User talk:Cantaloupe2

Welcome!

Hello, Cantaloupe2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! TomStar81 (Talk) 20:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nationmaster

As Nationmaster hosts an incomplete mirror of Wikipedia, the text you removed from Narcotics is not "copied and pasted" from Nationmaster (see here). I have reverted the edit accordingly. Best, St3vo (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed merges

Please use the {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} templates to propose article merges. That way you can explain your proposal on the talk pages and start a discussion of whether it's a good idea or not. You may find WP:MERGE helpful. --CliffC (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article merge reply and thoughts?

Hey, I have added your talk page to my watch-list. Feel free to ask any questions regarding the similarities and differences between crack cocaine and regular cocaine. Tell me a little bit about yourself, too. What are your studies? Do you have an interest in chemistry? If so check out these pages:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2x3F08_8B80

MIT OpenCourseWare

http://ocw.mit.edu/5-111F05

Let me know how I can help. I have this page on my watch-list. 윤리윤리윤리 (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Freebasing has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Anna Lincoln 19:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Freebasing. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Anna Lincoln 19:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. As seen here, you remove a large amount of information. This is not a minor edit, especially since you remove sourced information. — Dæ dαlus^Contribs 08:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Fourlokoproducts.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Fourlokoproducts.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 19:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linchpin edit and revert

Hi Cantaloupe2, I've reverted your edit here, where you inserted a {{cn}} tag. While I'm happy to see you using fact tags to address original research, perhaps you are being a bit overzealous in using the tag? Generally uncontroversial or easily provable statements usually do not need inline citations. While it is definitely OR on my own part, the fact that an R-clip can substitute for a linchpin is plainly evident to anyone who has ever used either of those devices on a trailer hitch. The only difference is in the safety aspects, shich are the shear strength of the load-bearing component and the security of the fastener from dislodging - but this would call for adding to the text, not marking it for potential deletion as happens with adding a template as you did. This may be a case where the information is so very obvious that it becomes hard to actually find a source. If you place a fact tag, the general expectation is that you searched for references yourself and found none. What search terms did you use when researching this? Franamax (talk) 03:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diethyl ether in fiction

Hi! I appreciate your enthusiasm to keep Wikipedia encyclopedic, but you might like to compare Opium#Cultural_references. Your thoughts? --Shirt58 (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your both quick and well-argued reply . I'll have a look around and see if I can find sources analogous to those in Opium#Cultural_references. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for your patience. I apologize for any angst caused by referring to your account being involved in IP socking. I saw the block, so added the notices where appropriate. I hope my reversion (in 2 cases) and strike-through (in another) of those, together with this note, are satisfactory to you. Happy editing, and once again, please accept my apologies. -Joe S JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About

About this request for information: The answer is basically "all published, reliable sources". If something is an unusual opinion, then it would be followed by WP:INTEXT identification of individuals that hold the opinion. However, this is a universally held definition, so it's inappropriate to specifically identify individual experts and organizations that use it.

There are previous discussion in the article's talk page on this point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Moved from user page. Franamax (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cantaloupe2 -

Although I'm new to posting on Wikipedia, I recently retired president of a large technical company with a fairly extensive background as a buyer and user of batteries. I would greatly appreciate your clear feedback.

Much of my reason for posting is based on my experience that consumers are faced with considerable confusing, misleading, inaccurate information and numerous informational omissions by manufacturers and sellers of batteries. I am not hostile to any seller or manufacturer, but would like to provide infor that would allow consumers to deal better with the all to prevailing marketing hype. On this topic, specifically what part(s) of my posting are inappropriate and what phrasing would you suggest to comply with Wikipedia standards?

This particular article also appears to promote Eneloop to the exclusion of mentioning any other brand. I'm left to wonder that my mention of AccuEvolution seems unwelcome while my mention of Tenergy is not. On this topic, specifically what part(s) of my posting are inappropriate and what phrasing would you suggest to comply with Wikipedia standards?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyewriteit (talk • contribs)

Pi Kappa Alpha

Please note that you have both reached (or exceeded) the limits of WP:3RR on Pi Kappa Alpha. Please work toward a consensus before making further edits regarding this issue. Might I suggest a request for comments? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User Conduct

Hi Cantaloupe. As you probably know, I feel you are violating our policies for civility and assume good faith. Your stalking of every article I have contributed to makes me feel uncomfortable and your accusations are hurtful. Why would you claim I am using Wikipedia for SEO, when Wikipedia is a no-follow site? Or attack my COI behavior, when I have followed Wikipedia's best practices to a T by disclosing and using Talk pages. Or complain that I used primary sources, when (I think, but could be wrong) those were already there before I contributed from the Talk page.

