User talk:Potatoswatter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wow, I actually got you to join! That's great! I noticed your contribs to Matt Burch and I was pleasantly surprised to see an anonymous user that doesn't vandalize. Welcome! RedRollerskate 18:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Your AfD for 68h

Hi, I noticed that you had some problems completing the AfD for 68h. I fixed/remade the page for you, but in the future, if you are going to add something for AfD, please read the instructions on the page. Thanks. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 05:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hehe... yeah, the instructions just didn't say about the "(2nd nomination)" part. Then the second time through I didn't follow the instructions exactly. I think we might have had an edit conflict... anyway it's OK now. Thx for tolerating the n00b sloppiness :vP ! Potatoswatter 05:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit summary in Kalamar

Dear Potatoswatter, Thanks for your edits in Kalamar, but your edit summary; -- don't create articles to support your stub template campaign is an accusation and distruptive.

  • No need to make a campaign( you called as..)
  • No need create articles to support stub template, allready there are numerous articles in this cat.
  • Kalamar is created since it is required; old links was to "Kingdom of ..." which is in correct.
  • I cleaned-up all links( before your edit in Kalamar] to Kalamar from all articles, and linked to the correct articles like as Fried calamari. You can check these last two articles with "What links here".

Please dont make any accusation before you obtain correct info, I would prefer to contact me before your accusation. Regards, happy edits. MustTC 10:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I said that; it was not nice. I was checking the recent changes list and saw you had dashed off a one-sentence article, then proceeded to claim the previous meaning of the word was bogus over the repeated objections of another editor (you had reverted twice out of three). Strangely your initial edit comment was "template." Why would the template be significant? It's marked for deletion. So the first other thing I saw from you was your argument that your template should not be deleted. So it was a bit suspicious. And still you say Kingdoms of Kalamar is "in correct." It is as correct as your meaning.
You were already edit-fighting with someone else when I arrived... even if you're fighting with me now at least the article is OK.
And you still don't convey what Kalamar is in the disambiguation page. Is it any Turkish squid dish, or fried squid specifically? Potatoswatter 10:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I dont like/want to make any edit/rv war with anybody. Please check the situation that you stated. There were two new-comer user and they directly jumped to revert these articles. I and Baristarim reverted them back.
There were no newcomers and user:baristarim wasn't involved in this article. How would being new make their opinion less important?
  • war with you? no make any sense,why? as we did here, we can solve/find consensus in any matter.
I'm referring to escalating the issue here so I have to defend my user page. We are now arguing over nothing (except pride) and yet we have not found consensus here.
That is called wikipedia:disambiguation. Where does nationalism come in? And you just added a link to Turkish Kalamar in the English Calamari disambiguation page. That doesn't belong - why would someone be looking up a Turkish word in that article?
  • Kalamar -which I did some small edits on- can be stay as it is to give guidance to readers or; can be directed to/merged with Calamari.My prefer is to reorganize Calamari and redirect Kalamar to Calamari.What is your oppinion?Regards

MustTC 11:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Other people hold kalamar to refer to a computer game. That is why another user complained when you removed that meaning from the page. We need to listen to him. And you still haven't answered whether kalamar appears in non-fried form in Turkish seafood, so I don't know whether the link to non-fried calamari is appropriate.Potatoswatter 15:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Kalamar(in Turkish) refers to;1-Sea animal, 2- Fried calamari(Kalamar tava)-seafood, 3-Filled calamari(Kalamar dolma; with rice,tomato,pepper etc)-seafood, 4-Calamari salad(Kalamar salata)-seafood.Regards.MustTC 21:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ruhnama

Hi, I added the template to Ruhnama because the page has sources, but the sources are not presented as references. See Saparmurat Niyazov for an example of a referenced article - if you scroll down towards the bottom you will see a section that lists the references separately from the external links. Regards, KazakhPol 23:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Davinci sort

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Davinci sort, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still feel the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Awyong J. M. Salleh 01:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On censorship on news concerning anti-semitism

