User talk:David Newton/archive2

Unlawful combatant
Hello, David, Your entire addition to "unlawful combatant" was removed by a critic. I restored most of it except the arguable opinion, which you might want to rewrite.

You were right to try to achieve some balance. As it was, it was a more-or-less straight POV piece for opponents of the concept. Cecropia 01:00, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)|

--Dave-- I cannot find your new page on amphbious assaults. Can you give me the exact title? Paul, in Saudi

Administrator
Congratulations - you are now an administrator!. I suggest you look at Administrators' reading list to see what this entails. Secretlondon 23:16, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

User:bird
Hey, I noticed you reverted an edit to Brain made by User:bird, and thought you should know: This user apparently become extremely agitated lately and is reverting all his edits, sometimes blanking pages, and seems to indicate (on his (rapidly-changing) and my talk page, for instance) that the material he has added was delibrately false. Quite the unusual occurrence. I'm not quite sure what to think of the situation. (edited Fennec 16:57, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC))


 * typical of wikipedians, my statements are misrepresented. I stated that I later reconsidered the amount of research and the originality of the articles and determined that I could not in good faith publicly endorse the content as accurate. Fennec would rather discount my concerns for the benefit of the thrilling day of on-line combat a few user are enjoying at my expense. USER:bird

Ouch, the Bird affair has gone quite far away. You did well, I hoped it would not have gone so far. Pfortuny 21:05, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

AWM Official Histories
Hi David. Yes, I know about the PDF volumes on the AWM site. I've linked to Vols. I & II on the Battle of Gallipoli page. I could go as far as linking to the individual chapters for each of the battle articles. I've got my own hardcopy of Vol VII on the Sinai & Palestine campaign which is what I've been basing my articles on. The only problem I've encountered with these PDFs is that they are black & white scans so the photographic plates don't come up looking so good. Congratulations on your adminship. Geoff 21:25, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the links. I was actually contemplating transcribing the Australian WW1 histories when the AWM made the PDFs available.  As far as I can make out they are still under copyright.  Late last year I had transcribed the unit history of my grandfather's unit (producing HTML and PDF versions) but a). it's never been published so is still under copyright and b). the unit is so minor and obscure (3rd Light Horse Field Ambulance) that there wouldn't be much interest in it. Geoff 00:05, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Stop reverting my user page. You are a vandal and are committing acts of aggression toward me. USER:Bird
 * Further information on User:Bird and the Bird/Brain affair is now available at User talk:Bird/Brain and stuff. - Fennec 14:23, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi David - can you please look at WikiProject_Aircraft/Table (again). I'm on the verge of losing my patience with the constant attempts at "table proliferation" and would appreciate the comments of third parties there (whether you agree with me or not) --Rlandmann 04:12, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So I'm thinking about doing some ship table updating - which of the new-format tables do you think would be a good examplar for cloning? Stan 16:30, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * You mentioned using the new table format, but whichever ship(s) you did it for, it's sufficiently far back in your contributions list that I didn't see one. So I'm just fishing for a suggestion as to which ship article to look at. Stan 05:10, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi David. I'm not sure if your subpage is the right place to move Bird's rants to, but it didn't seem appropriate to leave attacks on the village pump and I needed somewere to put it. Please let me know if there is a better place, or if User talk:David Newton/Bird Dispute is ok for it. Thanks. Angela. 23:06, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

Hey David, just a quick heads up, since youre the Admin that seems most involved in the brain dispute, I believe that User:SoCal is a Bird Sock puppet, check the subpages of brain, hes been slowly removing content from brain subpages claiming factual inaccuracy, see Neopallium,Paleopallium,Frontal lobe etc. Theon 05:26, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

KJV Copyright
David -- I left a response to your claim that the KJV copyright is bogus at the King James Version of the Bible talk page. Just thought I would want to give you a heads up. -- iHoshie 10:42, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

