User talk:Oli Filth/Archive 2

I have de-prodded Zionism and anti-Zionism (resources)

We have plenty of "articles" which are lists or categories of some sort and have no prose. There's no rule saying an article needs prose, if it's categorizing information.

If you want to AFD it, feel free to, but I dispute the PROD reasoning, and I suspect you'll fail at AFD as well for the same reasons. Georgewilliamherbert 00:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

These types of articles are relatively rare, however, they're not prohibited or against policy. You're right that it's unusual, but that's not a reason to delete it.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 01:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough! Oli Filth 01:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

People section in the 1960s article

The people section, in the 1960sarticle, deals with people that had an impact on that era. Several of the contributors to the article are in the process of cleaning up the article. More than likely, the list will become its own article, with a reference to it from the main article. It is a useful jumping-off point and needs to be incorporated into the article, rather directly by being a section in the article, or indirectly by way of wikilink to another self-contained article. The whole article, as stated earlier, is being rewritten now by at least two or three contributors, with a goal of cleaning it up significantly by the end of September. --Abebenjoe 02:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I missed the fact that there was a cleanup tag at the top of the whole article. Incidentally, I have added the same tag to the People section of the 1990s and 1980s articles; again, they seem to be sprawling, indiscriminate lists.

Best regards, Oli Filth 02:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sonny Gambino

I'll leave it to you to get this thing deleted, but if you need a hand let me know. Raymond Arritt 18:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If you could close the AfD citing WP:SNOW, that would clear things up nicely. Thanks, Oli Filth 18:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

0.999...

Howdy, I noticed your work on the 0.999... article, in fact (prior to looking at the history) I was going to revert the user's addition myself. I see you gave the user vandalism warnings; although simple vandalism is a permissible reason to violate the three revert rule, admins are usually pretty careful to allow only the clearest vandalism (and this sort of original research may not cut it). It may be better to send it to the 3RR noticeboard. I'll also keep an eye on the page. Do keep up the good work, but be careful around the three revert rule. --TeaDrinker 21:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the editor's addition is nonsense, starting with the equation c=110c, true for zero and not anything else that springs to mind, but the proof in the article he is complaining about says (in the footnote) that it is an extension to the decimal system from a binary proof in the 1910 book Calculus Made Easy (reprinted 1998) and that makes the article's proof itself arguably original research. (I say this as someone who rarely does calculus or algebra if there is any other choice). A mathematical proof should never have Wikipedia as its original publication site. Regards. Edison 22:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

JDate

Question about Jdate Page.. Im not sure why you have removed external links to Jdate competitiors. If Jdate is a valid page then surely as a company a list of its viable competitors is also? — 209.208.140.244 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC).

No, that doesn't follow at all. Please see my earlier explanation at Talk:JDate#Competitor list, and if necessary, respond there. Regards, Oli Filth 18:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Genovese crime family

Hi Oli - thanks for your comments regarding the Genovese article. I've added my own in the discussion page there and would be grateful if you could take a look.

Thanks, C i d 12:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Your reverts to Amstrad

Please do not revert changes being made by User:Wgungfu to the Amstrad article that are being made to revert the changes made by the banned user User:Sarenne who is infamous for bulk changing binary prefixes in hundreds of articles. WP:MOSNUM#Binary_prefixes states "There is no consensus to use the newer IEC-recommended prefixes in Wikipedia articles to represent binary units. There is consensus that editors should not change prefixes from one style to the other" and "When in doubt, stay with established usage in the article, and follow the lead of the first major contributor.". In this article the first major contributor is this revision and as you can clearly see the style is to not use IEC. The binary prefixes were changed by the banned user in this later diff. Fnagaton 20:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I guess I didn't look far enough back in the history. Nevertheless, the reversions from "MB" back to "mB" concerned me; another reason why I reverted the reversion. However, it's all been sorted now, so that's good. Oli Filth 21:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Genovese crime family

Just thought I'd say thanks for the neccessary edits you made to the Genovese crime family page. The H-Man2 20:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop removing my text from the Gothic Chess discussion pages

As I said before, if I have to scroll for more than one page's worth of text, and I am actively involved in the discussion (and you are not) I will put in the horizontal lines as needed. STOP editing my lines, I can't find where the most recent discussion has left off and I will CONTINUE to demarcate the boundaries for long, long discussions, as is my right to do so.