WP:COI says that when someone discloses a COI, we should assume they are trying to do the right thing. There is probably some policy against this form of stalking as well. To show you what I mean, below are some of the instances where I felt your conduct was unbecoming, because you are speculating about my motives and making the assumption of bad faith.

Extended content

"Also, are you a hired gun for this company like you're for many other?"
"Are your clients asking you what they want, asking you put whatever you can put get away with and paying you commission or rating you based on outcome? Your liberal inclusionist behavior is likely motivated by your clients request and perhaps financial interest."
"That HubSpot article was littered with references in well excess of 100. I think it can be reasonably said that its an example of WP:Bombardment , attempting to increase perceived notability as well as locating references to go around promotional contents you want to add."
"Cherry picking flattering facts to exhibit about company and adding many buzzwords to raise the article's search engine results page status in favor of your clients is a clear conflict of interest."

I do apologize if I be-littled you by suggesting you were a newbie. I am doing my best to be polite here, but it feels like you are attacking me. I kindly ask that you consider my request to adjust your conduct and focus on the content, rather than the editors and make an effort to be civil, assume good faith and avoid stalking. Corporate 13:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply SEO is not just about no follow. It's about positioning your client to desirable search rank. For example, by searching for services or products provided and a list of notable customers, it can certain invoke search engine to bring up the page. i.e. say component manufacturer nobody's ever heard of that makes parts for interior parts for Ferrari. To place "example of products includes thread used in seats in Ferrari" or the like in a hope of gaining recognition as being associated with popular name from prospects and the public is a form of SEO. Wiki goes by the principle of no inherited notabilty. In marketing, its common to familiarize new products by leveraging well established brand by something like "new medicine"... from the maker of NyQuil" Well, Wikipedia isn't the place to do that sort of thing. Many companies websites include big and famous client list too for that very reason. On encyclopedia, editors are supposed to be neutral, so stake holders should leave their stakes in company off the article. Does this make sense? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I agree with your interpretation of the definition of SEO or understand where you're coming from, nor do I believe many of your interpretations of Wikipedia policy are in-line with accepted standards. However, I am only asking that you focus on the content, assume good faith, make an effort to be civil and work collaboratively. If you cannot make this effort, I kindly ask you to remove yourself from my Talk page. If the situation escalates, it may eventually result in temporary blocks or admin intervention for edit-warring and conduct problems.

On the other hand, if we can both agree to do our best to follow these conduct policies, I think the articles and each of us as editors can improve. Again, this is not a battleground for debate. I do not wish to invite argument about who is right, I am just kindly asking you to make an effort to adopt a respectful tone, abandon speculation and adjust your behavior, so that Wikipedia can be a welcoming and friendly place as we all aspire it to be. I will do my best to do the same. Corporate 14:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your deletionist tag on the user page. Stand proud! ;-)

I also find myself on the deletionist side of things, though it would be a reasonable criticism that I probably find myself on the inclusionist side of things where I have a WP:COI. Neither is bad, so long as it is within reason.

I think our discussion has been helpful. Your trims to SMS and GenArts are very good - exceptional and thorough even. Seriously great work.

Cheers! Corporate 17:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest noticeboard

An issue in which you are involved has been raised at the conflict of interest noticeboard. [1] Corporate 18:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

advice

(as sent to YuMa also)

both of you, please do not carry on your conflict on my talk page. And when you want me to look at a particular issue on WP:RS, or elsewhere, just call my attention to the general nature of the issue, without trying to convince me. I will go by what I judge for myself, not by your arguments. After all, when you ask me for an opinion, it's my opinion that you want, isn't it?.

And, with my admin hat on for a moment, I strongly advise the two of you to try to avoid each other, There are quite enough articles, and quite enough sourcing issues, that you do not need to work on the same ones. I am not interested n who is right or wrong, either in a particular case or in general--that's not the sort of thing I like to decide. I am interested in helping each of you avoid getting into difficulties here, and I need to warn you you seem to be heading that way rather fast. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit reverts

So what is this now? You're stalking my edits? - M0rphzone (talk) 09:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oldcarbrochurers

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_29#Valid_reference.3F -->Typ932 ^T·C 14:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the Microeconomic Effect of Tipping on Wages

Hi. This section I added in the article on "Tipping." I think the reason it was removed by you was because of a lack of reference. The reference is actually a business professor who wants to remain anonymous. How would I use such a reference?

