User talk:Dawnseeker2000/Archive 2

You Are Fast.
The speed and skill with which you flit through Wikipedia correcting wayward graffiti is astounding. My meager efforts to make humorous jabs at a female friend remain no match for your precision and dedication. Alas, I must turn to other less nerdy methods of making my female companion laugh, therefore drawing her farther into my trap of "seduction". I bow to you, oh wayward wanderer of the web, and look forward to matching wits with you in the future. And by the way, she really is good at recapturing lost bovines. And DID score that badly on a"Dirty Mind Test". Obviously a keeper no? I thought so too. I'm gonna go watch some random Youtube video now, cause its business time. Till we meet again, goodbye.

PS. Don't let me see this on Reddit. PPS. Or Digg. PPPS. No really, I'm serious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.81.151.108 (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I too, look forward to our next meetup. Good night to you and your burdened female friend. E_dog95'   Hi ' 05:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

LIGO
I agree, you are fast...and what was wrong with my post? Sometimes the truth hurts. What has LIGO done since 2002 besides waste time and money? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.32.192.33 (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The bit that you added may very well be correct, so in that sense there is nothing wrong with the post. I certainly didn't mean to step on your toes with my quick removal and warning. But this is an encyclopedia; we say what previously published (reliable) sources say. That's it and nothing more. Because of its open access though, Wikipedia can be a place for folks like yourself to get up on a soap box and yell something out. This just isn't the place to make yourself heard. Thanks for jumping in here, and I'd love to see you stick around and write some criticism (based on notable and reliable sources, of course) of that LIGO project. Cheers E_dog95'   Hi ' 20:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

So, as long as I site a source where someone else says the same thing, then it's legit? Since when does something being published establish it's legitimacy? And who determines reliable? Some people think CNN is reliable and others don't. Look at the "reliability" of current cosmology...not doing so hot these days. I understand your beef with my comments, which is fine, but the inverse is never true. Articles the praise and glorify are not questioned yet those that expose are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.32.192.33 (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. That is how Wikipedia works. The threshold for inclusion in the encyclopedia is verifiability. E_dog95'   Hi ' 22:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello back
Eric, Sure. There is the N7BCP node #3359 here in North Bend, WA. I use Echolink on my laptop. I might consider contributing to a ham radio article sometime in the future. Konrad, WA4OSH kgrr Kgrr (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Evolution-Data Optimized
I see that you removed the listing of EvDO equipment manufacturers. I believe that this information is useful, in that if I was researching and wanted more information about EvDO, I might visit those manufacturers sites. What if we moved that content to a separate page, similar to the way that we've moved List of Evolution-Data Optimized service providers? Do you think that would make sense? --Mblumber (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Citations from corporate websites
Good catch on the Progressive page. If you think that one's bad, you should check out the Steinway & Sons page.THD3 (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Brain quest
New information has come up at Articles for deletion/Brain quest since we cast our delete !votes, and the nominator now wishes to withdraw the nomination. The nomination cannot be withdrawn, however, unless we three who put in for deletion withdraw our objections to the article's existence. Take a second look at the AfD and see if you still agree with your initial post, or if you're willing to let the nominator withdraw. Thanks. --Dynaflow  babble  03:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

verizon fios
the change about fios tv about them renewing their lisense for broadcasting analog tv if they are moveing the switchover date. Why is that a unconstructive edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.125.149 (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

McDonalds warning
Maybe you need to be slowing down on the "last warnings" there. If you think someones gonna get blocked for what was on the McDonalds page, you need to take a deep breath.

At its worst it was adding unsourced information. Which begs the question of wether or not you actually checked to see if the information was verifiable or not before sicking twinkle on it.