If you do this again, I will issue a warning, and escalate as needed.

GothicChessInventor 16:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't find where your comments are without the lines, yet you always seem to be able to find them to put the lines back in.

And what do you mean by "your right"? What are you talking about? We've been through this before; use standard talk-page formatting like everyone else. Oli Filth 16:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops...

I made a calculated guess that it was vandalism on Finite impulse response, since all of this editor's other edits consist of semi-related phrases added or removed at random, apologies. Thisisnotapipe | Message 20:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No problems. In the case of anonymous IP edits, it's always difficult to tell whether it's a single user performing all the edits, or a succession of different users with dynamic IP addresses. I guess this could have been a vandal that happens to know about signal processing theory! Oli Filth 20:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Gothic Chess Review

See the Gothic Chess talk page on why I removed these refs. What proof do you have that this magazine even exists? Just to clarify 16:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Presented to Oli Filth for diligently reverting vandalism all over Wikipedia, and especially on my user page. Keep up the good work! NASCAR Fan24(talk•contribs) 12:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi, can you tell me why you reverted my contribution to the comb filter section, i can't see how its redundant as wiki is supposed to help people out, surly if somebody who knows very little about a subject wants to know something, then being told how to re-create it, so they can see how it is done is a good thing. issueskid

The article already described the fact that a comb filter was formed from combining the signal with a delayed version of itself. Not only that, but why 10ms? A comb filter is a comb filter, no matter what the delay. Perhaps for a specific audio effect, 10 ms may be appropriate. But not in general. Oli Filth^(talk) 21:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well you ask why specifically 10ms? Because say 30ms plus will start to be percieved as a seperate signal rather than percieved as one signal. When i read wiki articles, sometimes i'd like to actually see something working for myself, giving somebody instructions on how to create the effect themselves is usefull and i dont think you should be the one who decideds its usefulness. Lets put it this way, im not the only person, why dont you hook yourself up with a book by Tomlinson Holman called "5.1 up and running, he seems to have similar views about creating this effect, surley somebody who's published has a rough idea of whats going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Issueskid (talk • contribs) 16:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comb filters aren't specific to audio; the figure of 10 ms only applies in the case of wanting an audio effect. Perhaps the Flanging article would be appropriate to discuss details of a specific application; but the Comb filter article is for the theory. Oli Filth^(talk) 07:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

St Peter's College, Auckland

Thanks for helping trim the long quotes at St Peter's College, Auckland. I had stopped watching the discussion because there was no response. --Mrwojo 03:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Dattorro

I'm guessing these are aimed at you? If he's using your real name in the edit summaries of his spamming it's probably worth asking for a block and a deletion of those parts of the article histories. Thomjakobsen 20:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Yes, these are indeed my details; I've already requested these be removed.

Thanks anyway! Oli Filth^(talk) 20:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Dattorro's links

You are very right that Dattorro's links pose a conflict of interest, and his posting of your personal information recently is very regrettable. On the other hand, the links he's been putting are relevant, and continuing the revert war you two are engaged in over a bunch of articles is probably not the way to go. One possible solution could perhaps be letting him keep the links he already put, and see if he will turn into a serious contributor rather than keep on trolling around. Wonder what you think. You can reply here. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. You are right that a reversion war doesn't help anyone! However, given that the vast majority of User:Dattorro's edits have been to add or maintain links to his own work, and he has consistently ignored advice on how best to proceed, I can only assume he's determined to spam (even though he doesn't like to call it that). I believe User:Mikkalai would agree that it's spam, as he's been removing these links as well.

Given that Dattorro's only other notable actions have been to blank page content, as well as track me down, post my home address all over Wikipedia, and repeatedly try to call me at home, I'm afraid I can assume zero good faith on his part.

However, if a respected Wiki editor (such as yourself) were to add the links back on his behalf, I would have no problem with this, as it would resolve the conflict-of-interest problems that were my original concern.

