Phoenix79

Welcome!

• I'm always willing to help others. So if you need some assistance please let me know and I will do my best.
• If I have offended you in any way please believe me it was not my intent and let me know of the situation so that we can get it sorted out.
• I prefer complete conversations:
  • I will reply to comments/questions on this page. After you leave a message, you may wish to watch this page for a reply.
  • If you would rather that I reply on your talk page please let me know.
  • If I left a personal message on your talk page, Unless I specifically state otherwise, I will be watching it for a while so feel free to reply there or here.

Archives
/Archive 1 (2005 June 29) to (2006 July 16) /Archive 2 (2006 July 16) to (2006 October 16)

Re: Bose headphones

The article looks good. I just don't know why these "Bose-bashers" want to have a piece of the article. While I liked the way you refined the article a lot, there are only two minor things I want to discuss about:

• Bose Aviation: The "Upgrade Program" can be left out without vandalizing the article (but I'm not going to make edits as of this time unless it's to clean-up vandalism), but that's only from my personal standpoint. Literally an article should talk about "things in general". "Upgrade Program" is somewhat an advertisement so I personally would ditch "Upgrade Program", but that's completely up to you.

• Bose and American Airlines: I would condense the American Airlines section and the QuietComfort (various) sections. I'm not going to edit this right now (like I said before), but I'm considering condensing both Bose QuietComfort and American Airlines so that it would sond more condense and concise. Again, this is from a personal standpoint.

Otherwise, I really liked the new collapse coding you did on the article. However, the QuietComfort 3 Headphones is still my recommended Bose Headphones. I tried out the Bose IE "Earbuds" and they sound OK, but they don't cancel out sound—you won't be able to demo out the IE due to sanitary reasons.

I'm just recommending what to do right now, but as of this time, I'm not going to make any radical edits. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 15:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't ask me why they act the way they do. All I have done is try to make this a great article just like everything should be on wikipedia. I think you have a good idea about putting the American Airlines in the QC section. I don't think it would be vandalizing the page by removing the upgrade program. I would only think it might interust people who have them that is all. Maybe editing it might be better?

I have actually managed to try out the IE's at a Bose store. They let me try out a pair (they clean them after each use). Here is how I rank the new triports 1.OE 2.IE 3.AE Personally I'm not fond of in ear headphones but they really did sound great and were more comfortable than I expected. They also said that since there are 3 fittings if someone has a pair and it sounds like it has too much bass they need to use a smaller size to give it a more natural sound. You should go back and see what you think.

Personally I do like my QC's more and I did notice the lack of noise canceling tech on the IE's. I'm sure that Bose will come out with the QC4's later that will be in-ear noise cancelling headphones. That way they will have 3 standard versions (OE, AE & IE) and 3 noise cancelling versions (OE, AR & IE). If I was to guess it would come out next year and be $50 less than the QC2's so $249 (there is a $30 difference between the triports and a $50 difference with the QC's). I wonder how they will sound? Chat to you later -- UKPhoenix79 06:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Amg

Hi UKPhoenix79, (any relation with Dumbledore's Phoenix by the way?) Thanks for your support on amg and for your subtle changes that still make it visible when existing in infoboxes. I hope some more support will turn up soon or we'll have to forget it. Hoverfish 10:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No relation it is just my fave mythical creature. I don't quite understand what you mean by "subtle changes" but I know its a complement so your welcome. Well as many people have pointed out to me before, voting in wikipedia looks for consensus and right now there is none. So if it stays that way the link will remain. If it ever comes down to this, I see no problem in it being a hidden feature, another option for people that can decide to use it or not. Any way since a lot of info boxes use this property I see no reason to loose an option that other users seam to like. -- UKPhoenix79 22:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There was already a discussion, that was a lot like a straw poll. Since AMG did not win, it is no longer in the infobox. It was a way of coming to a conlusion. It technically stands because as I saw in the these discussions, it was added without discssion. Therefore, we were voting whether or not to include it, not whether or not to remove it (for the first time). I will revert it back if you do not comment by 3 November 2006 0:00. Please help me understand why you removed it. (not that I don't expect you to, I'm just in the mood to set deadlines) Cbrown1023 00:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you added it without discussion. Cbrown1023 00:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It was an early edit of mine. There was a conversation that I assume you saw after its addition. AMG was seen as a good alternative to IMDb especially for older movies where IMDb does not always have good info. Also because it is written by professionals and not by amatures using both can be useful to balance out the infobox links and to remove the appearance of a bias towards one website over another. AMG has now been included in the infobox for most of a year and a straw poll would be about the removal of this option since it has been incorporated successfully into many articles now. Personally I see no problem as this being an option (hidden or otherwise) for articles to use, it in no way needs to be (or should be) a mandatory selection.

I must say thank you for contacting me, not reverting, only trying to find out the reasons behind my decision. I should have done it as well. It is interusting to find a person so into deadlines :) -- UKPhoenix79 01:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed. I just thought that it didn't need a response. But thank you for informing me just in case. :-) (lol... mine has a long face...) Cbrown1023 21:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

hehehe ok I just want sure. ("\(.:...:.)/") Monster with claws. "RAWR!!!" -- UKPhoenix79 22:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, since there was a vote about the issue, claiming that it was seen as a good alternative isn't really true. Most people don't see it that way, and you personally seeing no problem with it being an option makes no difference (any more than anyone else's opinion, which were already voiced at the discussion). On the other hand, there was never a discussion on adding it to the infobox, more people want it gone than want it to stay, and therefore, it goes. - Bobet 23:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There was a discussion about it when it was 1st added and the point I made about it being a good alternative came from that discussion. Your or my own personal posisions also has no baring on the issue since if you check the vote there was no conensus. Sice this has been included in the infobox for over a year the poll is and was about the removal of such items. The removal of this would change many articles. Thus it is important to make sure that there is a concensus on removing something that has been included for such a long time. The poll was not decisive as such it is clear that the item is to remain. -- UKPhoenix79 23:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)