User talk:Fourohfour

Please note: For the sake of readability, I prefer keeping conversations in one piece. If I've left a comment or started a conversation on your talk page, I'd appreciate any replies also going on that page (rather than putting them here). Thanks. Similarly, conversations started on this page will normally be continued here unless you indicate otherwise.

This page contains comments from 19 December 2006 onwards. Older comments are archived at:

Steve "Silk" Hurley

I think I fixed what you were talking about. How does one find the "What links here" for an article, I didn't see it (had to follow the one you left in my talk page to get there). thanks for your help!--Tednor 16:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fixed, thanks. To get "what links here", go to the article, and look for "What links here" in the toolbox section on the left hand side nav bar. Fourohfour 20:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Cartrivision

Hi, thanks for giving me a holler. Yes, I am currently getting the article polished up as we speak, and any redlinks I'll try and rectify ASAP. Most of my references for the article's info are from the external links mentioned in the article. But hey, being a geek or not, I appreciate your help & concern :). I'm suprised no one else here has written up a Cartrivision article by now... misternuvistor 10:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and sorry for the lecture. I was kind of surprised as well, given all the redlinks. Fourohfour 10:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem. There's some links that could use some disambiguation too (such as for Admiral, the TV manufacturer in the US, not the naval rank), but then again, any Wikipedia article is always a work-in-progress. :) misternuvistor 10:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant redlinks *to* the Cartrivision article. Fourohfour 10:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewlicious festival

You're talk page is busy right now! Yes, I understand what you mean, but it's just non-notable enough to be a speedy. If it turns out to be something really interesting, someone else whose not trying to advertise it will write about it. Academic Challenger 10:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original writer made a major improvement and it is no longer a speedy. Academic Challenger 10:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I was going to mark the original {{hangon}}, while we discussed it, as I felt there was some doubt, but it was deleted by that time. Fourohfour 11:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bluntly demand

How does this blunt statement take you? I already have my leagal team looking into this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bluecord (talk • contribs).

Reply made at User talk:Bluecord where conversation was started. Fourohfour 20:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bluecord

The talk page blanking occurred prior to my interactions with him. He has not edited here since he wasw blocked. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know; however, since you had not mentioned (or noticed) the blanking, I simply wanted someone else (preferably an admin) to make clear that this was not acceptable either. Fourohfour 11:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appologize for the mix up. I would like to be able to remove those items that I did not place there if that is ok. This is per conversation that I had with ZOE. I had my password hacked by roomates, this was after using our IP as well. This has been taken care of by me and will not happen again, rest assured. That is the reason I removed them in the first place, being due to the fact that I did not place them there in the first place. If it ok I would like to erase but will wait for an ok before I do it. I would hate to be blocked for something I did not place. Thanks. (In terms I did not write the items that were written toward you, not make the legal threats. It was the roomates in question) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bluecord (talk • contribs).

One of the removals I complained about replaced the page with

"It is my talk page I WILL DO WITH IT WHAT I WANT. Take that back to Scotland."

Sounds very much like the same person that made the rather silly legal threat on my page. The whole "roommates" thing sounds rather too convenient to me, but whatever.... it's your password, and I'm sure you'll look after it and we won't be hearing from your roommates again. (ahem) Fourohfour 11:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have my doubts, as well, but I'm going to assume good faith. Once. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

computer keyboard

Hi, I think the customization of keyboard is very useful information to computer users.

Read this then. Also note that "useful" is in the eye of the beholder, we can't include everything. Not saying that I entirely disagree anyway, but I don't believe that they belong in the specific PC article, and they are more appropriate to an "external links" section.

And the customization capability is not specific to IBM PC keyboard.

No, but the info you added was.

Even so, IBM PC keyboard the the de facto standard to computer keyboard and is suggested to be merged into computer keyboard

Yes, and if you read the discussion, you'll note that all three replies to the merge proposal (mine included) oppose the merge for what I believe are well-founded and sensible reasons.