Please do not censor news on claims that you know what is "interesting or not". I see every day thousands of really, completely boring, irrelevant, and totally alien to my field interests news in Current events, and I don't censor them on the pretext that it is "somehow interesting". I think you might want to read closely the Vichy France article and understand why it is relevant. Thanks, PS: if you don't have the time, or patience, for all of this long article, have a least a look at Vichy France#Vichy's racial policies and collaboration. Then we can have a nice talk and discuss if it relevant or not to include this kind of stuff in "Current news." Do you know the expression: "Never more?" Have a look also at "Dirty War": they have the same expression, but in Spanish, it is Nunca Mas! And tell me what's happening in today's planet, all right? Cheers, sorry for being a bit upset about that, but I'm sure you'll understand me. Tazmaniacs

I said it was interesting. The reason I removed it was that it was trivial. Your blurb quoted someone saying the law was inconsequential. In the States we likewise have laws dating back to segregation - even up to the 1960's era - that forbid mixing of races. The process for removing the laws from the books was never followed because the laws are never enforced. It is understood that they are inconsequential, rather disgraceful, somewhat interesting curiosities. Certainly not news, as they've been sitting there for decades without doing anything. If they were to be enforced, that would be news, but likewise only a curiosity because the legal process would immediately overturn and repeal the law in that locality.
My family is Jewish and I was born in Israel. Saying those laws are a curiosity doesn't trivialize the Holocaust, and saying county laws in Georgia (state) or wherever are trivial doesn't trivialize American slavery and segregation. But the fact is it's WRONG to get worked up over these things, and they're not enforced and they're not new and they're not news. There's no conspiracy out there putting these laws on the books; it's just part of how the legal process works. Nobody sits around revising old laws.
I didn't read the article because it is in French. Forgive me that at least :vP . Potatoswatter 04:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Read it courtesy Google translation. The tenant is not outraged. The advocacy group suggests that the tenants get together with their co-ops and take out the offending statements. Nobody's suggesting legal recourse and the statements are part of contracts, not laws. The article doesn't even give an example of a restriction or ordinance. It just says that there's something that applies to Jews. Why not follow some current discrimination, like those Hare Krishna in Kazakhstan? Potatoswatter 05:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "unreferenced", "fact", "cleanup" etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 11:17 5 March 2007 (GMT).

[edit] Regarding edits made to Herb Gerwig

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Potatoswatter! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule obsessedwithwrestling\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 05:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to 65 nanometer

I noticed you deleted the reference to Cypress Semiconductor on the list of companies that are working on 65nm technology. Well, I've seen and handled 65nm tech at Cypress. So I restored it. -66.41.27.200 20:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Velama

Your message at WT:INB directed me to the Velama article. I have begun the clean up process and hope you'll join in. Abecedare 03:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  • cool. I'm out of town for the weekend but it'll be nice to help and see what we can do. Potatoswatter 06:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:User page

I think I've fixed it. The way you had it, your userpage was being added to the categories that the templates you wanted on your page were a part of. When you want the userbox, you shouldn't have the category in front of it. If you wanted the categories you should do what I originally did. When you have the brackets around a category like you originally had it messes things up a little bit. Hope that helps, VegaDark 04:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Let me explain a little better now that I re-read what you wrote on my page. Adding {{category: xyz}} is an incorrect syntax, and does not do what you think it does. Adding that does not add both the template and the category. Usually, the template will already have the category built in so you won't even need to add the category seperately, so you can just add {{xyz}} for the template. If it doesn't also add the category, then just add the category regularly. When you add something like {{category: xyz}}, it will place your user page in the categories that template xyz is in, which is wrong. I hope that better explains things. VegaDark 04:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay, thanks. Didn't realize the category page was just including a template! Potatoswatter 06:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Wikifrenzy's edits

I noticed that you reverted some of Wikifrenzy's edits (like 8th -> eighth). I have been reverting his/her edits too, but I am not so sure now... could you tell me where i can find which usage is correct? Thanks. - TwoOars (T | C) 08:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

