User talk:Imroy/Archive 3

Kiev photos

Thanks for the edits. It is better. Henricvs 16:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Tremulous Maps Catagorie

Considering some other things, like The Simpsons have catagories for their episodes, and have detailed lists and information about episodes, isnt detailed information about maps on the same plane? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paradox4600 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Ok, but just what do you plan on writing about each level? At least each Simpsons episode has a story to write about, guest appearances, etc. I just don't see there being much to write about. It's not necessary for every little thing to have a whole article. It's quite alright to have a quick mention in some encompassing article. If more needs to be said, move it into a List of Tremulous Maps article. No need to jump right into making separate articles for each map. --Imroy 19:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

OpenGL

"When many styles are acceptable, avoid changing from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. It is acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling only if the article concerns a British topic or vice versa or if you are making the article internally consistent."

1. The rest of the article uses American spellings, I was making it consistent. 2. OpenGL was founded in America, making it an American topic.

Also, please note:

-ise / -ize

American spelling accepts only -ize endings in most cases, such as organize, recognize, and realize. British usage accepts both -ize and the more French-looking -ise (organise, recognise, realise). However, the -ize spelling is now rarely used in the UK in the mass media and newspapers, and is hence often incorrectly regarded as an Americanism,[22] despite being preferred by some authoritative British sources, including Fowler's Modern English Usage and the Oxford English Dictionary, which until recently did not list the -ise form of many individual words, even as an alternative. Indeed, it firmly deprecates this usage, stating, "The suffix, whatever the element to which it is added, is in its origin the Greek... (or) Latin -izare; and, as the pronunciation is also with z, there is no reason why in English the special French spelling in -iser should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic."[23]

Ban user?

Can we ban user Ragnarokmephy? They are repeatedly vandalising the "Nowra" page. They've also vandalised "The Chaser's War on Everything" and "Higher School Certificate", "User talk:Jwalte04" Joeyjoblah 10:09, 29 January 2007 (EST)

Yes, they were vandalising several pages. He/she has been warned and has appeared to stop for now. If they start up again we can go file a compaint over on WP:AIV. It's preferable to have a person stop vandalising voluntarily rather than blocking them and possibly inflaming the situation. Only in extreme cases (massive quantities of spam or vandalism) is a block applied without warning. Just be patient and always hand out warnings after removing vandalism. --Imroy 11:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, cool

Invitation (somewhat)

Hello, mm, Roy? How're you doing? I've noticed that you are interested in free software and C programming, so I'd like to ask if you would be interested in joining Xiph.Org Foundation to help improve the free media formats that one sees in places like Wp here. I know this is offtopic (as messages in talk pages are supposed to be Wp-related), but it may be of interest to you.--Saoshyant ^{talk / contribs} 13:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Response to your message

All in all, I agree. But if you're going to delete a perfectly valid question that I ask, you should do the same for everyone. The other guy looked like an idiot, didnt he? :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.81.38.165 (talk • contribs).

No, you were simply being juvenile. --Imroy 20:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

for catching that edit I made to photography. I was trying to remove vandalism, but I guess I reverted the wrong edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hyperflux (talk • contribs) 20:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

The anon reverted their own 'test' and then you reverted that. I usually always check with the "show changes" button before saving an edit, even if it's reverting some sort of vandalism. --Imroy 20:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Blog Spam

I thought it was very useful. I've just submitted it to Slashdot too. --One Salient Oversight 05:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think it added much. It was basically a review, which was interesting but didn't seem applicable to Wikipedia. Blog links are generally avoided on Wikipedia ("[Avoid] links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority"). One simple reason is that anyone can set up a blog and the vast majority of them say nothing of any use. Having blog links on a page only encourages other people to add links to their own blog. We certainly don't want Wikipedia devolving into a directory of blog posts. --Imroy 06:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Random Scolding

Hello Imroy,

I received a somewhat random scolding from you and have no idea what it referred to since you didn't provide me with a link or explanation. The random scolding was as follows:

"Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. Imroy 09:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)"

Since I'm not in the practice of self promotion, I really don't know what you are referring to. I do have a website which offers some unique information that is of genuine interest to Wikipedia visitors. There may be an occasion when I would make reference to the site, or provide a link to it since it is easier than copying and pasting from my site to Wikipedia.

As an example, I have a website called "The Small House Society" which has been featured by news media across the globe. It is not a commercial site. However, it would be of interest to those in the Wikipedia world. When one does a Google search on the words "small house" (without quotes) my site is the top listed site. So, I'm not just some random person trying to promote something.

