Talk:Flashlight

Is this article a stub?

---

Re: Recent vandalism

Ok, Mr. 66.244.x.x host -- you have been reported for repeated, willful vandalism of this page. You have been warned four times and yet you persist. -- Betterthanyouare 18:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: CPF link

I have sent the administrators of Wikipedia clear and convincing supporting documentation of why I made the revisions, so I would suggest you drop the threats. It is not vandalism if the information is true. It would be good for you to learn this. Just because you don't like something that is the truth does not mean it is vandalism.

Please end your your comments with ~~~~ to leave your signature. Regarding your remarks, I am sorry to hear you feel that way. Using Wikipedia to promote your personal agenda is unethical, and I ask you to consider this: are you really being unbiased here? I would like to resolve this as peacefully as possible, and as such, I'd like to suggest we end this quickly by making a compromise. We leave out the header, as CPF *is* online more often than not, but have a remark next to it saying the server is often down. Is this satisfactory? Skomae 22:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine. I do not have a "personal agenda" and am not "unethical". I simply feel that people attempting to go there should have an explanation of why they may get a "Page cannot be displayed" I know it would frustrate the #### out of me if I tried going there and got that error. Also, that may prevent others from removing it as a dead link if they find it one day that it is down.70.191.173.252 01:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, among whom was this alleged "agreement" discussed? Two people? I think that the comment makes this page look more like a web directory than an encyclopedia entry. Regardless, I think people around this page need to tone down when reverting. Stop making threats against users to "report" them or whatever. Instead, try suggesting that they come here and talk. If that doesn't work, then just be polite about whatever you do there. Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to actually read the entry above yours from 70.191.173.252 That is a valid explanation of why the text exists. Betterthanyouare 03:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We (BTYA and I) made this agreement in order to keep the peace. If you look at the reversion history his and my opinion differ on the subject but a compromise was made in order to stop unnecessary edit warring. I feel that the agreed-upon disclaimer to the controversial link, though not incredibly consistent with Wikipedia standards, is acceptably fair and unbiased. If you look even further back into the history the link was constantly being removed and readded by various anonymous users; I will not speculate on the causes, but since the disclaimer was added, link removal has ceased. Of course, anyone and everyone is free to dispute the 'agreement' made, but I feel that in order to prevent any unnecessary revert wars, they should be discussed here first so the conflicting parties may sort out their differences. At this point I would simply rather not take sides. - S. Komae (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Incandescent spectrum graph

Is this really necessary? It does not apply to all flashlights, and only the specific subset that pertains to incandescent bulb-based lights. Wouldn't this graph be more appropriately used in a page about incandescent light emitted from a filament? I find this graph to be of questionable value to the article, and I will remove it if there are no objections within a few days. - S. Komae (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove! Beside your reasons above—while a simple, typical spectrum measurement may be verifiable and repeatable, this one is original research also flawed because it includes the reflectance of paper. Femto 11:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]