User talk:Butterfly0fdoom
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Toyota NA Model History: MY 09 Additions
That would work, though I think you are "right-er"; ultimately it's speculation until they show up on the showroom floor (Toyota has pushed models back before, 09 Corolla was supposed to be new in Fall of 07). Unsourced is unsourced, its all spec. until the product is on market. My apologies again for the attitude. Sahrin 19:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Mis-read your comments, my apologies. Sahrin 18:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Prius
I saw the tag on this article saying that it needs clean up. I plan to clean it up and make it an article that readers will like. I want to develop a consensus so I will only do a little at a time so that people can see and approve it.
I checked all the images and they are all free use. Later, I'll help select photos but will hold off as this may be controversial. I started a little re-writing the models. I will work on this slowly before moving to a new section.
I'm writing to you because you have edited that article several times. I won't edit everyday but that does not mean I forgot about the article. Congolese (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to expand the article where it counts, like about the car. I'd like to shrink the article where it's actually a content fork and should be under hybrid technology (just as other cars don't go into great detail about how a gasoline engine works). I put a note under the talk page for the car about taking out some of the engine technology stuff.
Overall, I think the article will shrink a bit when it's done. Ok with you? I would like to see the article focused on the car.Congolese (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Also see the talk page about deleting or shrinking the subsection about disappointing fuel consumption to 1 sentence (and probably relocating the sentence). After all, there is dissatisfaction about US EPA fuel consumption estimates (mpg) in general, not specifically about the Prius mpg. Here's your chance to form a consensus (on the talk page). I purposely discuss deletions before doing it to avoid edit wars. Congolese (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
New points raised in the Prius talk page. I don't want to be too knife happy so I'm doing it slowly and talking about it first. Over time, I think the article can be better. Congolese (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think the article is better but still could use some work. Will work on it but probably not everyday. Congolese fufu (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] My name
I got my name changed by a bureaucrat. I saw that someone called Laos got blocked because of the name. Laos is a name of a country. Congolese is the name of the people of Congo. I didn't want any trouble so I asked for a new name. I am letting you know because you knew me from before (as Congolese).
I am going to wait for a few days for my Toyota Prius suggestions to be seen. Then I think I'll do some trimming. In the last few days, some people who I think want to keep most of the stuff have appeared. No worry, we can discuss it and reach an agreement. I know that I'm a nice person who is reasonable. Congolese fufu (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] California High Speed Rail
I would appreciate you telling me why you undid my revision in the California HSR page, rather than undoing my revision without giving a legitimate reason. Native94080 (talk) 07:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Native94080
[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Macau
Hi? I would like to invite you to give me some opinions/comments and vote over the page of FAC: Macau so that more improvement can be made. Thanks! Coloane (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] goodbye
Because of overzealous attacks against me by Jehochman, I will no longer be editing the three articles that I was working towards FA status nor Congo articles. Jehochman went on a rampage RFCU. His RFCU claims were disproven and according to another user, he lied about the category.
WP:SOCK#LEGIT allows multiple accounts for segregation and security. The multiple accounts edited separate articles.
A multiple account was necessary because of the controversial nature of User:Profg. Editing about him would bring stalkers to the 3 FA contenders. Edits about User:Profg were never meant to defend him but to point out things that the community was overlooking. The community shouldn’t overlook everything that a user says simply because he is bad. One member of the community said he was seeking a ban just to make it easier to accuse others. These is a diabolical scheme.
What good does is exposing User:HappyBirthdayClubMember? That’s like exposing the identity of Santa Claus. Congolese fufu (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] January 2008
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to MacBook Air. Thank you. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] iPod article
I have no idea to what previous debate you refer, but of course "iPod" requires an article. The definite article is used throughout the article, for example in the second paragraph: "Apple focused its development on the iPod's unique user interface and its ease of use." Do you really think it would be best to change that to "development on iPod's unique user interface"? The only possible reason for using the zero article would be to emulate Apple's marketing materials, which drop the article in an attempt to anthropomorphize the product. But, since Wikipedia is not a product brochure, I think we should stick with standard English grammar. NiggardlyNorm (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for kindly replying on my talk page. Would you be able to point me to the previous consensus, so I could at least gain some idea of the context of this argument, and avoid making the same arguments redundantly?