I have other pages which are similar to the one mentioned above. When I add content to Wikipedia, it is out of a sincere belief that people appreciate it and can use it. I'm not trying to sell anything.

If you care to elaborate, please do so by submitting your comments to my Feedback Page.

Thanks.

Regards, Gregory Paul Johnson, Director Resources for Life.com "Resources for Better Living" Internet: http://www.resourcesforlife.com/ Postal: PO Box 2717, Iowa City, IA 52244-2717 USA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Resourcesforlife (talk • contribs).

Well, you certainly left it a while. The warning was referring to this edit to the Photography article. That article is a kind of 'portal', or central nexus for photographic articles on Wikipedia. Someone adding a link to it is already suspicious. You re-ordered the external links and added a link to your own site. That makes it doubly suspicious (it looks like your were trying to be sneaky). The fact that your username coincided with the site you added, and your only other edits involved doing similar things to other articles, led me to judge you a 'link spammer'. In fact, since you have made no other edits to articles since then, I still would. If you want to edit Wikipedia, please be constructive. Don't just add links to your own site. And no, I will not fill out some form on your site. I'd rather respond here where other Wikipedia users and editors can see it. --Imroy 08:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Imroy. I get your point. However, were I to be a spammer, I'd probably link to a site where I was selling something. I'd probably also be a little more agressive at the task and not just put up one link on Wikipedia. I probably also wouldn't take the time to alphabetize the list of external links on the photography page - yes, I like things organized like that. Also, if I were a spammer, I probably would be more creative with my Wikipedia user name and not simply use my domain name.

So you know, my primary use for Wikipedia is as a reference tool. I'm sorry I don't have the free time to contribute more content. I presume it is volunteers like yourself who keep it free from commercialism and chaos. For this I'm appreciative. However, please don't accuse me of spamming Wikipedia.

I put a lot of (volunteer) research and development into my own Photography Resource Group web page. Part of what makes it a useful source, is that it provides external links to some excellent sites. These are direct links and not affiliate program links. I often depend on Wikipedia as a resource for quality legitimate external links because much of the time search engines produce a huge list of links that haven't been evaluated. I frequently notice quality external links on pages in Wikipedia and appreciate that. So, this is what led me to believe that a legitimate external link (such as mine) would be useful.

You'll notice that I'm not running all over Wikipedia adding links to my Resources for Life website. As I recall, it was just that one page that I added a link to. If you do a Google search on Photography Resource Group, you'll get about 23 million results. My site is listed first. I have many people comment on how they appreciate my photography page since it does not contain banner ads or pop-up ads. My entire Resources for Life.com website is that way - I don't subject people to things that I don't like. I hope this explains who I am and why I added that one link.

I have a question. Is there a policies page on Wikipedia that states one should not add external links? If so, why is there a feature that lets people add such links and why are there so many of them in existence on Wikipedia? Perhaps all of this is clearly explained somewhere and I'm now showing my ignorance of Wikipedia etiquette. I've just never seen a "Start Here" link. Thanks in advance. -- resourcesforlife 13:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with the writer above, Wikipedia is turning from a gentle giant into Java the Hut and not realizing it. They STEAL attention away from not for profit websites that have useful information and then think it is outlandish to give them a link in the external links page.

Changes reverted that I didn't make?

Hi. I came onto Wiki this morning to find the following message waiting for me...

"Your recent edit to Satmar (Hasidic dynasty) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 21:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)"

Now, I don't stay logged in, as I access Wiki at work, so this message was sent using my IP address as the username. I'm the only one who uses this machine, and I never made any edits to the Satmar page. I've only ever edited one article in the time that I've been a reader and user of Wiki.

With my limited knowledge of how IPs work, is it possible that someone on a different machine on my floor has the same IP address?

Just thought it was odd, as I know I'm the only one to use this computer, and I didn't make any changes to a page, particularly any vandalism or spam changes, so I'm wondering why the message came to me, rather than whoever actually made those changes.

Thanks!

Mercury52 14:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It took a while to find, but that message is referring to this edit. Yesterday that same IP address (198.77.206.228 (talk · contribs)) added a bunch of links to the B&H photographic site, which is why I added the spam warning to the talk page. I just did a WHOIS lookup and the IP address is also allocated to B&H photo. Do you work for B&H photo? If so, it's likely you're accessing the web through a web proxy of some sort, or through a NAT device. That means it could be almost anyone in the company (or site) making those edits. Your IP address does seem to have quite an extensive edit history. So a proxy or NAT seems likely. --Imroy 16:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah ha!

