User talk:Axlq

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi! Use this page to talk to me about my articles, edits, or reversions. =Axlq

Contents 1 Sailing hydrofoil 2 Xylitol 3 Re: Spambot 4 antiquarian 5 Wikiproject Marine Biology 6 Link deletion 7 Image:Governorpataki.jpg 8 IIPM Advertising Controversy 9 speedy delete 10 Sea Shepherd 11 2000s in comics 12 TWT 13 Regarding your spam warning on User talk:Mpreter 14 No Deleting 15 Stevia 16 Infinite bans 17 Radar Cross Section editing 18 Fishes

[edit] Sailing hydrofoil

Omg. What was I thinking. :D LOL I was being absentminded when I slapped navy instead of water stub. :D Thanks for fixing that in.''F3-R4'' 06:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem, thanks. =Axlq 16:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xylitol

Thanks for the discussion in Talk:Xylitol today. I created my account so that I could add that comment. I appreciated your quick response to my first comment and your supportive response to my reply.

Someone came by this afternoon who was able to cite the medical journal the report appeared in. They did much better than I could have come up with just my Reuter's story.

By that time I'd built up enough confidence doing little edits that I felt comfortable refactoring the section.

Thanks again... BigrTex 03:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome — looking forward to seeing your contributions. You may find that participating in Wikipedia is addictive. =Axlq 04:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Spambot

That could be, but we generally don't indef block IPs, simply because they can be used my multiple users who might be innocently affected. If they continue spamming after the block expires, I will enact a longer block, but not indefinite. Thanks. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] antiquarian

This conversation has been moved to User talk:68.101.67.16 for continuity. =Axlq 14:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me to the peer review. 68.101.67.16 16:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Marine Biology

Conversation moved to User talk:Shy1520 for continuity. =Axlq 03:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link deletion

I was just curious why you deleleted the 'UK independant health site' on the link for Netdoctor within the Erectile dysfunction article ?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Melisclark (talk • contribs) 07:55, 15 December 2006.

I didn't remove the link. I edited the description. The link is still there. =Axlq 21:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Governorpataki.jpg

Regarding Image:Governorpataki.jpg, you have disputed that the image is a replaceable fair use image and you wrote: "Replaceable fair use tag above was placed erroneously by an overzealous editor. The image comes from a free source that clearly states its purpose as a place for anyone to download images. It makes no sense to demand a "free replaceable image" for an image that is already free for public use.".

I have replaced it with Image:Pataki cropped.JPG, which is available under a free license. If you believe that this replacement image is not an adequate replacement then you can comment on the image talk page, but if the replacement image is adequate perhaps you could consider removing the disputed tag?

Sincerely, --Oden 17:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I have removed the tag I placed. =Axlq 04:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IIPM Advertising Controversy

Hi AxlQ, thank you for voting on the RfD. Do you know of any other precedent for handling a similar controversy on Wikipedia articles? Iipmstudent9 18:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

If you look through other AfD discussions over a period of time, you will see other examples of consensus preferring non-notable content to be merged into another article. That was the basis of my vote. =Axlq 21:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] speedy delete

If you say that the article does not meet WP:NPOV , why don't you edit the article, instead of suggesting speedy delete?

By the way, is there a definition for vanity article in Wikipedia:Portal ? Tonytypoon 21:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not suggest speedy delete due to NPOV, but rather non-notable bio reasoning. I also don't see the point in fixing up an article I believe should be deleted. I do occasionally fix up articles in danger of deletion, see Xtracycle for example. Not this time.

I haven't seen an official definition of a vanity article. I think it's understood that vanity means the article's author is also the subject, or it was written by someone associated with the subject (friend or family, for example). I only said the NPOV language suggested a vanity article; probably a poor choice of words on my part. =Axlq 22:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sea Shepherd

Conversation moved to User talk:71.54.193.153#Looking for help?

[edit] 2000s in comics

Thanks for that. The whole area has been a niggling concern to me since I discovered there were similar entries for comcs as there were for other media but despite sketching others out, linking in to them and adding Comics Project headers there has been little activity and as it stands it can't sustain those decades in comics entries and I've given thoughts for fixing things: Talk:2000s in comics#PRODed. Hopefully this should get things moving and finally resolve the situation and get more editors working on the avrious entries. I've dropped a note in here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#200X in comics. (Emperor 15:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

I don't have a problem with the individual articles listed in 2000s in comics, but with the list itself. I'd say, just make sure the category "2000s comics" or whatever is applied to each of those listed articles, then the 2000s in comics page is no longer necessary. That's really what categories are for, and this article is trying to imitate a category. =Axlq 05:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TWT

I suggest you remove TWAT from the TWT entry as an acronym as it is virtually never used anymore in vacuum electronics circles by those who research, design, and use these devices. I would consider it archaic since after 15 years in the industry the first time I have ever seen that acronym is in your edit to the Wikipedia entry. Go to ieeexplore.ieee.org and put TWAT in the search box. Nothing. Then put TWTA in the search box, which is the acronym of choice today (Traveling Wave Tube Amplifier). You'll get 100 papers about TWTAs.