- NiggardlyNorm (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Car Timeline Templates
Leaving the 2009 model year blank for current car models suggests that those models will be canceled in 2009. Most car companies will have made announcements by now that models will be discontinued for 2009 (e.g. Dodge Magnum). If you'd like, you can either shade the 2009 continuations in a different color, or remove 2009 from the timelines altogether. --Vossanova o< 13:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps a year should not be added to the timeline unless the model year's complete lineup has been announced. Otherwise, you have no way to differentiate between models we know will be cancelled in 2009, and models we are unsure of. --Vossanova o< 18:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have ended the rows at 2008 for the models you claim as unconfirmed for 2009. This will help eliminate confusion over whether the models have been confirmed to be cancelled in 2009 or not. A blank space after a model means the same thing as a blank space before a model. If you believe otherwise, then please present your rules so we can come to a consensus on them. --Vossanova o< 19:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Timeline of ipod
Why did you rv my edits to those templates? What is your justification that the previous version was better than my edit?68.148.164.166 (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Tori Amos discography
Heya. I am wondering why you removed Legs and Boots and iTunes Essentials from the albums list? Generally on discography pages these releases are considered albums though they are not in the traditional sense, i.e., they are not physical releases. Legs and Boots might not be appropriate for the albums section given that it is also in "Live material", but iTunes Essentials releases are considered albums for the purpose of discographies. More Pink had 12 tracks which constitutes an album (as opposed to an EP which are normally around 3-5 tracks) and I don't think it matters much where it was released in regards to its status as an album or not. These are official Amos releases and they (with the exception of Legs and Boots) have accompanying articles, so what's the deal with removing them altogether? Samuel Grant (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 20 February 2008
- Butterfly0fdoom wrote: "fine, then, rv vandalism. Happy now? There is not need to toss in a grammatical pronounciation. non-connectiong makes more sense than not connecting. not a focus city could mean a hub."
- Response: Yes, I'm happy now! Cheers! --Inetpup (talk) 06:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks...
finally someone understands that the Air Canada reference should be put in the International termina lsection in the SFO artcle. [kinda weird, but hey, airlines should be given their credit,eh? (that was completly appropriate here)] I've been fighting undos on that for months. You made my day!Duhhitsminerva (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Apple hardware since 1998
- While you may have put in tremendous effort, usually, such changes are discussed in the discussion page for a consensus prior to implementation. As thus, I have opened up a section of the talk page for such purpose.
Thanks for your note; I've just left some comments there. Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Lexus timeline
If you remove crystall balls why you dont remove the rx aswell, now is 2008, how you know this particular model will be produced next year? and all others dont --— Typ932T | C 18:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sony Ericsson
Hello,
Symbian may be used in more that P-series, but every P-series device is a Symbian device, so "P-series is Symbian UIQ business and power-user smartphones" IS a valid statement. Do you agree?
Also, right now XPERIA series only includes one WM device, there were no other announcements yet. However, I would agree that they did mention the inclusion of Symbian devices some time in the future.
So my suggestion is to have "Symbian UIQ business and power-user communicators" for P and "Windows Mobile and Symbian UIQ communicators, convergence and powerhouse devices" for X.
Touchscreen and QWERTY keyboards make these devices more communicators than smartphones. Right now OS is what makes X series and P series different. When more devices are available, we may wish to change X series description to "Multimedia smartphones", but not now.
If you wish, M can be described as "Symbian UIQ business and messaging smartphones".
Any objections? Netrat_msk (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Intel Based iMac
That picture does not mess up the formatting and it isn't not necessary. It shows the beautiful iMac being appreciated. Now stop deleting stuff randomly. Thank you. If you would like to discuss the matter further message to me. User:Mr.bombo **Mr.Bombo** (talk) 09:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] No processor code name or architecture
What's wrong with providing the processor code names in the MacBook article? That conveys a lot more about the machine than just that it's a Core 2 or its model number. Also, where was it established that no machines use Napa or Santa Rosa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperMog2002 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hyundai Timeline
Look, please quit reverting the Hyundai timeline back to where it was. Do you honestly expect Hyundai to only be making ONE car next year, when they are continuously expanding their model offerings? Look, unless the automaker otherwise announces that a particular model will be dropped or replaced, it can be safely assumed that the model will be made next year.
