User talk:Mikeblas/Archives/2008/February

Multimeter
Your contributions to multimeter have been good, I have made a lot changes and would like you to check the article and make any changes you feel necessary. -- A dam1213 Talk 04:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! These changes look really good -- I've been meaning to try and fix the flow for some time, and that's all a big improvement. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Repaired??
What exactly was there to "repair" on an AfD that was in the process of being put together? I don't see that you made any changes. I did see you jump the gun by not even allowing me to put the template on to the page. Please have more patience next time. I was receiving nasty messages at the same time I was trying to nominate the article. Thank you.KellyAna (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry -- it's just that most people follow the AfD steps in order. It's only natural to assume that an article where only the third of three steps was followed needed some help. Further, in that state, the article disrupts the rest of the AfD list. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You do it your way. I'll do it mine.  I was taught one way and that's how I do it.  Given 5 minutes I would have finished.  I didn't disrupt anything, in reality, you were just impatient with someone who isn't a delitionist and has only nominated a very few articles.  I understand wanting to help, but one can't learn if they aren't allowed to even try. KellyAna (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I did do it my way. There's no harm here, and I've already apologized for hurting your feelings. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem other than I still don't know how to do a proper template on the article page since you did it. How about going over the process so if I ever want to nominate another I'll know how it's supposed to be done. KellyAna (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just enter "" on the article. Once you save it, you'll see the banner at the top of the article. It includes links to help you perform the other two (or three) steps. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, now I see it. The steps are in the template box.  See, that's what I needed, help in doing.  You know that whole, teach a man to fish verses giving him one principle. Thanks for the help, it is appreciated, it just confused me because I did it differently before.  KellyAna (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. Let me know if you ever need help with anything else! -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We all need help sometimes. =) KellyAna (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)`

Soap articles
I noticed you added back the list at the bottom of Claudia's article. Just to let you know, it was a consensus decision to remove those lists and incorporate them into the infobox (which it is for Claudia). You can go to WP:SOAPS and see the repeated decision (it was recently brought up again). I removed it again but left your tag. KellyAna (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry -- which list is it that you're talking about? All I added was an unreferenced tag. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's curious; I didn't add the list, but this change shows it with my addition of the tag. I must have had an edit conflict that I didn't notice. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That edit is why I put this comment on your page. I believe you didn't do it when you say you didn't.  I would guess edit conflict.  The page is freaking out and filled with spoilers and unreferenced information.  I do love the comment "it's been confirmed" ~ by who??? The article en total is all spoilers and speculation.  I wish people would get that that isn't what Wiki is about. KellyAna (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Referencing is at an all time low, it seems. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A lot of us are just learning about adding referenced to character profiles. I'm trying to get better at it but at least I don't claim something is "confirmed" without a reference. KellyAna (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A question since you're so knowledgeable
I asked a question on a talk page that I believed was okay to ask. I didn't add it to the article, I asked it on the talkpage. My question was about external message boards. I didn't ask for replies on the page, just to email me. Is that not allowed? We get it on the soap pages and don't edit, revert, chastise people for asking about it on a talk page especially if they ask for an email, not a comment to the talk page. Was this a horrid offense? Did I violate some policy that says I should be crucified/reverted verses just a note saying why or whynot we don't do something? KellyAna (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Kelly! If your question was about the article (eg, how to improve it, how to check some fact in it, and so on) I don't think it's a problem at all. Email is a very good way to contact people, and works lots better than talk pages, if you ask me. If your questions was about the subject in general, looking for help with it, then that's not right. The talk pages aren't general-purpose internet message boards; they're about the articles. Even then, it's not an egregious offense unless its repeated as a habit. Hope that helps! -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Prod templates in Cameras
I have no objection of the loss of a single article either way as an editor of one of the many articles you've randomly placed the tag upon. However I do have an opinion, and from the looks of your user talk page your no stranger to that. The opinion is as follows. A Merge and redirect campaign may have been more useful as a whole and would create less cleanup in the long run. Many of the articles you have tagged are interlinked to other articles, and what happens when an editor randomly clicks a previously deleted article red link, he gets that "your attempting to edit a deleted article" guilt trip message. This is discouraging to editors IMHO. This also re-creates articles which may not be as good as the original once was. I would also like to point out that unlike cell phones which have a user life of say 6 months to a year, cameras will always remind someone of a link to their past. Cameras are often passed along, collected or resold. In today's ever "green" market of recycle & reuse, articles such as the sony series you recently have decided are advertisements or un-notable are often the younger artists only resource to make better usage or buying decisions, Yes that would be advertising if the company still sold the item. Users often forget why they bought a specific model, or why they still have it, Wikipedia as a resource was once there to remind them, much like the way Cameras (unlike cell phones) Capture memories and the past. ♫ Slysplace |  talk  03:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Which articles were randomly tagged? I don't think I've tagged any articles that didn't deserve the tag -- at least, at the moment that I tagged them.
