User talk:Cambrasa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Accusation of sockpuppetry

You've accused me of being User:190.100.186.63. I'm sorry to say that you're wrong, but this isn't me and that is not my IP. This anonymous editor changed the percentages of Chilean mestizos from 65% to 55% and I actually reverted his edits. If you look at the Chile history, you will see that it was me who put this information in the first place. What would I be removing it anonymously? I want you to take this back and restore my honor. You've also accused me of having "a history of removing" the word mestizo. Again, it was *me* who added the word mestizo to the article, how would I be having a history of removing it? Please explain this logic to me. I also want you to take back that comment. Thank you. ☆ CieloEstrellado 01:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I removed the box. Cambrasa (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Apologies accepted. Thank you. ☆ CieloEstrellado 18:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chile

See Talk:Chile. ☆ CieloEstrellado 19:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lev Bulat

Just letting you know that you didn't do the AfD properly for this article. I fixed it for you. If you need help figuring out AfD or anything else, just let me know. Never mind, it seems Twinkle simply fritzed out on you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Accusation of going against a consensus

Cambrasa , when accusing an editor of going against the consensus, as you did me on my talk page, it would be courteous to provide a link to the concensus to which you refer. I have answered your accusation at User talk:DeFacto#POV on London congestion charge. -- de Facto (talk). 09:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have linked to the appropriate articles that use the term "toll" and provided and argument why your change was POV. Cambrasa (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I could find no talk in any of those of a consensus that the term "toll" should be used in the London Congestion Charge article. -- de Facto (talk). 10:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The consensus established here is clearly against using the term "tax" which you have introduced unilaterally.Cambrasa 23:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manor High School (Sale)

The message says... " opyright infringement of http://manor-high.cheshire.sch.uk/contents.html."

I can't see content on that page that has been copied to wiki... Hence the speedy delete notice removed... This statement isn't factual.

May I also remind you that threats to other users... such as "you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia." isn't tolerated by Wikipedia... If another Idle threat is make or wild accusation made, Wikipedia Staff will be notifed.

Capslock99 (talk) 10:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(This message was moved here from User_talk:Cambrasa/Sandbox) where it was wrongly posted.

Dear Capslock99,
Fistly, my message on your talk page isn't a threath. It is simply a warning in accordance with Wikipedia's policy. Secondly, the article you have created contains text copied verbatim from the school's website. If you click on the "Overview" and "Resources" tabs here you can see that text. The fact that you pretend that no such content exists when you created the article yourself suggests that you are deliberately making false claims, and falsely accusing me of "Idle threats" to keep your article from being deleted. This kind of behaviour is considered vandalism. Cambrasa 11:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Firstly I never said it was my work... I said "I can't see content on that page that has been copied to wiki"... sources... sources... sources!

Yes indeed it is from these pages... if I simply need to put references/sources or delete the content or re-write it that's fine... i was making a point your Copyright infringement notice "Copyright infringement of http://manor-high.cheshire.sch.uk/contents.html."

Was wrong it should had been:

"Copyright infringement of http://manor-high.cheshire.sch.uk/schoolInfo/overview.html" "Copyright infringement of http://manor-high.cheshire.sch.uk/schoolInfo/students.html",

Please be mindful in future to put the correct sources on... also to be more constructive why not say... you should re-write this and give construct criticism...

Capslock99 (talk) 11:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't try to game the system. You knew very well that the text was a copyvio, and predented it wasn't. Who cares if I only linked to the school's website and not the induvidual page where you copied the text from? It wasn't hard to figure out from the link that a copyvio was taking place. Cambrasa 11:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, speedy deletion is Wikipedia's standard policy when all the text in an article is copied from a web page. Cambrasa 11:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you unable to read, have I at any point said "I have not copyrighted material" - NO!

So what are you on about... get a grip this is wikipedia... I was merely advising you that simply link to a website and not the actual copyright material is very sloppy and very lasy administration!

If as I had said put:

"Copyright infringement of http://manor-high.cheshire.sch.uk/schoolInfo/overview.html" "Copyright infringement of http://manor-high.cheshire.sch.uk/schoolInfo/students.html"

I would had agreed! Also as I said above: Yes indeed it is from these pages... if I simply need to put references/sources or delete the content or re-write it that's fine... i was making a point your Copyright infringement notice "Copyright infringement of http://manor-high.cheshire.sch.uk/contents.html." was wrong.

Once again... I didn't say I hadn't copyright... period... I simply said not from that page... now don't start flaming me... I'm asking you to leave it... if you want to tag the page fine... Please don't leave me any further messages... As I am firmly not interested in pursuing this any further.

