User talk:Macaldo

Microsoft Silverlight
Please explain the removal of the references which provide citation for the claims made in the article? The ones which you removed claiming them to be spam. --soum talk 09:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe the citations have been added just to add the links? These are not references, definitively. Macaldo 18:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * These definitely are references. http://blogs.msdn.com/jasonz/archive/2007/05/11/code-sample-is-your-process-using-the-silverlight-clr.aspx is used to source "Version 1.1 will include a complete version of the .NET Common Language Runtime, named CoreCLR" ("coreclr.dll is the name of the Silverlight CLR engine" from the linked article). "However, in the current release of Silverlight 1.1, cross domain communication is not allowed" is sourced from http://dotnetaddict.dotnetdevelopersjournal.com/silverlight_beta_or_alpha.htm ("Note that the 1.1 alpha version doesn't allow cross-domain access, so you'll still have to drop in server-side service proxies for accessing remote services"). "It is done by creating a XAML Canvas with its width and height set to zero, and using its code-behind code to modify the Document Object Model of the HTML page via the APIs in the System.Browser namespace" is sourced from http://blogs.msdn.com/tims/archive/2007/06/13/programming-html-with-c.aspx ("All the magic necessary to accomplish this is contained in a new .NET namespace introduced with Silverlight 1.1, called System.Windows.Browser"). "Visual Studio's CLR Remote Cross Platform Debugging feature can be used to debug Silverlight applications running on a different platform as well." is sourced from http://blogs.msdn.com/nigel/archive/2007/05/09/mix07-your-product-is-a-feature-of-the-web.aspx ("Now, not only do we support running applications on the Mac, we also support debugging the applications on the Mac. So, for example, we'll go here in Visual Studio now, and one of the things you can see that's kind of cool is we have a feature called Attach to Process. And you'll notice we now have a new option here called CLR Remote Cross Platform Debugging. You can tell that a dev actually named that feature"). "Silverlight can be viewed as a web extension of the Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF), a .NET 3.0 technology and not simply as a new web technology. As such, it makes sense that Silverlight uses XAML, not SVG. If Silverlight were based on SVG, then there would be a chasm between Silverlight and the .NET Framework, but as it stands Silverlight's use of XAML makes it part of the .NET family. In fact, it’s important to note that elements in XAML usually represent objects in the .NET Framework; this would simply not be possible in SVG." is from http://www.netfxharmonics.com/2007/06/Silverlights-Adoption-as-Public-De-Facto-Standard.aspx quoted verbatim. That accounts for all of them.


 * There goes proof of referencing for everyone of them. These things have been verified by lot many editors beside you, and reflect consensus. It is not I who need approval to reinstall them. It is you who need to respect consensus and stop edit-warring and being disruptive, continuing which will only lead you to being blocked. Also, just quoting "spam" or "useless" in summaries do not hold ground unless you explain why.


 * Consider this your first warning. --soum talk 10:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll study the popularity of these "references" but it will take some time to me. Compare the number of "references" here and the number of references in other articles, saying SQLite or even SQL, a very old technology. Something wrong no? Macaldo 09:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. Articles are decided here on a case-by-case basis, not by how things are handled on other articles. Read the policies here, specifically WP:V and WP:OR. Anything claimed must be attributed to reliable sources. Thats what is being done here. As I already show you, the links are here to back up the claims made in the article. There is no upper limit on the number of references. See the Good articles and featured ones and compare the number of references they have. An article can (and should) have as many references as is needed to corroborate all claims. Anything unreferenced is not only frowned upon but in certain cases (such as quotes, is against wikipedia policies). As for the sources, they are primarily official blogs from the developers, which are considered canonical. There is nothing wrong with the references. Familiarize yourself with the policies here first (and not assume anything by looking at articles), you will know. --soum talk 09:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please, stop the polemic. I'll review each reference soon, I'll put the links here in the talk page, (I'll not change the article) and I'll wait for advices of other contributors. Be patient. Macaldo 09:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "If you are sure the links are useful, please put them below for approval but in my mind, these are external links, not references" - You cannot say that here. There is no guardian of an angel, and nothing needs to be approved by anyone. The only thing that needs to be respected is consensus. The current version of the article is by consensus. And it is you who is violating. If you want something removed, you have to present your case in the talk page. Crying "spam" and "useless" is not enough, you have to explain why it is so. Stop being a self-appointed vigilante, its not tolerated here. Otherwise, I will have no choice but to block you from editing in Wikipedia, which I don't want to do because you seem to be acting in good faith. But there are a lot of procedures that are to be followed here. Learn about them first. --soum talk 09:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