 * I've also been very good about cleaning up links to deleted articles, so that anyone following a red link isn't tempted to re-grow the article, and so that existing articles and templates aren't smudged by the broken links. If I've missed some, please let me know and I'll work on cleaning them up. There's nothing I can do about what you call a "guilt trip"; maybe you can start something at the Village Pump to get the wording you don't like changed.
 * It puzzles me that you think Wikipedia articles might be the only available resource for people doing research. Because Wikipedia requires solid referencing for its content, then Wikipedia necessarily can't be the the only source for information.
 * I guess your opinion is that I shouldn't have tagged some of the Sony camera articles for deletion. What I can't figure out is why you've shared it with me, or what you think about the other articles I've tagged for deletion. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Withholding anything remotely close to a personal attack. You may be an admin but in the spirit of your user page I shall consider us equals.
 * Clearly my point was: suggesting merge and/or redirect would have been a better use of resources both human and wiki prior to mass deletions.
 * To Further Elaborate: It's clearly your opinion that certain articles deserved to be tagged for deletion or are just not notable for inclusion in wikipedia, however in the realm of photography there are very notable and often advancements that are both historically and technologically significant. Significant to the art as well as the equipment used. You start " " tagging with one brand or model, you get away with it and before it's realized your deleting everything that references Kodak or Nikon or possibly Marie Curie. There is a photography portal, and it doesn't appear that you've voiced a single concern within their discussions on any pages within the category. I feel no need to comment on your other tagged items, you will do as you feel necessary consensus or not, aside from my personal opinion that cell phones are a plaque on human society which would be my POV. Personally I'm waiting on you to tag the Microsoft articles, the borg that allows us all to be privileged with Vista and other atrocities that allow such GUI enabled edits of this or any wiki, but that would be an obvious conflict of interest for you. I have no further interest in this discussion as I find arrogance absolutely appalling no matter what the cause. Apologies for your puzzlement, ♫ Slysplace  |  talk  02:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've not added a prod to the Marie Curie article. Are you sure you don't have me confused with someone else?
 * If you review my edit history, I think you'll note that I have indeed tagged a few Microsoft articles for deletion or notability. Thing is, most of the Microsoft products are notable -- there's about five dozen books on Vista alone, to take your example. How many books are there about all of the camera models I've prodded, in total? A few of them have Magic Lantern guides; is there anything else? -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:UhOh.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:UhOh.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:DavidByrneCD.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:DavidByrneCD.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:GrownBackwards.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:GrownBackwards.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Prod templates (II)
Hello... FYI, I've removed your prod template from several Jericho-related characters. Please be assured, this isn't some desperate attempt to keep the articles. However, there are two things to consider. The first is that the preferred route for television-related articles is to discuss merging the information and then redirecting, rather than just deleting the article outright. Second, there is a temporary injunction against deleting or redirecting television-related articles during the "Episodes and characters 2" ArbComm discussion. Cheers. --Ckatz chat spy  08:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. How long do you think it will be before Wikipedia comes back to its senses? -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * When people disagree with you - they aren't necessarily in leave of their senses. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hunh? Who is it that's disagreeing with me? I think you might have jumped to a conclusion here. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia has taken leave of its senses, as you claim, I am probably not reaching all that far to read this as your disagreeing with a direction the people who comprise Wikipedia's editors, admins, Arbcom, etc. are taking. If you meant something else, it wasn't obvious from your words, sorry. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The direction I disagree with is opaque process. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Opaque process meaning arbcom injunctions? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. After more than 4 years here (IIRC), I haven't even heard of the Arbitration Committee. This specific temporary injuction, which affects every editor who considers editing one of the involved articles, is not discoverable. Where's the process stand right now? As far as I can tell, the cabal goes off and votes and decides, and that's it. How would I influnece the decision? Or is it just up to the secret cabal? At their leisure, or before some deadline?
 * And that neglects how pompous it all sounds -- "temporary injunction", "arbitration committee"? Are these volunteer positions?
 * I guess there has to be some mechanism for resolving disputes when people disagree about guidelines, but -- wow. All this because somebody prodded some Scrubs episodes? -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The arbitration committee are volunteers who are elected by popular vote subject to confirmation by Jimmy Wales, though I don't think anyone has been rejected by Jimmy after selection by the community. Some replacements for resigned members have been directly appointed in the past.