Capslock99 (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

When you called my warning a "wild accusation" and "idle threat" then you were kind of implying that the text isn't copyrighted. Also, threatening to report me when my warning was legitimate borders on trolling. Cambrasa 14:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Report to Administrator Intervention against Vandalism

Regarding your recent report to this page, I declined to block User:149.254.200.220 because the last warning was several days ago and we normally don't block IPs after a warning several days before, since IP addresses change. In this case, the prior warning was from a previous month, and the IP address appears to be dynamically assigned to different people on a regular basis, so blocking risks collateral damage. Anyway, keep up your anti-vandalism work, and please don't let this message discourage you from report ongoing vandalism to AIV! Thanks for your help.--chaser - t 10:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] biased editor removed some of your contributions

hello cambrasa. i have been helping with War on Drugs and have noticed some heavy pro-war biased editing from a different editor. this editor does many edits in a row so it is impossible to 'undo' these edits, and looking at this eds contribs shows heavy bias. one of your contributions was removed by this editor, and because there are so many intermediate edits, this couldnt be undone. your text was replaced, but would you give the article the once over and re-contribute what you can? Badmachine (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Rollback

Well I didn't find any red flags so...its yours :D! Use it wisely my friend. Take a look at WP:ROLLBACK to find out more about the feature or test it out at Wikipedia:New admin school/Deleting/delete!¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This will make things easier. Cambrasa confab 22:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your VandalProof Application

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Cambrasa. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. βcommand 04:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photographs

You asked "what makes photographers so special?" The same thing that makes authors of books and journals we cite special. They are authors of original content. A photograph has just one author. Wikipedia articles have many authors, and are therefore not the work of one individual.(Mind meal (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

We don't generally cite self-published books, blogs, etc. not mentioned by secondary sources. The same should apply to photographs - origial content alone is not a sufficient criterion for attribution. Also, whether Wikipedia content has one or many editors makes no difference - the same principles should still apply. Each edit is in a way original content. Cambrasa confab 10:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
But of course photographs are exempt from original research requirements, per WP:OR. See the exception on original images. Without this exception, we could host almost no images on Wikipedia. Not the result I think you are going for. So how can we on one hand recognize a difference pertaining to photographs, but pretend as though they need be treated the same as other self published works or Wikipedia content itself? (Mind meal (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC))
I do not really consider a Wikipedia photograph a "source" or "research", unless it is if of historic importance or by a famous photographer. An encyclopedia photograph is just a visual documentation of the topics in the article. To what extent a Wikipedia photographer creates original work, or to what extent he/she is only a technician conveying somebody else's original work is debatable (is a snapshot of the Eiffel tower really that original?). The same debate applies to any other activity on Wikipedia. If an editor writes a paragraph in excellent prose, isn't that prose "original work" too? what about illustrations, templates, etc?
We never include photographs for their artistic/creative merit alone. Photographs must always be pertinent. Of course that doesn't mean that photographs can't be created with high skill (just like other areas of Wikipedia). Still, in my opinion creating encyclopedia photos is more a craft than an art. Cambrasa confab 11:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
What does the pertinence a photograph has to an article have to do with giving attribution to the photographer underneath? That is a separate issue that would be decided in deletion discussions. We could easily do this and it isn't in anyone's face or intrusive. It shows that we respect photographers who require attribution and will encourage more contributions, quite frankly. (Mind meal (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC))
The pertinence does have something to do with attribution, because our focus should not be on the photograph itself, our focus should be on what is shown in the photograph. Placing names underneath photographs draws attention away from the topic of the article and what the photograph is showing. Call me a purist, but I think Wikipedia should remain a striclty charitable venture. I think that once we give up this principle and start working on a tit-for-tat basis we are going down a slippery slope that will eventually destroy Wikipedia's neutrality. Of course it would be very easy for Wikipedia to allow self-promotion in exchage for good pictures. Of course it would be easy to allow (only small and unitrusive) advertising on Wikipedia, and to use the income to pay professional editors. Would this mean better pictures and better articles? Yes. But how long before Wikipedia loses its independence and neutrality? How long before articles become diluted by non-encylopedic content? I can see where you are coming from, and many Wikipedians would agree with you that making the project more commercial would benefit its quality. This debate has been held before, and the community has decided (for now) that Wikipedia should not go down the advertising path. Cambrasa confab 20:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


Either people have incredibly retarded attention spans if they cannot continue reading an article with a photo credit, or this is an empty argument. (Mind meal (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] vandalism warning

Its my talk page, why cant i delete things off it?

And as i see, you deleted something off it too :) 125.237.104.173 (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Some users delete other user's warnings in order to hide their record of vandalism and delay being blocked. It is generally considered disruptive to delete somebody else's comment if it is legitimate, especially so soon after it was posted. I have deleted something I wrote myself, to improve readability. That is a different matter. Cambrasa confab 13:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Cambrasa - your argument is logical but incorrect. See the "Warnings" section of the Editor's index for details. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, John Broughton. I've read the guidelines now, and I must honestly say I didn't know that (there are so many guidelines on wikipedia) and that I simply assumed the above was true, since it seems intuitive. However, I still can't say I agree with that guideline. I think that in this case WP:IAR might apply, because the user deleted the message straight after it was posted, and because he wrote "fuck" in the edit summary. Cambrasa confab 21:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
One of my fundamental beliefs is that it's best to pick one's fights. Keep in mind that deleting a comment doesn't hide it except from inexperienced editors - the posting is still available via the history tab. Admins with experience (and that should be most of them) trying to decide whether to block, and/or how long, will always look an editor's edits of his/her own user talk page, because that's where the prior warnings are. (In short, I'd save WP:IAR for more important things; it's not good to get a reputation of invoking it whenever you disagree with a guideline on something relatively minor.
As for "fuck", if the editor had said "fuck you" in the edit summary, that would be grounds for a warning for a WP:NPA violation. But (arguably) he/she could just be expressing irritation at the situation, or even at him/herself for making a mistake. In general, I think it's best to focus on egregiously incorrect edits, and to let the lesser stuff slide; that puts you in a better light if a third party (admin) is examining both sides. The purpose of Wikipedia is to create great articles, not to be a tallying board to make sure that no one is improperly treated. (It's just too hard to measure what "fairness" is; much better to focus on content, except in extreme cases.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congestion

