User talk:User A1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
22 Nov 06 - 17th Nov 07
19 Nov 07 - 25th Apr 07


Contents

[edit] Reactor Edits

I have only just discovered how to communicate on this system. I hope this reaches you.

In answer to your first question, internal coils are used on some types of batch reactor. For pharmaceuatical and fine chemical applications however the coils are almost always mounted externally. The reason for this is that flat unobstructed internal surfaces are essential for cleaning.

It is more than possible that I have not filled in the relevant form correctly. However, on the subject of copywrite, these drawings are sound. I drew them myself using 'Solid Works'.

Your removal of the link on the reactor page is puzzling. We do research on continuous reactors, we are contributers to a new book on the subject, we have presented at over 30 conferences on reactors and written more than a dozen articles. We have had links on Wikipedia for years. We have never made sale through them but they do serve as a useful conduit for information. I regret that you persist in blocking this link. The information on our website is pertinent and we are still adding more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echis (talk • contribs) 11:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Echis,
Thankyou for taking the time to contact me here. I will try to outline the perceived issues that have prompted my actions.
With regards to the images, the required notices have been added correctly. From my perspective the issue is if you generated them in the course of your employment, you don't own the copyright to them - your employer does. There does exist a procedure for an employer to release such work, I am unfamiliar with it however. If it is not the case that you did this during your employment, then you are able to. Caveat: I am not a lawyer.
With regards to the links, it is more the number of links that have been added. When examining your contributions it becomes apparent that your editing pattern from the 10th March 2007 consists of adding external links to articles. This type of behaviour has a very high correlation to spam edits or attempting to use Wikipedia as a promotional vehicle (not necessarily for sales).

Don't forget to "sign" (name & date) your posts with four tilde symbols : ~~~~ (top left on US keyboards)

Regards User A1 (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: You may wish to browse wikipedia's guidelines on spam and Conflicts of interest. These documents are the result of broad consensus among many editors as to what does and does not constitute spam and a conflict of interest respectively. Fun light reading eh? User A1 (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no problem with the legality of the drawings. We are a research company with 15 patents for batch and continuous reactors. We are interested in CSTRs, plug flow reactors and batch reactors. Our work on batch reactors is specifically related to calorimetry. I am concerned about the removal of these links. Is there an abritration process? - Robert Ashe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echis (talk • contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Helo Echis,

There certainly is, we can first ask for a third opinion (Wikipedia:Third_opinion) then if that fails to resolve anything we can visit (Wikipedia:Dispute resolution). If you are keen to follow this path, just leave me a message saying you posted to third opinion and we can go from there. User A1 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I have a solution which will settle matters but it will take a week or two to complete. I have to admit that I am puzzled by the way you make decisions. On one of the pages we have been talking about one company has posted two links to itself on the same page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echis (talk • contribs) 07:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the links and made a note to revisit the articles, with the intent to clean it up when I simultaneously get the time and the motivation. Any lack of consistency is most probably a lack of consistent editing effort. User A1 (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It has come to my notice that, on the calorimeter page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorimeter) you have reinstated a link relating to 'Constant Flux Calorimetry'. I assume that this was done by you. If not, I apologise in advance and ask you to disregard the rest of this note.

Where I may have fallen foul of any Wikipedia rules, this was done in innocence and I have sought to put my house in order. Your actions by contrast amount to meddling in commercial matters that you know nothing about. Your constant alteration of these links without taking the trouble to understand the circumstances is intolerable.

Furthermore, you removed our link whilst allowing 8 other companies to have links on one page (one company has 2 links on the same page). Our own link is relevant and informative whilst some of the others are purely advertising.

Finally you accused me of not having the right to release images. You made this accusation without a shred of evidence to support it. These events are very unsatisfactory. Whilst I don't want this to get out of hand, I cannot let this matter simply drop. In circumstances like this, it is not acceptable for you to hide behind anonymity. I would ask you to forward your name and contact details. Echis (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Echis,
I have not acted on this matter in any way (I am leaving the onus of action to yourself for the moment), and I am refraining from any edits to any of the contentious articles, bar reparation of vandalism & spam, and reversion to previous editions. Nevertheless you seem to have become somewhat irked.
I have not re-instated any links - nor do I work for any company that may have any interest in these areas. You can see who performed certain actions by viewing the articles by viewing the article's history (located at the top of each web page). Requesting the contact details of a person on wikipedia I personally view as farily impolite, especially when there exists facilites for the removal of such information (permanently) from wikipedia's databases (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_oversight), although it is possible that editors may be unaware of this policy.
Futhermore, you can view every single edit I have ever made by clicking on the User's contributions link on the left. If you believe I am acting in a manner that is not appropriate, or if you believe that my edits are indicative of some form of conflict of interest on my part, I would advise you to contact an administrator to notify them of my actions. In this case it is usually a good idea to supply diffs (example) to corroborate your claims.
Now as for the rather unusual claim of commercial matters that you know nothing about this is rather odd. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for business. Commercial matters have no, or little place here; I am editing an encyclopaedia, not conducting business - as stated previously I would be most happy for you to persue this matter with other editors, using dispute resolution techniques. Futhermore I would suggest, that if you would like to continue through a dispute resolution procedure, that, and I apologise most profusely for any implications in providing this link and hope that this is simply a communicational issue, you review some of the other available policies on wikipedia such as here. Addendum: To clarify this link does not apply in this situation, I am simply outlining the policies that we must both keep in mind.
Finally I cannot remove these pages, as wikipedia is fundamentally an open-communication system, not even blatant vandalism is removed from pages. It is rare that information will be completely removed in this regard, and it is beyond the average user or administrator, for example so called "deleted pages" can actually be restored with appropriate privilege levels. The link i provided previously is the only system that I am aware of for removal of information.
I hope that we can sort this out in a prompt manner. Kind regards User A1 (talk) 09:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

By reverting to previous editions, you are (by default) reinstating links which should not be there. Whether you intend it or not, such actions have commercial implications.Echis (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have posted this to third opinion. For the benefit of any external readers, I provide this [diff] which I believe points to the edit in question. Regards User A1 (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

I came here due to the posting on Wikipedia:Third opinion.