Thanks for your comments about my edit! --Leo 13:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Since I still disagree with your inclusion, I have raised the issue at the talk page; please contribute to the discussion if you want to. Fourohfour 13:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minolta AF

Hi! I wan't to start by saying sorry for the mistakes I have made, I am aware of them, (not suggesting move on the talk page, moving incorrectly etc.). I am pretty new to this, and you can be sure these mistakes will not be made again. The reason for the move is this: We are a few members of a Minolta forum (www.dyxum.com) that have decided to fix up the old uninformational wikipedia articles on Minolta photographic equipment, we together there decided it would be better to have the article under the general name of Minolta AF instead of the regional name of "Dynax", this should ofcourse have been brought up on the talk page as you say (It has now been brought up there). The Cut-and-paste move was a newbie mistake I'm afraid. I see that you (or someone atleast?) have reverted the changes, thanks, now it can be done properly. Thank you! /Innox

No, that would have been possible before. However, because Minolta AF has already been created (as a new article, so far as the system is concerned), we can't move the Dynax article to it. If the page is to be moved, it will require admin assistance to remove the cut-and-pasted Minolta AF first. Fourohfour 14:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasp jelly hoaxer

Hey, After I checked on that source, I ran through their history and undid a few of their edits. But my personal policy is to not call them out about it, just silently revert. My theory is that they crave any kind of response. Check out a tongue in cheek comment I made once. Cheers, fellow Jamster. ;) --Monotonehell 10:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary; I'm not bothered about what they do and don't want- anti-pandering is still pandering in some form.

Far as I'm concerned, such notices (a) make people aware of a user's history; and (b) by implication, avoid them wasting their time (and pandering to this stuff) by taking it seriously in cases where there's any doubt. That's it! Fourohfour 16:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D Mob

Hello Fourohfour! Who is that D Mob? I know him only from Def Jam Vendetta and Def Jam Fight for NY. Is D Mob also real? MM 11:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DJ/Producer in the D Mob article is not the same person as the character from the Def Jam Vendetta game. The article explains who he is. Fourohfour 13:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, thanks. MM 09:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woolworths Group

Hey there. I'm the person who edited (repeatedly...) the store numbers on the Woolworths Group page from address 87.75.128.43. Predictably this is the Woolworths head office address and it wasn't me who vandalised the page. Reading my comments I think I got a little carried away. I know how many stores are open because it's my job. The corporate website now says 818 stores as of March 2007 (on the page already cited), but doesn't list the split between High Street and Out of Town, so I suggest the split is removed and the total stores is quoted.

I'm really not the sort of person who wants to get into any debate about this, contrary to any impression I gave. Sorry for that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.14.71.217 (talk • contribs).

No problem, I was just trying to explain that the potential can of worms this opened was the major reason that WP has "no original research" and "attributable" policies.

As for the vandalism, and guessing who had responsibility, I wasn't sure if it was you or not; unfortunately, it's an inherent problem with editing anonymously. Note that you can create an account without passing on any personal information, not even an email address (the only thing WP knows is your computer address, which they already get with anon edits). Fourohfour 12:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1509 in architecture

What you probably don't realise is that I created the text because the category already has an entry. Deb 17:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; I wanted to draw your attention to it before you put too much work into it, and I still don't think its previous existence makes it any more worthwhile. Fourohfour 17:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, it's a good thing you told me, because the title was wrong anyway. Deb 17:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penny

I'm not sure where the term "penny war" originated; however, it is most definitely something that existed prior to, and independent of, user:Iluvfoamy321. I moved the article to the singular version of the name, and took out the capitals. DS 14:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I had my doubts, which is why I didn't tag it straight away. Fourohfour 14:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

126 film

Please stop following me and deleting my work, you are a very trying person.

You are a very accusatory person. You made an edit with which I disagreed; going by past experience, it was likely the same change had been made in several places, I wasn't "following you"; ~~I noticed the changes in your history when I was checking this out.~~. (My mistake; I didn't catch those changes via your history, I noticed them because the pages in question were already in my watchlist).

Fair enough, I got cross when it seemed my work was deleted on multiple pages.

If you feel strongly that your change was for the better and disagree with my reversion, please take it up on the appropriate pages.

I am a film collector and using my knowledge to add to the wikipedia. I have a original 126 roll film and wanted to place a photograph of it on the page, so expanded the page in order to allow me to do this in the near future.

I think it would be better for us to split the 126 film page, since it is essentially describing two different formats that just happen to have the same name. I considered splitting it before, but there was so little on the roll-film 126 that it seemed pointless. If you can expand it, this will probably change.

I apologise for misreading your intention, I assumed that this was a "complete" edit.

We'll try to make it better and more informative, thats what we're both wanting hopefully. Annoyingly I've just checked the box and its a 124 rollfilm not a 126, but I hope to still use the photograph to open a new stub for that size film.

If you want to carry out your edits in several stages, you can add comments like "work in progress" or "I will add to this section in the near future" or whatever in the Edit Summary.

OK, good idea

What I did not expect is for my work to be deleted faster than I had written it.

WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU! Kindly stop being so over-zealous and allow others to contribute.

Other edits and mistakes you corrected - fair enough - I'm not an expert at Wiki, I just want to add things I know. Would be nice to be told though, that is my point!!

I probably would have left a message on your talk page if you'd been signed in. Going by past experience with anonymous editors in general, most of them don't see or respond to messages sent in this way (in part because of the way anonymous editing works), which is why I didn't.

Will get an account if there is a lot more I want to contribute.

You don't have to create an account if you don't want to, but it's pretty easy (you don't even need to give an email). :-) Fourohfour 16:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Argument closed and all cleared up. For now!

Oh, and sorry for my grumpy comment about the up-to-dateness of the list in Disc film. Fourohfour 16:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dab page edits

Be careful when de-piping links on dab pages. WP:MOSDAB specifies that piping should be used when formatting or quoting a portion of a link that contains both a title and a clarifier. It's not a blanket no-pipe policy. I noticed the change on The Word, so I'm changing it back to the proper format there. --Fru1tbat 01:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point; although I've never treated it as a blanket policy (I'm quite happy to break the rules when it's obviously not the right thing...) Fourohfour 16:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Fixya from Amilo Laptop

I've noticed you have removed my link from Amilo Laptops. Please explain why.

Because it was blatantly being spammed across several pages, and did not meet Wikipedia's guidelines.

The content is highly relevant and important for day to day users.

That's a matter of opinion, I disagree otherwise I wouldn't have removed it. Simply asserting that something is relevant does not make it so.

Your links were obviously spam; in addition you should read the external links guidelines. Notably, I believe that your links fall foul of 4 ("Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.") and 13 ("Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject"). Your links are not "highly relevant" as you assert elsewhere; else you would not be able to add similar links to so many articles. Fourohfour 17:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Yaniv.bl 09:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fouronfour, you have removed my links from tech support although i opened the subject for discussion prior to editing the post.

Yaniv.bl, you didn't draw attention to the discussion. You expect me to manually check the talk page of every article you've spammed?

When I feel the need to open a discussion, I usually draw attention via the edit summary, which should be visible to anyone editing the article. I sometimes also notify the key player(s) via their personal talk pages.

If you wish to change an article please do so through the discussion page.

No; this does not apply to every edit. Only if one or more people disagree strongly enough to raise the issue on the talk page. And it's their/your responsibility to draw attention to the fact, as I described above.

You are not the sole owner of Wikipedia. Your charges make no sense at all!

I already explained my changes with reference to the External Links guidelines above.

Please explain how fixya is not relevant to tech support.

I didn't say that it wasn't. You clearly didn't read the External Links guidelines enough.

Fixya sells nothing

They still run adverts though; and even if they didn't, it doesn't mean that WP is obliged to include a link to a website, even if the person involved is spamming for vanity reasons.

- you clearly didn't spend a minute to understand what the site is about. It's a community based site where millions of people get FREE tech support solutions from other community members. so this pretty much drops both your allegations.

Which "allegations" does it drop? You are making incorrect assumptions that my objections were because I thought Fixya sold a product.

Please stop making fixya your personal vandeta

Get over yourself. Fixya isn't a personal vendetta; I'm pretty indifferent to it. Having looked at it again, I daresay that it's probably quite a useful site in general, but this doesn't excuse your spamming in many articles. Please read the External Links guidelines again.

- millions of people are using it to get help our service is free of charge. Since it's a tech support site you can't claim that it's not related to the article either (if you disagree with that just google for "consumer electronics tech support" see who comes first).We are here to server the community - why do you find it so offensive? Yaniv.bl 08:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find the site offensive. I found your spamming across multiple articles offensive.

FWIW, your "Technical support" link is more justifiable than the others, but is still a borderline case of "Links mainly intended to promote a website." I think your original inclusion of the same link in less relevant articles, and the fact that you work for Fixya, damages your argument.