Aircraft footers
Hi David - since you're the WP Aircraft table-guru, I wonder if you could take a look at F-100 Super Sabre and F-105 Thunderchief. The little edit boxes are forcing the main table to the left, causing the footer to overlap with it (in my browser anyway - Win XP/IE6/1024x768). Any idea how we can fix/prevent this? --Rlandmann 13:01, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * User:Gsl applied a fix to the F-100 Super Sabre and also used it on his Fairey Fulmar contributions. It unfortunately pushes the footer to the bottom even when an article has a short text and a long data table, but I think it's better than risking the previous problem. I'll update the sample footers on the WikiProject page accordingly. --Rlandmann 10:27, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Copyvio; apologies.
David. You are correct. I mistook the copyright notice at as applying to the entire content of the site. Clearly the US government document which it uses as a source is in the public domain, and you were perfectly OK in quoting it.

Next time, instead of rudely reverting me and shouting at me on my talk page, would be so kind as to make a statement at Possible copyright violations and my talk page, per Wikipedia policy? If you had done that, I would have glady reverted my own error. Furthermore, when quoting extensively from a source on the web, it's easy to be mistaken for a copyright violation, especially in an unclear case like this (a government document used on a private site), so it would be helpful if you could include a notice of the source; if I had seen one on the article, I would never have put the copyvio notice up. I watch Special:newpages frequently, and you might be amazed at the relatively high number of submissions we get that are blatant copyright violations. Thanks... -- Seth Ilys 22:36, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

HMS Glamorgan
Hi there, I notice we have both written a page on this ship within the last few weeks. My page had more info, tho yours was structured better so I merged the both of them in HMS Glamorgan, which has more links to it than with the number added. There is only one RN ship named Glamorgan so this should be OK.

I like your other articles on ships and hope they can be expanded with more info soon. Astrotrain (March 14th 21:45)


 * RE: Spartan, mmmmm, I thought I had done the page on the correct one, I must have re-directed the wrong page from the Swiftsure page is the only reason I can think of.

Mediation request
Hello David. Please see Requests for mediation. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. -- sannse (talk) 11:16, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for trying. I didn't think that you would come to an agreement with them, but it was good of you to try. It was a somewhat odd meditation. I ask for it, and then take no further part in it! Well, if Bird is still causing problems, then it's time to take it to arbitration. Last I checked, Bird's edits after the ban expired were reasonable; some wikifications of dates. I guess we can live in hope! David Newton 17:37, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was a bit of an unusual one, and perhaps taking that approach was a mistake on my part. I hoped a kind of pre-mediation might lead to a basis for further discussion.  Mediation on Wikipedia is still very much a work in progress! -- sannse (talk) 19:36, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

RE: Crown copyright. Having a _very_ brief look - we can't presume not for profit - we may be but our users may not be. An image with a non-commercial restriction needs flagging differently. They are not as free as others with no restrictions. Secretlondon 23:09, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi David, welcome at the Dutch Wikipedia. But please, do not use User:David Newton as this is not a Dutch user name, but Gebruiker:David Newton. I changed the link on your user page down here, but not on your other user pages (were you did the same). User:David Newton on Dutch wikipedia is an ordinary article and is now on the list of pages to be removed. Ellywa 06:01, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I assumed it was just a mistake. Ellywa 06:24, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Great work on organizing the ship classes! I notice you've moved some of the reclassified destroyers to their previous designations. It's kind of a knotty problem what to call them, but following some of the carrier names, I've generally been favoring the designation in use the longest. So for instance the Truxtun spent 7 years as a DLGN and 20 years as a CGN, so it's "more familiar" as a CGN. I suppose I should formally propose it as a rule in the Wikiproject eh? :-) Stan 13:24, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Regarding USN Photos
David:

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Honestly, I didn't know what I was doing. I've corrected the beforementioned articles, and I've added additional photos correctly. I'm sorry you had to deal with that. Thanks again. Ex1le 00:43, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Essex/Ticonderoga class distinctions
David:

