Jump to content

User talk:GraemeL

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GraemeL (talk | contribs) at 03:34, 19 January 2006 (→Thank you: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


I am: OUT

  • I will reply here unless you ask me to reply somewhere else.
  • If I posted something to your talk page, I probably added it to my watch list. I would prefer replies in the same page as the original post. However, feel free to reply here if you want.


Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

not spam

this is a shared school computer, i apologize for idiot kids that like to screw around...

Regarding Elevator Illusion

Look the elevator illusions is copyrighted work. The workings / methods / etc. are copyrighted and are trade secrets. This information is not for public domain and needs to be taken off the site.

--Workings, mothods, etc. cannot be copyrighted. As long as our text is not a direct copy of yours, there is no problem. --GraemeL (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Email me via through my site. We can talk about this privatly.
--No thanks. Please keep the discussion in public view. You have posted to the requests for removal of content page. I will be keeping the content in place until an expert on the subject reviews the situation. --GraemeL (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--The content posted on Wikipedia is based off a trade secret - one specifically designed by Peter Loughran. The work within the manuals which talk about the secret are copyrighted work. Maybe people here at Wikipedia have the two reversed - copyrights and trade secrets? Maybe a quick review of Trade Secrets as defined by Wikipedia should be review -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_rights_to_magic_methods#Trade_secret
and also trade secret information -> http://www.howstuffworks.com/question625.htm
There is obviously a big differance between information that can be easily found by the public as for one that cant...which in this case purchasing the product gives you the rights to use the trade secret to use in your act and not to divulge this to your audience. In this case it is easy to see that it is being used harmfully towards to the originator.
You can argue that this is just a method...but what you buy is what you have on Wikipedia...thus harming the originator of his profits...the method is barely even mentioned...which would be patter and how to rigg yourself...etc....instead what is here is mainly the trade trade secret he worked hard at and what you purchase.


Is there any resolution on this? 05:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. Several days with a broken computer. It looks like your copyright claims had no basis as the text bears no resemblance to the site you are claiming the article was copied from. As to the trade secret, I don't think you have a claim there unless you can prove that the person that posted the content was under a non-disclosure agreement. --GraemeL (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XDCC REVERT

What is your deal? Why would you revert the page to support the spammer. Over the last week or so others have been changing the links and order of the links to support their site and they are changing the text on other links. I was not aware the admins of wiki supported spammers. The links have been a certain way for months and now you are supporting the spammers by siding with them and reverting back to their edits? You need to re-evaluate your purpose here.

You might have a point in there somewhere. none of the external links were adding to the articles content. I removed tham all. --GraemeL (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are out of your mind man. Most all the links there had everything to do with XDCC, which is the topic. Some were XDCC clients and others were XDCC search engines. Is your nazi attempt at control and punishment the norm here at wiki? "You don't like my changes so I will remove everything"? You expect to get respect doing things like this? Just so you know I will be reporting your abuse of position.
None of them added to the encyclopedic value of the article. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is probably where you want to go. --GraemeL (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic

"Please stop removing content that is factually correct and verifyable. Just because it is not an acheivement is no reason for it not to be in the article."

It was added to the 'Recent Achievements' sections !!!! Makes your statement above look absurd(downright stupid actually) Or ar you deliberatly mischevious. Find a better section if you have an absolute need to include this.

The section was badly named and I've now fixed that. Wikipedia has a neutrality policy and the article should contain both positive and negative facts as long as they are verifiable. The result was a major shock and is perhaps even more significant than the loss to Calley several seasons ago. For your information, the text about the cup loss was originally added by a Celtic fan, you can see his reply to my comment about it in the section above this post entitled Sad day for Celtic Fans. --GraemeL (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the link to the radio program is relevant to the article, and your basis for removing it (due to its being an MP3) is at the very least legitimately debatable. I do not feel strongly enough about it to revert (and I don't think it would be a productive way to make my point) but I think it should be discussed further on the the Prussian Blue talk page. I would like to hear other opinions.