Perhaps a review of WP:AGF and WP:BITE would do you some good? Perhaps pointing out to the user that information needs to be verified would be better than leaving final warnings you can't enforce. 198.161.173.180 (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No. I don't think WP:BITE applies here. There are too many dumb people making unconstructive edits, vandalism, and "hey look at me" stuff. Also, there are the folks that don't do formatting and syntax correctly, possibly because English is not their first language. Those folks should be working on Wikipedia in the language that they know best. Not this one. Finally, one warning is sufficient. I do not believe that a whole string of warnings (our current method includes four) is necessary to effectively communicate to an individual to stop what unconstructive and ridiculous edits that they're making. I think that most of them are really not that stupid and that they understand what they are doing is malicious. So no, I will not take your advice. Goodbye. E_dog95'   Hi ' 21:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well if that is the case then I suppose you should ban those people. Oh wait, you can't.  Seriously though, If you can't figure out that your last post violates WP:AFG "they understand what they are doing is malicious", WP:BITE "Those folks should be working on Wikipedia in the language that they know best. Not this one." and WP:CIVIL "Douchbags" (from your summary) Then you'll never get the adminship your bucking for. 198.161.173.180 (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Take a deep breath... I am not itching to ban anyone. Nor am I looking to be an admin. That appears to be too much work.

My goal here at Wikipedia is that I am trying to build this encyclopedia, but these douchebags are taking up seventy five percent of the time that I actually work on it. I'm tired of spending so much time on maintenance. I don't know what your goal is, but mine is one that is to actually get some work done. See ya. E_dog95'  Hi ' 18:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Right now my goal is to not be lumped together with a group labeled 'douchebag'. Instantly templating someone for not sourcing their edits invites distruption (see:Feeding the Trolls). Not everyone (and especially not IPs) know how to source things properly but might want to know how. Templating borderline cases with last warnings and labeling them as vandals will either drive away potentially good editors, or worse turn them into real vandals. Then you will never get any work done. Read up on the history of USER:Betacommand and you'll get an idea of what I am talking about. He did great work against vandals and copywrite violators, but was rewarded with near constant harassment IN PART because his attitude made enemies out of people who were just trying to help. If you can't be bothered to even TRY to show someone how to source an edit before putting them into the douchebag pile, then maybe you should put twinkle down and, as you say, 'actually get some work done'.198.161.173.180 (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That makes sense, and I will try to keep a better eye out for those borderline cases. E_dog95'   Hi ' 21:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:BITE
I suspect uw-4 wasn't the best way to greet this vandalous user. Toddst1 (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am saying that in the general case, it's not OK to warn folks with a uw-4 warning as their first warning unless it's severe vandalism. You should be familiar with Wikipedia:WikiProject_user_warnings/Help:Introduction. Toddst1 (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would consider that to be severe vandalism. And the record show you went and blocked this same person days after that.  Do you think a few previous warnings would've mattered with them? Dream Focus (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Pandora (disambiguation)
Odd though this may sound, I didn't realize putting a URL into a disambiguation page was out of bounds. However, after reading up on WP:Spam, I see your point. I am sort of a casual Wikipedian, and had fallen into the habit of assuming the idea here is simply to lead people to any little bit of information they may be seeking, "by any means necessary," as it were--I see now that the more appropriate focus is on "building the encyclopedia." Basically, I was starting to confuse Wikipedia with Google. I had begun looking at disambiguation pages as guides to almost any possible meaning of a term, as opposed to guides to any possible Wikipedia article relating to a term.

I realize the above may sound unaccountably moronic, but let's remember to assume good faith--I initially found your use of the term "spam" perplexing, because the notion that I, AdRock, have a goal of promoting the business of a small British publishing house called Pandora Books is absurd--I merely wanted to know what the "Pandora" I ran across in a magazine article today was referring to specifically, and I didn't find it here on Wikipedia, which is usually my first port of call in such matters; my second port of call is Google (see above), and when I found Pandora Books there, I thought I would help out anybody else in the same situation by putting the external link on the Wikipedia disambiguation page for "Pandora". I see now that that was entirely wrongheaded; and frankly, I've done exactly the same thing on other disambiguation pages, probably two or three times. On one occasion, I later saw my edit reverted with no explanation, and I didn't understand why. Your brief message gave me a clue, although it was rather brusque and uninformative--again, as though I'm some kind of shill for Pandora Books--the idea! Based on my scan of the WP:Spam page, a quicker (for you) and more helpful (for me) message might have been {{subst:uw-spam1}}.

