User talk:Wibbble/Archive 1

Dear Wibble,

I've added a review to the list of reviews present in the Nokia N70 page and I don't see why you removed it. The review was a relevant "hands-on" of the phone. I don't understand why links to "some" reviews are Ok and others arent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.179.26 (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2007

:This was blatant spam, added to a great many articles. "some" added links are okay, and some are spam being added to lots of articles. You edits were the latter, and if you continue to spam wikipedia you are likely to be blocked. Wibbble 23:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

::Why would a link to a legitimate N70 Review would be a blattant SPAM, compared to the reviews that you deem OK to be there? (CNET, Mobile Review, All about symbian). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.179.26 (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2007

:::You added links to the same site to many articles at once. This makes it spam. If you disagree, bring up the link in the talk page of the article and allow an uninvolved editor re-add it if appropriate. Do you claim that all the links that you added were 'legitimate'? The one on the Nokia N70 was not the only one I reverted.

:::Beyond that, most mobile phone articles have too many review links on them anyway, and adding more is not required, especially for articles on handsets which are not new.

:::Finally, please sign any comments you leave, as per WP:SIG Wibbble 22:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

::::As long as the added links are relevant, I don't see why it should be considered as "spamming". If you think that one of my link is not legitimate, let's discuss about it instead of mass-reverting all my edits. From what you say, it looks like reviews are added on a "first-come first-served basis". This sounds like "land grabbing" and I don't think that it raises the quality of the content. I'll create an account and sign. Thanks for the advice. 18:26, 15 February 2007 (PT) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.213.198.25 (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

::::: Mass-adding links is, by definition, link-spamming. If you disagree with this I suggest taking it up on the appropriate Wikipedia guideline page, such as WP:EL or WP:SPAM. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by wibbble (talk • contribs) 22:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC{{{3|}}})

Dear Wibbble,

I recently added the link 'Jacob's Pillar Stone - articles & studies by JAH' and was hoping that you could please explain to me your reasons for removing the link and how you came to the conclusion of it being inappropriate, please? It is very unclear to me on what grounds it can be qualified as 'inappropriate' since the material found on the site contains in my opinion lots of highly relevant & actual information about the stone. Of course, that is my opinion - but even if one does not agree with that it still contains an interesting view, which is very well supported and well cited.

If you are interested in what is written about Jacob's Pillar in the Bible, you can find the relevant scriptures [http://www.truth.fi/stone.htm here].

There must be some way that this information could be made available on this page, and I hope that we can find a way to settle it.

Kind regards, and hoping to hear from you soon.

Jacquessmit 08:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Wibble,

Thank you for your reply.

However, you have still not explained why you decided to remove it. I have looked at the external links requirements page as you have suggested, but could not find any reasons to disqualify the link.

Could you please explain it to me in your own words because I do not find Lost Tourist's explanation to be correct, since the belief of it being Jacob's pillar stone is in fact mentioned right at the start ot the main article, under the heading 'History and tradition'. I encourage you to please see this for yourself.

The website I linked contains lots of information about the history and 'tradition' of the stone and the belief of it being Jacob's pillar stone.

Thank you in advance for your due consideration,

Jacquessmit 13:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry my edit sounded a bit snappy - keep up the good work on removing linkspam. --Charlesknight 15:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You reverted some edits this annonymous editor made to the Hulk article earlier and left a message warning him/her. The same user changed the page back to the way he/she had it and I just finished reverting it and similar vandalism perpetrated to the Spider-Man page. Whoever he/she is sounds as if he/she has some kinda toilet/excrement fetish or something. Just figured I'd let you know because this one is the type that'll just keep at it. Thanks. Odin's Beard 01:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for undoing the vandalism on my page.Odin's Beard 22:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Wibbble.

I am the user who added the N73 CPU information, and I just saw while translating the article into spanish that you removed the information due to the absence of a source.

I, myself, own a Nokia N73 smartphone, and I used an auditing software called "Nsysinfo" that, among others, shows information about the CPU in the mobile. I could send you a screenshot, if you wish, but I'll thank you if you restore the change I made.

Thanks and regards.

Death Master 12:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

:That would be Original Research, and so not allowed in Wikipedia. The only really Reliable Source for this stuff is Nokia, and until recently they've not given anything away. However, some new handsets (such as the E90) have their CPU specs listed on [http://www.forum.nokia.com Forum Nokia]. Unfortunately the N73 isn't one of them. This means that there's no suitable reliable source for this information and therefor it cannot be included. Wibbble 19:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

::Hi again. Didn't know that fact, and so I agree with your decission. I will notify if I'm able to find any reliable source for this information. Thanks and regards. Death Master 21:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I had reverted an old, obsolete version of the article that had had a long treatise on Homer Simpson. I hadn't realized it was only an intermediate edit, and that there were other edits after it. I'm sorry for any confusion, and my thanks to you for catching my oops. --Tenebrae 14:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:59.144.161.143

He's edited around 5 pages with comments like "This is user:Wibbble and I am useless." There's also constructive edits coming from that IP at this time, so I'm thinking it's a shared IP. Not really sure why I'm telling you this, but I just figured I'd let you know somebody doesn't like you. He seems to have stopped after my warnings. --Mini-Geek ^(talk) 13:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:He dislikes that I removed some user guide-type content from HTC Wizard. Some people are just weird. Thanks for taking action on it, though. Wibbble 13:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