I do indeed work for B&H. Your explanation sounds entirely feasible to me. Thanks!

Mercury52 19:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please continue to sap the value of Wikipedia for it's users

Well, then that is a total loss to your users, and I don't understand the need or use for an 'external links' section to be available at all. Even the links that are still there are wholly irrelevant to the topics that they are attached to. In my case, while the entries I post are in a blog format from an operational perspective, it is mostly a teaching blog that educates on various topics and techniques that match to many of your current topics and categories on wikipedia. In almost every case, the content is far better than the garbage provided by Wikipedia on these topics and I felt that linking to my posts would be of tremendous benefit to the users/readers of this site to get quality information and detail on these topics. I am sorry that you feel that users of this system should be denied access to this information. Thanks for your time and lack of consideration. Craigwb 2:38, 14 March 2007 (EST)

No-one on this site, including myself, is denying anyone else access to your website. Anyone is free to find it using a search engine or simpler navigation methods. If your blog really was of such "tremendous benefit to the users/readers of this site" as you claim, someone else would have thought so and added links to the articles. That has not happened. And from the few links I looked at, no-one appears is commenting on your blog either. So let me propose an alternate scenario: you wanted some attention and decided to link to your blog across as many Wikipedia articles as you could find. Well sorry, but that's link spamming and it's unacceptable behaviour. It's preferred to have actual content rather than links, so perhaps you could try improving the "garbage" here on Wikipedia. --Imroy 22:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

And why would I waste my time?...Again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.119.159.143 (talk • contribs)

Because writing content would be acceptable behaviour and would stand far less of a chance of being quickly revoked. --Imroy 21:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of the editors on wikipedia seem a bit too full of themselves. I'm different from the person above but you guys don't want to acknowledget that you DO COMPETE with other not for profit websites for attention. It is a great solution to have an external links section that helps provide additional information because people only have so much time to look things up and the external links section can be very useful in saving people time. At some point NOT HAVING a topic on wikipedia will actually benefit the communities you purport to not want to neither promote nor deny access to because then they won't have to compete with you on google for the web browsers attention.

I spent a lot of time carefully adding a few links and making the links read properly and clearly, it does not harm anybody to provide tangible link information to those who can no longer find information about 8mm film from all the common places that used to provide information and no longer do. Sadly, you will only check back to find the next villian, never to correct your own erroneous behavior.

and forward slashes at the end of a web address are actually recommended by those who write software.

Referencing styles and HTML entities

By my comments on the Talk:Exposure value page, I did mean to disparage your efforts in contributing to Wikipedia (though I can see how you might have that impression). I don't mean to suggest that my approach is the "correct" one or that I call the shots on the Exposure value article; however, I do think some discussion would be appropriate before making arguably arbitrary stylistic changes. Incidentally, my issue with your first edit was more with eliminating the HTML entities than with reforming the paragraphs, and I didn't make this clear. I suppose we all have our little tweaks; I've always been a bit fussy about the few common characters (quotes and horizontal punctuation such as hyphens, minus signs, em and en dashes) that look quite different in typeset and typewritten copy. With some fonts, the difference is minimal, but with others, it's substantial. I think using the proper characters improves readability, and I think that takes priority over slightly simpler coding. I'll concede that, over the years, there have been people who felt that I took this too seriously. JeffConrad 22:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Photographers

Nice formatting addition, thanks. TheMindsEye 04:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Imroy 04:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Thanks for warning User talk:202.74.197.15 that was leaving insulting messages on my talk page JJGD 15:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for reminding me about that. Cheers, --Jimbo Herndan 04:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I present you with this barnstar in recognition of your contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism. Epbr123 16:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Scripting problem?

