This is an archive of past discussions with User:AlistairMcMillan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Renigging on a promise once again
You've shown your true colors yet again AM. You promised to step out, and now your going back on your word and making unilateral decisions without consultation and destroying countless pieces of work. Alyeska01:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
You are now conducting a personal vendetta against me. You've decided to remove every single edit I've made to Trek pages. Its a disgrace that your even an admin given your terrible behavior. Alyeska01:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect Accusations
Windows Vista article. You are disputing the claim that the site was not mentioned on the article.. it had been there up until about 2 weeks ago for months... So for however much you may consider it vandalism, you are wrong. Also, the site is not new. Unfortunately, you seem to want it both ways. If you are going to say that putting a link to a certain website, which is 100% related to the content of the article, is POV or link spam, please delete all other external links to such blogs, sites, forums, etc. 68.237.108.102
Also, please do not accuse me of vandalism on the article, when I was the one who provided the links to many of those sites initially. The purpose of that section should not be to take a subjective stance towards certain sites, but to ensure that they pertain to the subject matter of the article. The reason I removed the links to other sites is because it only makes sense to remove all of these 3rd-party links if certain ones are going to be scrutinized. 68.237.108.102
Running for admin
Hey - Mr Bowtie and I are running for admin and we wondered if you could vote for us? We have to kep improving the computing and Star Trek sectors of Wikipedia! Please support us at Mr Bowtie's and my vote pages - thanks, The Fish20:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Please stop deleting the inclusion of that link. It's a critically accepted, researched article, that happens to be on a blog. Your deletions appear to be for POV reasons. The fact that the link has appeared on other articles does not prevent it from being shown here. Please stop deleting this link without a shown consensus to do so: such actions are unilateral and not in good faith. ⇒SWATJesterReadyAimFire!23:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, in the future please do not blank the entier articles for the sake of sections vilating copyrights. Because of your action at least one image was orphaned and deleted.
I have resored the templates and data on them which cannot be copyrighted. I however have not resotred material coppied from startrek.com Take a look at the diff: [1].
Please do this in the future instead of blanking the entier article, blank the section. I know processing copyrights is a stressfull thing and I sympathise with it, just a little care will make wikipedia a better place tho. Thank you. --Cool CatTalk|@23:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Good thinking, lol. I realized I probably shouldn't have put it there, but I wasn't really sure how to do it. :) Dan06:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Michael Moore
Michael Moore was born and raised in Davison, Michigan, which is a suburb of Flint, but is an entirely seperate city with a different school board, mayor, etc.
"The "See also" section is intended for other pages on Wikipedia that are related to the page subject. Normal practice is to only link a page once, so if it is linked in the actual page content then it shouldn't also be in the "See also" section. AlistairMcMillan 19:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)"
I share Tempels feeling that, especially in long articles, the See also section is very helpful to point the interested reader to related items while the wikilink inside the article serves another, independant purpose. Developing an argument building on your extremely rich experience with edits in the five digits going beyond the statement "Normal practice is..." would be most sincerely welcome. --Ministry of Truth18:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Questioning me
My website is different for many reasons. It is on an actual website and not a forum. The guide is very easy, and provides different quality oprtions. My guie des not use the now-illegal DVD Decrypter. I can be contacted at anytime, and my average response time for support quesions is about 12 hours, and that I put my heart and soul into my website. I spent endless hours handcodin HTML for people all across he world. I have had visitors from all 7 continents excpt Antarctica. And besides, why is it in your power to queston me? eKoZie21:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I read the page and said USUALLY do not. I understand the definiton of the word usually. I also understand that I have something to give to the iPod community, and that people should know about it. If you could just put a link - no desciption needed - at the bottom of the external links section, it would be greatly appreciated and this can be all over. eKoZie16:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I would support a comparison table if I thought we had authoritative sources on these classes, but as far as I know we do not. The classes listed on this page are pretty much all classes where a starship was mentioned once in dialogue (and we've later told belong to a certain classes) or a starship appeared once in a listing on a monitor for x number of frames. As far as I know we don't have authoritative sources on them, so it ends up with people constantly "correcting" the statistics one way or the other depending on some fan non-canon source. AlistairMcMillan01:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