In case the reason is other than the above, please do let me know. I will be checking back here shortly.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.97.46.89 (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Such is not an appropriate reference for Wikipedia as verifiability is one of the key guidelines. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A response

Cantaloupe,

You asked at ANEW essentially (and please correct me if I get this wrong) whether or not the counter for 3RR reset after 24 hours. It does. (Please see the 3RR link). Note that edit warring can occur without hitting 3RR, and any appearance of "gaming the system" may be considered just as bad.

PS - I am responding here instead of there since that thread is essentially closed. --No unique names 15:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood. I know that 3RR resets in 24 hours. However, evidence I presented shows Corporate Minion without doubt breached the policy by making four reversions in a 24 hour time span which establishes a proof of violation. So, there's no judgment call to be made if actions by CM constitutes violation, because he breached the bright line. What I was asking is the citation of Wiki policy which states that verified violation is no longer actionable if the noticeboard complaint is not closed within some time frame. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. The closest I could find was the administrator's guidance at the bottom of EW. Also, ANEW states that it is for reporting "active edit warriors and recent violations of the three-revert rule" (emphasis not mine). It seems the regulars there have interpreted that as within 24 hours. --No unique names 23:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Class each discussion

I should have informed you that I classed each discussion since you were involved in most if not all of them and allowed you to have an opinion on it before classing it. Anyways, I classed it because there were so many outstanding issues and wanted to warn users that threads will be archived in a month. I now made it clear that users can raise the issues once again on the talk page if they wish. You don't need to be a moderator to make WP:BOLD edits that attempt to benefit the community, I tried to see the results from an as neutral point as possible, outcomes with subjective results were left as outstanding as I didn't want to cause any more controversy than what's already present. Also, if you want it removed, you can simply revert an edit on the talk page with 2000 or so characters, I have no problems with that but I just wanted to let you know what my intentions were.

Thanks YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 00:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Streisand effect on Talk:Gallon

If you make an edit on a talk page and no one had replied to it yet, there's no problem going back and editing for clarity. Once someone has responded, however, deleting your text affect how their text is read. If you want to "unsay" something at that point, put at <s> </s> tag around it. Had you done this the first time, only the people who were reading the talk page at the time would have noticed. I only saw this because you were trying to hard to delete it (and throwing around words like WP:Vandalism). Garamond Lethe 08:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question on "promotional purposes" citations

Hi,

Thanks for the guidance. I don't have any connection to the sites I cited whatsoever, but if they're not deemed worthy sources then I understand yanking them. One question, though -- you ask "By Whom" in the article, when the citation I added was showing someone making the exact claim (FL and IF stones are musuem/investment grade). Would it have been better to say something like

"FL and IF stones are sometimes referred to as "museum quality" or "investment grade" to denote their rarity, such as by famed collector Mouawad"

or something like that?

Thanks! (Is this how you wanted me to reply to you, by the way?) Diamondgurutayler (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here, the cited sources should be verifiable secondary credible sources. If you take a moment to read verifiability criteria, you should get an idea. Self published sources such as personal websites generally do not count. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to delete an article

I came across http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/LiveCockFights.com, which seemed like a blatant advertising article -- and an extremely offensive one -- but I have no clue how to delete something like that, or who makes those decisions. You're the first experienced Wikipedian I've contacted, so I thought I'd ask you.

Diamondgurutayler (talk) 03:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this should help you how to do it. The article isn't promotional to the point of "blatant" so I don't think it would qualify as speedy deletion, but if you nominate it for deletion and provide reasoning, the community will comment on it and and it will be handled accordingly based on consensus. - Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Traction (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) 11:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:FAEP and your right rb on Automotive lighting

look here: [2] I am not speaking because I had some trouble with this user on commons (commons behaves in the same way, with edit war and the like), but if you start to complain about him, maybe someone will listen. I have already asked to User:King of Hearts ( here on commons [3]) , I do not know if I will listen, if you want you can insist too. hello, and sorry if I intruded --Pava (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three phase electric power

Your input may be valuable [here]. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect blanking

Hi, if you have an issue with a redirect that doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, please take it to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion rather than blank the page as you did with Jay Freeman. Thanks! -- KTC (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Safety reflector, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Critical angle (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) 11:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Cantaloupe2. You have new messages at PRSA's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'm surprised it doesn't send an automated invitation, but I've started a dispute resolution discussion[4] as was suggested by EdJohnston at the closing of our last dispute. Corporate 01:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "PRSA".