I appreciate your insight into the distinction between the "long hull" and "sort hull" class carriers. I broke up the classes into the Ticonderoga and Essex distinctly, based on the official distinctions as classified in the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships

I was actually surprised to learn of the official distinction myself as my father actually served on the Antietam, Yorktown and Princeton in the 50s and he simply referred to them as Essex class carriers. I would however advocate that we actually make the official distinction, and add references within each classes page. I am going to add an expansion to the temporary stub of the Ticonderoga class which can cover the points you bring up and the other internal changes made which distinguish the Essex from the related Ticonderoga class. Another reason I followed this course is there were more than a few references within the already posted entries of several of the later modified Ticonderoga class ships which referred to them being Ticonderoga class already, no doubt since the bulk of those texts for the individual ships were also culled from the DANFS. Lestatdelc 01:37, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

Bird / Brain
I am not sure, but it may be Bird back in business. I was not involved, so you might have a better idea. A section appears to have disappeared from Brain. Ebeisher 04:55, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What do you think about taking some of the best features of the standard aircraft table and using them for ships? Bobblewik 17:10, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi again - I'm trying to get the ball rolling on a standard data box for aero engines - if you'd like to make any suggestions, take a look here.


 * Would appreciate your input on the dispute here --Rlandmann 22:28, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hey there. I see on the low degree of compliance page that you sent the standard letter to voyagenow.com on March 14th. Did they ever reply? I'd really like to see these people brought into line. They've taken a fair bit of the articles I've contributed to. If you have other things to do, I'll be glad to take it on. Regards. Blimpguy 21:17, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

HMS Glorious
Hi David, I merged your HMS Glorious (77) article with the original HMS Glorious seeing as people were continuing to edit it. To retain the edit history I merged everything into the latter article however the I guess "HMS Glorious" should be the redirect (or a disambig page if more than one ship) and "HMS Glorious (77)" should be the article (otherwise the MediaWiki footer doesn't work). I figure that as an admin you can delete the existing "HMS Glorious (77)" article and then move the "HMS Glorious" to it so that the edit history isn't lost. Geoff/Gsl 07:31, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Re: BAE Systems etc
Hi David - thanks for your message. I have been creating many pages which appear to already have better information elsewhere perhaps. The reason for my so doing, is to beef up the financial info on the 'pedia (an area of speciality). I have created pages for the legal financial names of these companies, which often differ slightly from the more-recognisable names. In one of your examples, you mentioned BAE Systems - the legal name of the financial company is "BAE Systems plc", and "BAE Systems" is mentioned in the annual report as being a subsidiary of this. Such as with Marks & Spencer plc and Marks and Spencer Group plc - they are 2 entirely separate entities. My plan is to add a standard header to the top of the pages I am creating which will inform people where to go for info on the particular information they require. It would however be incorrect and misleading to have a link from the FTSE 100 page to BAE SYSTEMS, as this is a different entity to the company listed at the LSE. I'm interested to hear any suggestions you may have on how I can improve my plans, I do feel that the business info we have is very negligle and would like to improve it with public domain info from annual reports such as some basic fundamentals, board structure, executives etc... Calexico (Talk) 17:47, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments - more work will go into the headers (which as you noticed are misleading at the moment and I won't move any info that's already on an existing page as that would be needless and unneccessary. I will, however, if you don't mind - get your opinion on the work I do...:-) Calexico (Talk) 18:33, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

HMS Finisterre
Hi. I understand your a moderator (?). Is it possible that you could delete HMS Finisterre (1944)? I created it accidentally and have now decided to change from using years for the Battles to using their pennants. Thanks in advance. I've already moved the text to HMS Finisterre (R55).