There are piblished wikipedia "encyclopedias" that have comparasion charts as well as technical drawings. I do not know if this is cannon but if it is it can be very useful in creating a comparasion chart. --Cool CatTalk|@20:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
[2] this is another chart. Again I am not certain if it is cannon but it does look like those technical drawings we see on various star trek publications. --Cool CatTalk|@20:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I was being a little disingenuous. There are no authoritative sources for statistics on the different starships in Star Trek. If you look at the various talk pages on the starships or the different classes, you'll see that we don't even have statistics for the ships that appeared every week. Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D)
The two images you linked to are based on fans extrapolating figures as best as they can. I have done my best to derive reasonable figures, though.[3]AlistairMcMillan20:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Fine how about using the technical manuals you mentioned on the talk page of Enterprise D for the comparasion? I reliase there may be inconsistencies but we can have two columns, one for DS9 and one for TNG --Cool CatTalk|@23:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Great. Then another column for the Star Trek Encyclopedia for when it contradicts the Technical Manuals. Another column for actual series dialogue when it contradicts the Manuals and the Encyclopedia. And another column for production staff who designed the ships, for when they contradicted the Manuals, the Encyclopedia, and the series dialogue. You see where this is going, right? And this is just the Galaxy class. If you don't believe me, then take some time to read through sites like ex-astris-scientia.org. Please believe me there are no consistent sets of specs for the starships in Star Trek. AlistairMcMillan23:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes an excelently informative article comparing the technical manuals and roughly copares the ship. If you do not want to assist I can understand that but I think we have material to cover. We can leave out fannon, no problem and stick to cannon and semi cannon sources. Starfleet ranks and insignia is a greater mess if you think about it, but look at the article. --Cool CatTalk|@00:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
You are not listening to me. There are no authoritative sources for statistics on even the ships that we saw regularly. The few sources we have for these statistics all contradict each other. Then you have the ships that only appeared in a single episode or were only mentioned in passing in dialogue... there is nothing useful that can be said about them that doesn't stray into fanon or speculation. AlistairMcMillan01:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, noticed that you removed the Akira summary. Just pointing out that for articles large enough for their own article it's the common practice to have a short summary (I had a couple paragraphs there. It can be shorter if that looks better) and then a link to the main article for full coverage. -Mask21:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
It looks just fine to me. Shorten it all you want, I just wanted to make sure there was *something* other then a blank link :) -Mask
BSG Episode Category
Do you want to discuss the changes? Yyyyyyyyyyy and I had already worked out that numbering system to differentiate which series the episodes belonged to, and also to put them in order. Did we violate some sort of convention in doing that? I think we need some way of differentiating the two series, maybe two categories? --ZachPruckowski17:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, looking at other categories of episodes, doing it by alphabet is the standard, my apologies, but we still need to differentiate by series.--ZachPruckowski17:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I moved all the episodes into subcategories, but what's the plan with the miniseries and the film? They're not technically episodes, so should they come off that category? --ZachPruckowski06:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
It's for disscussing the article AND the article topic! Leave my entry alone! Reply if you want to, but don't vandalize by deleting, just on account of the fact that you don't agree wioth what I have to say. How'd you like it if I went around deleting all of your discussion postings because they don't conform wirth MY opinions? Show some consideraation, damnit! -- Jason Palpatine21:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
You **** wrote -- "This page is for discussing the content of Battlestar Galactica (2003 miniseries), nothing else."
