Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Oli you are edit warring on the Ed Trice page. I don't like what you've removed and your reasons ain't making sense to me. You're just plain wrong and dems da facts! Octogenarian 1928 (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"Not liking" is nowhere near good enough. Again, if you disagree with specific points, then discuss on the talk page, or you'll almost inevitably end up blocked. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 23:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The Rolf Institute is IN Boulder not OF Boulder. Please stop allowing bad grammar. That is what your undo brought back - bad grammar. I have reverted it so that IN is back in place as it should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.184.186 (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The existing grammar is perfectly correct, and indeed reads better than "in". And that's not the only change you reverted, so obviously I've reverted back again! Please discuss on the article talk page before performing any more such edits. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 22:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ottó Bláthy invented the elecric wattmeter decades before Siemens. Bláthy's wattmeter was more modern, therefore it spreaded first in USA, and (after WW1) in Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.8.106 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me that. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 20:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I had to fix your sig on Wikipedia:Requested moves, as it was interpreting a '|' that you obviously intended to be displayed in the sig as an argument separator (and had caused my following addition to come out in superscript). Please check your markup. -- Smjg (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

How bizarre! I've been using that sig for years, and never noticed a problem. But thanks, I've changed my sig now! Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 18:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Below you mention using a pages discussion page, can I suggest you do the same? You edited my page despite the fact I had been adding content to the discussion page, and you left no talk on the discussion page.

The forum being discussed, the discussion of which, and link to, you removed is not in fact an internet forum, rather a website launched by a government body, and is, in fact, the main info point for the whole digital britain campaign. How can you feel it correct to remove a link to the very government steering group that the wiki page is about?

Maybe you saw the word forum and thought of an internet forum - like Vbulletin? not the case, the forum in question, as stated above is a government setup website - and is a forum in the true meaning of the word forum. — Ukbroadband (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC).

Hello. In general, there is no need to go to a talk page first; only if something is contentious or needs discussing. My edits concerned removal of formatting, tidying, and removal of copyright violation, and so (in my opinion) weren't contentious and didn't require discussion!

In my opinion, a section on the "forum" was not particularly necessary (especially details such as being powered by Wordpress), but in my most recent edit, I've re-added a link to it in an "External links" section. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 00:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hiya Oli. I remember that you're an engineer, and I see that you reverted one of this user's edits. It's not my field, but offhand, I can't see that any of this user's edits improve the article's they're editing; they seem to be promotional links for NMRR. I just deleted that article for copyvio, but I'm sure it will come back in some form sooner or later, and I'm not sure how we want to handle it. Advice would be appreciated. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess if the user continues to add promo links (or re-creates such articles), then issue the standard warnings for spam (Template:uw-spam). Can probably jump straight to level 3 or 4 if the behaviour continues. Regards, Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 00:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Please let me know wich coincidence do you find between the information we add at Audio Processing and some copyrigthed material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertoBozzi (talk • contribs) 22:27, 8 March 2009

[1]. In general, one cannot just do a verbatim copy-and-paste from a non-public domain source into a Wikipedia article. Regards, Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 22:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Oli: All info at solidyne WEB site (white papers, audio demos, powerpoint presentations, brochures, etc) is of Public Domain. Probably this information was written by Professor Bonello, the Solidyne founder. Solidyne encouraged the use of all this information at Universities and to all Solidyne dealers. You will find this information reproduced at several web sites of Solidyne dealers around the world. You can write Solidyne (info@solidynepro.com) to confirm this statement. Then I think that is good for you to use your own recommendation (see your reply to Edit Warring...): " Again, if you disagree with specific points, then discuss on the talk page"

Regards Roberto

You're saying that a paper published in JAES is public domain (i.e. no coyright)? I find that unlikely. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 06:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Again I do not understand your point. The white paper named "JAES-07-ENG.pdf" that you refer is NOT exactly the same AES paper that, of course, is copyright protected. I believe that it is a "white paper" and there is not any copyright information at the Solidyne Website. Probably you are "overprotecting" Wikipedia... Either way, it is nonsense to go further with this discussion since we are engineers and not lawyers. Probably I will rewrite my contribution in my own words or leave others to improve this page that now is very poor. Thank you for all your comments; regards, Roberto —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertoBozzi (talk • contribs) 23:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia takes copyright issues very seriously, I'm afraid. "No copyright information" is not the same as "no copyright"; by default, all material appearing on the web is copyright of its respective publisher.