The inclusion in E18 error is still questionable IMHO. Anyway, I have requested the intervention of a neutral third party at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Fourohfour 11:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my prior link placements, you are right that they were made inappropriately. This was my fault due to me being a newbie. Once I was told to use the discussion page I did so for every new post. My sole purpose is to allow useful information for people who search related subjects. In the case of tech support & E18 I think we have some agreement. As for product pages, I will bring this issue to discussion with each editor/community and hopefully convince of its relevancy. In cases it is being rejected I will not add a link. I appreciate your efforts in keeping wikipedia clean (I've noticed the amount of energy you are putting into it) and by no means am I trying to undermine it. I'm sorry if I was emotional in my previous posts, but using the term "Spam" put me a bit off balance when all Fixya is about is helping people. I hope my point is clearer now. Let me know if there's anything else. Slainte Mhath ;-) 80.230.159.216 12:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Fourohfour 13:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VCR pic

Hey, thanks for cropping my VCR pic. It was very helpful. Cyberk204 02:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Fourohfour 16:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polavision edit

You may have already noticed this, but I changed your link to the now-non-existent Google cache page to a web archive page that is likely to continue to be available. It is missing some graphics, but at least it's now more useful that the Google dead link. I still have some Polavision film cartridges from back when the format was introduced (I have no idea why I kept them), so I may add a picture to the article when I get time. Canadiana 14:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff; that's exactly what I wanted to happen, thanks. Yep, I realise that the Google cache is always temporary and usually dies a short while after the original page does; IIRC I wasn't relying on the graphics for the referenced material anyway. Look forward to seeing your pictures, thanks! Fourohfour 15:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even bother to read the DAB guidelines?

On my talk page you wrote:

“

It's clear that you don't know (or care) about the purpose of dab pages, or the guidelines surrounding them. You also failed to raise the issue on the talk page as requested, instead preferring to cut-and-paste the previous user's misguided justification without bothering to read my response to them.

I've requested a third opinion to contribute to the discussion. Please respond at the talk page discussion for this issue. Fourohfour 15:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

”

I recived no such request here until this post of yous.
You might try taking your own advice.
The deletion of data is the more severe error than the prescience of it.
I have always been taught to err on the side of caution. It's a small piece of information that a person here may be looking up. Tere is a link to the related article. Such a little piece of info being here is helpful. Even withoiut reading the guidelines page, I know that a disambiguation page is intended to help a user in finding information they may be looking for. -- Jason Palpatine 17:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC) This User wishes (but too often fails) understanding of Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)[reply]

Response at user's talk page, where discussion was started. Fourohfour 19:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From your above mentioned respones at my talk page, where discussion was started:

“

You clearly don't "know", that's why you should have read the guidelines.

a disambiguation page is intended to help a user in finding information they may be looking for.

”

THAT IS PRECISLY WHAT I WAS DOING! I added a link to a related item that someone could have been looking for! --Jason Palpatine 03:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have misinterpreted a quotation from your own comment. Full response at User_talk:Jason_Palpatine#Further_response. Fourohfour 10:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK -- Let's just keep it here. I always did dislike ping-pong discussions.

From the DAB policy:

"Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic. In many cases, this same word or phrase is the natural title of more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to different topic pages that could have essentially the same term as their title."

For example, to create a link to Munchies, just put double square brackets around the word — [[Munchies]] — producing Munchies. Now, Munchies is a disambiguation page, listing the multiple usages of the word. All Munchies links in an article probably refer to a particular meaning of Munchies, such as the 1987 comedy film (Munchies (film)), the brand of snack mix sold by Frito-Lay Munchies (snack mix), a brand of confectionery sold by Nestlé Munchies (confectionery), a craving for junk food (usually associated with using marijuana) Munchies (food craving), Hunger as redirected from The munchies, or Bod Squad - The Munchies, An animated 80's ABC Network short about proper eating habits. The title is taken from a slang term for a food craving when a person is not hungry.

The second para is taken (paraphased) from the DAB policy page you keep telling me to read. Additionally, it goes on to say A disambiguation page is not a list of dictionary definitions. A short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context.

Which is what I am doing!

As an experiment, I did a search for the other segment titles. Beans and Rice was the only other hit. The others, like Yuck Mouth and Nutty Gritty did not produce a direct hit. But, Munchies does produce a direct hit, which is the reason I felt it necessary to include the information you are in an uproar about. Regretably, there are no hit meters on the individual articles; how many hits have each of the seqperate entries on the DAB page (including the Bod-Squad) got? The only real reason you are deleting the link is because you consider it to be insignificant. If that is true, then you are telling me the Bod-Squad article is so insignificant that you don't belive anyone would be searching for it utilizing any of the segment titles. That's how I DID find it -- I didn't know it was under Bod-Squad until I did some serious digging! Are you saying that I am the only one to do that particular search? Are you saying that nobody else here has/is/will look up the Bod-Squad article? --Jason Palpatine 16:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous.

Firstly, you "always did dislike ping-pong discussions.", yet you were the one who chose to reply that way. Whatever.

Secondly, you post the exact same comment above at talk:Munchies.