Meanwhile: why did you accuse me of putting up a link to a "commercial" site, and why did you imply on my talk page that this was a link to my own personal site? This is baseless and completely uncalled for. The link is neither commercial nor personal. This isn't spam. We simply have different editorial opinions. Care to talk more productively about this? Thanks. 38.2.108.125 19:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the message was a standard template ({{Spam1}}), it doesn't always fit all situations exactly. It is a general warning about external links.
I have made my position known on the talk page already and don't see any point in adding to it at the moment. I will keep an eye on it though. If the consensus of regular editors is to include the link, I will not stand in the way of it being added back. I would also like to commend your actions in posting to the talk page, rather than just adding the link back. --GraemeL (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying that for me. I am rather new to all of this and am still learning the ropes, as it were. I can see now that I was taking something personally that was not personal at all. :-) As for the link, I agree that getting into an editing battle is in bad form. I care about reaching a consensus and respect other opinions. Cheers. 38.2.108.125 16:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mischevious

you are clearly using this page in a non-neutral way. Going so far as to change the heading when to suit your original 'argument' which had been exposed as nonsense. you are the vandal. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a fansite.

You are unsuitable in the roll of moderator

No, having only a section for achievements, without one for losses/disappointments would not be neutral. Naming it "Recent seasons" instead of "Recent achievements" encourages neutrality in the article. Removing information about a major loss is inducing a positive point of view to the article. You will note that I have not removed the information about a major loss that you added to the Rangers article. Such an event certainly deserves mention and if somebody were to remove it, I would add it back. --GraemeL (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pathetic

Firstly you had no right to accuse me of vandalism - I have read the policy. Your continued reverting to the previous versions meant the text wsa quite wrong - I repeat, in no way could it be considered an achievement for celtic. My revisions were correct until you moved the goalposts. Your current 'argument' is lame. You could not admit that you were wrong to keep incluiding this in the 'achievments' section which i repeatedly pointed out to you . When the penny dropped you changed the title with some lame reasoning. I question your motives.

record aggregate defeat...

You wrote last night - "You will note that I have not removed the information about a major loss that you added to the Rangers article. Such an event certainly deserves mention and if somebody were to remove it, I would add it back."

You will note that the text has now been removed by Neilson. I await you reverting to the original.

Hi Graeme, Unfortunatley I was left a message about this by an anon on my talk page. Its a fact, and verifiable, but is is worth including? Neither more nor less so than the record Euro win (Famagusta, Vladikavkaz?) and that's not there either. Cheers. Neil Leslie 08:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been without a computer for several days, so sorry about taking so long to reply. My personal opinion is that the information on Rangers record European defeat does merit inclusion. It's verifiable and if record wins are recorded, NPOV says that record defeats should have a place too. --GraemeL (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reverting

I did it for you as you seem a little slower to revert tonight in stark contrast to last night.

I've been without a computer for a few days. That's why I didn't revert it. See my reply in the thread above. --GraemeL (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam by User:212.34.237.208

Hello there, User:212.34.237.208 has been spamming several articles such as Rimini. However, i suspect the user is the same as User:80.117.142.110 because he/she is spamming the same site on the same articles. This IP might need a block too. Thanks, Husky 10:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you got it cleaned up. Sorry, I've had no computer for a few days after my CPU fan decided to trash its bearings. --GraemeL (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:70.89.208.242

Sorry to bother you again. User:70.89.208.242 has been removing an earlier block message by User:Doc glasgow and calling me a gestapo on my talk page. The user is definitely a spammer, even though he says otherwise (see his Contributions, all links to a commercial link directory). His latest message on his talk page says that 

'The more you mess with me the more I will mess with you. I guarantee I will win. I have more IP 
addresses and proxies and bouncers and much much more that you can not hope to handle.'.

I reported him at WP:AIV Husky 10:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like somebody got him taken care of: Block log. --GraemeL (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Posh Spice Takes it Up the Arse"

I have added this to the Redirects for Deletion page. Click here to add your comment:[1] Camillus (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It got speedy deleted. Sorry, I had computer problems and wasn't here for a few days, otherwise you would have had my vote. --GraemeL (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Graeme,

I simply wanted to let you know that I'm not a spammer and I have no ads in my gallery as I can afford the hosting expenses on my own. You have removed the only link in this article that was providing free pictures since my gallery is published under GNU FDL.

I would like to ask you to reconsider your decision on removing the link I have contributed. I truly think that my work can be of great help to all Wikipedia readers.

Thank you,

Juliancoccia 23:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding links to your own site is strongly discouraged. Adding links to your own site to multiple articles will almost always be seen as spamming.
That's not to say I think your pictures are bad, quite the opposite from the pages I looked at. If you want to contribute them, the best thing to do is to upload some of them to Wikipedia and insert them into articles with no pictures, or poor pictures. --GraemeL (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Graeme. I will do that instead. Juliancoccia 00:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding categories

With an edit summary of raining cats made me laugh out loud. --GraemeL (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-15 01:38Z

RFA thanks

Thanks for supporting me in my RFA. --TimPope 13:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

exposure

Hello GraemeL,

you have probably discussed about this subject earlier...but please read this and be honoust to us and yourself!