However, writing article material in your own words is infinitely preferable to copy-and-pasting from an existing source, copyrighted or not! Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 23:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear editor: I am in charge now of the revision of articles about the international work of Bonello. We hope at this stage that you had the opportunity of read at least some of his work. I will appreciate that you send me constructive comments about what we must change to be accepted. I wish to stop the editing war between you and hundred of past students that feels that he (and our geographical region) is discriminated You can reply to me at this same page, if you prefer Regards RodolfoMita

What concerns me is that there must be literally hundreds (probably thousands) of individuals and researchers who have made contributions to the field of e.g. audio amplifiers or FM broadcasting. Why is Bonello's work so special that he needs to be specifically mentioned in these Wikipedia articles?

Please read the Wikipedia guidelines on "conflicts of interest"; in general, people shouldn't be editing material about themselves, or about people they work with, or know personally. In this case, it is particularly relevant, as you (and the other editors) seem to be trying to elevate Bonello to an unfair level of importance here. Please note that this is nothing to do with "discrimination"! Regards, Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 23:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Oli_Filth: Since you do not give me the hope of reconsidering your attitude, I will analyze in deep some details of your actions.

Fact # 1 I am not friend of Bonello. I only see him sometimes at AES Congress. I do not work with him, I do not teach at the same University. I do not promote his original research; I only cite peer reviewed, long ago published papers. Then I am entitled of writing about Bonello work. Please note that we usually give references of several authors, not only Bonello

Fact # 2 The AUDIO AMPLIFIER article was edited personally by Bonello in May 2008. This edition was accepted and trimmed by editor Binksternet and was untouched during 10 months. It includes the names of the researchers: Matti Otala, Lammasniemi, Linsley Hoods, Peter Baxandall, Jorma, Nieminenikari, Pteri-Larmi, Bonello On March 8th 2009 after 10 months, you erase only the name of Bonello. Since the Bonello’s name was well supported by two papers at AES Journal (Peer reviewed), this is named “Discrimination” with no doubt

Fact # 3 In article ARCHITECTURAL ACOUSTICS the March 8th, 2009 Oli_Filth erased all reference the Bonello Criteria This is a worldwide accepted criterion, described in almost all the text books (not only Peer reviewed papers)

Fact # 4 at the article FM BROADCASTING the March 8th, 2009 (maybe the “March 8th Panic Attack” ?) You eliminate the names of: Csicatka, Linz, Emit Torik, Werrbach, Donn and Bonello. Again the wikipedia readers lost information. What was the sin of all that people ? Only that Bonello was among them… a bad company of course… Since you are not an expert in Acoustics or Audio Engineering, your opinions about : Csicatka, Linz, Emit Torik, Werrbach, Donn and Bonello do not allow you to erase all of them (without using previously the Talk page).

Fact # 5 The maximum damage that the “March 8th erasure syndrome” of Oli_Filth provoke was at the article ROOM ACOUSTICS; it was totally erased. Only titles into this article. Please see it after your “edition” . Please Oli_Filth said me: are you interested in Wikipedia ? Then what is the purpose of destroy articles ? Fortunately 2 days later, Binksternet repair the damage and the page is now correct. Thank you !

Conclusion: Since Facts #3, #4 & #5 demonstrates that Oli_Filth is not interested in the Wikipedia readers and the quality of information, I ask Oli_Filth to avoid erasing articles and names out of his knowledge. He is clear when he said at his Talk page: “What concerns me is that there must be literally hundreds (probably thousands) of individuals and researchers who have made contributions to the field of e.g. audio amplifiers or FM broadcasting. Why is Bonello's work so special that he needs to be specifically mentioned in these Wikipedia articles?”(sic) His question demonstrates that he do not read the papers of Bonello. Then he can not erase this articles based on the Ad hominem argument, not allowed at Wikipedia or in his people discrimination concepts. Regards RobertTanzi ---- RobertTanzi (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Although it may sound strange, the existence of papers means nothing. As I've already said, there are dozens of journals with thousands of papers by hundreds of authors, this does not entitle each of them to write about themselves on Wikipedia! Information added by Bonello himself is a clear conflict of interest, and provides no indication of notability (see what is meant Wikpedia means by "notability" at WP:Notability). Reading the papers would not indicate whether or not Bonello's work is noteworthy (on Wikipedia, at least).