Guide for participants

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:

It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:

It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:

Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~".
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 01:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huge apology

I am not sure if you were even aware of this as you were not notified by me or anybody else, as far as I could tell. I raised a concern of sockpuppetry for another user and in my haste and confusion using the form I cut and paste your name from our discussion at my talk page, in error. I realized my error and cut and paste the correct ediotr's name but somehow your name was left in. I didn't realize it was still there and the sockpuppet report came back definitely confirming you are not DieSwartzPunkt. I must apologize profusely for that oversite as I have never encountered any bad interactions with you. I notified the SPI clerk of this and she said to delete your name from the list, which I did but there remians her statement that you too are definitely not sharing a body. I hope this has not caused any ill will between us and I regret this deeply. You do some nice work.

I would like to request something of further of you. When you do reverts or edits not to combine so many items into one edit. This gives other editors a chance to disagree with you or revert you edits in small chunks. I tend to do the same thing as it seems so many lines to do multiple edits. I have found the result is somebody doesn't like one word and the whole edit is reverted. There is usually some really good stuff that will stick in with the bad stuff. Now where do I start without an editwar? Just a thought. Thanks. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed upset and lashing out at me. I would like to explain what happenned with the IPsockpuppet, in simple terms, without massive link research. You can check histories to verify this. DieSwartzPunkt and myself had a misundertanding about the consensus process on the Three-phase power talk page. He appeared disruptive and I called him on it. He felt I was disruptive also. Using an IP sockpuppet he placed a useless and unauthorized block code on my talk page. He also launched an ANI complaint against me using an IP sockpuppet address and the IP geolocate match many other disruptive edits in the same article. I reported the SPI to which he admitted he was at least one of the sockpuppets in question, also reporting that it was his mistake. He was instructed to be more careful, in future. Please do not attempt to disrupt editing and consensus by slinging mud in the article talk pages. You appear to be a knowledgable editor and I also know some shite and we can get some great article texts together. Thanks. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Insult, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Compliment (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) 19:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Brown and fixed gear

Your last edit convinces me – you have no experience of cycling, and yet you're still happy to edit way beyond the limits of your knowledge or research. This is not conducive to a good encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Experience in cycling is not a requisite in encyclopedia writing. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either experience or prior research certainly is. You cannot possibly write about a topic you do not have any understanding of, and that you yet refuse to gain any understanding of. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My research doesn't indicate how his personal opinion on chain is particularly notable and I've heard is anecdotes. Where is reliable source that says it is notable to justify including that example? If we can't come to an agreement, we'll send it to RfC Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall Sheldon's opinions on chains – however that's not the subject of the section you keep deleting. Do you understand what fixed gear actually is? (It involves chains, certainly, but it's hardly "an opinion on chains") Until you do learn terms like this, it's difficult to see how you'll be able to make any credible or competent edits to such a topic. Fixed gear bikes are now a fashion item amongst many urban hipsters and their single-speed Apple MacBikes, yet it was Sheldon who was banging on about the things, pretty much in isolation, a decade or so earlier. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I buy your rationale that "noted" is an interpretation. The concept of notability is fundamental to Wikipedia and does not imply interpretation.842U (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion on SHSH blob

Hi again! I posted to Wikipedia:Third opinion, and another editor has chosen to help out on Talk:SHSH blob. If you're still interested, I'd like to invite you to join in with your comments as well. Dreamyshade (talk) 07:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PRSA

I went ahead and started a string on the edit-warring board. [5] CorporateM (Talk) 13:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wtshymanski's unco-operative editing at High-leg delta

DieSwartzPunkt could use some help putting together a new WP:RFCUSER on this subject. See here for details. I B Wright (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to third opinion on iOS jailbreaking

Have you finished providing feedback on the third opinion suggestions at Talk:IOS jailbreaking#Comments on recent edits? I saw that you didn't respond to all of it, but I don't know if you're planning to make more comments. If you're finished, I'll post to the third opinion editor's talk page to let them know that we're done with feedback. Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 05:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

unannotated references

hello;

on the article page jelq you

a) removed ALL the listed references as "spam"

then

b) reverted the article to a redirect, to a page that DOES NOT EVEN MENTION THE WORD

without

c) discussing it on the talk page

in the time since i re-created the article, borth myself and another user have contributed to it, which suggests that i am not along in supporting the move.

your actions could reasonably be considered to be "bad form", particularly removing ALL the references. with all due respect, i would expect more//better practice from an experienced user.