See MOS:NUM#Numbers in words. Potatoswatter 19:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
But that does not say anything about ordinal numbers. All I found was this on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). - TwoOars (T | C) 19:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It says "whole numbers". It doesn't distinguish between cardinal and ordinal. (I was going to "fix" it but that doesn't actually seem necessary.) Potatoswatter 19:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh. Alright then, thanks. :) - TwoOars (T | C) 19:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent changes

May I ask why you made your recent changes? WP:MOSNUM does say "stay with established usage, and follow the lead of the first major contributor to the article." and as you can see the earliest changes use those types I changed to and also fit the reliable sources used for the article. Fnagaton 15:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That section of the style manual has more disclaimers than content. There's no consensus or advice there. Why care? In the greater world there are times where the difference is significant and the conservative attitude doesn't impress me. I revert any changes on my watchlist on the "get a life" principle. Potatoswatter 02:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Consensus is against you reverting those changes though as demonstrated by the other editors reverting them. Also the change is made to be consistent with the majority of reliable sources in those articles. Fnagaton 07:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Differences in notation are not substance to be proven or disproven by sources. Lack of consensus is demonstrated by the debate at MOS. That one side happens to persist in erasing lots of "i"s only proves that their personal time isn't worth very much. Potatoswatter 15:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
There wasn't consensus for the old guideline, but now it has been demonstrated less than a month ago hence the change to WP:MOSNUM including those changes. Fnagaton 16:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
What was demonstrated and what changes? MOSNUM simply says don't change things. Look, whatever. Potatoswatter 16:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Quick version of recent history: User:Sarenne went through a lot of articles changing KB/MB/GB to KiB/MiB/GiB. Lots of people disagreed. WP:MOSNUM was changed and now includes "stay with established usage, and follow the lead of the first major contributor to the article." Now User:Sarenne has been blocked for disruption (he was using anonymous proxies to edit all the articles when MOSNUM was changed) his edits are being removed. [[1]] [[2]] Fnagaton 16:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I get the sense you'd like to debate it again, but it actually first says this:

There is currently no consensus as to whether common binary prefixes or the IEC-recommended prefixes should be used in Wikipedia articles. For this reason, editors should refrain from changing prefixes from one style to the other, especially if they are not certain which term is appropriate within the context. The use of parentheses for binary prefixes "Example: 256 KB (KiB)" and/or footnotes to disambiguate prefixes is acceptable.

What you quote is what to "do" if the first rule fails, not an overriding justification for further wasting your time and others'.
You know it's dishonest to editorially copy anything from one place to another and erase a disclaimer. Potatoswatter 16:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Not quite correct, the edits made by Sarenne are not acceptable (they're disruption and anonymous proxy edits) and that was also discussed in WT:MOSNUM and the Village Pump, that's why they're getting reverted now. The first part where it says "don't change" is overridden by the second clause "follow the lead of the first major contributor", that's what was discussed during the change of WP:MOSNUM. Here is a relevant example. An article originally written using British English spelling concerning a British subject is suddenly changed to use American English spellings. The guideline says (paraphrase) don't change spellings, instead use the spellings of the first major contributor. Obviously the editor who changed to American English spellings ignored the guideline. So what happens? The spellings get reverted back to British English. You would agree that is correct yes? So anyway, the same situation applies here for WP:MOSNUM, the style is being reverted back to the style of the first major contributor and as such the edits by Sarenne are being removed. Fnagaton 17:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
"You would agree that is correct yes?" - no it's wasting time, the wrong course of action. Potatoswatter 18:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I can see you don't agree and you are welcome to your opinion but *Shrug* a lot of people do think British or American spelling is important. Likewise a lot of us who voted for the WP:MOSNUM changes also think it is important.Fnagaton 18:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:APPL-ttxt.png

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:APPL-ttxt.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. The Sunshine Man 15:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] D.M.K