 * As for this particular thing, there has been ongoing disruption about episode articles in particular, and attempts to impose fait accomplis by speedy action in particular. It's not good for the encyclopedia for things to get decided by combat, stubbornness and endurance, rather than calmly and sensibly.  Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not combating anything; I hope you're not implying that. I've been listing articles for prod because I think they (obviously!) don't meet the existing policies for notability. What's not calm and sensible about a process that takes at least a week? -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Notability is a contested idea in any case; at root, all it means is 'stuff I don't think is worth putting in an encyclopedia'. It bugs me that you're going after factual, sourced or sourceable articles that the vast majority of Wikipedians have no issue with and that there is not a consensus to get rid of, when there are piles of steaming crap out there that you could be trying to get rid of. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is funny that Notability, an idea so fundamental to the encyclopedia, is so contested, isn't it? That bugs me, too.
 * I'm sorry you're bugged. Looking at things from the un-emotional interpretation, the "Vast majority" of Wikipedians don't matter. Most people don't even know about these articles. It's the majority of those who offer their opinion that sets concensus, and that's how Wikipedia works.
 * "Piles of steaming crap" is a matter of opinion. There are probably worse articles than the non-notalbe commercial product articles that I'm trying to get rid of, but unfortunately, I can't file for deletion against everything that deserves it at once. After all, WP:WAX, and so on. If you ask me, articles about commercial products that are attempting to use Wikipedia as an advertising platform are piles of steaming crap. While that's just my opinion, I think it's reinforced by WP:RS, WP:V, WP:ADVERT, WP:NOTABILITY, and WP:CORP. -- Mikeblas (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding articles that you mark or list for deletion on the grounds of 'no sources'
Many of those articles were written before our policies for sourcing were in their current form. If an article has 'external links' listed, it's quite likely that these are actually the sources used. It's disingenuous to claim that sources that are in the external links section are not sources. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The articles don't meet the current standard, and that's what we go by. Is your point that there's some rule grandfathering articles written before a change to policy that would have excluded the same article? -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that there are sources, but they are not formatted according to current standards. The logical answer is to fix the article structure so that it does conform, which in most cases would simply mean changing the section heading. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To expand on Matthew Brown's point, there is no policy stating the format that references should take, and there is no policy that all information in an article must be cited. WP:V says only that "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."  Also, deletion policy does not say that articles should be deleted if they are unsourced, but only if all attempts to find sources have failed.  Spacepotato (talk) 09:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The format for references is given at WP:CITE. WP:V says that unreferenced information in articles should not be left for too long. WP:V also contains a quote directing users to aggressively remove un-cited material, rather than simply tag it. Some articles that have no sources would end up as sub-stubs or dictionary definitions if all their un-sourced material was removed. Other articles have no sources because no viable sources are available, suggesting that the subject is not notable. Since Wikipedia doesn't allow articles on non-notable subjects, and because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, these article should be listed for deletion. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That quote from Jimmy regards speculative, "I heard it somewhere" material, and wording in WP:V requiring inline citation is very new, and is in any case somewhat retracted later in the text. Quoting policy word for word is a dubious game in any case, since absolutely anyone can add things to policy pages at any time.  In these instances, what we're generally talking about is factual information that can easily be found in a listed reference, even if it isn't cited inline. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CITE is a style guideline, not a policy.
 * Mechanically deleting unsourced material or articles will not improve the encyclopedia. We have many wholly uncited articles (e.g., Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo, Colima) which it would be foolish to delete.  Spacepotato (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Canon T90
I'm mystified by your tagging Canon T90 with nofootnotes when there clearly are footnotes. Since I don't find the tag justified by the content I have reverted you. Thanks, Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The section of "references" I tagged don't use footnotes. As the text explains, the article contains a list of references but no footnotes for those references. As such, it's hard to understand what statements in the article are supported by which of these references, and therefore difficult to fact-check the article. As such, I've replaced the tag.
 * It should be pretty obvious that article needs help as a list of unanchored references is not the preferred style for citing an article. Removing the tag outright is not a fix for the article. If you figure that another template, such as Citation style, is more appropriate, then perhaps that a more reasonable change. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Footnotes in the text (which you should be able to see) refer to the Notes section, which in turn refers to the References section. This is acceptable per policy and practice. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What links a specific note to one of the external links in the references section? Can you point to a project page which explains how and why this scheme is used? I can't make any sense of it. For example, should the external links in the references section which are not used by a note be removed? Why have an external link both in the note and in the references section? -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't help but think that your taking issues with this article is a little pointy, but nothing's ever beyond improvement - though I'd rather be spending time improving articles really in need of it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is it that you think this isn't one of the articles not really in need of improvement? -- Mikeblas (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Software bloat
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_bloat&diff=prev&oldid=194422121

Hi. Concerning the edit above, would a reference to this section or to the first sentence in this section work? --portugal (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)