User talk:Groink

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello Groink, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Ragib 22:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Thanks!

The image of the Apple CAT-II is much appreciated! Maury 12:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

But... "And, modem-only companies are not networking companies". I'm not sure this is entirely true. While at a full "geek level" definition it may be defendable, I think given any broader definition modems are indeed a form of networking. Maury 21:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
This is based on the current list of networking companies in that category. You don't see other modem-only companies like Hayes Microsystems such. Groink 03:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh I know, but I think that's a problem. Unless there is some other cat for modem companies? Maury 14:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's one thought: Novation was actually a telecommunications equipment company. Hayes Microsystems, Kentronix, HyperEdge, and many other companies are also considered telecomm equipment companies. Telecomm and networking, from an engineering perspective, are different. For example, a router is a networking product. The CSU/DSU that connects the router to the telco is a telecomm product. That's basically the distinction I have in mind. With that, you could possibly throw Novation into Category:Telecommunications equipment vendors. Groink 00:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion! Maury 12:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taiga Drama

Thanks for the edits! I am still trying to import the list over, and it is proving to be a bit hard (with personal life and all). Thanks! Arbiteroftruth 09:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YA

Hey, saw you were putting the article up for deletion again. You have to finish the process by adding the third step to the log page so it shows up. And did you place it in the O (I think that's it) category for corporations? on camera 07:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I added it to the log page. on camera 07:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! My first time doing this. Groink 07:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why I removed the YA Entertainment synopses

I'm being pro-active by writing the following explanation before a kim-chee drama fanatic starts flaming me for my edits. In summary, I removed all the synopses that were linked to YA Entertainment's web site. I did this per guidelines set by the official policy Wikipedia:Copyrights.

In case you don't have the time to read the Wikipedia Copyright article, here's a summary: You cannot just plagiarize an external web site and at the same time claim you received permission to use the information. It doesn't work like that in real-life. Your word is no good on Wikipedia - no one's going to believe you. If we were to allow you to post copyrighted material just because you said the owner said you could use it, we would have to make a huge effort to verify that claim, by e-mailing the owner of the material, browse through the external web site looking for licensing information... It's just a HUGE headache on the part of the other editors. The reason it is vital for Wikipedia to be clean of copyrighted material is because Wikipedia itself allows people, called downstreamers, to use its material on their own web sites. If DramaWiki, for example, copied the synopsis for Jumong from Wikipedia, DramaWiki would be indirectly violating copyright law because the synopsis was originally owned by YA Entertainment. Wikipedia does not want that sort of thing to happen.

Exactly how would a contributor properly use copyrighted material from an external web page for Wikipedia use? First, the material posted on Wikipedia must include the EXACT URL of the external web site from where the material came from. Then, on that external web site page, there must be a clause somewhere in the page that says something along the line of "WikipediaUser has permission to use the material on this web page for use on Wikipedia AND its downstream users."

A more formal way of obtaining permission and proving it would be to follow the guidelines explained in this Wikipedia document. It explains how to write the permission e-mail and how to forward the information to the Wikimedia Communications committee. Hope this information helps!

[edit] Kurów

Could you please write a stub http://haw.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kur%C3%B3w - just a few sentences based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kur%C3%B3w ? Only 3-5 sentences enough. Please.

PS. Article about Kurów is already on 171 languages. If you do that, please put interwiki link into English version. If your village/town/city hasn't on PL wiki, I can do article about it. (I'm first author of requests) Pietras1988 TALK 20:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pogs

  • Pogs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • I was the one that reverted your edit. I explained my revert on the article's talk page. The bot that you stopped didn't revert your edit. Please read the article talk page. Sancho 08:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yoshitsune (drama) deleted

I have looked at the license for DramaWiki and found that it is "attribution-share-alike" [1], which is not enough for copying under the GFDL. Note that it doesn't prevent other types of copying, so if you don't want content showing up on other websites, you might want to rethink the policy. --Alvestrand 06:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed my previous reply. I totally forgot I was even on Wikipedia, thinking I was on another wiki. Groink 07:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scouting in Hawaii

Can you please help render "Be Prepared", the Scout Motto, into Hawaiian? Mahalo! Chris 04:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Squire

Hey Groink, can I ask the reasoning behind changing all the dates to hyperlinks? I do not see how the linking page gives further relevance to the article. --Macr237 04:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is to comply with WP:DATE in that Wikipedia does not allow ordinal dating. Therefore, dating should utilize autoformatting of dates, such as [[September 3]] [[2007]] so that 1) it conforms to Wikipedia style, and 2) it allows for users' date and time preference to set the date formatting they want, rather than have the article dictate the formatting for the reader. Groink 05:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Groink. I'm afraid Macr237 is correct. You've been a bit overenthusiastic and have peppered the James Squire with a good number of links - the majority of which are considered, under current guidelines, as trivial. The guideline you refer to, WP:DATE#Dates, does state: "Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic." Added to which the autoformating to which you refer (even when used moderately) is the subject of a debate, and may be discontinued:

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#another_inflexibility_in_the_autoformatting_system. These guidelines are also useful to look at: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Overlinking_and_underlinking:_what.27s_the_best_ratio.3F and WP:OVERLINK. A modest amount of helpful date linking is helpful - however, the large amount you have used is seen as off-putting and counter-productive. Regards SilkTork *** SilkyTalk 07:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The intent of the linking has nothing to do with linking. Rather, it is unfortunate that MediaWiki software uses linking as a means for the autolinking to work. The unfortunate outcome of overlinking is a byproduct of the system, and not because I like linking dates. Besides, I also removed linking from years where it didn't have a month/day next to it. Personally, I would've used templates instead, but for now Wikipedia hasn't implemented that. As for the talk link, it is just talk. Until they use the comments in the discussion and convert them to an actual Wikipedia policy... Groink 07:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
So what do you say that we agree that the formatting of dates is now correct throughout, but we ditch those useless links which have no purpose, meaning or use in the article? -- Macr237 09:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. :) Groink 23:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Groink. I will amend -- Macr237 00:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 67.68.53.237

