User talk:Jæs/Archives/2010/April

Wind Mobile

Courtesy notice - I'm asking the community whether Michael Geist's blog can be deemed reliable. Please feel free to give your argument BordenRhodes (talk) 05:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. jæs (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I am asking for assistance at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wind_Mobile to resolve this. BordenRhodes (talk) 07:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, again, for letting me know. jæs (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Request

Do not remove my comments on other people's pages as it violates talk page guidelines. Thanks. –Turian (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Your post was harmful, which can be removed per WP:TPG, and given your current accusations against and argument with User:Padillah, I have a strong concern it was not in good faith. You seem to be unwilling or unable to see that you are acting inappropriately, and you seem to be lashing out at anyone who tries to help point that out to you. jæs (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't harmful (your second violation of WP:AGF). –Turian (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll repeat the more important part for you: You seem to be unwilling or unable to see that you are acting inappropriately, and you seem to be lashing out at anyone who tries to help point that out to you. jæs (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Your point? I am saying all I did was close a discussion. Open and your eyes. Fight a battle worth fighting. –Turian (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Closing a discussion isn't the issue; calling those who disagree with your closing that discussion vandals, or calling their edits vandalism, is the problem. When this was pointed out to you at the noticeboard, you said you had a different definition of vandalism. That definition is not compatible with the community definition. You've grown increasingly hostile to anyone on the noticeboard who points that out to you. jæs (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

All that red herring you have been eating must have made you sick. –Turian (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I wish you all the best with your continued editing. jæs (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Extreme Rules

Can pack the item Extreme Rules (2010), replace interwiki and source: http://www.wwe.com/shows/extremerules/matches/14109368/preview/ Thanks. 201.41.30.152 (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you're requesting? jæs (talk) 04:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Classy

Thank you. I think that will help. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

BlackBerry OS

Thanks for you recent cleanup to BlackBerry OS --Chrismiceli (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. It does still need a lot of work. I do plan to try to drag in some more content from the BlackBerry article per your suggestion, however. There is a big Research In Motion conference next week, where they're expected to make some major announcements regarding the operating system, so maybe I can use that as motivation to clean it up some more. jæs (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Montréal Métro

I noticed your edits to the article for the Montréal Métro system. The most recent complete data available from APTA does indeed appear to show average weekday ridership of 987,000 (as opposed to the previously listed 989,000 figure, which I presume was an error). It looks like the STM data on their website itself is woefully out of date, since the 700,000 daily ridership figure appears to date back before 2004. The most recent APTA ridership report appears to indicate daily ridership exceeded 1,000,000 in October 2009, but because they appear to have not received data for December 2009, they did not calculate a precise average daily ridership for the STM (although it is in the report that you removed, on page 34, below the AMT figures). I've restored the most recent relevant report as a citation (instead of the later, but incomplete report), and I also restored the other cite that referenced comparable rankings in North America. Feel free to discuss on the article talk page if you have any questions regarding my changes. jæs (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hmm, odd, when I grabbed that PDF earlier it only listed AMT ... now STM appears as well ... some kind of bizarre download error? Still though, I'm not sure where the 989 figure is in there.

• Also, I'm a little perplexed on how that report, if I'm reading it correct, reports that the Montreal Metro ridership in a year is higher than the Toronto subway ridership. Both have a similiar length and number of stations. However the Toronto system has a higher capacity, runs more frequently, and runs more hours in a day, and in my experience, is more congested off-peak. Logic would suggest that Toronto ridership is higher ... not sure what's going on; some difference in reporting? Counting errors on the 2 systems? Nfitz (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Intrawest

Agree on the financing facts. However I believe it is relevant to point out that Intrawest was forced to sell out assets/resorts. There is numerous info re that fact on the web. I also know having invested in the company - and real estate at those resorts. --Enricokamasa (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a responsibility to be both due and neutral (as well as factual) in its coverage of topics. I'm not fond of the prose, but in an article that is essentially a paragraph long, we really need not spend more than a sentence explaining their recent financial woes. There are more appropriate forums for former shareholders and property owners to discuss their investments and concerns about Intrawest, but Wikipedia really is not the right place. jæs (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What should be linked "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons."

"A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. "