Old Empty Tables
I notice that over the last month or so you have been deleting certain versions of the standard table and reducing them to simply a picture. Why are you doing this? I feel it is not helpful at all. If you are going to alter things, then it would be better to put in the standard table, rather than just delete most of it. David Newton 10:00, 5 May 2004 (UTC)


 * When its empty and uses the old table code, it serves no purpose other then to add clutter and make the page ugly. Most of the time the stats aren't available on the page either. It is helpfull to remove them, as the correct standard table code can be added if somone wants to fill these in, even partially. Iv been doing this for more then a month, and will continue do so when I come across them. Note that I have also have updated many pages to full standard table look, and have done a 1-2 tables as well. However, totally empty non-standard tables have no place on these pages. Greyengine5 14:27, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

PD images
Hi David, as far as I know, all works prior to 1923 are public domain. As Weierstraß died 1897, that qualifies. The source page here doesn't give the photographer for that image, but they give it for others; so I figure they don't know the photographer. Also, as the photo was taken at least 106 years ago, and the photographer probably was older than 18 at the time, it would make him the oldest human alive. Still scared of being sued? :-) --Magnus Manske 12:40, 11 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I checked our public domain article, and it has the 70-year-rule - "for works copyrighted after 1977". Is something missing in the article, then? --Magnus Manske 16:47, 11 May 2004 (UTC) (who doesn't know a lot about the legal details)

Bristol Blenheim
FYI, on the Bristol Blenheim page, the right side table headed "Bristol Blenheim" overprints the footer table headed "Royal Air Force squadrons" on browsers at screen resolutions from about 1400 pixels wide or more (I tried in Mozilla and Internet Explorer). The armaments stuff is thus obscured by the right side of the "Royal Air Force squadrons" table. I guess it could be sorted out by DIV formatting, especially by someone who understood what theyw ere doing. i.e. probably not by me. Thought you might want to know. best wishes --Tagishsimon


 * My fault. Should be fixed now.  I'm not even sure if using a table is a good idea.  Perhaps a "List of XXX squadrons" article would be better. Geoff/Gsl 00:35, 16 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I like the table, and the solution is good, but it leaves the section title "Units Using the Blenheim" floating way above the table it refers to (in 1600 width). Is the same problem on other pages? I've not been following the aeroplane pages. --Tagishsimon


 * It works just fine at 1280*1024 with appropriately sized text. The title comes just above the table. It should therefore work well at lower resolutions. However, the problem with the title is a little awkward. I'll have a play with the article in my sandbox and see what I can do about it. David Newton 00:48, 16 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The Blenheim page is the only one I've tried it on. I'm not sure if it's been adopted anywhere else.  The Blenheim squadron list was a "problem" because there was one line for each squadron, making the page rather long.  I can either do away with the section for "Units Using the Blenheim" and put a title in the table or I could put a  before the section heading to force the heading to be below the bottom of the infobox.  Perhaps I should take it up on WikiProject Aircraft. Geoff/Gsl 00:45, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Fixing the width of the squadron table seems sensible. Even without the overlap problem, I imagine a 100% width table at high resolution looks bad. If you do want to use this table approach for listing squadrons, don't feel obliged to use the design I came up with on the Blenheim page. If you do want to "workshop" a better design, I am happy to participate. Geoff/Gsl 01:53, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Categories
Please do not revert the changes. The bug will be fixed within the next 24 hours and hence we will revert back AGAIN. I implore you, with ALL of my being to not revert these changes.--Oldak Quill 20:03, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

List of United States Navy air stations
Hey David,

I changed the links from NAS * to * Naval Air Station as we already have 2 articles with that style and I feel that if you were searching that that would be the more logical search pattern. Burgundavia 07:33, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Hey David, I noticed you just reverted my change. No notes on my talk or hear or on the talk page of the article. Not cool. Let us talk and fill me in. Burgundavia 07:54, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok, I accept that. I was just a little peeved as there was no note on my talk. I will move Willow Grove to that style. Burgundavia 08:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

