User talk:Ehudshapira

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk!

[edit] Regarding Nothing to See Here

True, there is really nothing to see here. However, do not ever, I mean ever, remove content that I have added to Wikipedia unless it is a correction of erroneous content... I do not know who you are but your deletion of some of my content on SEMATECH was hopefully well-intentioned but narrow in its scope and inappropriate. Your addition did not reference the organizational strategic departure that my addition was intended to include. Too little information is most often as dangerous as too much information, or no information at all... and usually is the product of a circumvented mind and its subsequent mindset... Stevenmitchell 01:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not know who you are either, but if you want to be taken seriously, a thuggish spoiled brat attitude is the wrong choice. Clearly you did not understand the idea of Wikipedia. If you are looking for a place where other people cannot ever, I mean ever, change your inspired writings, I suggest taking a gander at www.geocities.com. As for the actual comment buried within your insults, the paragraph which your line concluded already described the fact the organization is no longer US-exclusive. Since I added the list of companies, anyone who is interested can take a quick glance and see how many are or are not US.

And a constructive tip; despite how you may perceive your own edits, other people might and will find some of them redundant or pointless. Comment your edits or use the dicussion page if you believe there is a need. Happy wiki-editing. -- ehudshapira 17:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QuickPar

You are NOT to remove "citation needed" tags WITHOUT providing the proper cite. The "External Links" section of a page is NOT a citation. Please provide the required citation or cease reverting the tag. "Superior" is a serious judgement call - even if the QuickPar website calls one format "superior", since the program relies on the PAR/PAR2 format, it's hardly a reliable source. Please check Wikipedia:Citing_sources for what's acceptable as a source before including it and removing the tag. Alvis 05:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What about citations for the fact it uses Reed-Solomon, that it can reconstruct the originals, or that it's a software for Windows? It's pointless to overzealously stick a citation next to every piece of trivia. The QuickPar author is part of the group who came up with PAR and later PAR2. If you care for the details, they are in the site and the accompanying SourceForge pages. The same goes for the fact it's popular in Usenet binary groups; besides being common knowledge, it's also the initial use PAR was created for. -- ehudshapira 15:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, it SHOULD have citations for ALL those facts. Wikipedia is based on cited works, NOT what's common knowledge. If an uncited bit is challenged, a citation must be provided or it may be removed. The algorithm, for example, is not likely to be challenged, because it's the kind of statement that is readily verifiable. Statements of questionable or opinionated material, like saying something's "superior" or "often used", are begging for citations to be demanded. If you have citations from the QuickPar site or SourceForge that are usable as sources per WP:REF, then PLEASE include them in the article before any content needs to be removed. Alvis 07:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Riemersma dithering

An article that you have been involved in editing, Riemersma dithering, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riemersma dithering. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 12:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)