If it had just been one edit by Bonello (e.g. the Audio amplifier article), then maybe it wouldn't have mattered. But he's added material about himself to at least 10 articles on Wikipedia, multiple times, even when other editors have told them it was inappropriate. That is just completely unacceptable. My "erasure syndrome" was an attempt to clear all of that up. In some cases I may have taken a little too far, but if Bonello's work is truly notable, then other (impartial) editors will add material back as appropriate.

Several other editors have upheld my edits, and there are long discussions at e.g. Talk:MP3 and Talk:FM broadcasting where it has already been established (quite a while ago) that material about Bonello was not really appropriate. Oli Filth^{(talk|coribs)} 02:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if you really have no strong connection to Oscar Bonello, then why have all your edits on Wikipedia been about him? Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 04:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Oli_Filth: Please decide if you will stop your vandalism and give me your opinions at the Talk page of each article, based in a real technical/scientific discussion and not in your discrimination about the work made at the universities of Argentina by Bonello or other researchers. A clear definition will help me in my future claims to Wiki administrators Regards Rodolfo Mita ---- RodolfoMita (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Constantly stating "vandalism" and "discrimination" does not make it true! I really couldn't care less where Bonello comes from or lives, so please stop using the same argument over and over again! See, for instance, that I haven't edited Audio compression (data) or Broadcast automation, where other (uninvolved) editors have explicitly decided that this material is appropriate. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 02:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering the circumstances, I think a fair compromise criterion would be to mentin Bonello on topics where his work can be found in independent reliable sources (that is, not just in his own publications). I find two books with "Bonello criterion" and two books with "Bonello criteria". I haven't found anything else about him, but that's the criterion I suggest. If anyone adds material about him that's cited to reliable independent sources, I think it will stay. Right, Oli? Dicklyon (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Luckily, Binksternet (talk · contribs) has already spotted that the "Bonello criteria" are mentioned in at least one book (see Talk:Room acoustics#Self-promotion?), and has added the material back to the Room acoustics article, albeit with some toning down of the language. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 03:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: by the above, I don't condone Bonello's "supporters" now going back and re-adding material every time Bonello happens to be cited somewhere! If his work is given "non-trivial" coverage in e.g. a book or an article, then that would probably be good enough, though. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 03:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, being cited is not quite enough; he or his work needs to be actually discussed in a source. Dicklyon (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

:::Dear editors: Yes, now we are one step forward. Thank you Dicklyon for your contribution. Now Oli_Filth accepts that four books is enough as a reliable source. It is a small step, at least ! What I do not accept (as researcher ) is the Oli_Filth comment: “the existence of papers means nothing” (sic) Please OLI, do a search at the Wiki technical pages (including MP3) and you will see that usually there are no books supporting statements (this is a luxury situation to be citein 4 books !) Example at MP3 page: in this very well documented page with 38 reference notes there are not a single book. Then Oli_Filth I personally believe that you must change your opinion and tune it with the Wikipedia rules that accepts international Journals. I believe that you did this personal revision and I will accept you invitation to discuss articles, Thank you. In Audio & Acoustics all papers and congress presentations at AES, IEEE and ASA are peer reviewed (sometimes, like AES Journal all presented manuscripts have triple filter revision, that is a hard discussion, during 3 to 6 months, with 3 of the world best specialists in every field).

I agree with you that some articles that Bonello writes about himself do not fit the NPOV Wiki rules. Then I will rewrite it with the help of some other editors. I am open to receive opinions in order to improve it.

