This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nikon D7000 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi! I'm RSvetti. Who the BL**P are Users: Pixel8 and Scarcrow?! I have been trying to post the specs for this product for two days now. These demi-gods keep removing it. Further, they label me as a spammer. Needless to say, I am completely offended! Does anyone find this inappropriate? Because I certainly do!
Getting down to business, let's cast a vote:
A.) Does anyone in an audience which is far greater than these two clowns have a objection?
Or
B.) Does anyone in an audience which is far greater than these two clowns feel that the Technical Specifications for this product is completely reasonable to post and believe that it might be something they want to see?
First of all, and without wasting much more time with YOU DUDES, I would very much like to reiterate that you are an audience of exactly ONE INDIVIDUAL EACH and Wikipedia is not solely for YOU. As well, I would like to reiterate that I would like to see the full specs on there and remind you that neither of YOU are qualified to distinguish what information I, nor the rest of the world, might find "Useful" so long as it is relevant. Does that make sense to you?
This speaks directly to the fact that my post contained ALOT more content than that little box does. And no, it couldn't POSSIBLY be more relevant. THAT WAS KINDA THE POINT DUDE. GET IT? So you call me a spammer? I think you are absolutely ridiculous! That was a HUGE contribution and I feel, a much needed one. "I think that is all we need to know." Shove it; these principles at the very heart of Wikipedia. So whereas I may be relatively new, don't lecture me dude because I know at least that much.
As well, I would like to point out that half of the sources cited (to the very page) are Affiliated with Amazon dude (since you're checking) right along with just about every other site on the internet. Hell, I'll bet you are to! Which means that you may know: that snippet on the Contact Us page is apart to the Amazon TOS. In fact, ALL of those very people (cited, right there on the same page) aught to post that same snippet if they haven't already.
So, tell me again what's appropriate you fool. That IS the deal for you, me, them, the rest of us: we all make our great contributions of free, relevant, and quality content/services --- and we hope to get paid a little somewhere down the line! Sound familiar dude? So tell me again, what is "inappropriate"? Sounds like a little hypocrisy to me... And if you might actually think about that for a but a second, it might sound the same to you. GET IT?
Fortunately, Wiki too has a TOS. As well, they offer a shot at getting around demi-gods like you. BTW, love how you killed the free press! Way to go Champ!
-RS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.7.168 ( talk) 03:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that D7000 can be considered a successor to D90. In terms of appearance it is a successor, but it has weather sealing, magnesium body, 39 AF points etc. All these characteristics put D7000 in semi-pro category, in my opinion. Satellite779 ( talk) 15 September 2010
An image used in this article,
File:D7000.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 14 December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 18:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC) |
It is stated that that the camera has backfocusing problem as well as hot pixels and overexposure. The last is mentioned in the article but others are not.
The backfocusing and hot pixels problems should be mentioned in the article.-- 98.199.22.63 ( talk) 05:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
All KR refs should be removed as they are notoriously unreliable. Refer http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm quote: This website is my way of giving back to our community. It is a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination. This website is my personal opinion. To use words of Ansel Adams on page 193 of his autobiography, this site is my "aggressive personal opinion," and not a "logical presentation of fact." KymFarnik ( talk) 03:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nikon D7000 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi! I'm RSvetti. Who the BL**P are Users: Pixel8 and Scarcrow?! I have been trying to post the specs for this product for two days now. These demi-gods keep removing it. Further, they label me as a spammer. Needless to say, I am completely offended! Does anyone find this inappropriate? Because I certainly do!
Getting down to business, let's cast a vote:
A.) Does anyone in an audience which is far greater than these two clowns have a objection?
Or
B.) Does anyone in an audience which is far greater than these two clowns feel that the Technical Specifications for this product is completely reasonable to post and believe that it might be something they want to see?
First of all, and without wasting much more time with YOU DUDES, I would very much like to reiterate that you are an audience of exactly ONE INDIVIDUAL EACH and Wikipedia is not solely for YOU. As well, I would like to reiterate that I would like to see the full specs on there and remind you that neither of YOU are qualified to distinguish what information I, nor the rest of the world, might find "Useful" so long as it is relevant. Does that make sense to you?
This speaks directly to the fact that my post contained ALOT more content than that little box does. And no, it couldn't POSSIBLY be more relevant. THAT WAS KINDA THE POINT DUDE. GET IT? So you call me a spammer? I think you are absolutely ridiculous! That was a HUGE contribution and I feel, a much needed one. "I think that is all we need to know." Shove it; these principles at the very heart of Wikipedia. So whereas I may be relatively new, don't lecture me dude because I know at least that much.
As well, I would like to point out that half of the sources cited (to the very page) are Affiliated with Amazon dude (since you're checking) right along with just about every other site on the internet. Hell, I'll bet you are to! Which means that you may know: that snippet on the Contact Us page is apart to the Amazon TOS. In fact, ALL of those very people (cited, right there on the same page) aught to post that same snippet if they haven't already.
So, tell me again what's appropriate you fool. That IS the deal for you, me, them, the rest of us: we all make our great contributions of free, relevant, and quality content/services --- and we hope to get paid a little somewhere down the line! Sound familiar dude? So tell me again, what is "inappropriate"? Sounds like a little hypocrisy to me... And if you might actually think about that for a but a second, it might sound the same to you. GET IT?
Fortunately, Wiki too has a TOS. As well, they offer a shot at getting around demi-gods like you. BTW, love how you killed the free press! Way to go Champ!
-RS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.7.168 ( talk) 03:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that D7000 can be considered a successor to D90. In terms of appearance it is a successor, but it has weather sealing, magnesium body, 39 AF points etc. All these characteristics put D7000 in semi-pro category, in my opinion. Satellite779 ( talk) 15 September 2010
An image used in this article,
File:D7000.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 14 December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 18:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC) |
It is stated that that the camera has backfocusing problem as well as hot pixels and overexposure. The last is mentioned in the article but others are not.
The backfocusing and hot pixels problems should be mentioned in the article.-- 98.199.22.63 ( talk) 05:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
All KR refs should be removed as they are notoriously unreliable. Refer http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm quote: This website is my way of giving back to our community. It is a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination. This website is my personal opinion. To use words of Ansel Adams on page 193 of his autobiography, this site is my "aggressive personal opinion," and not a "logical presentation of fact." KymFarnik ( talk) 03:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)