I noticed that you tagged this redirect for speedy deletion under CSD R3. As the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam is referred to by its TLA, I don't think that this is an unreasonable redirect, so I removed the speedy tag. --Darksun 15:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No links to it... just in case someone types in D-period-M-period-K-(no period)-return? Potatoswatter 16:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Not incredibly likely, but I don't really see any harm in having the redirect anyway. --Darksun 18:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: motorola 68000

Good question, I probably copy-pasted from one of the other Motorola talk pages and put it there. Hope that answers your question. Happy editing! Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Off topic, but great job with the hist section of the 68000 article. --Anss123 22:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated! I never know what to expect when doing something like that... Potatoswatter 23:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mac 128

Hi:

Your latest version of the memory section of Mac 128k is definitely more acceptable. The point I was trying to make is that a non-expandable 128K was not comparable with the other computers at similar price points that could be expanded far beyond 128K.

As far as your contention that a Mac with more memory would of cost $10,000, I'm not sure that is valid. For one thing, Apple eight months later introduced a Mac with four times as much memory for only a 10% increase in price. The schematic link you provided in fact mentioned that the engineers in their design anticipated a quick jump to 512K, which did happen. Therefore the observation made at the time, that the original motherboard could of been upgraded if the chips had been socketed instead of soldered, still appears to be accurate. I am not sure why you removed the section on the upgrade issue (describing how the upgrade to 512K required an expensive motherboard replacement), you have not offered any facts to dispute this. Unless you can do so, I will probably put back in the paragraph on the upgrade issue, which did cause considerable controversy at the time and so is a valid part of the Mac's history.

> Getting Macintosh quality graphics was REALLY HARD for Apple at that price point

I'm not sure this is true, after all in 1984 you could buy for an affordable price a Hercules graphics card for your PC, which gave it 720 × 348 monochrome graphics (higher resolution than the Mac).

With the possible exception of the first Lisa, Apple computers have generally been equal or sometimes even inferior to PCs on a hardware level. Apple's advantage has always been in *software* (firmware plus the O.S.) and design; not raw hardware "horsepower". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikegt (talk • contribs) 22:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a better way of sending you a message? Let me know.

In regard to the board not being upgradable even if the chips had not been soldered on, your own link to the schematics refutes this - see the text on that page, which says:

 but the engineers, knowing that the first adopters of the Mac would upgrade their memory 
 quickly, designed it to house 512K to allow upgradability.

This is saying that the design of the first Mac motherboard supported up to 512K; but since the RAM chips ended-up being soldered on, not socketed, this was the reason why the board swap was needed to upgrade. BTW, I got this same information directly from Apple technicians in 1984. Unless you have an EE degree and access to the full design docs I don't see how you can say that they were wrong about this.

Mikegt 21:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BK XXL

Some of the links are all Adobe Flash, so there is no direct way to link them. You're a programmer, even if you're only in third grade, maybe you know a way to link directly to them.

And lets not forget the proper secondary source: Spain Nixes Burger King Ad

Jeremy (Jerem43 17:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] First thanx I've had in a while!

Your thanks is the first I've got in more than a year, maybe two!! I used Cyberdog a long time ago with a 68k Mac Quadra, when Apple was moving to PowerPC, and it was in a long line of orphaned tech I was left holding -Apple IIe, Hypercard, etc. All that good software died before its time! ;) It made me a fan of open source. After cyberdog I looked at the Wikipedia articles on LISP machines, and LMI Inc., and their influence on Richard Stallman before he started Free Software. I'm afraid a lot of the LISP machine articles were lifted from the book "Hackers."

I got one other thanks a while ago for cleaning up a vandalized "Christmas in Germany" article. Meanwhile, I've had at least a couple of images taken down by BetaCommandbot, a couple of articles "Rapid deleted" for not being notable. One was by marked for rapid deletion by someone who did not even read the discussion notes I left. Working on Wikipedia can be infuriating, but you just can't take it too seriously.

Thank you, keep up the good work!