::Ah, ok. Now I see why he did the edits he did, and how the ones I thought were good edits were actually also bad. --Mini-Geek ^(talk) 13:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Yeah, he's just randomly reverting changes I've made to other articles. Bit pathetic, but eh. It's not much effort to use the 'undo' link. :o) Wibbble 13:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

::::I added a message to his talk page telling him that Wikipedia's not a how-to (WP:NOT#HOWTO), and gave him a link to a wiki how-to site. Hopefully now he'll stop. --Mini-Geek ^(talk) 14:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

::::He came back and is mad... User talk:59.144.161.143 and User talk:Mini-Geek read the new discussions there. — Mini-Geek ^(talk) 15:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::How odd. Well, it's still not appropriate, and he doesn't seem to understand the 3RR. Wibbble 21:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I once again come into your liking of removing information you don't happen to fancy.

I'll only talk about the 'related handsets' part. How is the Nokia template supposed to provide the information I added in that section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uker (talk • contribs){{#if:15:58, 8 December 200| 15:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)|}}.

Hi Wibble, I've been looking over some of your edits, and as well as a lot of good work I find some of them a bit concerning. In particular, when you are removing original research from mobile phone articles, you can be pretty harsh on new editors. While WP:NOR is a good policy, newcomers are told to be bold and even though they should be finding sources for things, it can take a while to get used to how things work here. So, please do not bite the newcomers and try to help them adjust. After all, the goal here is to make a good encyclopedia, not to pedantically enforce rules. Thanks, --Apyule 11:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

:Do you have any specific examples? A really vague statement like this makes it hard for me to know exactly what you're talking about. Wibbble 12:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

::Sure. One example is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nokia_N95&diff=next&oldid=137754248 this]. It was a user's second edit and was a factual correction to the article. It was unsourced, but that doesn't make it wrong. Wikipedia constantly needs new editors to survive and we should be careful not to scare them off, so there is a lot to be said for treating them gently. --Apyule 15:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

:::I don't see anything wrong with that - my edit comment was perfectly reasonable, and it wasn't a correction since as far as I'm aware, Nokia say that the N95 doesn't actually support SDHC. I don't check the number of edits a user has made before I revert what is, AFAIK, incorrect information, and I don't think that saying 'if the N95 supports SDHC cards, please cite the Nokia reference, then it can be added to the article' is in any way biting the newbie. It was a polite request for sources, in case I was mistaken about the SDHC support. Wibbble 17:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wibbble,

I strongly feel you inappropriately removed the link to alaTEST's aggregated review page about the Nokia N70.

As I assume this is based on a misunderstanding, please allow me to explain below:

I recently added a link from Nokia N70 to an independent (!) international service called "alaTEST" that aggregates, analyses and compares product reviews from over 600 international sources. There is an apparent interest in relevant reviews by the wikipedia community and visitors, as many product sites link to reviews. More precisely, most people are problably in particular interested in objective and credible information about relative product quality.

The wikipedia consensus clearly states : "Wikipedia is NOT a directory of links". To prevent all reviews to be added, or to have a subjective discussion arising about what reviews are valid and what not, we have aggregated and compared 192 reviews (52 expert reviews, 140 user reviews). The reason for our independent service is to prevent biased information about the quality of products where only a few review sources are available to the public (large commercial sources like cnet, pcworld, dpreview, etc) and to make the global relative review consensus both transparent and dynamic (as on of the factors we use to calculate the global review consensus - the alaSCORE(tm) - is the age of each review and a non-linear depreciation over time).

Please contact me to allow me to show the relevancy of a link to such an objective review comparison service as on alaTEST.

Kind regards, and hoping to hear from you soon.

Arie Struik, alaTEST

alaTEST 14:01, 10 February 2007 (GMT)

Hi there.

I'd like to know the reasons for removing the N73 firmware history for the second time.

The data is as verifiable as the rest of the page, in which there is not a single citation.

I've spend valuable time working out the list, which as I said before isn't anywhere else in the net that I know of.

Also, the 'Scarfe' codename (which wasn't added by me) was another rare piece of data which you decided should go into oblivion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.40.246.2 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC{{{3|}}})

uKER

Hi! Just a heads-up (since you have recently contributed to its talk page). Initially I wanted to improve the page, but the more I looked at it the more I felt that it "would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article" rather than reading like an ad for the product. SheffieldSteel 21:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The gerund is treated as a noun. Therefore, the apostrophe is there to denote genitive, not pluralis. 213.112.137.175 20:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

:I have no idea what you're talking about. Can you give me a link/diff? Wibbble 23:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

:: Gerund#Gerunds_preceded_by_an_object_or_a_genitive - though apparently both are acceptable in most cases. No big matter. 213.112.137.175 00:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

::: That's not what I meant: what article or edit are you talking about? Wibbble 12:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, maybe I will do a DRV instead, or perhaps another AfD, I'm trying to clear List of content management systems of some of the spam. Jackaranga 21:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)