Breathless self-defense complete. Have a nice day. AdRock (talk) 04:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries. AdRock (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Civility
While WP:BITE is a guideline, not a policy, I strongly urge you to abide by it as it's a very good idea and repeatedly biting newcomers may lead to an RFC. This edit, however violates a Wikipedia policy, WP:Civil. It is not OK to refer to other editors as "losers", whether they are vandalizing or not. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Repeated transgressions of WP:Civil will get you blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Like your reference to WP:BITE, I don't think what you've just laid out applies either. These folks are not being "bitten" by anyone. Your message is not valid. Good bye. E_dog95'   Hi ' 18:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Alcoholism
I reverted this edit to Alcoholism because citations do not need to be in English if the only source is non-english per Verifiability. Toddst1 (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Again Todd, you should be editing with the edit in mind, not the user. With your erroneous reversion, you restored dubious and unsourced material. There was nothing in that Polish source that said anything about that particular alcoholic, that she was paid in Vodka, or that she died of liver failure. Now why would you do that? Because you did not check to see that the edit was valid. You hastily reverted the edit because I made it. I am not impressed. E_dog95'   Hi ' 02:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad call
This edit labeled as reverting vandalism is not at all reverting vandalism. Rather you have unilaterally reverted a constructive edit and erroneously labeled a vandal. Please be much more careful. Toddst1 (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I mistakenly thought the item was vandalism. This is very easy to do. But you are mistaken (again) about who exactly I labeled a vandal. I did not label Leolaursen a vandal. Rather, I labeled 195.229.237.38 a vandal. This IP user has a very bad record with Wikipedia and is currently under a 48 hour block for this extremely egregious edit. Goodbye Todd. E_dog95'   Hi ' 02:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Bipolar disorder
A that wasn't my name, B I don't know exactly where the article is, but it should be eminently researchable, sadly my google fu is poor so... However, I may be able to come up with the article

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118516379/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

http://books.google.com/books?id=b8mmm8q72xYC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=el-mallakh+sodium+pump+bipolar&source=bl&ots=D0yDS19Sp9&sig=_MwQs5J3kJg1eA82wE9RtoT8HbQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result

this should suffice for the moment though. 74.138.78.83 (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Reversion on High Standard Manufacturing Company
Regarding this edit: rather than engage you directly on this, I will refer you to some advice I got years ago: User_talk:Toddst1/Archive_1. Toddst1 (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. E_dog95'   Hi ' 18:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

fios
hi the fios article i did not edit. this must be a mistake. its not comming from here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.18.200 (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

user page
thanks for deleting the categorys from my user page. I did not realize they were there and i only have those for testing an article i was working on a few months ago. thanks!--VampireKen (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on February 7 2009 to Armada Music
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. The duration of the block is 12 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

What I seem to understand...
Is that this encyclopedia tolerates a ton of useless editors that don't communicate (by the edit summary, their talk page, or article talk pages), that add egregious content, and that vandalize. The last item is especially troubling. E_dog95'  Hi ' 00:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you are imagining a lot of that in your head. You recently reverted one of my edits as vandalism and posted a very threatening note on my talk page. Exactly what about it was unconstructive? I think you should take a closer look at the diff. --128.243.253.111 (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Other people have reverted your edits as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Jenkins&diff=next&oldid=268332187 In fact, you have a history of bad edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:128.243.253.111#Final_warning And why not register a name instead of using the IP address? It will prevent you from being confused with others who might share the same IP address. Dream Focus (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

ANI
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The above cited discussion has been moved to WP:WQA, as it is more an issue pertaining to Wiki etiquette. As mentioned, a WQA has been initiated in which you are named as an involved editor. Any input that you have would be greatly appreciated.

Please see the discussion above for details, and to add your comments if desired. NOTE: You are not bound or required to participate in this discussion, however your input would be helpful to resolve any dispute that may have contributed to this alert being posted.

Some important things to remember during a Wikiquette discussion; Edit Centric (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A Wikiquette discussion is not an indictment, an insult, or a slight. Wikiquette discussions are an early step in dispute resolution, and involved users should bear that in mind during participation, so…
 * Please remain civil. If you have a dissenting view, please present it calmly, and cite any references to talk page or article content with the applicable diffs.
 * It is perfectly acceptable to disagree, as long as it is done agreeably.
 * Please read the introduction at the top of the WQA page for additional information.