---

When you're watching magic and see the magician is doing something unbelievable, most people are really curious how the magic is done.

At that moment everything is still fine...BUT then comes someone (website, television or a person) who tells you the secret of the magic that has been performed for years and years.

"Ok, well what a great magicians...come on I don't want to see anymore magic, they just fool us and it's a waste of time watching something that trickery!"

BOOM...byebye magic business!

Believe me, it really hurts when I perform on an occasion of one of my customers and someone in the audience calls: "HEY GUYS I KNOW THIS ONE, IT WORKS LIKE blablablabla".

And I think my customers are also not very happy when they hear that the magician is not as good as he thought, at least that's what he thinks!!

And he will never hire a magician anymore, because "well you know, all that magic is fake and more and more people know how it's done.

---

I hope this little message gets you thinking about exposing magic on Wikipedia, the Wikipedia concept is great but I think that secrets like "zombie ball" (that's why you sent me a message) shouldn't be opened for public domain.

So please think this over and feel a little connection between you and the magic world.

Kind regards from Holland, Marc Woods... (unsigned by User:Houtjes

User page

Thanks for reverting my user page. It's so nice to be popular with the vandals. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that I'm going crazy....

I put links and then few seconds later they are gone, I put them again and then they are gone again, and I'm doing it over and over agin until I have decided to look on the History.

Whats wrong with adding a list of search engines?

Read WP:NOT and WP:EL. Wikipedia is not a web directory. The links are not necessary to the understanding of the subject. --GraemeL (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will stop...but will it make Wikipedia better?

Graemel:

If you follow what I have posted, I am an expert in histoorical video and copyright. My family owns EVTV1 and British Pathe (one of the largest historical footage libraries on the planet). While it is true I was linking to evtv1, it is because I am certain about teh disposition of those rights. The same cannot be said if I linked to another site...so I limited the linking to video I was certain about.

I waS going to link a video clip to Cryogenics...http://www.evtv1.com/index.asp-itemnum-1401 but will not do it. I realize it appears that I am self-promoting...and there is a conflict. Can I suggest links to a third party and if THEY think it is worthwhile, they link?

I do not wish to engage in activiteies that are questionable, although I do believe the video clips really add to the encyclopedia. Thank you and I will no longer post unless I have permission from a council or admin. If you would like to email me to discuss or call, I am available. Jaffer 15:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jaffer

Glad to hear that you see the apparent conflict of interests. The best way to proceed is probably to post to the article talk pages and ask for the input of regular contributors to the articles. If they think that the link is worthwhile on the article, then it can be added. You may also want to look at Wikipedia:List of WikiProjects to see if there are Wikiprojects for the areas you were posting links to. Posting to the talk page of a wikiproject requesting that they look at your site with the possibility of adding links would be less work than posting to lots of individual talk pages.
I removed your phone number. It's probably best not to post it so publicly. --GraemeL (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Gers

Someone added Kris Boyd, Lovenkrands, Rod Wallace, Ricksen. Stretching it a bit? Camillus (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Undoubtedly stretching it more than a bit. I'll take a look. --GraemeL (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check

the articles Gary Brecher, Mark Ames, the eXile. Brecher is the pseudonym of Ames who is the editor of the eXile. Ames = user:Ryan Nutt = user:Tic Tok = user:Clarence Thomas (formerly) The whole thing is tied up to the Russian National Bolshevik Party (i.e. Nazis) and reads like straight ahead propaganda/advertising —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.141.187.170 (talk • contribs) .

I'll have a look, but it's not an area I have any experience of. --GraemeL (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been reverting these pages many times, using multiple IPs, and refusing to engage in discussion. He has claimed to be Peter Ekman, a professor at a Hungarian university, who has publicly declared his enmity to the subjects of these pages. Dsol 15:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shoe

I never edited the article shoe. You must have the wrong IP address, or the IP address could have changed due to collateral terms. Thanks for understanding. 64.231.66.35 01:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! You are correct. I must have clicked on the wrong link somewhere to get to your talk page. I'll remove the warning. --GraemeL (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. Thank you and continue editing. :) 64.231.66.35 01:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. -- GraemeL

Hello! I am new to wikipedia :) Actually I dont understand why I cannot add external FAQ if it is 1. useful 2. related to the topic? best regards, surplus —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Surplus (talk • contribs) .