About your question: By the way, if you really have no strong connection to Oscar Bonello, then why have all your edits on Wikipedia been about him? I will reply for myself. I found that Wikipedia (usually ignored by most university researchers) has an increasing importance among students and young engineers. Then I decided to complete the Audio & Acoustics articles (my own field), that are usually very poor documentated at Wiki, and add important contribution coming from my Latin American area. Of couse Bonello, inventor, professor, researcher, founder of Solidyne and technical writer is an obligued reference. That is the reason; because in my field he has contributions during 40 years. Please you will noticed that some of his past students are now adding articles at Wiki. Please note (see Fact # 2 and Fact # 4 of RobertTanzi ) that very often the Bonello editors include other authors Thank you for your invitation, Oli I accept it Regards--RodolfoMita (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, of course I "accept" journals as references. However, they do not provide any indication of notability, which is what is important here.

If, however, a topic is discussed (in a "non-trivial" manner) somewhere in an independent source (a textbook is a very good example), this is a good indication that the topic may be notable, and therefore may be worth mentioning in an article (but it still needs to be relevant). Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 23:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

In the case of MP3, there has already been a long discussion at Talk:MP3, where several editors have already established that Bonello's work is not relevant to this particular article. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 00:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Here. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you actually skeptical that B.A.S.E. was used in commercial recordings? If you're not skeptical and are just wanting improved citations, then I don't see why you're deleting the content altogether. I had named two such recordings (the Star Trek II soundtrack and the first Orbital album) in the Bedini Audio Spectral Enhancer article, but you removed mention of them due to lack of citations. Now you're demanding a citation in the John Bedini article for the same claim.

So, what level of citation are you going to consider acceptable? The records & CDs themselves should be in many libraries. They are primary sources that state directly on them "Recorded with B.A.S.E." or similar. Will these suffice, or are you expecting New York Times coverage?

If you have an ulterior motive, such as challenging the notability of Bedini himself, then please say so. —mjb (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I removed the stuff from the Bedini Audio Spectral Enhancer article, because (as I said in the edit summary at the time) it had been sitting uncited in the article for over a year, and I couldn't find any corroboration based on a (brief) web search. Too be honest, yes I was a little skeptical, given the nature of the rest of the article. I added the tag to the John Bedini article today because I chanced upon it, and remembered that I'd removed similar material previously.

If it actually says so on the album liner notes or whatever, then fair enough, add it back and remove the tags, respectively. (I'll have a look next time I'm in a record shop.) Although yes, a more "citable" source would be useful, given the tone of the articles! Regards, Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 23:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand reverting the edit I made on Convolutional Coding, but should "possible improvements" to Bluetooth be included? (by using convolutional coding instead of FEC or ARQ at baseband) Perhaps it's just too much info? I am fairly new to wiki, so not sure... Lars (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. If these are "official" "possible improvements" (e.g. they're in an official change request to the Bluetooth spec), then there's certainly an argument for including this info in the article. If it's just some guy's research paper, then no.

Regards, Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 21:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, convolutional coding is a type of FEC, and is not mutually exclusive with ARQ. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 21:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

True. Thanks for the advice.Lars (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I made an edit about MD5 being broken and not recommended for new apps (I don't remember my exact wording), which you reverted as a good-faith edit containing opinion/commentary.

I just collected a bunch of references about MD5's security and recommendations not to use it, and proposed some wording to stick in the lede. See if it floats your boat, or propose alternate wording, or whatever:

Talk:MD5#MD5_not_recommended_for_new_applications

(Please reply there; I may not check back here.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.68.35 (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Why did you remove my edit on the php page? 86.160.191.49 (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Because there's no indication of notability. All the other items on the List of PHP editors have their own Wikipedia articles, so we can assume they've passed the basic notability requirements. If you believe the item you added is truly notable, then register an account, and try creating the Giggig article. If that survives, then I'd be happy to see it listed at the List of PHP editors article. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 13:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

How do you like the Giggig article??? Jammmie999 (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I replied there. Flyer22 (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I replied again. Now good day to you. Flyer22 (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure that tone is really called for, but OK! Regards, Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 21:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The tone was not meant to be harsh. But then again, sometimes tones are mistaken over the Internet. Flyer22 (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