European elections
Perhaps it would be more efficient for just one of us to update it? Morwen - Talk 22:54, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * That would be quite pointless. If you want to go ahead and do everything, please feel free.    Morwen - Talk 23:00, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Categorising British politicians
I've made a proposal - Category talk:British politicians - would appreciate feed back. Thanks Secretlondon 06:02, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User:Morwen/pinkbits
Probably because its listing the Empire at maximum extent. I think it was just a scratchpad for the list of stuff at British Empire. Morwen - Talk 21:48, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Need support on an undelete. Talk:Nazism/Seperate-National Socialism I would like your support to undelete this and restore as a proper standing article. Some content was moved to the Nazism article and has been made a redirect. The Nazi article is too long. *National Socialism* was not created by either Mussolini nor Hitler and the history of its development needs to have a seperate article upon it. Please see Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion.WHEELER 18:42, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

USN ship tables
Thanks for the tip on the tables - I missed that section on the WikiProject page and used the table from Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) before Magnus converted it to wiki markup. The wiki markup is easier to look at, so I'll use it. - Jonel 22:46, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

- David, Regarding my use of commas in the ships pages. This is done to denote inches. So 150,6 feet is 150 feet, 6 inches. Since feet and inches are not decimal, a decimal point is inappropriate. If you have another suggestion, I'm open to changing the way I do this. Jinian

Aircraft footers again
Hi David - would appreciate your suggestions on how we can improve the look of the aircraft footers, which I think look terrible in the new skin. There's talk happening on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft at the moment. Cheers --Rlandmann 22:23, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Global warming
Hi David, please remember to add a template on pages you protect and list them at Protected page. There are more details in the Protection policy. Thanks. Angela. 11:46, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please stop leaving unresearched accusations on my talk page. It's not very nice. -- Stevietheman 13:58, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

St. Vincent class battleships
Howdy. While doing general janitorial work, I stumbled across a group of what look to be templates created by you in February of this year: HMS St. Vincent (1908), HMS Vanguard (1909), HMS Collingwood (1908), all linked from St. Vincent class battleship. I was wondering if you intended fleshing these out at some point or, if not, if you would agree that it would be better to remove the empty articles until someone with the requisite time and knowledge could do so? Cheers. - TB 12:06, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

National Portrait Gallery
The people at NPG have expressed concern to me that various people are contacting them instead of me contacting them directly. They didn't say so directly, but I gather that they are a bit perplexed at random enquiries from unofficial people. I am not criticizing you for making the enquiry, but suggest that in the future it might be good to run it by me first? Jimbo Wales 17:11, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Categorisation of military units
Hi David, There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military on whether there should be separate categories for "military units" and "military formations". Seeing as you did much of the original work on the categories, perhaps you would care to comment. Geoff/Gsl 00:14, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

West Bridgford
I noticed you had edited the West Bridgford, Nottinghamshire article (albeit a very minor correction). Were you just passing by or could you contribute more significantly to it? I would appreciate any extra info. Nicholas 12:19, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Indian Divisions and Corps
Hello

As you are the creator of "List of Indian corps in WWII" and "List of Indian divisions in WWII" I would like to discuss with you either changing the named from (to take the first in the list as an example) "Indian 4th Infantry Division" to "British Indian 4th Infantry Division" or "Indian 4th Infantry Division (British)" so that we can pre-empt the problems that existed in the Disambiguation of "Indian Army" to "Indian Army" and "British Indian Army" (See the talk page). Personally I'd go with "British Indian..." rather than "Indian...(British)", but I'm easy so long as it is consistent.

The reason for this is that some of theses Corps and Divisions have a history since 1947 and like the Indian Army, the detail both sides of 1947 are unlikely to be of interest to most users.

I am busy putting in some information about the "South-East Asian Theatre" and Indian Divisions pop up all over the place :-) Philip Baird Shearer 19:49, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sigh! The horse's mouth supports your argument. Philip Baird Shearer


 * You wrote ''However the higher units were not under War Office control, they were under the Viceroy who reported to the India Office. I know for a fact that the corps HQs in Burma and Malaya were Indian Army formations.