Your recent revert of the vandalism to Grape, [1], was tagged incorrectly "Reverted to revision 124123295 by DerHexer" when it was in fact a revert to an intermediate (vandalized) revision 124123432 by 207.195.51.241. Mistakes are normal and not unexpected in a rapid vandalism case like that, I'm not complaining about the edit itself, but I thought I'd bring to your attention a possible labeling problem with your use of that script (I'm not familiar with WP:TWINKLE) --Noren 17:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh, ok. It might have just been me. The vandal was pretty damn quick, he must have found the 'undo' button or something. I often have trouble keeping up with fast edits on this relatively slow (256K) link I'm on. And I've just started using TW too. Thanks for the notice. --Imroy 17:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ilford Delta rename

I moved it because there was no information at all about Delta 100 or Delta 400. The article mentioned Delta 3200, and that's all. Reub2000 18:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Like I said on your talk page, it just needs more information. I've moved it back to the old name and I'll try to fill it out with more information on the 100 and 400 speeds. --Imroy 17:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Photographic print toning

The users edit contained a) a large amount of removal, b) no edit summary to explain the removal and c) left a paragraph lacking in closing punctuation. In most cases, these would point to signs of vandalism via removal, which explains my reversion. I see from your comment that the user was making a good faith edits, and I have every intention of removing the warning and adding an apology. Thanks for letting me know. As you urged me to be more careful, I would put your mind at ease in knowing that in over 5000 edits, this is the first time anything like this has occurred. Cheers. the_undertow ^talk 01:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

S press

Superia Press

On the American Website, Not sure if there is anyway to prove it is the same emulsion, but I'm sure it is.Ajuk 10:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. Google did finally turn up some pages suggesting the emulsions are the same: [2] and [3]. After looking at that second link I thought I should look at the data provided in the Professional Film Data Guide PDF from Fuji which covers all of their professional films. Interestingly it lists both Superia X-tra 800 and Press 800 as having emulsion number of 'L01', but the 400 speeds are different. But they do share the same two type codes: 'CH' for 400 and 'CZ' for 800. Around the middle of the document it has the various curves and other figures for each film. Here it does group the 400 and 800 speeds of Superia X-tra with the same speed of Press.

So it does look pretty conclusive that the two films are the same. And even though the Fuji doc doesn't say anything, I have one source (the first link) saying that the difference is in handling and quality control. The name of the professional product is simply 'Press' though, no 'Superia' in there at all. Thanks for the help. --Imroy 12:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Its not just 400 and 800 its all speeds that are the same film.

Degree of enlargement

Your section on sensor size doesn't mention the effective changes on degrees of enlargement.

List of students at South Park Elementary

Good catch! :-) Myanw 13:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted external links

hi, why do you consider links that i provided to be spam, yet leaving links to sites like photozone.de and fredmiranda? i read the wikipedia's guideline for external links and what i provided falls right into what is considered useful... have you visited my site and read the content? have you compared it to other sites? who among the sites that you list for example does evaluations of carl zeiss contax lenses? i strongly feel that i have very valuable info on my site that would be beneficial to readers, and would love to try to convince you that this is the case...

ahh, and i'm not really interested in increasing my search rank - there are plenty of 'easier' approached for that than adding entries to wikipedia... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eosslr (talk • contribs).

1. You added the same link to eight articles.
2. You admit that it's your site.

So according to the guide on links normally to be avoided, your edits broke #3 ("Links mainly intended to promote a website"), and #13 ("Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject"). It's also a conflict of interest since the links are for your own web site.

Wikipedia is not a buyers' guide, so a site of reviews is only useful for its technical information. I have had a look at your web site. While it does seem to have a good collection of lenses, it's still clearly a fairly new site. You're still using the default Mambo favicon, for instance.

This is not about the other links on those articles. I did not add them and honestly haven't looked at them yet, so don't think this is just me favouring those other links over yours. I saw your edit to Photographic lens because it's on my watchlist and I checked out your other edits. I decided you were link spamming and reverted all your edits. When I have some spare time I will look at the other links and decide whether any need to be removed. --Imroy 05:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I have no interest in 'promoting' site - it already gets enough interest from the people to whom it's relevant. Conflict of interest is a big word here - I posses information and am willing to share it with wider audiences in hope that it will help others, so if you call this a conflict, then fine, so be it. To me your decision to remove submitted links (despite the fact that the information on the site is unique and not replicated by Wikipedia or any other existing sites) is totally arbitrary when considered in the scope of other links of poorer quality present on Wikipedia, unless of course you or other editors are affiliated or show preference towards particular sites in which case this is simply cronism. Either way I'm not going to argue with you - you have a ton of information missing on this site (and some info that is listed is sometimes inaccurate) but it does not look like there's any interest in creating a better user experience and adding to the the site with such questionable guarding. Enjoy your little domain...

turbocharged direct injection

The links that I added have much more useful content than some of the other links on that page that are already there. It is not a commercial site and provides unique information not available from the other external links. Please don't delete useful references for wikipedia users because you say that it is "link spamming". -topwriter2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topwriter2 (talk • contribs)