[edit] Colour

Or "color" depending on which side of the pond you're on. I apologize for making a "major" change to the page without discussion. You'll see I have since modified the corrected entry to link to Wiki's beige entry (a "minor" edit). The purpose for adding the Pantone reference was to help clarify a long-standing misconception and generalization about the Macintosh color. Kunkle's well respected "Apple Design" book attempts to rectify this situation by presumably quoting Jerry Manock who chose "a tawny brown called PMS 453" [3]. If you read about the respective colours, even on Wiki, you'll note beige refers to a different hue than tawny. Your 128K page seems to break from the general formatting of the successor models, which do not include "Casing" information in the right side summary as does yours. While this is not a bad thing (the others would do well to follow your example), I would prefer to see you lose the "general" colour specification in favor of the EXACT colour, which you now have and we should be aspiring to delineate on Wiki, or lose colour altogether from the summary. In the first paragraph, I would prefer that you indicate the case as "beige-like colored" should you feel the need to continue to classify it by its general misconceived-colour label, or preferably use Kunkle's general description of "tawny brown" which is historically and technically more accurate. Also, as the Pantone entry indicates, Pantone "#"453 is incorrect syntax, it should simply be "Pantone 453". Again thanks for your continuing efforts.--Woodwynlane 17:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I think of tawny as the generic "forest animal color", which is definitely darker than the 128K. Yet I think the 128K is darker than most beige office computers. Anyway, I didn't add casing to the infobox, and the only reason I moved the Pantone info there is that it seems somewhat an unintuitive specification. Readers have no idea unless they download the color chart (and even then it's better printed, because monitor calibration varies so much). I don't take full responsibility for the page and the details of Pantone syntax are up to you - but please don't erase the simple explanation "it's beige" without substitute. WP:ENCyclopedias need to be written for the most general audience. Potatoswatter 20:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Model Numbers

I just realized, none of the Macintosh model pages actually list the Model numbers. The Macintosh (128K) Is Model M0001. I'll leave it to you to decide proper formatting and placement. This page should set the standard for all the other Macintosh models which can then be updated accordingly.--Woodwynlane 18:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I added a capability to the infobox to add model numbers. Add a line "ModelNumber=M0001" as I just did to Macintosh 128K. There are many sources such as LowEndMac. Potatoswatter 20:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] recommended ssw

Hi Mac, You added boldface "recommended" system software to several Macintosh models. Are these official recommendations, or where do they come from? Thx, Potatoswatter (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Official Apple recs, I'll add references soon--Mac128 (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Added – http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=5356--Mac128 (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hey!

in the main you can change anything you like, but do not change discussions that are not yours! Jiohdi (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You "adjusted" a comment which you made and I replied to. That's rude and flaky so I reverted it. Potatoswatter (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I corrected my entry to the person who asked the original question, you were not the center of my universeJiohdi (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd already corrected you, and you weren't answering their question at all, and it had already been answered, so I don't think they were paying attention. Potatoswatter (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article survey

Hi Potatoswatter, I want to make sure I understand your bolded No answer on the survey. Would you not particularly like more input on your writing because you're doubtful that the article reviewers will say anything useful, or because you're content with the article the way it is? (It's fine to answer here, I always watchlist user talk pages.) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You're referring to atmosphere of Venus. I contributed relatively little of that article. The main problem, I believe, is that many contributions were made by editors with a primary language other than English. I would rather nobody waste time critiquing it because the necessary changes are obvious. It just needs good old fashioned copyediting, since most of the references have been filled in. However, I'm not an expert, but prose sounds like a criterion for Featured Articles, not Good Articles. Hence my opinion that it should be promoted, now that all images have been properly referenced. Potatoswatter (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we don't get medieval on people with WP:MoS rules at the GA level. The only 6 style guidelines that we try to carefully follow are at WP:WIAGA, the first criterion. But the prose should be clear and easy to follow. I can help ... are you pretty sure that no one else will answer the survey? I don't want to bias the survey with anything I say. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
You can help what? Huh? I'm not aware of any coordination in this article. Browsing the history, there has been a sequential series of major contributors. I might be the only person watching it though. Potatoswatter (talk) 03:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I can help get you past the "well-written" requirement; I'll make some edits in a few days and you can revert if you like. You don't have a reviewer yet for your article because there's a backlog, but someone will get to it eventually. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused. Does it need to be better written to be GA? Of course your help would be appreciated, but not because of the promotion in particular. Potatoswatter (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
This is hurdle #1 at WP:WIAGA:
  1. It is well written. In this respect:
    (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. (It is strongly recommended that the Manual of Style is broadly followed, but this is not required for good articles.)