Hi there. The site may be useful, but it is packed with ads for a company selling the medication. If you can find a similar FAQ without ads for extremely dubious medication suppliers, then it would probably be good for the article.
Please take the time to read some of the links I posted to your talk page. Wikipedia can be confusing to newcomers and they should help you get familiar with things. Don't hesitate to post here again if you have any further questions. --GraemeL (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re unblock

Yep, I saw you blocked him too so I was going to leave it alone. --Syrthiss 16:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re "commercial links"

"Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven

note a) that my site is not commercial and b) especially not by standards of numerous other news blogs listed on this page.

Your only edits have been adding links to the site to various articles. It looks like nothing more than self promotion to me. --GraemeL (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rangers

I'm rather confused as to why you reverted the latest edits to the Rangers page.

a) van Bronckhorst's name is spelt thus b) the aggregate defeat by Eintracht Frankfurt may be factual, but it is completely unnecessary and plain mischievous to include it.

The van Bronckhorst spelling was incidental. The record defeat information is relevant and deserves inclusion if the article includes record wins. Oh, I am a Rangers fan myself, but I believe in following Wikipedia neutrality policy. I'll go back and fix the name. --GraemeL (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The record defeat is there, 2-10 to Airdrie. No other publication eg Rothmans etc lists such items as record aggregate European defeats, for any club - never mind Rangers. I could perhaps even understand record win/defeat in Europe, but aggregate? It is only mischief-making by other non-Rangers fans.

Hm, you might have a point there. See if you can dig out the record European aggregate win for inclusion. If you can't find it let me know and I'll probably remove the defeat. Removing it will probably bring less controversy if an established user does it, rather than somebody with no login. --GraemeL (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offhand, it's something like 10-3 against Alania Vladikavkaz but there may have been a bigger aggregate back in the earlier days, possibly 11-0 against Borussia Münchengladbach.

Above comment by 81.109.212.17 - oh, btw WP:NOT a blue-nose chat-room :) --Doc ask? 22:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still trying to get back at me for that template joke? ;-) --GraemeL (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having done quite a bit of Googling, I can't find anywhere that records either aggregate European victories or defeats. I think I will remove it. It might generate some flak, but we'll see what happens. --GraemeL (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

spam link?

I really don't see how you can consider my site to be spam.

"There are two types of wikispam: advertisements masquerading as articles, and wide-scale external link spamming. Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. A differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities, however."

Just where in my site do you see anything related to the above?

Have you visited some of the sites listed on that page? Some are blatant spam or self promoting sites that provide little for those interested in learning more about the game.

Have you visited my site at all? Do you see anything on it other than a free resource site for Craps players?

If you want to rid your page of so called spam links, then be fair and remove all the others that are worse than what you consider mine to be.

Craps Pit http://www.crapspit.org

The site you are linking to is ad and popup laden. It is your own site and your only actions over a considerable period have been adding the same link every time it is removed. This is spamming by most Wikipedia definitions. As to the other links, I'm patrolling recent changes at the moment, so I'm not looking at the quality of existing links in detail. However, I do sometimes go through articles weeding out bad links and I will add Craps to my list of articles to look at. --GraemeL (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linking

I apologize for the changes, I was not aware that linking to an external site was not allowed. It will not continue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RhapDJ (talk • contribs) .

It's not forbidden, just linking to commercial sites from multiple articles is frowned on. If you can find sites that add to the encyclopedic content of an article, they are fine. See WP:EL for some guidelines. --GraemeL (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blackjack

On Mar-29-2005 I added an external link to a page [www.beatblackjack.org] describing scientifically methods for calculating expectations and probabilities for Blackjack. This link was removed in December on en.wikipedia.org. I readded it on Jan-16-2006, but you removed it only 3 minutes later considering it a Spam link. However this page has absolutely nothing to do with spam and this page also is very well rated in google using the search terms 'beat blackjack'. I am quite disappointed by that policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Galbum (talk • contribs) .

I was probably a bit hasty in removing that one. Sorry about that. Feel free to add it again, but I can't promise that somebody else will not remove it. --GraemeL (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the answer in Help desk. I could not thank you in that page though. It showed me that the message appeared "<div style="o..." --manop 18:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I think somebody may have updated the mediawiki spam filters to stop people from saving some of that string now. That may help with your problem as well. --GraemeL (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GraemeL&oldid=35769196"