym or an initialism. The distinction that, as you observed, some style guides make, is based on pronunciation, not method of formation. So technically, the shortened names of display resolutions, like "WXGA" or "HD", are initialisms.
 * I'll respond to the rest at Talk:Display resolution. Indrek (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Microsoft Lumia 950
 * added a link pointing to 4K


 * Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
 * added a link pointing to 4K

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/BootCD
Hi. An AFD that I started, Articles for deletion/BootCD, needs more participant. If it isn't much trouble, would you mind taking a look. Thanks! Fleet Command (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thx. Fleet Command (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, happy to help :) Indrek (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Lumia 950 -- numbering convention
Hi Indrek, you just deleted my sentence that I added to the Lumia 950 article. I don't see it as "a repetition of previous sentences" rather than explaining what many users ask: What is the meaning of the numbers "950"? Would you agree to insert this information if I would have added it instead of replacing the second half of the sentence? I still think we should provide this explanation somewhere. Thank you.--Linear77 (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi! By "repetition" I meant that the previous sentences already describe the 950 as a flagship running Windows 10 Mobile. But yes, my main problem was that you replaced existing content instead of simply adding the sentence.
 * Also, I'm not entirely convinced that this information is important enough to be put in the leading paragraph. Where does this "many users ask" claim come from? Wouldn't a link in the infobox at the bottom suffice? Indrek (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I see some confusion about the numbering convention of Lumia phones, just look at amazon etc. where users compare various phones. Especially from non-MS-phone users, so this short sentence might clear things up. I wouldn't mind putting this information in a suitable section but there isn't any. Thank you for your understanding.--Linear77 (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's assume for the moment that there is indeed significant confusion about the model number. How does knowing that the phone is "class 9" and "5th generation" (terms that Microsoft themselves have, to my knowledge, never used) help clarify the issue? To those who are not familiar with Lumia phones, this doesn't say anything useful, and to those who are familiar, it says the exact same thing as the preceding sentences - that it's a high-end device running Windows 10 Mobile. Indrek (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * By inserting behind "class 9" the term "4XX ~ 9XX", this nomination should be clarified. Also, here we have the link to the numbering convention of Microsoft, for "those who are not familiar with Lumia phones" any question is answered there (or to use your words: I think this sentence "says anything useful"). Thank you.--Linear77 (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * But the term "4XX ~ 9XX" is itself incorrect (not to mention the tilde is probably not the appropriate symbol), as Lumia models go up to 15XX (even 25XX if you count the WinRT tablet). On the other hand, if you write "4XX - 15XX", then that makes the 950 sound mid-range, which it is not, but clarifying the situation is out of the scope of that article. This, combined with the fact that the alleged confusion of the numbering scheme is just that - alleged -, leaves me unconvinced that this deserves more than a link to Microsoft Lumia somewhere in the infobox or footer.
 * If you still disagree, then perhaps we should take this to the article's talk page so we can get a third opinion? Indrek (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The term "4XX ~ 9XX" represents the current numbering as described in the link (where your point is addressed as well) and (orally) announced by Microsoft itself on various recent phone introductions. Please don't drag this any further. Putting a phone's number in the general number context of the producer does (at least) not do any harm; I am convinced that it can clarify some confusion. I understand that you are not agreeing -- but if I would discuss every sentence I am not agreeing with... Please let us stop this "ping-pong" here about a short 10-word sentence. Thank you very much.--Linear77 (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I resent the allegation that I'm "dragging" anything. Also, the length of the sentence is irrelevant, it's the value of the content that matters. And this "ping-pong", as you call it, is the way disputes normally get resolved on Wikipedia.
 * That said, you're probably right in that the added sentence does not at least harm the article. So let's leave it in for now and see if any other editors speak up about it. I've copyedited the sentence a bit as well, hope you find my edit agreeable.
 * Regards, Indrek (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Your edit is appreciated, thank you.--Linear77 (talk) 06:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Microsoft Lumia page -- numbering convention
You undid a couple of my edits regarding how Nokia used the four digit model numbers as you felt the existing wording was sufficient. I don't feel that generic statements regarding just four devices are that helpful as the 1020 was neither a phablet nor a tablet so using "greater than 10" seems to be less than helpful. As I see it, the use of four digit numbers was not a helpful move by Nokia so clarity on this matter would aid the page, i.e. 1020 a phone from the 900 series; 1320 and 1520 phablets, Microsoft use the XL suffix to avoid confusion; 2520 a tablet.