February 2009
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. ''Wikipedia works on an escalating series of notices and warnings. Every individual editor is a person who deserves individual respect. The use of templates does not preclude actual discussions with editors, nor actual education on new users. The actions of one vandal cannot be equated to a good faith error by another. All must be treated politely and according to policy. Failure to do so is disruptive to the project.'' ( talk→  Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 16:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:E dog95/Toddst1
User:E dog95/Toddst1, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:E dog95/Toddst1 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:E dog95/Toddst1 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Amprobe Clamp Meter.JPG
File:Amprobe Clamp Meter.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Amprobe Clamp Meter.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hairshirt environmentalism
I suppose I should have worked on this page in my sandbox first, but as it was, the only Wikipedia guideline that it missed was that it didn't have references. There are myriad pages on Wikipedia without references. Hopefully the page is in better shape now. I was taken slightly off guard by having this called "Vandalism". That's pretty extreme.

I hope that you are as speedy with removing the hoax tag as you were with applying it. Iamiggie (talk) 06:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

wichie torres
Hi: I'm new to Wikipedia and submitted a contribution.My contribution was about latin american artist Wichie Torres.As an administrator you delete it.Definitedly i need some help.I want to learn how to be good at this. below is a link of famous personalities and this person in included.Maybe this can help you out to restore the article.Thank you. http://fvillarinni.tripod.com/boricuashalloffamehomepage/id11.html --F oduardo (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)--

An exciting opportunity to get involved!
As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. -  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  00:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: User page fix
No worries - hehe, some of the comments on Wikipedia talk pages are amusing. Sometimes I wonder what drugs they're on. Graham 87 02:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The DJ Doran page just contained the words "Doran Chambers", and was obviously an attempt at a redirect. I've moved the "Doran Chambers" page to User:Dawnseeker2000/Doran Chambers so you can work on it. However, be aware that albums of artists without Wikipedia articles can qualify for speedy deletion at any time per speedy deletion criterion A9. If you want to avoid that, move them both to your userspace or add more info to the articles to show why the albums are important. Graham 87 03:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Kerberos network authentication
Dawnseeker2000, you are incorrect in reverting my change of the default Krb5 max clock skew.

The correct default skew is 5 minutes, not 10. See MIT's implementation for reference. This is true of MSFT and IBM impls also. 76.124.185.150 (talk) 05:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, sorry about that. I did a quick search and found that ten minutes was shown as being correct. I come across folks that like to change seemingly insignificant facts all the time so that's what I was looking out for. My apologies. Dawnseeker2000   05:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Takk fyrir
Just thanking you for adding references to the Magnús Scheving article. JocundLilac (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I do a lot of that here so I appreciate your kindness. Dawnseeker2000   17:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

ISS FAC4.
Hello there! As an editor who has posted a comment in one of the recent Peer Reviews, GANs or FACs of International Space Station, or who has contributed to the article recently, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting in the current Featured Article Candidacy with any suggestions you have for article improvements (and being bold and making those changes), whether or not you feel any issues you have previously raised have been dealt with, and, ultimately, if you believe the article meets the Featured Article guidelines. This is the fourth FAC for this article, and it'd be great to have it pass. Many thanks in advance, Colds7ream (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Meteorology
Sorry, it was an inadvertent edit. I was attempting to locate the templates within the pages to append the "Category:Exclude in print" tag, as I am working on creating a wikibook on the subject, which has proven to be a difficult task. Thanks for your understanding. GLaDOS (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright. I couldn't understand what happened there because you seem to be busy doing good things. Take care. Dawnseeker2000   05:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Warning vandals
Hello. It was recently brought to my attention the way you used vandalism warning messages on User talk:Miley234350. You gave three escalating warnings simultaneously when the user hadn't edited between them. The page that contains the warning templates and how to use them, Template messages/User talk namespace, says "You should check that the user has made harmful edits since their last warning – the user must be given a chance to see and react to each warning given." Also, Lear's Fool had already given a warning for the edit to Stuff, and you gave a repeat warning for the same edit unnecessarily. The final warning you gave was for edits to Y, and from the user's contributions you can see that those edits were made in September and November of 2008, more than a year ago, so that additional warning was not relevant. And because the user talk page was deleted on December 10, 2009, there may have already been a warning or two for those edits, making your final warning possibly a repeat too. The reason warning should be given the way I have described is so that the user can be properly reported to Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism if more vandalism occurs. Obvious and persistent vandals can be reported there and then blocked if they have received appropriate and sufficient warnings for current vandalism. As it stands now, if Miley234350 continued to vandalize Wikipedia today, I would not feel the warnings were appropriate and sufficient to add a report to AIV, and I don't believe an administrator would block the user if a report was added, despite what your final warning says on Miley234350's talk page.