I am very surprised and puzzled by this comment. Firstly, I have added no links to my own private website (I do not own or control Lindos Electronics). Secondly, Wikipedia is full of external links to company sites, often of poor quality. Please specify what pages you have in mind, as I work on many areas. Lindos is a very high profile company in the area of audio measurements, and the articles on its site are very pertinent to many Wikipedia topics. The test sheet database is a novel concept, built by users, rather like Wikipedia, and hence of great interest to those reading audio topics. My personal interest has always been in improving the understanding of audio quality and measurement, and that is my role now, through my own business Lindos Developments, which does not sell anything but has income from IP rights. Perhaps you should have a go at the IPod page. That's pure product advertising for one manufacturer!! --Lindosland10:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
All the content you have added to Wikipedia is much appreciated. And note I never touched or deleted the page you created on your own company. However linking to your companies website on around thirty to fourty different pages crosses the line. Please read Wikipedia:External links. Particularly points 3, 4 and 9 and the NOTE under "Links to normally avoid". AlistairMcMillan17:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I dispute the "30 to 40". The links are to articles, and, as I have explained, a public database. Both are a major resource written by me for the benefit of the industry and the public. The fact that these are on the Lindos website should not bar them from being linked to. I think you should back off now and let others have a chance to check the links and decide. Removing the one serious test result from the iPod site, a most valuable resource, is especially mean. Have you looked at the links. If you were seriously interested in audio topics I think you would see them as of unique value. Please put them all back. --Lindosland17:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I've just realised that many of the articles you refer to are ones created entirely by me, from original articles I wrote for the Lindos Articles section. It is normal to credit the source of material in Wikipedia. Lets have that link back please, with the annotation - "source for this article". --Lindosland18:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I am not promoting my company. I repeat, Lindos Electronics is not my company (it ceased to be mine in 1994). Yes, I read those references carefully:-
3 Links that are added to promote a site. See External link spamming.
They were not added to promote a site, they were added for their value as articles. Nothing suggests otherwise. Please note that I always link to the specific article or specification of relevance, never the Lindos main page or selling page.
4 Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.
Wikipedia is full of links to sites of companies that sell products. The Lindos site is not just for selling though. A major part of it is intended as a resource for technical information on audio and measurement, and the sections I link to are intended for education and are not about Lindos products (perhaps you should read them).
9 A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article.
I do not own or maintain the Lindos Electronics website. I write professionally, and some of my writing is for Lindos. I have also written for 'The Audio Engineer's Reference Book' which refers to its authors as 'world experts in the field'. It is not therefore out of place for Wikipedia to link to my writings. Note that as some articles contain sections on things that Lindos invented, like segmented sequence testing, which is a de-facto world standard, it is fair to regard Lindos as the 'official site' for these.
So I do not feel that I have breached Wikipedia rules, and I do feel that I am doing a good service for Wikipedia. Given that fact, I do not think you should be policing so many articles hastily in the way that you are. You should leave the links for others to decide their relevance to each page independantly, with discussions on the talk at each page. Surely you see that the test report on the iPod is of great relevance to the article and apart from being headed Lindos (as AP results are usually labelled AP) it does nothing to promote Lindos.
How about a compromise? One link to Lindos per article if you like, and no mention of Lindos in any link as it appears on Wikipedia (as I have largely done on Speakers). I really do want these articles read. They are used as a teaching resource by several universities who's professors (in Audio engineering) have recently contacted us to tell us so, and I am adding to them. Lets get down to their content, not what website they are on. Of course I could move them to another website, or I could have remained anonymous like most Wikipedians, or I could get others to put up the links (as per Wikipedia above) but doesn't that seems less satisfactory than just being open about it all, as is my way? --Lindosland20:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Firstly... I really do want these articles read. This isn't a place for you to promote the articles you have written for another website.
Secondly would you please make clear your connection to Lindos Electronics. You say you "do not own or control Lindos Electronics", and "it ceased to be mine in 1994". However the About page on the Lindos site was written by you and dated 2001. The page full of test results is mostly attributed to you and Chris Skirrow (your son perhaps?). The articles you've said were mostly written by you. Okay, so you may no longer own the business but you do seem to be involved to some degree.