At Audio Amplifier Talk page you have my comments. I appreciate to know your comments Regards--AlbertoReiss (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, this is the H.265 guy. I was wondering if you have any knowledge in audio engineering? I have a heavily clipped song that I've had no luck in restoring.--70.65.245.94 (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to a book recently published by Princeton University Press which discusses jacket matrices in the appropriate context. [2] I think this meets your stated condition for withdrawing the AFD nomination. Note that Google books has removed part of the relevant section, but enough remains to show a detailed, nontrivial treatment. And, I think, a credit to Lee for introducing the concept. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Oli _ was trying to update the Monte Carlo methods page with two citations that you pulled - I did not realize that you were doing this in real time so it may have looked like I was spamming - I thought that I was not saving the pages or something! Crystal Ball is one of the most widely used Monte Carlo Simiulation tools in the world. It is used in over 1000 colleges and universities to teach Monte Carlo simulations - so I was adding a link to the Crystal Ball page for folks to get more info ( Crystal Ball was bought by Oracle 2 years ago)-> so that it why there is an external link to a commerical page. By the way, I used the model of two other links for similar software listed as Monte Carlo Simulation Tools by Palisade and one the same by Lumenaut - neither of which are used as much as Crystal Ball. It would seem that the place to post a link about MC software is right here in the Software category? The other item I was ading was a direct link to one of the top text books for teaching CB - > Financial Modeling with Crystal Ball and Excel - > i had the link go to the FREE Google book and directly to the Monte Carlo pages - so there is NO COMMERICial benefit ( book sales) - it is posted for informational use only - I thought that this woould be a very nice resource for Wikipedia users. Does this explanation of the relevence address your concerns? Alliance09 (talk)

Hello. No worries on the edit collisions; these things happen!

As for the links themselves, I've taken a closer look at the links on the Monte Carlo method page, and those other two commercial links really have little purpose being there either. The basic raison-d'être for "external links" is to provide the interested reader with further information. Links to commercial product pages don't (in general) provide this, so the knee-jerk reaction from most editors (myself included, clearly!) is to simply remove them. I've now removed the other two commercial links.

For the book link, I'm afraid I don't see what relevance it has other than informing the reader that there's a product out there called Crystal Ball that can be used along with Excel to do simulations.

Incidentally, in general it's frowned upon to add links to (or edit material about) topics with which you are closely affiliated. I have a feeling this may apply to you in this case, so please see the guidelines at WP:COI.

Best regards, Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Oli,

Thanks for your edits at aliasing – I believe that I’ve heard reconstruction aliasing referred to as “spectral leakage” (because the reconstruction filter leaks energy in the stopband), but, as you correctly note, the term is generally used to mean leakage in the DFT (between bins or from windowing – there is some disagreement, though everyone agrees that tapered windows reduce this), so it’s better to avoid using the term.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, found the standard term for reconstruction aliasing: postaliasing – I’ve made a note of that and cited a reference.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Please, elucidate me what you mean! I have put links in Negative resistance and Negative impedance converter pointing to a wikibook; this is an internal, not to an external source. Circuit-fantasist (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikibooks is a sister project, not part of Wikipedia, therefore these are not internal links (you can tell this because the links are shown as a different shade of blue). See Wikipedia:Template messages/Sister projects for a possible way to add the link. Regards, Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 21:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I will use a template. Thank you for the remark! Circuit-fantasist (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to test out the editing functions, and mistakenly edited an article. You referred me to the sandbox page, where would I find this? Thanks, (talk)

WP:SANDBOX. Regards, Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 17:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:1 state TCM.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:2 state TCM.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:8PSK.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Oli

I'd like to get a commercial PDF library included on the List_of_PDF_software page. I reviewed the talk page beforehand and noted commercial software is not excluded, and the PDF Creators section seems to list many commercial editors.

Could you please help a wiki noob understand why the edit was rejected.

The library itself is worthy of mention to those who seek or are obliged to use commercial solutions, and I can't see this is less any less notable than those free items already listed.

May I reinstate the edit and ask you to reconsider please.