  • Issues submitted at WP:3O are normally matters for negotiation, but here we have an issue of basic Wikipedia policies. It's not something to be negotiated, it's just a question of reading the right policy pages and then following them.
  • Editors *must not* insert links to their own websites in articles. See WP:SPAM and WP:EL.
  • If you have a link that you believe should be added, place it on the article's Talk page and ask regular editors to consider adding it.
  • There are noticeboards that specialize in external link questions. They include WP:WPSPAM and WT:EL. Since the question before us is so basic, I personally think there is little to be gained by going to those noticeboards. They will probably give you the same answer as I am giving you now.

In this case, a very basic and general article such as Calorimeter has little need of direct links to specific manufacturers' products. Someone who has knowledge of calorimeters we hope would be able to add useful technical information to the Calorimeter article. Echis is certainly welcome to do that. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Xcode-helloworld.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Xcode-helloworld.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Graph

Sorry, I can't read it. Can you try some editors who speak Korean? Badagnani (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chilean Australian

Hi A1, yes I know neither description is good and they are both biased. But the only reason I edited it with bias was because Kransky took it into his own hands to come here and post a biased message about our dispute when I specifically told him to talk to me first before coming here as I did not want a biased description by any party on the subject. I would have been fine with posting something general like you did, but once again Kransky did not listen to me and took matters into his own hands. So I changed it to a somewhat biased description of my own so he could know how it feels. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That is quite unhelpful, somewhat foolish and immediately biases any third opinion editor against you. If you actually disagreed and acted in a well-intentioned manner you would have changed it to a neutral tone and left it there. You aren't doing yourself any favours. Finally another reversion will bring you to violating 3RR. Personally, I would suggest you step back and cool off for a while. User A1 (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
And what of Kransky? Why would I be biased against, more than him? Look what he did, first he completely disregards my request to tell me before posting a description on our dispute (Which I knew would be biased because I have gotten to know the character Kransky through my dealings with him over the last few months), and then when I post a biased description so he knows how I felt, he goes and reverts it back to his biased description instead of aknowledging what he did was wrong and respecting my request to talk to me to come up with an unbiased description or even coming up with a neutral description of his own. While doing this he also try's to better himself in the eyes of the third party watchers and influence their viewpoint on me to be biased with his edit summary, making himself seem the more responsible editor. And why are you even mentioning the possibility of me reverting this once more? Did you even read my message I left you? I have know intention on reverting it once more and am happy the way it is now, I was merely making a point. I think it's somewhat foolish saying I need to step back and cool off for a while as this shows you have bias against me. From your reply you have already passed judgement on me. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I also disagree with the other editors statements, hence why I did not revert the description back to that which the other editor utilised. Finally, yes I have bias against you, and it is a result of my opinion having read the posts above. I have no intention of commenting on the content of your dispute with Kransky. I mentioned reversion limits as simply switching back to an admittedly non NPOV description does not smack of due consideration. Again I would suggest a more even approach will reward you. User A1 (talk) 05:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay thanks and next time I'll just roll with the punches and keep things neutral so hopefully any third viewing party would be able to see how mature and good of character I am dealing with the matter. But next time you see someone post a description which is biased and the same situation arise which happened to me, post this template ({{uw-3o}}) on the offenders page so they know what they are doing is wrong. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 05:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
User A1, I do not believe the dispute concerns referencing, but about which data is a more credible source on population size - being either the Australian Bureau of Statistics or a student's essay. I have amply referenced ABS data in the article. Could you please edit the discription on Wikipedia:Third opinion‎ to reflect this - I don't believe either TeePee or myself should make this change. Thank you. Kransky (talk) 07:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
User A1, ignore what Kransky has said as he only wants a biased description in his favour. I have told him numerous times on several occasions to provide a reference for the content he is adding but he chooses to ignore me and do so anyway. So now he's just kissing your ass in a hope he can influence you. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Algebraic

Yes, I really appreciate your opinion. The natural log article already has a satisfactory graph on it. However, since the user is unlikely to add source and copyright, I don't really see a pressing need to immediately delete. Just wait five more days, and it's pretty much sure to be deleted. bibliomaniac15 04:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense

Hi. I added the nonsense tag to the image. The graph is a listing of the increase in cultural technology in proportion with population during the last 2 million years... or something along those lines. Anyways, some people have a strange sense of humor or are very confused heh. Konamaiki (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Also asked him, in Korean, to refrain from doing so unless it has a particular meaning. Konamaiki (talk) 08:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elderly Instruments

Hi there, I just wanted to drop a note to say that I'm taking your concerns about the article seriously. I don't have the resources today to investigate fixes (and I'm not sure it's wise to do so in the midst of all the vandalism the main page attracts) but I'd like to compile a worklist for future discussion. If you are interested, please let me know. --Laser brain (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)