if you feel a continued interest in the article (which seems to fall outside of your normal "range of interests" @ wikip), please contribute your opinions on the talk page. :)

respectfully,

Lx 121 (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CFORK. From reading the article, jelq, its basically another word for the article it was merged into. You undid the merger that was done years ago. having two articles over the same thing or substantially similar things using a synonym serves no purpose. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

as i've already said at least TWICE now, the "merged" article DID NOT INCLUDE ANY USE OF THE WORD ITSELF (jelq), making it completely useless as a redirect. what exactly is an end-user supposed to make of a "redirect" that provides no information about the word they are attempting to look up? the "merged" article also did not (as far as i could find on reading through it), include any adequate description of the technique. Lx 121 (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A note to both of you: I've removed those "references", since none of them meet WP:RS, and nominated the article for deletion. If we can find a few references in RS that verify the existence of the "technique", then I don't mind having an article (though a merger discussion could be appropriate), but note as I said in the AfD that any info about the actual process or its effectiveness could only be added with WP:MEDRS compliant sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greeting and a request for your opinion

Hi Cantaloupe, I have been sorry not to see you at the chiropractic article for a few days. I thought that you were doing a good job of improving the article there; I hope I did not play any significant role in your decision to move-on by mistakenly insulting you or frustrating you? So far there seems to be consensus for most of the changes that have been made over the past 2 weeks. I am still attempting discussion at the talk page for 2 concerns (neither of them are concerning your edits), but one of those discussions has stalled. I made a specific proposal at the talk page a few days ago that followed a more general 'parent' discussion. Today I tried to briefly summarize my remaining concern at the bottom of the thread. If you have time, I would appreciate it if you would review the discussion and provide your objective opinion on the issue. Also, do you think I am approaching this appropriately? Thanks and Regards! Puhlaa (talk) 07:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion and article and both painfully long to read to play around with it casually, so I just haven't been working on it. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate your concern that the discussion is very tedious. I tried my best to summarize my concern and the relevant discussion here, in hopes that I could convince objective editors to at least have a look at the issue. If you are not interested, then I can understand that as well. Thanks and regards, Puhlaa (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in helping improve a different set of articles?

Hi Cantaloupe2! I thought this might be of interest to you: User talk:Dreamyshade#MicroStrategy - here's a software company that's placed quite a lot of promotional material in articles, regrets the mistake, and is now interested in seeing neutral editors improve those articles. I imagine this might be a fun chance to apply your passion for NPOV to some articles where the consensus is that they're currently problematic. The paid editor is going to focus on rewriting Michael Saylor and MicroStrategy, but there are other associated articles and edits that need to be reviewed too - see my COIN post and especially this list of affected articles. Just a thought; no problem if you're busy enough already. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll prolly look into it after ANI dust settles down. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Safety section" dispute resolution

Hi, if you get a chance, could you stop by here and help tie up a few loose ends to resolve the safety section dispute? petrarchan47 t c 04:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Live-line working, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page OSHA (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) 11:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi, thanks so much for moving the Adderall page so quickly, I have no idea why that wasn't already done. However, wouldn't a more apt name be amphetamine salts, since the plural in "salts" implies the combo? Additionally, this is typically the term used in medical literature. Thanks again. Exercisephys (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A priori, "amphetamine salts combo" may make more sense. However, I'm fairly certain that "amphetamine salts" is used significantly more often, at least in the US. I'll poke through more medical literature and see what it uses. Exercisephys (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will find a source

"In some restaurants, managers or owners take a percentage of servers' tips. In some restaurants, servers are asked to give a percentage of their tips to busboys and kitchen staff." Regarding the above two sentences, the requirement in Wikipedia is not that everything BE sourced, but that you should be able to provide a source. For example, you don't have to provide a source for "Paris is the capital of France", because it is well known that you could easily provide a source. Tipping out is not some obscure custom that only exists in the restaurants I worked at. Will get a source for these.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking for more reliable references

Thanks for asking for more reliable references for the tipping article. You are right that the student newspaper editorial was not in line with the NPOV requirements. I think I might have found some reliable references for the tipping article.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coaxial power connector, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Connector (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) 11:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior on Jump start

Can I ask you why you don't use a Workpage do complete your work? You would have all the time in the world, without this conflict. I want to restore material which has footnotes to published books and magazines, yet you make the bizarre accusation that this material is "personal blogs"? Published books and mainstream magazines are not personal blogs. Obviously. Whenever I encounter someone on Wikipedia who claims that up is down and black is white, the only solution I can think of is to seek a block at AIN. That seems terribly extreme for someone who just wants time to work on an article revision. That's what Workpages are for, so why not use a workpage and avoid the entire problem? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some external links are references

Be careful when deleting external links, like you did here. The link you deleted was actually a reference, just not one formatted the way we normally do now. The footnoting system on Wikipedia is not all that old; before it was added to the software it was not uncommon to cite websites by making an inline link. When deleting inline external links, you have to first evaluate whether the link is actually a reference that supports the text. This is even necessary with new contributions, since inexperienced editors may not know how to properly format a web reference and may use an inline link by mistake.