Lastly, the normal procedure for situations like this is listed on Wikipedia:External links. The accepted procedure is to post the proposed links in the Talk section of the article, and let other - neutral - wikipedia editors decide whether or not it should be included.AlistairMcMillan00:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm giving in on this, though I am a bit unhappy that so many other links to commercial (and less philanthropic) sites exist on Wikipedia. I now think I was misled by this fact. Linking to the articles seemed logical, since I have actually be combining writing for the Lindos site with writing for Wikipedia, and the Lindos ones can in some cases differ in POV of course. This is not important though. I do think it a pity that I cannot link to the test site database, especially for the IPod. Chris went to some trouble to find someone with the latest IPod so that we could add it to the site. I don't want to go into the details of Lindos much, suffice it to say that it is not nice to be constantly told that I own Lindos when it was actually taken from me in very painful and complicated circumstances connected with a split with my partner and mother of my children. Lindos was in other hands from 1994 until 2003 when it was transferred to Chris by mutual agreement, with me giving him the right to use IP rights which it transpired I still owned (there were legal battles). Clearly I am involved, and don't deny it, but the facts are the facts.
After 25 years in the field I now despair at the way things are going backwards with myth replacing reality in so many things concerned with audio. Chris agrees, and Lindos is very much our vehicle for trying to educate both professionals and the public back to a proper understanding. I do research in buildings in the groounds of my home, some of which feeds into Lindos. I never liked business, and always enjoyed the R&D. That is why it is particulary sad that the test sheet database results cannot be used here to demonstrate the reality of audio (we specialise in measuring in a way that allows fair comparisons). Yes, most (but not all) of the entries are currently by Chris and myself, but that is because it has not been going long. I thought of including test sheets in articles, but that does not seem nice with Lindos on the top. To me it seems better to link to them - I hate advertising. I wonder if links in the form of citations in the text would be acceptable. I could say something like 'the iPod performed well in independant tests' with a citation link added. Would you consider that acceptable? As far as I can see, the rules support that, though you might still say I am linking to a site that I have interest in! I am in a peculiar position if I cannot refer to things I was involvded in, because there are only a few people in the world heading the development of test methods for audio, and I am the only one specialising in 'subjectively valid' test methods, despite having to fight a hard battle in the face of an industry run by 'spec writers' who tell lies as part of their marketing, so inevitably it all comes back to me! If I leave it for others to write, the job will not be so well done. Any further thoughts? --Lindosland11:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a huge problem with linking to his site as long as it's alongside similarly informative links to other, competitors' sites. It's clearly biased info meant to sell products that measure in his preferred way, but it's still basically informative content.
What I have a problem with is elevating his preferred measurement methods above all the rest, by creating unique articles for them and giving them special treatment. That's what we should be addressing first. These "Lindos preferred measurement method" articles need to be merged into the appropriate Wikipedia articles. I'm going to start nominating them for deletion if they don't get merged, and we'll have the community handle them one at a time. I'm a little worried about merging, too, though... — Omegatron20:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Lindosland replies - you've got it all wrong!
These 'Lindos preferred measurements' happen to be to the International and European standards (as quoted all over the place in the articles). It is a fact that such standards are not widely understood or adhered to in the US. Lindos has agents in most of the world, but withdrew it's full time representative from the US because of this problem. He felt he was wasting his time in the face of ignorance. The US is well acknowledged as having been 'isolationist' in buying little from abroad until recently. Trying to mix European and US methods in this field is like trying to mix Islam and Christianity on one page - it isn't to be attempted. Most Wikipedians are, I suspect in the US. I therefore ask you all to think carefully about this before undoing my work.