Best regards, Oli Filth^(talk) 09:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sound good. If he puts back the links I'll go carefully over all of them and prune the less relevant ones while keeping the truly relevant ones, such as the one at dual cone and polar cone. Hopefully he'll accept the deal. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The links he reverted today appear rather reasonable. I'll keep a further eye on his contributions. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Birmingham City F.C.

Hi, you kindly attempted to revert some childish vandalism to Birmingham City F.C. using Twinkle, but succeeded not only in removing the vandalism but also cutting off the bottom half of the article (see diff)!! Please would you consider taking a moment after editing to check that your script has done only what it was supposed to? cheers, Struway2 | Talk 08:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right about my edit. Damn! My apologies.

I use the WP:TWINKLE script (many vandalism-fighting editors now do so), in an effort to make certain actions (such as reverting vandalism) quicker and smoother; unfortunately it's not bug-free, as we've just seen! In future, I'll try to ensure things like this don't go unnoticed by me.

Best regards, Oli Filth^(talk) 08:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thermistor Edits

Hi - Could you check out my recent changes to the Thermistor page. I have done them carefully, and I don't believe they amount to spam, but your opinion would be appreciated. Thanks PAR 21:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

The reference (the PDF) you've added looks good + useful. However, I'm not sure that the link to MS's datasheets is appropriate (in the "External links" section); there must be dozens (if not hundreds) of companies that manufacture thermistors; what makes MS special?

In a way, the same goes for the "Manufacturers" section. Given that all but MS are redlinks, I'm not sure that this section serves any real purpose (and is a probable spam magnet), so I'm tempted to remove the entire section.

Best regards, Oli Filth^(talk) 21:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Oli - Its not that MS is special, its just that all of their data sheets are very detailed and well written. They are also heavily referenced. I don't believe there is another manufacturers web site that comes close in this regard. As for the "manufacturers" section, thats not as important but not completely useless. I was designing some instrumentation using thermistors and, of course, I went to the Wikipedia page. I upgraded the page from other sources particularly the MS (previously YSI) data sheets, but found the links to manufacturers helpful when searching for thermistors to purchase. Unfortunately, the manufacturers section will probably be ordered by whatever manufacturers representative edited the page last, rather than by usefulness. PAR 04:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverts

I noticed on a lot of my edits, when I made a mistake or maybe didn't and they got reverted, every one was done by you. Are you following me around? William Ortiz 00:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't take it personally! When I notice that a particular editor has made a couple of not-so-good edits (because those pages are on my Watchlist), I often take a look at their edit history, to see what else they've done.

Regards, Oli Filth^(talk) 08:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Technological determinism

I see that you reverted your edits on technological determinism. I thought what you wrote was pretty good and should have kept it. Why the revert?--RedJ 17 15:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Revert on Video Game

Sorry for making such a mess at Video Game. I think I have it sorted now.. (?) KMS 17:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries! Oli Filth^(talk) 17:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Revert on Broadcasting and gender roles

Hi can you please let me know what part of the article in particular you were talking about so I can fix it up. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartolomas214 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

My Incorrect Warning

Sorry about that! I must have clicked the wrong link, or something... :\ I can only apologise! Anthøny 19:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries! Oli Filth^(talk) 19:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Mas basura

What is the deal with all this MAS stuff are they sock puppets? Every time you turn around they are adding POV crap to articles across the board. When it gets reverted, they come back and add more as they have several times on Telegraphy, 7 times they've added junk and several times someone has come along and reverted it for various reasons. Yet they keep coming back. As I'm sure you know this is only one example of the many articles they've tagged. You seem to be keeping tabs on all the MAS214 accounts do you have any clue on what's going on with this matter? --DP67 ^talk/_contribs 01:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a complete pain in the arse! They're not sockpuppets, they're all students in a media class at an Australian university, who've been set a coursework assignment to "edit Wikipedia". See WP:AN#Dozens of bad-quality edits as a result of a coursework assignment for a discussion on this. Oli Filth^(talk) 09:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah! That explains it. --DP67 ^talk/_contribs 15:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)