Thanks for adding all those references to the article. I've been working (mostly copyedit) on this monster for a long time, and it is / was a bugger to get into shape. So thanks for your help. Ingolfson (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Perennial proposal

[1] It sounds like you know what to do here. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I only recently joined this discussion. I'd rather leave this task to someone who has been following it for longer. Cambrasa confab 13:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits on congestion pricing

Hi Cambrasa. As you might noticed I have collaborated a lot on the congestion pricing article. All the corrections you did are great, I wrote it originally differently, but be aware this user DeFacto doesn't like congestion pricing and as you might notice in the Talk page, I got tired of trying to explain to him this is economics, but he not even tried to read the references I provided for him, kept asking for references for every line and he did those add-ons you correctly fixed today. Let me know if you need help when he tries to undo it. Just to let you know in advance. Mariordo (talk) 05:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to bring up the flaws of his statement in the talk page. Cambrasa confab 13:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WYSIWYG editor

It's not quite as easy as you might think to code up a WYSIWYG editor for Wikipedia. Some wikis do have such editors, but those wikis don't have the intricate wiki markup of the MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia. (You'll find further discussion at the "Editing software" topic in the Editor's index.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Imprivata page - speedy delete?

Hello,

I am trying to create a page for our client & think I messed up pretty badly by trying to change the page 'single sign on' a few weeks ago. I was uneducated about the wiki-system with attempted changes & would like to move forward & use wikipedia far more for many of our social marketing activities. Can you please let me know how to undo this restriction? Thank you for your time, Bill Imprivata (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Imprivata (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Assessment of BahnCard article

The first point I'd like to mention here is that I am not the sole arbiter of WikiProject Trains assessments; I do a lot of them, but I'm not the only one doing them. As such, my word is not final on any assessment that I place on an article.

When I assign importance assessments, I gauge the article against the Criteria column of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Assessment#Importance scale, keeping in mind that this rating is for the topic's importance to rail transport history and technology on a worldwide scale. I thought this article best met the criteria for low importance. A case could be made for mid importance, but this topic is not vital to a broad understanding of rail transport history and technology on a worldwide scale, so it is definitely not a high importance article to WikiProject Trains. A case could also be made that the other fare cards you mention should be rated as low importance within WikiProject Trains as they can each be used only on a few rail systems worldwide. 4 million BahnCard holders is a lot, but with a worldwide population of 6 billion, it is a relatively small percent.

The most important thing to remember here is that the importance rating is simply a way for members of WikiProject Trains to prioritize which articles should be worked on when looking for suggestions of where to focus editorial efforts. Slambo (Speak) 10:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The BahnCard isn't the only rail card in Europe. Other countries such as Austria, Switzerland, France, Czech Republic, Netherlands and Norway have introduced rail cards. BahnCard is just the biggest and best known one, and the article serves to illustrate the concept of rail cards in general.
I would argue that rail cards have a "strong, but not vital" importance in the history of passenger trains, qualifying them for "mid-importance". Rail cards were a key strategic component of European rail operators' drive in the 1990s to win back passengers from the automobile (along with high speed rail and station refurbishment). To some extent, they are vital to the survival and growth of passenger railways. More than half of Deutsche Bahn's revenue comes from BahnCard holders.
Also, I don't think that your comparison with the world's population is valid. The majority of the world's population has never set a foot on a train. The whole of Africa, South America and North America doesn't even have a significant passenger train network (except in a handful of isolated areas). Yes, rail cards may be unimportant in the world, but not in the world of trains. It would be more meaningful to compare the number of BahnCard holders to the number of rail passengers in the world, not the the world population.
Let me put German passenger railways in context: In India and China trains are the most popular form of long distance transport. In India, where 1/6 of the world's population lives, there are 5 billion passenger journeys a year [2]. In China, where another 1/5 lives, there are 1.4 billion passenger journeys a year [3]. In Germany there are 2 billion passenger journeys a year. So what happens to Deutsche Bahn is not unimportant even on a world-wide scale. --Cambrasa confab 12:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no strong preference for a low importance rating or against mid importance on the article. My permission is not needed to make such a change on the article's talk page (so please feel free to update it accordingly), but thank you for taking the time to discuss this. Slambo (Speak) 14:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1995 Japanese Grand Prix

I've replied to your comment about images. Please respond at the above link. D.M.N. (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added two (hopefully good!) images to the article, with proper FUR's. D.M.N. (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I've replied to your comment. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)