As it happens I've just been doing a little on Burma Burma Campaign The source was Slim's 'Defeat Into Victory' Page 10-11, plus some sources found during research done for ABDA Talk:American-British-Dutch-Australian Command. The chain of command in Burma depends on the date, from 1937 it gets complicated! Slim makes a diffrence between command and administration, I think that is important when discussing formations in Asia/India. It was quite possible for them to be administed from India but be commanded via a British command or vise-versa (somthing that Stilwell chose to confuse when it came to US formations!).

Something I am not clear on is, after Wavell became CinC India again after his time at ABDA, what and where was India Command and what was its organizational structure, do you know anything about that? Philip Baird Shearer 08:15, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mirrors and forks / Infovoyager
Hi David,

I noticed here that you have sent two warning letters to infopedia, in march and april 2004. Did you ever get a response? At present, the situation is still the same and all infovoyager sites are non-compliant. Maybe now is the time to take further steps. - Mark Dingemanse (talk)  10:02, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Re: your response on my talk page. I dislike them as much as you do. I would like to help. However, I am living in the Netherlands and I'm not a native speaker of English, so I think you could find someone better suited to do the job. Also, I saw a lot of cases like this one on the Mirrors and forks (low compliance) page. I think this whole enterprise should get some attention again. Mark Dingemanse (talk)  22:33, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Navyphotos images
User:Gdr has been flagging navyphotos as unacceptable as restricted to Wikipedia itself only. You have never placed the permission letter online to my knowledge, so I am unsure of the scope of it.

It occurs to me that most of these images are of expired copyright in any case, but we need this cleared up ... &mdash;Morven 21:16, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

British Airways ethnic liveries
It was of course 1997 when the new livery was adopted - that was an edit from my original correct version. I don't think it matters where Thatcher covered the tailfin (i.e. its removal does not detract from the article) but just for accuracy here is my source:
 * BBC News: BA to fly the flag again

BR Loco Details
Just a suggestion, but perhaps the page layout may look better if you put your info box at the bottom under the "Fleet details" subheadings? This way it avoids the huge space at the top.... I've rearrange two pages Class 31 and Class 57 and it looks a bit neater... What do you think? (Our Phellap 15:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC))

usn
David, thanks so much for the help. I am still new here and the category system in particular seems to be tripping me up almost more than anything else. I have a particular interest in US fighter squadrons so I get a kick out of the effort! Katefan0 00:14, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see you have done a BOATLOAD of work! I'll be sure to link directly to your category from now on.  I'd like to try to add a few more squadrons, but I'm going to be really busy this weekend.  May not be able to get to it until next week. Katefan0 00:46, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Ship class footers
You are responsible for creating a number of ship class footers, so you might like to read and contribute to the discussion at WikiProject Ships. Gdr 01:10, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

Article Licensing
I've "started" the Free the Rambot Articles Project which aims to get users to release all of their contributions to the U.S. state, county, and city articles (if any) under the CC-by-sa 1.0 and 2.0 license (at minimum) or into the public domain if they prefer. A secondary, but equally important, goal is to get those users to release ALL of their edits for ALL articles. I've personally chosen to multi-license all of the rambot and Ram-Man contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License so that other projects, such as WikiTravel, can use our articles. I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all your contributions (or at minimum those on the geographic articles) so that we can keep most of the articles available under the multi-license. Many users use the   template (or even    for public domain) on their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I understand, but I thought I'd at least ask, just in case, since the number of your edits is in the top 100. If you do want to do it, simply just copy and paste one of the above two templates into your user page and it will allow us to track those users who have done it. For example:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain (which many people do or don't like to do, see Multi-licensing), you could replace   with    -- Ram-Man 23:56, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

RFC pages on VfD
Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:31, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Boina -> Beret
Thanks for your prompt. 'Boina' is the Basque name for beret and basques first developed the beret. I have made a reference on the beret page.