I'm going to bed now so I'm not sure, I'll read it tomorrow. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I did some copyediting in the lead; I hope it's enough to meet the WP:LEAD requirement, although MoS prefers that you spell out units at the first occurrence. I moved the images in order to get rid of the large white rectangle of open space. (As with most articles, there's still a large white rectangle to the right of the TOC, but that's okay, because many people hide the TOC. I don't have any more time to spend on copyediting at the moment, I'm reviewing style guidelines before the end of the month. Best of luck with your WP:GAN. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, thanks! I'll try & muster the attention span to proofread other parts. Potatoswatter (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fearless (Collin Raye album)

Fearless (Collin Raye album) is not Raye's debut album, it's his most recent album. It was on a small indie label, it produced no singles, and there are no reviews of it that I see. I removed a couple other non-notable albums as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Don't know where I got that, must've inadvertently surfed away somewhere else :vP . In any case, I'm in favor of including full discographies of popular artists, since the redlinks bug me when surfing in search of interesting music. I thought that a such a popular musician would automatically get reviews, but looking around now I have to say I can't find a mention of this album by any critic. So yeah, you are right... I oughta adjust my !vote. Potatoswatter (talk) 03:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

Just a question of curiosity. May I ask you what is the meaning of your username? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Just the result of free association when I as twelve years old. Unique so far :v) . Potatoswatter (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] memristor

You stated on my talk page: Hi Roesser, I reverted your changes in memristor... I don't disagree with your premise. But it would be a good idea, if you're going to claim something is "excessively slow" for some reason, to say more about the reason and to give a numerical order of magnitude for speed. I already did both those things in a new paragraph under the Titanium dioxide memristor section... do you believe something is still missing? Potatoswatter (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

now that you called my attention to the Titanium dioxide section I see that you covered my basic point more specifically than I did. I believe, however, that the slowness renders a memristor device as impractical and therefore useless for most cases and that this should be brought out in the Controversies section. I don't know how to prove this, but I suspect that the whole concept of a memristor is a hoax. Roesser (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, scientists can legitimately perpetrate hoaxes by hiding information until the experiment is reproduced. In the meantime, even if the device is useless for computing, it's still a new kind of analog component. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request to move article T-Mobile (USA) incomplete

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page T-Mobile (USA) to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

  1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
  2. Added {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
  3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aztec C

Thanks for the fix-ups on Aztec C.

I am in the process of fleshing-out this article. I am also in the process of negotiating an open source and free distribution licence with the Copyright holder of Aztec C.

As a result of all this contact I was able to clean-up this article further and will be adding references accordingly. Please use a dull knife until then:)

Anyway, that's about it. For now.

--Bill Buckels (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD: Breast cancer campaign

Hey, sorry it's late, but to answer your question, I meant it's not an autobiography. Thanks. Carter | Talk to me 19:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Writing about your organization is as autobiographical as writing about yourself. Potatoswatter (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Curly quotes vs. straight quotes

Noticing your recent edit on Pinto Colvig, I just wanted to let you know that the MoS prefers straight quotes to curly quotes. In addition to the reasons it gives there, I'd also add that curly quotes are not supported in a few applications (those with poor or no support of unicode characters), and so in those applications curly quotes will appear as ?s or the empty box character. Perhaps not a big deal, but another minor reason to use straight quotes. -kotra (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed delete propsal Lib_Sh

If you disagree please use talk page of that article.:Leuk he (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)