Of course it isn't used much anymore; that was the point. However, in my 22 years in the industry (defense-related radar measurements), I heard the term frequently until about the 1990s, and there are sources verifying its use. It's hard for me to justify removing an historical acronym that has verifiable sources. If the article doesn't make it clear that this is an historical term, then certainly it should. =Axlq 16:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but I'm still not wild about sticking the TWAT acronym in the first paragraph. It's irrelevant today and probably ought to be put more towards the end of the article as a historical footnote, but I'm not going to fight you on it.=Willus

Um... this conversation really belongs on the article's talk page. I don't mind if the mention occurs later in the article; you're correct that it isn't enough of a critical fact to warrant being right up front like that. I just moved it (you could have also; I wouldn't have complained). =Axlq 05:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is the last I'll post here. You're free to take this whole conversation and cut and paste it into the article's talk page. Thank you for being accomodating. I just didn't feel it was my place to make the change--I wasn't sure how strongly you felt about it. =Willus

[edit] Regarding your spam warning on User talk:Mpreter

I believe these were well-intentioned additions by a new user. Please refer to WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Jerry lavoie 23:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree - please see discussions related to level 1 warnings. The wording is written to assume good faith. A warning was necessary however, as a means of conveying information. =Axlq 23:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

fair enough. Jerry lavoie 23:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No Deleting

There is more than enough "proof" that Killer Instinct 3 is rumored to come, this isnt me using a crystal ball, its a page listing all the articles, pages, and hints at the possibility of a KI3

trying to make a page in Wikipedia is frustrating and complex —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PseudoKirby (talk • contribs) 05:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

It certainly is. After reading your article again, I have retracted the deletion prod. =Axlq 05:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

quick question, how do I submit my article for cleanup? I cant seem to get the organization right, and my writing could be worded better, more encyclopedic PseudoKirby 07:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just add a {{cleanup}} tag at the top of the article. The presence of that tag will automatically add the article to the category of articles needing cleanup. =Axlq 07:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stevia

I just wanted to let you know that I have left an explanation for the edit that you referred to as a "bad bot edit" at Talk:Stevia. Deli nk 20:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't notice that the edit you reverted was a pattern of linkspamming. The link seemed OK to me. The real reason I labeled it that way was because I was peeved that there was no explanation for your reversion. Something like "reverted link added by serial spammer" would have helped. =Axlq 06:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infinite bans

Hello Axlq. Well no bans for absent-minded editors such as the above (and myself!). But all anon editors must be banned, as they are the majority of the vandals and abusers. Its okay for the likes of me whose work is on very obscure subjects and usually confined to my home country. Be we have all seen great editors driven away because of abuse of one sort or another. We must take action on this or else Wikipedia will be reduced to utter spam sooner or later. Any thoughts? Fergananim 13:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Radar Cross Section editing

Hi. You removed my sentence regarding outdoor and indoor test ranges from the article "Radar Cross Section" saying it was unsourced and untrue statement. But I read it in the very first reference - Knott and Shaeffer that outdoor test ranges typically suffer a 35% downtime. Also indoor test ranges suffer the limitation of the size of test object. Is it wrong? Saurabh Sardeshpande 13:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the sentence for two reasons: I couldn't find the citation associated with it (you did), and it contained a false statement that they cannot be used in "unfavorable" weather (regardless of what the reference says, I know from professional experience that such a statement is false). Removal of the part about 35% downtime was unintentional. I believe I have the Knott/Shaeffer reference at work - would you mind telling me where you found the statement? I have no problem with restoring the sentence. =Axlq 02:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The part regarding downtime is in the very first chapter of Knott and Shaeffer on page 13, paragraph 3. I also read this part in lecture notes of Robert W. Borek which I stumbled upon while browsing. I reproduce the part below:

---

• Indoor ranges suffer limitations in the size of the targets that can be measured, whereas outdoor ranges suffer down time problems due to weather conditions. Although the indoor ranges offer protection against the weather and intruders, outdoor ranges can often measure full-scale targets under far-field conditions. • Probably the single most important disadvantage of outdoor measurements is the long-term effects of weather. Measurements cannot be made in the rain because of moisture collection on targets and target support columns and the backscatter from raindrops in the measurement zone. When rain is not a problem the wind usually is.

---

You have Knott/Shaeffer at work and you have professional experience in test ranges? What do you do? I am doing my undergraduate seminar on 'Radar Cross Section' and hence am interested in the topic. Saurabh Sardeshpande 07:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fishes

There is a new proposal on naming conventions for fish being discussed at WikiProject Fishes. As a member of said project your feedback would be appreciated at the WikiProject Fishes talk page here. Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 07:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)