About the Ajax thing
Look, I think we got off on the wrong foot. Like, way wrong. I just want to apologize for puppy guarding the article and reversing your edits. I really didn't mean to do it, I just disagreed with your opinions, but looking back, you were right about half the things you said (although some things I still disagree with :P). Back when I rewrote the article, I admittedly didn't have a very good grasp on Wikipedia's policies, and I didn't realize that, though my version is more factually accurate, it has just as many flaws as it does advantages over the older version. Now, I want to put past arguments aside and try to improve the article together. I really want this article to grow, and looking back on our arguments, they were too trivial to make such a big deal about. I say we put everything aside and continue working on the article. I will try my hardest to be less biased towards my version, as you should be less biased against it. Best friends forever? ;) — Fatal Error 03:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But the "Asynchronous JavaScript and XML" is back while the definition of Garrett is "+ XML" and not "and XML". Do not even know who restored this flawness definition, seem hard to improve the article. Macaldo (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping that was a joke... Haha. — Fatal Error 22:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, you were serious. What do you mean the "right" definition? The word "and" doesn't lead to confusion at all, I don't know what you're talking about. Using a + isn't correct grammar. It isn't even a word. Why do you insist on using it? — Fatal Error 01:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The name Ajax was coined by Garrett as you know and here is his definition:
 * "The name is shorthand for Asynchronous JavaScript + XML, and it represents a fundamental shift in what’s possible on the Web."
 * Why not keep his definition and replace it by your own definition? I can't agree.
 * The "and" word leads to misconception because it is badly supposed to give the second "a" letter in Ajax and it let to believe that Ajax is an acronym: AJAX.
 * Since there is no cost in using the right defintion even if it not match some mysterious grammer rule, we must use it.
 * Unlike that you stated above, you remain like a watchdog, I am sorry. Very very sorry. Macaldo (talk) 07:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, I can't believe this. The fact that it's "shorthand for" something makes it an acronym! Either way, having a + instead of an 'and' is just stupid. It doesn't make any sense at all. But I'm not going to bother arguing about this. — Fatal Error 19:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not the fact it is "shorthand of", but the fact people use first letters to build an acronym. Maybe you think Garrett is stupid to have used "+" rather than "and", but it is his definition and so, we have to keep it! It is not my personal preference, it is the original definition. Macaldo (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sarah Roemer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daybreak (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Google Panda
Hi. I've seen that you removed a lot of links on the Google_panda page. Your comments stated that they were "useless" or "spam." I'm here to tell you that those links were not useless or spam. For example, here, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google_Panda&diff=610083904&oldid=610083699, you removed a link to an article by Danny Sullivan on search engine watch. SEW is a large news portal for SEO ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_Engine_Watch ). Danny Sullivan is also an authority in the SE world ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Sullivan_%28technologist%29 ). In fact, you kept the links to search engine land up, a company Danny Sullivan works at.

I'm guessing you don't work in the SE industry?

I'm reverting your edits and, if you have any questions, I can give you the reasoning why they are valid links.

I also noticed that someone else complained about you removing links from another page, so, please, I appreciate your contributions to the encyclopedia, but these links are good links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fedora2014 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I confirm, these articles brings nothing, we do not need all these self-declared spokemen of Google which is able to speak itself when it wants to. The two sites owned by the same man are huge wikipedia spammers. I still keep their links in the rare case where they bring some original info, but please, do not insist to put links to pages that repeat infos already given by the sole valid source: Google.  Macaldo (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If that is so, why did you remove the link to http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/? That is Google's official blog for webmasters. Go watch some other page or else I'm reporting you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Fedora2014 (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed lot of links to searchengineland and replaced them by links to googlewebmastercentral, the original source from Google. Macaldo (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But a link to gwc was removed by mistake in the process. I have restored the link.Macaldo (talk) 08:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Keeps_Removing_Useful_References This is to tell you that you have been reported to the admins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fedora2014 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it does help to have third-party cites in articles, even when we have a primary source from the subject of the article themselves. Otherwise, if we carried this policy to its logical conclusion, we would end up relying entirely on entities' own statements about themselves. Third-party confirmation is definitely useful, even when redundantly confirming statements made by the subject of an article. Please see the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where, of course, you are also welcome to participate. -- The Anome (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * These are general. If the second source adds valuable info, I keep the second source. I have kept some links to SEL in fact. The links I have removed add nothing. Macaldo (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You've been reported to the admins once again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Keeps_Removing_Useful_References_Again Stop editing Google_Panda and other SEO topics. Your opinions are out of line with the rest of the SEO industry and, until you provide citations, your edits will be removed.Fedora2014 (talk) 07:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have noticed you have been undo-ed by other contributors too, so, please cease to add these useless links and in the future, if you want to add a link, put it in the talk page to open a discussion about its relevance and usefulness. That is the right thing to do when your edits are disputed. Macaldo (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I must add that there were no edits, just deleting spam or replacing the link to the original source. So the terms "provide citation" and "your edits will be removed" are just confusing words by a user who want invert the roles: he is the spammer and now that he have been caught, left Wikipedia. Macaldo (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Macaldo, you are way off base. Please revert your unjustifiable reference deletions or else I'll take up the issue at WP:ANI which may result in sanctions against you.  Don't bull ahead with edits that other editors are objecting to.  The references you deleted were good ones, and you've damaged the articles.  Jehochman Talk 19:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No I deleted spam, second sources posts with no additional infos. SearchEngineLand is a big spammer of Wikipedia (I found sometimes more than 10 links to the same site in the same article all linking posts with no useful content). I know also this site is very active on Wikipedia (for adding links) with several "contributors". This issue should be seriously adressed. With sanction to spammer like you, maybe. Macaldo (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I you and other "contributors" are concerned about useful content, feel free to enrich the article with more infos about Panda. I suggest to read the patent (I did it) to get some insights. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an aggregator. Macaldo (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)