FYI: Categories for deletion
Hi, since you created these categories, you may be interested to know that someone has put them up for deletion, see Categories for deletion. Thanks. IZAK 08:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whoops
Yeah, sorry, I didn't realize it was an ISP. After some vandal fighting I went off to take a bath and when I came back someone had emailed me and I removed it (or something close to it), but I guess you got it first. Once again, sorry! Cheers. CryptoDerk 00:20, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Sockpuppet image
Hilarious! It suggests a whole series of icons, although I suspect the apply-ees might raise a ruckus... :-) Stan 18:16, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blocks are not expiring
I'm posting this message on every admin who has made a block in the last few days. The title says it all really: because of a bug in the new software blocks are not expiring when their time is up. Until this is fixed can you get in the habit of manually unblocking a few everytime you block one. If everyone does this we'll be able to keep on top of things until the bug is sorted out. Note also that another bug is displaying indefinite blocks as expiring at the current time and date. obviously you don't want to unblock those. If you want to reply please do so here Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 10:14, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blocks
In following of Bobchalk, Cantus and Curps. Could you please block me too? I also violated the 3 revert rule on 2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake.

And take a look at this one, it's an obvious vandal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Improv%AD Please take a look at the revisions of his User- and Talk-page too.

-- 80.126.114.182

Three-revert rule
What is the proper procedure to follow when someone reverts way more than three times against five different people? If each of the five different people gives up at three reverts, then the original person can get his way by simply reverting 16 times or more. See Talk:2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake/Article_organization

No need for a detailed reply, this isn't a complaint and I'm willing to move on. I realize you need to take a balanced approach, but I'm not sure what I would have done differently. -- Curps 18:40, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Belorussian or Byelorussian
Please see Talk:3rd Byelorussian Front Philip Baird Shearer 16:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

List of Volcanoes
Hi David. The purpose why I am doing this category edits is, because there is also a category "Volcanoes by country". This category should provide the same information as the "List of volcanoes". I think it is more consitent to provide volcanoes in that category rather then in the list. If some volcano articles are added, then the editor does not have to edit the "List of volcanoes" too. I also added a category "Mountains by country", which has the subcategory "Volcanoes by country". When all volcanoes has been added to these categories the "List of volcanoes" is not needed any more. If I deleted some entries in the "List of volcanoes", then it is because I have not found any information about volcanoes inside the article. If I made a mistake, so please excuse me for that. --GarciaB 12:49, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Smithsonian Institute Copyright
I am not sure but is it ok to quote the copied text as a cite from an external source and then use it. If not, I will go over the articles and rewrite them.

comment images
thanks for the comment, --Gerd Breitenbach 12:48, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

USS King (DDG 41) - formerly DLG 10 -
My brother served aboard the King. I was wondering if you plan adding a wikipedia article on it. I found a few links with some info that might be useful:

http://www.navysite.de/dd/ddg41.htm http://www.navysite.de/crew.php?action=ship&ship=ddg_41 http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/242.htm http://galaxy.lunarpages.com/~hullnu2/cgi-bin/destroyers1.cgi?DDG-41&41&USS&KING&&&

A couple of wikipedia articles that would need updated links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Joseph_King http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_frigates_of_the_United_States_Navy

– Dennis (talk) (Wiki NYC Meetup)  15:58, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Controling spam
When reverting a page or template, especially "inthenews", make sure that you put a (without the astericks) on it. If it's something that affects the main page, I personally go straight for or higher. -- user:zanimum

Please explain
Hi, Can you please explain why you complain to myself why you made the effect to complain to my school in regard to those prank emails I sent yesterday? The absurd spelling alone showed that it was a joke and if you felt otherwise you could of just of email me. It was all a bit of harmless fun & there was nothing racist about it, if I felt inyway that it was I would of not have sent it. If you feel there is a reasonable explantion then please tell me. And leave the answer on my User talk page.

AGM-86
Thanks for the advice, I've merged the articles (much of the information on AGM-86 CALCM was contained in AGM-86 anyway). I stumbled across the above link on the cruise missile page and decided its deserved an article. Of course I should have checked if there was an article under another name/designation for the missile. Mark 01:05, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)