I can be fairly confident is saying that most of the world's broadcast networks are routinely tested for quality using equipment designed by me (mostly the LA100). This includes the BBC (several million pounds worth) BT (ditto) BSB Sky, Independant Radio (ditto) and TV throughout the UK, plus the major broadcasters in France, Germany, Australia, South Africa, Japan, and so on, but not in the US! The BBC does all its automated testing across its entire radio network regularly using the Lindos LA100's. A few years ago I was invited by the editor of 'The Audio Engineer's Reference Book' (pub. by Focal Press), to write the section on Measurement. The introduction refers to "articles all written by world experts". I have been invited to give lectures to BBC and other organisations. Training schemes were set up in the BBC to train all engineers in the use of the LA100 and Lindos was paid to provide the on-site training. Lindos were contracted to design and make special test equipment for use in the BBC, the IBA, and other broadcast organisations. "Clearly biased" and "products that measure his way". Sorry but you've just got no idea! You may think that the AP systems sets the standard. Excellent though they are for measuring to low levels (we have one), in most of the world, most of the time, they don't. And Lindos was around long before them, or Neutrik. --Lindosland22:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
no email address?
Hi - I don't know if you realize it, but you can't be contacted by the wikipedia "email this user" link. This might be related to the (relatively recent) email validation feature. Seems to me all admins should have a valid (and validated) email address. Just thought I'd let you know. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Quoted from Wikipedia:External links: A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article. Please do not restore the links yourself. AlistairMcMillan19:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I must insist that I simply do not own or maintain the Lindos.co.uk website (I have my own websites). Try as you might, you cannot say I do, when I clearly don't. I write professionally from my own lab and studio, and some, but not all, of what I write is used by Lindos Electronics and copyrighted by them (manuals, leaflets, articles as well as web stuff). That means that when I use such material as the basis for Wikipedia articles (as Lindos permits me to) Lindos Electronics really should get a link crediting the source, as per the rule I quoted that says specifically that 'not to do so would be plagiarism'.
Also, it seems clear to me that 'what to link to' has to be interpretted as taking precedence over 'links to normally avoid', partly because the latter is a weaker statement qualified by 'normally' (well known researchers are 'abnormal') and partly because otherwise the two clash in some instances. The big problem is that a respected and well known researcher cannot write articles based on his own writings, as he needs to credit the source by one rule but cannot, according to you, by another rule. He can hardly write the article and then ask someone else to credit his sources can he?
I do feel that you have made me think hard and study the rules about this, and change my views on external links generally, such that I will not in future put external links to Lindos Electronics as, though there are links to selling sites on Wikipedia, I can see the point, and I now think such links could easily get out of hand. When it comes to citations in the article though, and the matter of crediting my own sources, I stand my ground, and ask you to restore those links please. I wonder if you would object if I credited 'The Audio Engineer's Reference Book' (Focal Press) for which I wrote. It's extremely independant and reputable, but would you object to the 'self reference'--Lindosland22:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
And (not that it matters) you don't know that I've been using and contributing to the IMDb for years, and am well aware of the information listed on it and what's considered (un)reliable. Anyway, Whedon is irrelevant - I wasn't even thinking about him, actually - and I've read drafts of the script by Ed Solomon w/ revisions by others (with, obviously, situations and lines that ended up in the finished film [6]).
From what I understand, Hayter rewrote about half of the script (alone or with others, I don't know), and the other writers, despite being entitled to credit, declined for some reason. Also, interestingly, I found that Whedon has talked about how one exchange he wrote did end up in the film ([7]). I realize that this entire issue is a drop in the bucket. - DoubleCross12:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Terminal Services Page
Hi, I just wanted to clarify one thing about the external links on this page. We no longer want the WindowsNetworking.com to appear however we would like the link to our TerminalServices site to appear. Would this be OK? The site is totally free and is a resource for Terminal Services, Citrix and Server based Computing. Please let me know. Thanks. --MikeVella 10:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
-- Thanks for your reply. If that is the case then I would prefer to allow the older links there which linked to the specific articles on the other sites. Thanks. --MikeVella09:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, hands up to that one; posted when I was very new to the system. Appreciate your diligence, feel it's perhaps slightly over-zealous however... --Brideshead20:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Explanation request
(diff) (hist) . . Joe Hill; 20:23 . . AlistairMcMillan (Talk | contribs) (Delete POV tag that was added with no explanation.)