Note that Wikipedia:External links (and WP:ELNO) explicitly does not apply to citations/references.--Srleffler (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CFORK. In the mid 2000s, this style was a common form of SEO tactic to generate leads and publicity by cross linking anything remotely relevant to the topic. If the same link can be found in "category", its not appropriate to blast it all over again in each article. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed my point. This wasn't about the removal of the See also section, or about any large-scale cross-linking. Rather, you deleted one specific inline external link that was, in fact, a reference that had been created before the current footnoting system existed on Wikipedia. Before deleting inline external links, you need to think about what role they serve in the article. Links that are, in fact, references supporting the previous sentence need to be converted into proper footnoted citations, and should not be deleted.--Srleffler (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Energy-efficient driving

Please clean-up the references section. Thanks --Frze (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will over the next few days. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gujarati cuisine may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

relatives traveling long distances to attend.{{Citation needed|date=September 2009}} These days{{when?|date=August 2013]], sweets served as part of a ''[[thali]]'' are more typically made from [[milk]], [[sugar]], and [[
* ''Bateta nu Shaak'' Curry)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI edits

hey, i am rather sensitive to and intolerant of CoI editing (feel free to check my contribs, of course), but getting into an edit war over the COI policy page is a sure way to poison the well, so to speak. talk it out, make sure everything is well-established and understood, and then make the changes. there is no other way. sometimes that's disappointing, but that's how it is. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and if your rationale and changes are good, i will be more than happy to vocally support your changes. but as of right now, insufficient talk/understanding. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That just appears to be another way of saying you'll lend hand to changes that you find agreeable. Note you said "changes" as "good" which appears to be subjective evaluation on personal value or perspective you intend on preserving. You say my argument in talk is "insufficient" yet you've only provided ambiguity and rhetorics devoid of any real argument on contents. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

institutions change slowly. I saw your changes and did not revert the first time, preferring to see if someone else did. they did. they acknowledged your good faith actions. but despite this, instead of engaging on the talk page you have seen fit to re-institute the changes that were reverted. for better or for worse, this is a community. if you choose not to respect that there are many people of good faith here, then i would not be surprised if your changes were dismissed entirely. i don't think i want that to happen, and this is why i am attempting to engage you directly. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 08:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(former) proposed Merge on Air conditioner inverter

Hey C2. Re the proposed merge I had put on Air conditioner inverter, that discussion was closed with no consensus, as noted on the Talk page there some time ago. That is why I removed the Proposed merge tag from the article, which you reverted.

Unless someone re-proposes the merge, that tag really doesn't belong there, as the link leads editors to a page where no active discussion is going on. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the point is C2, in order to avoid a revert war, which I absolutely refuse to get into with you due to your previous uncivil behavior, and generally disruptive editing on that particular article, YOU should be the one to revert your own reversion. No merge discussion tag is warranted in that article, since the previous discussion was closed with no consensus, and no merge discussion currently exists at the merge discussion link goes to. You broke it; you fix it. N2e (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Monitor

Thanks for your input on the article (tags). Per WP:TAGGING, Could you please specify your concerns on the talk page? Then we can discuss them, address them, and remove the tags. Thanks, I look forward to working together to improve the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

The official technical term is pay per click, not cost per click. --Jonhope123 (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COI guideline

Hi Cantaloupe, your edits to the guideline have been reverted by six editors, which means your changes don't have consensus. The way forward is to start to argue your case on the talk page, rather than continuing to revert. Please see WP:BRD, and more importantly WP:3RR. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring at WP:COI (and hostile editing elsewhere)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 01:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 02:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Cantaloupe2. You have new messages at UseTheCommandLine's talk page.
Message added 06:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

[ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 06:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

I have noticed your recent interactions with User:UseTheCommandLine, and to me this warning seems to be exactly the kind of tit-for-tat accusation that featured prominently in your RfC. You should also be more careful about accusations of disruptive editing; for example here I cannot tell what "disruptive editing" you claim to undo; the link you removed in that edit had been in the article for years and was not among the links you had removed earlier that day. Since the admin closing your RfC suggested arbitration you should try and avoid this kind of behaviour lest matters escalate. Huon (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you follow the edit history? When you visit the link, you get

"Item Not Found Return to the Previous Page The item you've requested, /cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/1999/01/20/FD36414.DTL, was not found."

I located the identical page on the paper's page and replaced it with a good URL that works.