Hopefully you won't undo my edit to say that the 1020 is a 900 series phone (I have now added a source, but as I own one of these phones I know that it reports it a model 909 and it was that which prompted me to look into this more deeply and try to bring some clarity to the wikipedia page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aje21 2098 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think "greater than 10" is perfectly sufficient and accurate - it clearly excludes the 1020 (which, as you say, was not a phablet/tablet), and equally clearly includes the 1320, 1520 and 2520 (which were). I don't think it's necessary to expound this in more detail, that's what the individual articles are for.
 * As for the 1020 being a 900-series product, I have to disagree with you on that as well. I know what the phone reports, but as the source you provided clearly says, the official model number (which the series is based on) is 1020. 909 was merely a development title. I recall reading somewhere that it was meant as a nod to its predecessor, the 808 PureView, but Nokia decided against it as it would have wrongly implied the phone to be a lower-end model than the 920. Further, putting the 1020 in the 900 series suggests that it was succeeded by the 930 (the next-gen model in the same series), whereas in reality the 1020 has no true successor. Therefore, it deserves to be in its own 1000 series. Indrek (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to go with whatever causes the least confusion and I can see why the 909 internal model number was not used for marketing purposes (just a shame such common sense wasn't used for the 1320 and 1520). That said, it would seem to me that the 1320 and 1520 should therefore be classed as 1300 and 1500 series... though having three series each of which has just one model seems less than helpful.
 * In a reversal of my earlier request, feel free to change the series for the 1020 but if you do so please leave my reference in place (either there or somewhere else) in case anyone is interested in some of the background.Aje21 2098 (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In that case I'm going to change the 1020's series back to 1000. And I'll move the reference you added to the 1020's article, with an added mention of the 909 number.
 * As for the 1320 and 1520, I think those should be in their own series - 1300 and 1500, respectively. Yes, in all three cases it's one model per series, but it makes no sense to have a 1000 series with the 1020 in it. Besides, I don't think this division of the models into series is something Nokia or Microsoft have ever officially done, so using the beginning of the model number is the best option, IMHO.
 * Regards, Indrek (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Forfeiting
Hi.

Unless my memory is badly muddled, you and I have been discussing something recently, though I can't for the life of me find it. Well, I am getting a little busy and my watchlist is in bad shape; I'm considering dumping most of it.

So, I forfeit and you win, in a manner of speaking. Sorry for inconvenience.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I also cannot recall any discussion of ours where the goal was to win (at least for me). Still, good luck with your watchlist and everything! Indrek (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Ha ha ha! I knew WP:WIN was coming my way. I could almost hear the whoosh of it being launched! I trimmed down my watchlist to a few dozen entries. That should help me regain touch with reality. Wikipedia can take care of itself without me. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The Moomins and the Great Flood
Hello Indrek, I'd like to comment on this edit of yours from a few years ago: 15:34, 25 March 2014‎ Indrek (talk | contribs)‎. . (4,809 bytes) (0)‎. . (Reverted good faith edits by 90.217.151.221 (talk): "prelude" is more of a music term, for books and such "prequel" is correct. (TW)) By no means do I wish to insult in correcting you, so I hope you don't take this that way. Considering "90.217.151.221" tried correcting the mistake and you changed it back, I figured it would be best to message you directly instead of just editing it again myself. The definition of "prequel" from Merriam-Webster: "a work (such as a novel or a play) whose story precedes that of an earlier work." In this case, the word "prequel" does not work to describe the book in relation to her other books because this one came first. I see that English is not your native language, so it's completely an understandable mistake. Many native English speakers seem to mess this word up as well. In the case of the edit, "prelude" is the correct term. Yes, there is a second definition pertaining to a piece of music, but the original definition (again from Merriam-Webster) is "an introductory performance, action, or event preceding and preparing for the principal or a more important matter." Now, that definition may seem at first to not quite fit this particular situation, but this example sentence they provide makes it more clear: "an eruption of sectarian violence that proved to be the prelude to all-out civil war." So, swapping "prequel" for "prelude" in the sentence on the page, we have: "It was the first book to star the Moomins, but is often seen as a prelude to the main Moomin books, as most of the main characters are introduced in the next book." Thanks for sticking with me, and may you have a pleasant day. Johnsamerson (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I guess I didn't realise at the time that "prequel" by definition cannot be the first work in a series. I still don't think "prelude" is the best choice, but I can't think of anything better either.
 * Regards, Indrek (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Help needed
Warm greetings,

I posted an addition on your Guitar Wiring wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guitar_wiring#Manufacturers

Here is what was added to the end of the list in this section:


 * AweSome Musical Instruments (pickup switch upgrades for electric guitar)

However, the addition was removed.