Your reversions of vandalism have been very good, and I am not trying to discourage you from continuing. In the future, please give one vandalism warning at a time, for a recent vandalism edit if it was made after the last warning, if one exists. This will give good-faith editors a chance to learn how to make constructive contributions and ensure that bad-faith vandals have the proper warnings for an administrator to block them, if that becomes necessary. Please let me know if there are any questions. Thanks! --Mysdaao talk 15:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I did notice that I warned the user for the Stuff edit when the warning already existed. I hdan't noticed until I posted it, but decided not to remove it. I frequently see vandals work way faster than vandal fighters and admins can and this is why I was too heavy handed there. I have been admonished for dealing with vandals before. It bothers me. But I have taken your words seriously and will be watching what i do. Dawnseeker2000   16:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to be an annoyance and am only trying to help. Thank you for considering and responding to my comments.  Take care.  --Mysdaao talk 03:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

D-STAR page changes
There was a reference in some of the changes you'd made asking the question Who is Matt Yellen. This was asked as you deleted the section within the history that referenced who Matt Yellen was. Matt Yellen KB7TSE and later K7DN was an Icom employee, and was put in charge of Icom's D-STAR development for the US. Later references indicated that not only was he in charge of development, he attended many Hamfests to include Dayton, and played a large marketing role for Icom and D-STAR. In other words, if there was one person in all of Icom America who knew D-STAR, was authorized by the company to talk about it, it was he. He trained many of the Icom support people you now might correspond with when it comes to D-STAR. He flew to Texas to help the K5TIT team deploy the first Gateway, which is now the primary Trust Server for the World.

Finally, he used the Icom forums as a major information dissemination tool. Much of the historical information now on the Wikipedia page that now has no reference as to it's source, was originally sourced from the Icom Forums, and from the statements made by Matt Yellen. Matt Yellen and his statements as made in the Icom forums appear to be the most accurate source of real D-STAR information I could find. He was the horse's mouth ;-)

Matt no longer works for Icom, and was not replaced. Now this is totally opinion, but I think it shows. Matt was the single connection we as a community had into Icom that could give us good, accurate and current D-STAR information, in part because he was the one that did the work that created the information, and developed the press releases.

I'm by no means an Wikipedia expert. The D-STAR page was my first attempt to contribute, and I'm sure it showed. Heck, I'm struggling to write this! ...but one thing's for sure, everyone knows Wikipedia is user created. As such, it has to be treated as the shaky source of information it can be. If I can't find specific reference to information on any Wikipedia page, I must assume it's not true, rumor, etc... How do you suggest we resolve it on this particular page? Did I do something wrong in my referencing?

Thanks

KF7CEG (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. This was my attempt at a first contribution. I now have a much better idea how Wikipedia works, and realize it's not my bag.

KF7CEG (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Tunguska Event changes
Sorry for the confusion, i should have said something in the discussion. As i was reading over the article, i saw two bits of information that seemed to contradict each other. It says earlier in the article that the blast most likely was the equivalent of 10–15 megatons of TNT. This piece of information is cited. However, later, it says that this impact would be a 5.0 on the Richter scale. This piece of information is not cited. When looking on the richter scale article, it rates an explosion with a yield of 16.2 Megatons of TNT at a 6.7 on the richter scale. Therefore, i inserted a magnitude more fitting with the cited information. Either the magnitude should stay 6.6 or 6.7, or the sentence should be deleted due to the fact that it's not cited. Either way, what i did was not vandalism, it was fixing incorrect information. Again, sorry for any confusion.

99.247.133.130 (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, my mistake. It turns out that it was cited further down in the article. Still contradictory, but i don't want to be the one to fix it. 99.247.133.130 (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)