What exactly is required for posting a POV tag? I read that article, and it is about as POV as they come. Its language falls outside ANY formating that I can think of to make it appear valid. -- Jason Palpatine01:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
You make perfect sense. Thank you. BTW -- this apparently isn't the first time we've had a discussion like this one. -- Jason Palpatine02:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Help on IE7
I'd edit the Help Desk article, but due to the nature of the bug in IE7 I can't edit pages, although I can add to talk pages. --Alph Tech STUART
Reminder
When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.
Well, I'm stumped. You removed this template from the Boot Camp article, with the rationale that because the software is available for download, the tag doesn't apply. I'm stumped because it could be rightly argued that this is both the right thing to do, and the wrong thing to do, depending on how we want to interpret things. According to the text, it's for software that is "under development", which accurately describes Boot Camp (as the software is not finished yet), as well as future versions of existing software (like the version 7 section of the Internet Explorer article). On the other hand, the template is called "future software", which suggests something that isn't available yet.
The question here is, should the text of the template be changed to suit the concept of "not finished yet", or should it be changed to suit "not publicly available yet"? Personally, I like the latter better... what do you think? Warrens21:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments on my talk page
I have replied on to your comments on my talk page, on my talk page. For the sake of simplicity, I would prefer to keep the entire discussion on my talk page instead of back and forward between mine and your talk pages. Paul Cyr06:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Relevance of competing products in articles about technologies
I reinstated the list of other products at Microsoft gadgets, although I altered the wording a little. The fact is that they preceed Microsoft's gadgets and are undoubtably a significant influence on the system's feature list and initial included gadgets. This is of relevance to any article about them; it makes no sense to view a product in isolation, as it would be like talking about an artist without considering the work of their contemporaries. That is why I spent so much time on the competition to WindowBlinds - I know first-hand that their presence over time was vital to the shaping of the current product. GreenReaper06:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
If you want to change the see also list to explain how they have influenced Microsoft's version (with suitable citations of course) I'll wholely support it. As the list stands right now it doesn't tell us anything about Microsoft gadgets. AlistairMcMillan17:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The See also section is not for information about the current topic - it is for articles that people might also be interested in reading in relation to the current article. I believe that people who are interested in reading about Microsoft gadgets are also likely to be interested in reading about the other kind of widgets/gadgets that are and were around. Do you not think that this is the case?
If I were to do as you suggest, I'd put it in the main article and remove the appropriate links from See also - but I don't know enough about the topic to give detailed references off the top of my head, if they even exist. Being propiatary, unfinished software, I would be concerned about the quality of most links - they're likely to be content-free and bias-heavy one way or the other (most of those I remember reading either praise it as a great innovation or blast them for copying someone else). Software companies big and small are notoriously cagey about telling people what influenced them, for the very real reason that they might be sued over it (see the "look and feel" case).
I can see the argument for removing the list and replacing it with a discussion of the impact of various widget engines, but I can see no reason for removing it and replacing it with nothing at all. The article's short enough as it is. It may not be the perfect way to introduce readers to other related topics, but perfection is hard to attain for an article that is about an yet-unreleased product. GreenReaper18:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Which part did you have in mind? I don't see how that relates to not having links to other articles in See also. It would indeed relate to writing up a proper discussion of the relations, but then part of my point was it's not really possible to do that yet, precisely because there are no reliable third-party sources reporting on it. This in turn is due to the fact that it's not got a stable version - for example, they just changed things so that their sidebar gadgets will be the same as their web gadgets, which changes the available feature set.
In short, we can't write a great article, because nobody else has (or can) write good original research on it yet. So the best thing we can do right now is to give users an idea of what features have been promised and link to other articles on engines that have actually been completed.
Of course, they're not much better in terms of verifiability - so what do we do? Write nothing on topics that people expect us (as a net-based resource) to cover? I've always been unsatisfied with that viewpoint, which is probably the reason I spend more time over at Wikia. I think that verifiability is a great policy for solving contentious questions on topics that are verifiable, but I strongly doubt that the people who write computer software publications are playing by the same fact-checking rules as Nature, which brings the use of such references into question.