Can you tell me what I am doing wrong?

Thanking you in advance for your kind reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2018awesome (talk • contribs) 16:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello. The reason your addition was reverted is because it looked very much like spam - a link added for the sole purpose of promoting a website or service. Such links are not allowed on Wikipedia.
 * For more information, please see the following Wikipedia guidelines:
 * WP:ELNO - for examples of external links to avoid adding to Wikipedia articles
 * WP:LINKSPAM - specifically about spamming links to external websites
 * WP:COI - about conflicts of interest, which is the case if you're posting links to your own website
 * If you believe the link was removed in error and the above guidelines do not apply in this case, feel free to present your argument either here or on the article's talk page.
 * Best regards, Indrek (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Pointing stick
Sorry about the conflict on pointing stick. I hadn't noticed that it was consistently lacking the serial comma before. Every style guide I've followed requires the serial comma, so it is automatic for me. I am puzzled that Wikipedia considers it optional, but I do respect MOS:RETAIN. --Macrakis (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * No worries, and I apologise if my edit summaries came off as confrontational or aggressive, I should probably have referred to the relevant MOS sections earlier. In any case, thank you for being reasonable about this. Indrek (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

About moving aspect ratio pages to "21:9 aspect ratio"-like format
Some users proposed to move 14:9, 16:9 and 16:10 to the "# aspect ratio" format. If you are interested, please participate in the moving discussion. Thank you. UU (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:TALKFIRST
Hi Indrek, "Minor edits to improve formatting, grammar, and clarity may be made at any time." - obviously I have seen this change as an improvement for clarification. "Or be bold. The older but still valid method is to boldly edit the page. [..] Consequently, you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made." Therefore, you should give a substantive reason for challenging the change. In the end, it is not a substantial modification, it only gives a hint to the indecisive editor which version to prefer without excluding the other one. --Gunnar (talk) 06:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * If you read the last sentence of WP:PGBOLD, you'll notice it says: "Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion may be seen as gaming the system, especially if you do not disclose your involvement in the argument when making the edits."
 * Gaming the system is precisely what it looks like you were doing when you went to edit the MoS to indicate your preferred style instead of responding to my multiple comments on two different talk pages. You knew there was disagreement regarding the style changes you were making to hundreds of articles, so I'm really not sure what sort of outcome you were expecting here.
 * Also, your edit (the one I reverted) was definitely not minor - there were no formatting, grammar or clarity issues in the guideline you edited, your changes were substantive. The MoS in many cases provides several acceptable styles without explicitly preferring one, and it generally doesn't need to. For existing articles, the requirement to retain existing styles takes precedence anyway, and in other situations your hypothetical "indecisive editor" is free to flip a coin.
 * In any case, I have also responded on the MoS talk page, so let's continue the discussion there. Indrek (talk) 06:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

VGA
Please re-insert the VGA resolution that you removed from the table. It is so common it has its own wiki article! --Janke | Talk 17:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Please re-read and understand what the table is for - common resolutions that show up in either the Steam or StatCounter statistics. I'm not suggesting VGA isn't historically significant (it is), but that alone doesn't meet the threshold for inclusion in that table. There are already articles with exhaustive lists of resolutions (e.g. Graphics display resolution and Computer display standard), the table in question is not meant to duplicate those efforts. Indrek (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Surface Pro 3
The specs on the website do refer to Surface Pro 3. Also if want evidence of a surface 3 pro with 2gb, I can provide it and it is what motivated me to take my rare action to update this article.

27.96.218.15 (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * If you have evidence that the Surface Pro 3 was offered with 2 GB of RAM, please do provide it. Indrek (talk) 11:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)