Best regards Affinemesh94464 (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: Googled for linkages to corroborate my argument that webSupergoo's ABCpdf is not less notable than any other library listed:

• Results 1 - 10 of about 1,040 linking to www.websupergoo.com. (0.12 seconds)
• Results 1 - 10 of about 130 linking to www.1t3xt.com. (0.33 seconds)
• Results 1 - 10 of about 129 linking to www.jasperforge.org. (0.14 seconds)
• Results 1 - 10 of about 116 linking to poppler.freedesktop.org. (0.19 seconds)
• Results 1 - 10 of about 52 linking to www.reportlab.org. (0.13 seconds)
• Results 1 - 10 of about 122 linking to www.tecnick.com. (0.11 seconds)
• Results 1 - 3 of 3 linking to www.foolabs.com. (0.10 seconds)

Affinemesh94464 (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

See #Removed above. Regards, Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks. Affinemesh94464 (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Oli Filth,

I, the contributor of "Probabilistic Interpretation of Taylor series"(FTB) propose myself the immediate deletion of this article (see my talk page conclusion on the article)

Thank you,

FTB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.242.221.228 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 29 April 2009

Hello. I realized, that you are chasing all links from simpleprogrammingtutorials.com in wiki and eliminate them. I would like to ask you a single question. Did you at least visit the site and check yourself the quality of the article? What is the reason of killing the link, which shows the best correlation with the wiki's article and supplements it. Please, don't take this message as a criticism, but as a call for cooperation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.39.230.122 (talk) 06:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why the portfolio company section has to be removed - Atlas Ventures, Accel Partners, Sequoia Capital all have substantial entries. 89.206.161.19 (talk) 10:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Because (in my opinion) it is bulking out the article, and it is adding very little (if any) encyclopaedic information, as the majority of the companies listed don't have a Wikipedia article, which is a good indicator that they're not particularly notable (it's not a foolproof indicator, but there's usually a strong correlation).

Taking a look at some of the other articles in Category:Venture capital firms may give a better idea on how to add some of this information. For example, First Round Capital includes a single sentence in the main body of the text, and only includes companies that have their own Wikipedia articles. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 10:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

OK - I have done something along the lines that you have suggested. 89.206.161.19 (talk) 11:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

My addition is valid and has a reference. Why do you keep removing it? I believe my contribution is a good one. 12.36.39.154 (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As has been mentioned on the article's talk page and in previous edit summaries, the "in literature and film / popular culture" section has grown far too long in the past. This section should really be absolutely minimal; people keep adding random spurious items to this section, and the easiest thing to do is to remove them.

Incidentally, a Wikipedia article is not a suitable reference for another Wikipedia article! Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 22:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Who made you king of Wikipedia? The whole point of the "in literature and film / popular culture" section is to list places where this item has been used; and I think the more references available, the better Wikipedia is. Your right, edit warring is not a good thing. So stop deleting my entry and leave it be. 12.36.39.154 (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Oubliette. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Tiptoety ^talk 23:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Oli Filth,

Why did you remove my addition of the external link to CRC, Scrambler and LFSR pages ? To my knowledge those tools are unique and helpful. They are free and don't promote any product.

Thanks, OutputLogic.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by OutputLogic (talk • contribs) 20:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Because there are already "enough" online-tool links on these pages; we don't really need yet more! Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 20:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Please show me "any" online tool that can generate Verilog code for parallel CRC with an arbitrary data and poly width. Please show me "any" online tool that can generate Verilog code for a parallel Scrambler and LFSR counter. Thanks, OutputLogic —Preceding undated comment added 01:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC).

You're probably right that this is somewhat unique! But external links are meant to be helpful to the average reader; what percentage of the readers of these articles do you think are likely to find these helpful? To everyone else, they're just another CRC tool. Regards, Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 18:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The current section on the circumference of a circle is a nonsense, which is why I added my comment. If you revert it again, I shall simply delete the whole section. Ehrenkater (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see my note on the Circumference article's talk page. Ehrenkater (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't yet looked into the problem; all I was reverting was the addition of comments to the article itself; that is what talk pages are for! Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 15:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7