I don't think our users seriously expect that level of verifiability on such topics, either . . . but that gets into questions of general policy, which are probably better discussed elsewhere. GreenReaper22:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Refusing to discuss points
Regarding: You missed something out of that chain of events. After Gnetwerker's first edit to Windows Aero, you responded by reverting his edit with the comment rv fanboyism.
I will also be bring this up during mediation as evidence of bad faith on your part, as I repsonded to your comment about this previously, to which you ignored. You are bring up points that you have refused to discuss. Paul Cyr03:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Please stop trying to get off point. I responded to your statement, notified you and waited for a reply. You gave none. If you aren't going to reply to a rebuttle against your statement, then the statement is pretty much void. Paul Cyr07:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I have been counting. Three people voiced their opinions: Malber, Sam Blanning and you. Malber made a completely unexplained statement to which he refused to explain when I asked him to. You removed the complaint from WP:PAIN in the midst of my discussion with Sam and refused to respond to the rebuttle I made against your statement, and Sam Blanning, well, let's just say red herrings, cherry picking and refusing to discuss are not the most supported arguements. Paul Cyr07:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Removing data..
Hi, Could you please look at the history of a page before removing data.. That side bar had totaly been changed however it did exist before the user changed it. Thank you.--Matthew Fenton(TALK - CONTRIBS) 10:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
It does provide you the ability to select partitions to boot off, so it is clearly a boot loader, among other things.Mattabat12:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Own my ass
Piss off AM. I don't own that article. I am telling you to stay away because you are not welcome. Your a crappy admin who has a history of dishonest dealings and outright lying to get your way. You are not welcome in the Stargate articles so stay the hell away. We had a nice consensus going before you dropped in and frakked things up. Alyeska02:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I have to admit your handling of this has earned no respect from me, did you delete the page? and if so why did you not msg me stateing your reasons. Considerin i was the creator of the page, i would have thought the reason for deletion would be told, and not just you own opinion. I hope very much that you merged the information to another page...if so which one....if not then i will recreate the page. Page or no page, that information should be displayed somewhere in Wiki. I have been talking to other users who said you are well known for this type of thing, i wonder how many pages of yours i would find notable? do you not understand notablity is a matter of opinion! i certainly hope you merged that page information somewhere. if not then i have to wonder about all this talk to Alyeska about wiki pages not belonging to anyone, because you dont treat the policy that way. Wiki ian08:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
When you say, "How about we just initially compare it to things that are actually working and shipping.", do you mean to suggest that people aren't using XGL and Project Looking Glass on their desktops today? 66.151.13.19115:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Tech Manuals Are Canon
From StarTrek.com (read carefully):
"Where can I get blueprints and technical information on all the ships from the various Star Trek shows?
Pocket Books have published several excellent reference guides, but due to the overwhelming nature of the Star Trek oeuvre, it's nearly impossible to create technical reference for every ship seen on the show. However, they have gone a long way to help those of you who are technically minded by publishing the following books: "Star Trek: The Next Generation - U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701-D Blueprints" (Rick Sternbach), "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual" (Herman Zimmerman, Rick Sternbach and Doug Drexler) and the "Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual" (Rick Sternbach and Michael Okuda).
There have been earlier versions of technical manuals, including "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" (Shane Johnson) and the "Star Trek Starfleet Technical Manual" (Franz Joseph), but these books, although fun to read, were not written by production personnel and are not considered 'canon.'
For the computer minded, Simon & Schuster Interactive have provided some fun CD-ROMs over the years, namely the "Star Trek Encyclopedia," the "Star Trek: The Next Generation Interactive Technical Manual" and the "Star Trek Captain's Chair." If you are interested in "building" your own starship, try a peek at "Star Trek Starship Creator.""