The URL was also in the page twice, as a reference, then as an EL. I thinned it down so that there is only one copy of it. What I was referring to as disruptive is the inserting back the OLD DEAD URL that does not work, and in incorrect format after a working one had been put in place Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except UseTheCommandLine inserted back a different URL, namely http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/17/FDBL1JVVMI.DTL&ao=all, one that worked and that you had already removed again in a different edit. Also, he did so before you added the working URL for the other article. So yes, I did follow the edit history. Huon (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WinCo Foods

From Help:Minor edit:

When to mark an edit as a minor edit ...
Obvious factual errors (e.g., changing "Nixon resigned in 1874" to "Nixon resigned in 1974")

Updating the count of stores and providing a source is, in fact, a minor edit. Note also that Help:Minor edit exempts edits that "differ only superficially (typographical corrections, etc.), in a way that no editor would be expected to regard as disputable." It's a number. The number is easily verified from the provided reliable source text. Note also that inserting boiler-plate warnings onto existing editors pages is generally frowned upon. Better to write a personalized message if you find yourself in dispute with an established editor than to risk escalating the situation with a templated message. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the part about when NOT to mark as minor, which includes adding/removing sources, as you did. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding or removing "references", plural. I only added one. As an aside, that number was previously not referenced at all, I suppose I should have just left it unsourced. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree the changes you made are "obvious factual "like the Nixon example, or "a bicycle is a human powered vehicle with 20 wheels..". Something that is unambiguously wrong under any reasonable view. You should have just made the change as a normal edit and not a minor. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you'll have to live with disappointment then. As per usual, we disagree. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Walmart

And now you've resorted to following me about the wiki to articles you've never touched to continue your campaign. Please read Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding. Stop, immediately. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article in which we're both editing contains source which references Walmart and the two articles are immensely related. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is irrelevant. If you're saying you refuse to stop, please let me know, WP:ARBCOM is right over there waiting for this. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles" The edit you made to Walmart was about presentation of view on Winco. Therefore, I deny that the allegation you're making had occurred. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're WP:WIKILAWYERing. Stop it. You stalked my contribs for no good reason except to cause me distress. There was no violation of policy nor unambiguous error to be corrected that justified your action. I must take your responses so far to be indicative of your intent to continue to stalk my contributions; I will give you one last chance to say you'll stop. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Edit Reverts

Regarding these edits, my understanding is that you don't revert an edit if it is mistakenly marked as minor. Instead, you do a dummy edit. To edit war over something so minor (contextual pun intended) is silly. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some users have their settings set to ignore minor edit. This edit is so that the editor who did this can re-do the change as to not become hidden under the filter for editors watching this page and have the settings set to ignore minor changes. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Various suggestions regarding recent edits of yours

Hi Cantaloupe2. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I looked through some of your recent ones. Let me make some random suggestions, if I may.

You've removed a lot of spam and COI; thank you very much for that.
My philosophy is that — if a page can successfully be deleted — I don't fix anything, I just tag it for deletion. Schrödinger (company) has only a couple hundred employees; it's probably not notable. May I suggest you tag it with {{notability}}. You can use Twinkle's handy drop-down menu, which lets you select "notability|Companies" with just a few more clicks. Next: WP:CORPDEPTH says, "Attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." A "company snapshot" in the BusinessWeek "company insight center" is perhaps just a directory listing combined with a non-independent company description. The Portland Business Journal articles are probably mere local coverage. The journal articles seem to me to be merely of limited interest. I was hoping for coverage in media not merely of limited interest of circulation. If you search for evidence of notability and don't find any, then PROD or AfD would be appropriate. If an AfD of yours ever gets relisted due to lack of response, feel free to contact me.
Some of the other articles Gsmith8 (talk · contribs) has touched might also have notability problems: at least the Jaguar article.
My philosophy is not to warn COI users on their user talk pages at first: warning a user alerts them to the fact that you've reverted their edits. But if they persist, then I do tend to warn them. Warning them using warning levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 in order makes it easier to get them blocked if necessary. Watch out for sockpuppetry. Remember, if a user edits under a mixed combination of one username plus one IP, that's still sockpuppetry. Warn the user, then open an investigation if applicable.
The text you removed in this edit seems to me to have been true and correct. You called it a "personal reflection" and removed it; are you sure, in retrospect, that this was wise?
Why not use Twinkle? It makes article maintenance tagging and other tasks easier. If you do install it, I recommend you visit your personal Twinkle preferences panel and enable the CSD-logging and PROD-logging features. These features create logs like this one in your userspace.
WP:Popups is also very useful.
I tagged MarkMonitor with {{overquotation}}, which I feel is a good fit for the current problem there.
I've been recently experimenting with a custom tmbox about biased edits. You can see it at the very top of Talk:Army of Freshmen. It is CC-BY-SA + GFDL licensed, so feel free to do with it what you like. Eventually it should perhaps be made into its own template. It would be very unwise to use it on article pages. Since it describes future events; it only makes sense to use it on talk pages. I don't know whether or not it's effective in encouraging Wikipedians to fight COI edits, but I hope it is.