As for the Crystal Ball talk? Look, we're not talking about five, ten, or twenty years down the road. We're talking about ONE year. And Hyundai is far from being Isuzu, who will be withdrawing from the US market next year (they will still be here for commercial trucks, though), more people are buying Hyundai's these days. Just leave the timeline alone unless an official announcement has been made. Thanks.Jgera5 (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] ADP article edits
Hello, I've just reverted all of your edits to the ADP article because you're deleting quality writing and information. If you think that certain text needs to be elsewhere in the article, then simply move it. It's not proper wikipedia policy to completely delete text that is well-written and sourced because you think it belongs elsewhere. I do agree with you that the production info for ADP could be included elsewhere in the article, but please stop deleting it.
Also, Tori Amos herself has talked about how drastic of a departure ADP is compared to her previous work. The way it was recorded and the instrumentation of the songs are evidence of that. You keep deleting info claiming that it's POV, but it's not the case. In this respect, the article is reiterating Amos' own thoughts on it.
Last, if you want to make major deletions to any article that other people are contributing to on a regular basis, it's a good idea to talk about it in the discussion page for the article, instead of just deleting it without anyone's input. --Pisceandreams (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] VX fleet Afd
In case you didn't immediately see my response to the Afd, I thought I would just copy what I said there since it more directed at you, as nominator. If you nominate this for deletion, then you are pretty much obliged to nominate every other fleet page for deletion unless you can somehow prove that the Virgin America fleet page is more worthy of deletion than other fleet pages, which is probably impossible to do. You should also notify WP:AIRLINES of this nomination. NcSchu(Talk) 23:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, no problem. It's just a bit one-sided if you nominated one when others are exactly the same. Might as well kill multiple birds with one stone! NcSchu(Talk) 04:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Singapore Airlines fleet
I Don't think that the registrations of Singapore Airlines is not irrelevant in the page of Singapore Airlines fleet.
Instead of constantly diverting this discussion all over the place and splitting it into three seperate user's talkpages, kindly consolidate discussion in the article's talkpage itself. I am pretty sure the article's contributors deserve to weight in on the issue as well.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I would continue to insist that you follow proper procedures before I engage further in this discussion. The "track record" of any one individual is not for you to use as an excuse to do otherwise.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course I know there is a discussion there, so why have you continued to engage in private conversations in talkpages, instead of directing them to discuss there? Are you doing things only due to procedural requirements, and not sincere about engaging article contributors? And may I point out quite matter-of-factly that I am not even the primary contributor of that article for several years now despite being its original author? Why are you only interested in directing your comments primarily at me? Was I the only person who showed objection to your unilateral moves in deleting the page? I would like to see all conversations moved to that article's talkpage and I will continue from there. I refuse to engage further via editor's talkpages because this is not fair to those who are involved but unawares of these "sideline discussions".--Huaiwei (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Why delete mention of Canon custom firmware
Hello, I added information of third party firmware to the Canon Digital IXUS page because I thought it would be beneficial to users. I see you removed my edit as well as adding a note not to re-add this text. What is your reason for this? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waryklingon (talk • contribs) 02:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Singapore Airlines formal request for mediation (2nd filing)
Hi, as the informal mediation in relation to the various issues regarding the Singapore Airlines article was not successful, I have now instigated a request for formal mediation on these issues at MedCom at this link. As you have been involved in editing this article in direct relation to the various disputed issues and/or have been active in discussion regarding these issues on WP:AIRLINES, previous dispute resolution attempts, or on the talk pages, I have added you to the involved parties list, so if you agree to participate, please sign your acceptance on that page. Thanks --Россавиа Диалог 21:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Singapore Airlines mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Singapore Airlines, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Anthøny 17:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Request for mediation not accepted
 |
A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Singapore Airlines. |
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