Re: Rollbacks and unusual titles
I'm curious what it looks like on your system. I think if we can probably get it to work for everybody if we try hard enough. — Jun. 5, '06[19:33] <freak|talk>
Hmm, it's strange that it would appear so differently even in the same skin. Probably not a good idea after all then, sorry. — Jun. 5, '06[21:06] <freak|talk>
USS Constellation
I added my entry about the USS Constellation as a Canon source.
William Shatners books are all written in correlation with Denise and Micheal Okuda and are endorsed by paramount pictures. Therefore any information within Shatner's books are classed as Genuine Star Trek Trivia.
I would be grateful if you could re-submit the entry on the USS Constellation.
USS Constellation (Registry Unknown) Awaiting Launch during the Domion War, noted in William Shatner's book Star Trek: Spectre
Wisdom needed
Hi! I'm asking this here because you're the admin I've had the most interaction with (to my knowledge, anyway) since we've clashed (respectfully, I hope) on articles in the past. I need a bit of wisdom on how I handled a situation on wikipedia. Where's the appropriate place to ask? Here's what happened: I stumbled across an article that was advertising copy. I think it was OmniPeek. I flagged it with advert, because I hadn't done a delete request in recent memory. The contributor to the article (the software's developer) removed the flag. By this time, I'd remembered the delete request procedure. I did a quick search to see what other advertising copy he'd put in (AiroPeek and EtherPeek), and flagged all of it as advertising copy and put the delete request into motion. I was accused of being a developer for a competitor's product (wireshark). I linked to the user's page which contains an admission that he is the developer of the products, and posted to his user talk asking for proof that I develop wireshark. Have I done anything wrong, or even just anything less than perfectly? I'd like to ask some experts on the subject. -- Steven Fisher15:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for having a look. I think maybe I shouldn't have responded to the Wireshark accusation other than denying it. Pointing out he was a *Peek developer was probably unnecessary since it's pretty obvious, but I think I learned something from that. -- Steven Fisher05:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm auto-watching the pages I edit. Wouldn't it be nice if the people who wrote this originally used proper references instead of "External Links"? --GunnarRene00:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
reversion at Digital rights management
Varying interpretation of the initials DRM is not POV. See the talk page and extended discussion there about POV in this article. Feelings run high on both sides, aside from WP content. Some believe that large revenues are at risk, others believe that civil rights and the rule of law are both at risk. ww16:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
AM, There has been a continuous claim (from both sides) that wording or phrasing in one direction or another in this article. In particular there has been dispute as to the meaning of DRM (in both directions), and indeed whether DRM (any meaning) is appropriate at all. That both interpretations of DRM are present early in the aticle is the resultant of this pushme pullyou business. There being no optimum solution this is the one those who actively edit here have settled on. Not without grumbling in both directions, but that's good for peoples' character I suppose. Much of this is in the talk page, but some probably exists on editors' talk pages. ww17:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
AM, Ahhh. I now see what it was you had in mind as POV. Placement prominence, then. In any case, your solution (as of my glance a moment ago) seems not likely to set off someone, and so is a Good Thing. As one who is still bloody from the various attempts to clean this article up, I'm in favor of Good Things (or favour, as you Brits would have it), however they come about.
And, best of luck in whatever that tournament is called in Germany. I understand the Brits have advanced to the next stage. <-- American baffled by soccer.
Hi. I'd never seen that page before, nor heard of there being a rule of not linking to your own documents. As the page is just a mirror of the original Mactopia download page there are no NPOV issues and I see you have chosen to leave the links in place, which I take as neutral editor support for them, however in future, I will suggest my links on the talk page and leave it to someone else to add. Thanks for the notification. I have linked to a couple of other documents on my own server, for instance a sample MIF file for my article on Apple Advanced Typography and a couple of others which I don't recall of the top of my head. None of these pages contain opinions or points of view though. — Nicholas (reply) @ 09:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
![[2]](http://www.cairns.crazychic.net/images/fleet-chart-1060.jpg){kind=link}