I noticed that earlier, you were the admin who blocked 67.68.53.237 from editing. FYI, he's at it again. Groink 00:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I blocked the vandal's IP. Dreadstar † 03:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi,did anyone record 67.68.53.237's vandilism?Just wondering.IslaamMaged126 20:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to become a recent changes patroller

do you know how to become a recent changes patroller?IslaamMaged126 20:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I've got the article watchlisted and will be keeping an eye on it - but let me know if the warring starts up again. You did the right thing by asking the other editor to discuss on the talk page instead of revert warring. I've also left a note on the other editor's talk page. Dreadstar † 16:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! This editor is very persistent. Check UEFA Cup records and statistics; he has a long history of reverting with very little to no basis on his edits. You can have a dozen other editors coming up with a consensus, and he STILL will favor his data. You just can't deal with him on a logical level. Something else needs to be done. How do you deal with this type of editor? Groink 00:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
You've done the right thing by bringing more attention to the issue. I've watchlisted the UEFA CR&S page as well. I've warned the other editor about edit warring and to instead discuss on the talk page - and to add civil edit summaries when making an edit - so hopefully that behavior will stop. Gaining consensus is a good way to deal with something like this, exactly as ArielGold states here. BTW, you should set up email, we can also communicate that way. Dreadstar † 10:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Input

As I noticed you were previously involved with this issue, I thought you might want to take a look at Talk:Boy_band#Top_boyband_list, and weigh in with your thoughts, if you have time, and care to. Cheers! Ariel♥Gold 02:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the iPod touch image....

Okay, Groink, I wiped AND cleaned my iPod touch before taking the picture, it's been cropped as well.....


AND IF YOU THINK THIS PICTURE IS TOO AMATUREISH, I AM CONSIDEREING THE REVERTING OF IMAGE A VANDALISM, NO QUESTIONS ASKED....

I took this picture to better illustrate the interface of the iPod touch.....

This image is the best I could do....

I AM REVERTING THE IMAGE IMMEDIETLEY, IF YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING TRY REVERTING THE IMAGE BACK, DON'T EVEN TRY, BECUASE I WILL REPORT YOU TO ADMIN FOR VANDALISM....


AND IF YOU ARE SAYING THE REASONS ON THE ON WHY THE IMAGE WAS REVERTED ARE TRUE, THEN TRY TAKING THE PICTURE YOURSELF, ITS' HARDER THAN YOU THINK IT IS.....

Thank you Bentoman 00:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kouhaku song list

The list of songs for the 58th NHK Kouhaku have been announced just today. You may see the list at http://www3.nhk.or.jp/kouhaku/syutuen/index.html. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 12:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much!!!!! :) Groink (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] iTouch

That edit fixes the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.252.149.0 (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] iPhone current abilities

  • Regarding your change to my recent iPhone edits, please visit the discussion I started on iPhone's Talk page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IPhone#iPhone_current_capabilities
--Jason C.K. (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brat Pack (movies)

I noticed you had participated in previous discussions about this article. Please feel free to comment on some of the recent changes. Thanks. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List_of_top_100_web_sites_in_the_United_Kingdom

This list is compiled every quarter based on the previous three months of aggregated historical traffic data from millions of users as well as page views. Please note that the rankings may be controversial but not the distribution stats for each domain. The next list is likely to be updated on 1st July 2008.

I believe lists are better than long narratives in explaining the complex market structures that are still evolving in the online economy. For instance, each domain listed above used to be a specialist in atleast one segment viz advertising, search engine, etc. Google can longer be called as a search engine company as they control almost 70 per cent of the online advertising market now.

This list would be expanded, given time, to include UK-specific revenues, employees, market shares, specialisation, etc... It is a work in progress. The list is now sortable with additional data from Compete.com. So, it is no longer a wholesale reproduction of Alexa ranks only.

No hyperlink possible - Data on visitors from UK is not available online. So, no duplication or plagiarism of work is involved. The list collates data from two sources - compete.com and alexa.com - via permalinks to give the UK snapshot.Anwar (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Not original research. It is better referred as data mining. The information about visitors was already wellknown within the industry. But it was not available for public consumption until now (for free). The list is as good as the lists for GDP. Easily maintenable as visitor trend tends to peak or stabilise when the product reaches critical mass with the public. So ranks are unlikely to change dramatically in a short timespan unless somegame-changing event or technology arrives next season.Anwar (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Thanks for the heads up on the RfC, but I just wanted to point out that the link in the body of the message went to the wrong one. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 15:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:YunaItoGroink.png

Hi there! I noticed you added a non-free rationale to Image:YunaItoGroink.png. From what I understand, you have taken the picture, and uploaded it with a free license, therefore it is not necessary to add that. Maybe you misunderstood about the non-free rationale purpose? If you did a mistake, I can just delete the page since it is already found at Wikimedia Commons. Cheers! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I was basically acting on the warning about the photo not having a rationale. If you think it isn't necessary, then please remove it. Thanks! Groink (talk) 05:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] iPhone Images

Hi Groink, I hope I didn't come across to harsh in making the CD objective secondary to the betterment of the image (via fair use vs. the commons). Is there a way to have our cake and eat it too by substituting commons images just before the article gets added to the CD? Then we can revert to something that's more appealing to the masses. Mattnad (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really sure. I'll look into it. Thanks! Groink (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)