I'm not even sure why this issue migrated to the user talk pages anyway. I'll respond at the article talk page where the neutral third parties I requested can see it and respond. Fourohfour 18:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"As of"

Please explain what you mean when you say that linking [[As of 2006]] instead of 'As of [[2006]]' is "part of the way Wikipedia works". I have reviewed the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and see no such convention. Benstrider 19:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at user's talk page, where discussion started. Fourohfour 19:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Core remote.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Core remote.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Note for reference purposes: Image mentioned wasn't originally uploaded by me, I just uploaded clipped version as the original upload abused GFDL vs. "Fair use") Fourohfour 15:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple EN

I noticed some of your comments and your note on your user page over at Simple English. I just wanted to say that I'm of a similar mindset as you that it's better for it to be done right or not at all. The core group of frequent editors has really tried to focus on quality instead of quantity. But I digress. The reason I'm writing you today is I wanted to point out a SE user named Cethegus who is all about quantity. I thought that when you're over visiting us, his/her articles might interest you as a place to start improving. I suppose I am being a tad secretive by writing to you here instead of there, but I'd rather not stir the waters by "hounding" his edits--I have already edited a few of his articles but it's so hard to keep up and frankly I have other things to do than patrol his new articles. Perhaps you have no interest in checking this out, and that's perfectly fine by me, but I thought there was a chance you might. If you'd like to respond to me, please do it here on English rather than over there. Thanks. · Tygartl1^·talk· 19:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links: simple:user:Cethegus and simple:user:Cethegus/Articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tygartl1 (talk • contribs).

I appreciate you not wanting to stir things up, although it might ultimately be counter-productive for us to do things that would later be seen as going "behind someone's back".

To be honest, I haven't worked on Simple for a while, except for updating my user page. Before I jump in and start changing/tagging things, I would prefer to go over the guidelines again and improve my own style.

For the reasons you noted in my comments, I would have no qualms about removing (or rewriting) large parts of articles if I felt they were unsuitable, but I would prefer to be sure of my own position and justification first.

Have you raised the issue at the Simple version of the Village Pump or Requests for Comment? I feel that would be open and productive. Fourohfour 11:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood what I was suggesting. There isn't really an issue to raise. Some of this editor's articles are perfectly fine. I just thought that if you were there and if you felt like improving some articles that this would be a good place to start. The simplicity on some of his articles is lacking, and some tend to be quite long. And really the only reason I'm discussing this with you here is because you don't have email and I didn't feel it appropriate to discuss this on your Simple English page. · Tygartl1^·talk· 14:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no problem; thanks for letting me know. Fourohfour 14:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

alternative to interruption

re: one of your comments at Talk:Head Over Heels (video game) How about changing “They *don't*” to “Cover art *doesn't*”? (Resulting in “Cover art *doesn't* illustrate the game in question! That was my point. Fourohfour ...”) --EarthFurst 02:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply at user's talk page where conversation started). Fourohfour 11:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonicbids/EPK trademark edits

I am just registering my confusion over your request for a citation in the footnote on the listing for EPK. What information would you require as a proper citation?--Benjybenjybenjy 21:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically any link or reference to a reliably source that backs up the stated fact. If you need any help actually adding the link/reference, please ask for help, or at least include the link somehow and let someone else tidy it up (but make clear that you are attempting to add a reference). Fourohfour 10:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Jane Morris

Thanks SmokeyTheCat 20:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VCR article

Your point re wikipedia procedures is quite valid. however, I feel you are slightly incorrect when you say my assertion is questionable. I'm not disputing your point about original research though, just merely pointing out a fact. let me ask has your observations shown anything different?

There are no Best Buys in the UK, and I don't intend travelling thousands of miles just to verify that. It's been a couple of years since I last bought a video recorder, but since I've never heard of a consumer VCR being sold here without a tuner, I doubt that this has changed.

I am not saying that would conclusive one way or the other; i do intend to find some objective sources, as you pointed out. But I am just curious as to what your general experience/observations have been. thanks. --Sm8900 13:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall *ever* having heard of this. Anywhere. *Ever*.

You might be correct, but if it's so widespread, it should be easy to gather evidence. Please note that it cannot automatically be assumed that the U.S. market applies elsewhere; in fact, the evidence is against that. Fourohfour 19:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Regards to my action

Thank you very much for that criticism. I have realized my faults, and I will try to correct my actions. Thank you indeed (I am serious when I am saying this) Arbiteroftruth 14:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Fourohfour 11:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale adding...

Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 22:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]