Personally, I like feedback and advice. Please feel free to provide it to me anytime. I have not watchlisted your talk page, so if you reply, please either use {{talkback}} or move the conversation to my page.

Cheers,

—Unforgettableid (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about Inverter Compressor article

Hello,

You wrote this about "inverter compressor article" we created few mounths ago : "A lot of contents were added by Danfoss PR editor to promote the technology to make itself look good which does not promote objective exhibition of inverter driven compressor in encyclopedic manner. The whole page looks like a sell sheet." So I want to answer to you that Danfoss is a major contributor and has close connection with the subject which helps having experience, knowledge and credibility. Variable speed technology applied to compressors exists for several decades and nobody did the article before. That is why we made the decision to write this article and to spend days on this. Other manufacturer write articles in Wikipedia related to technology. The aim of this article is not to be promotionnal. We refer to several articles which have varied editors. We are open to remove and modify what Wiki wishes if it helps to lift the blocking points...!!! So please answer, we are open to discuss about it and improve the article ! Thank You ! C Capucine (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. v/r - T P 18:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Community block per the consensus here.--v/r - T P 18:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

92.22.42.194 (talk)

This is not Andrew Dressels [sic] own CV advertising blog. This is Wikipedia How dare you put your own pic up as bike mechanic when all you've done is work in a bike shop for 17 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.42.194 (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We hav [sic] a class one nutter attempting to lay claim to all the cycling entries. Rewriting articles to put your name to. adding a picture of yourself working(allegedly) on a bicycle. how can you claim to be a mechanic with a mere 17 months experience ?. Those like myself who pick up on this are then personally attacked. Walter Mitty without a doubt. Clearly the foundation should go the special extra mile and in a change of policy ban the likes of you and your opinions. Much of then [sic] are only that. Wiki is to be factual and you know little. I bet you haven't even got a bike you fraud 92.22.42.194 (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

These comments must be from the person that used to edit under user:Cantaloupe2, right? Why else would they be inserted in this ANI notification section, be so full of typographical errors, and be so bitter? The change in the link to the old Administrators Notice Board discussion from "en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cantaloupe2.2C_assuming_bad_faith.2C_Wikistalking.2C_misinterpreting_policies" to "en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cantaloupe2.2C_hits_nail_squarely.2C_on.2C_its_head" is particularly hilarious.

Anyway, as to your "points":

Do you know what is the required time for a person to work as a bicycle mechanic before they may be referred to as a bicycle mechanic? I haven't seen that spec. I suspect, however, that working full-time at a bike shop, drawing a paycheck from a bike shop, and lasting more than a season at a bike shop, would be sufficient.

Do you know where it is stated in the wikipedia policies or guidelines that uploaded images should not contain the likeness of the uploader? I haven't seen that either. I do know, however, that the easiest way to have the necessary rights to an image, which seems to be the main thing wikipedia cares about, is to create it yourself, as by taking a photograph.

How on earth do you construe "working on articles in which I have an interest" as "attempting to lay claim to all the cycling entries?" How do you think I have laid claim? By having my userID appear in the edit history? You realize that happens automatically, right? And if an editor edited many articles, in an attempt to improve them, for example, their userID would appear in the edit history of many articles. Is that what you mean by "lay claim?"

I know enough. I know I need to find reliable sources to support the assertions I make, and I know I need to be civil and avoid edit wars with other users. I know it is not a good idea to edit under an anonymous IP address to evade a block and make baseless accusations against another editor in good standing on their own talk page. What more do I need?

And now, the best for last: do I even have a bike? You'll love this part. Several of them are pictured in the appropriate wikipedia articles, because there isn't even a rule preventing editors from taking pictures of their own bicycles and uploading them. Can you imagine?

Cheers, enjoy your indefinite block, and be careful to avoid sock puppetry. -AndrewDressel (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Fourlokoproducts.jpg

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Fourlokoproducts.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stand-alone inverter

You deleted this article as "pollution", which seems weird. Care to discuss at Talk:Power_inverter#Stand-alone_inverter_article? Slava Ukraini fellas (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]