User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archive2006-1

This is the archive of my user talk page for the first half of 2006. Georgewilliamherbert 01:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

More on Micronations
Hi. I noticed your work on the List of Micronations article and would like to discuss how to manage it. Would we have to discuss here, or do you have a sort of IMing service? I'm sorry, but it's just that I tend to hate the format of conversation in Wikipedia. - Bill3000 05:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Explosives and Category:Explosive chemicals
Hi George, I was working on clarifying which ones are pure chemicals (TNT), as opposed to mixtures (flash powder). Please feel free to revert if you are inclined. Uthbrian (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've stuck a kickoff discussion mention in the Category_talk:Explosives talk page; basically, I agree with looking into how we categorize, but I'm not sure that the change you proposed is right. I am going to revert for now.  Further should go on the category talk page.  Georgewilliamherbert 21:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Congressional RFC discussion
Once you've replied, I intend to move our discussion to the discussion page of the RFC. I believe that it's become too remote from the issues on the ANI (user blocking, admin actions) and it's going to draw someone's ire. DrWitty 07:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say leave it on ANI, but followups to the RFC discussion page for now. I'll respond on the RFC page from now.  Georgewilliamherbert 07:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Your call. Everything after your first reply does nothing to resolve anything related to the ANI, but most admins may be more tolerant than the ones that I've experienced to date. DrWitty 07:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: User talk:70.49.243.246
My apologies, I didn't know any of the background. Perhaps   would be more suited for the job in that scenario? --bbatsell |  &laquo; give me a ring &raquo;  22:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't had too many persistent vandals in my editing so far, I'm figuring that out now. I've been looking at the RC patrol and other resources.  Will look at BV as well.  Thanks.  Georgewilliamherbert 23:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Unix and boggles
Surely that isn't the most boggling thing you've seen this week on WP 8-)  -  Georgewilliamherbert 09:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Somehow there's always something new to make me boggle. :p &brvbar; Reisio 09:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Admin nomination support
I just wanted to say thanks for your support in my admin nomination. Your comments to Samboy are the most lucid and considered analysis of his busy little harrassment crusade that I've seen. Thanks for saving me the trouble of having to respond to it. --Gene_poole 21:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Very strange
Thought you'd be interested to know that a couple of editors seem to have decided to nominate half the micronation articles in Wiki for deletion today. Take a look at edits by Kingboyk and JzG  Not sure what's afoot, but it all smells pretty fishy to me. --Centauri 00:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen this ? --Centauri 03:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd not seen that, no. I actually have some improvements that it brings to mind, seeing it now.  Though my time for WP activity in general is about to dissapear due to major real world project.  I suggest you make a mention on Talk:Micronation of that page, perhaps post a comment in the AFD thread with myself and User:Adrian Lamo.


 * I'm just pointing out that Centauri has withdrawn accusations of bad faith, and I have accepted his apology (see my Talk page). There's a discussion going on on Category_talk:Micronations which might interest you and others who are keen on this topic. --kingboyk 05:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Georgewilliamherbert/Pit Full of Hungry Crocodiles
Hi George, I'm sorry if I'm being hypersensitive, but I still object to the "foolish children" line being followed by links to AFDs started by me. Would you mind changing it? Or can I have a go? --kingboyk 05:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The "foolish children" line is a riff on Lemony Snicket. And you can't exactly claim that those AFDs haven't been crocodile pits... However, I'm not trying to twit you.  Do you object to any mention of those AFDs?  Is it the proximity of the particular comment?  The quantity of links (one ok, 3 to your AFDs not)?   Georgewilliamherbert 05:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I don't object to mention of/linking to "my" AFDs at all. This is a public "forum" and I'm open to scrutiny like everyone else. It's the proximity that bothers me, as it might be seen to imply that I am a 'foolish child'. (I might be the former but sadly I'm no longer the latter :)). --kingboyk 05:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC) (linked Lemony Snicket so I can find out what that is!)
 * Hmm. The intention was to imply (generic) you'd be a foolish child for following the links and participating, not that the people who started them were foolish.  However, point taken.  Let me look at it and think of ways to decouple those.  Georgewilliamherbert 05:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI, I haven't fixed it yet, but, I am going to try and get time to do something about it today. I'm not trying to ignore the problem.  Georgewilliamherbert 20:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I made some changes yesterday; I still am not entirely happy with it solving what I think your problem was with it. Will continue to bang head on it.  Georgewilliamherbert 09:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands (second nomination) AfdAnons tag
If you google the dude who is "Emperor Dale" you'll notice he's the new user User:Wowfm, that's where he works. I put it up there because I could see an influx of anon users or new users coming in and "casting a vote". The history page also indicates a few anon users posting. Ardenn 05:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I hadn't noticed that he was a new user.  Good catch on the linkage.  Georgewilliamherbert 05:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Userbox
I'm glad you like the User crocodile pit userbox. Glad I could be of assistance. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for your support on my request for adminship. It ultimately succeeded with votes of 52/1/2, so I am now an administrator. Should you have any questions, comments, complaints, or requests at any point in the future, please do not hesitate to let me know on my talk page or via e-mail. —bbatsell ¿?  05:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Classic traveller/ Traveller
Thanks for the Traveller merge - and congrats on adminship! Percy Snoodle 22:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Re adminship... The message directly above was Bbhatsell saying thanks for my support on his adminship; I'm not an admin and not nominated to be one. You had me looking around to figure out if someone nominated me secretly without telling me or something 8-)  Georgewilliamherbert 23:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * D'oh! Well, thanks anyway. Percy Snoodle 16:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverts
What on earth is this all about? Georgewilliamherbert 07:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Started at Commons:Image talk:Flag of Italy.svg. &brvbar; Reisio 18:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Squidword
I think all of them have been reverted now, I'll be packing it in for a night in a few minutes, so if you want more of the guilty IPs just check addresses that I have reverted within the last 10, or 15 minutes to find more of the Squidword vandals. Croat Canuck  05:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Popular Culture in Firearms articles
Seeking input from the community on where/how to hold community discussion on what type and how many popular culture references are appropriate in firearms related Wikipedia articles. Feel free to leave comments or suggestions or references or links here... Georgewilliamherbert 08:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how/where to hold it, but I recently took the pop culture references out of the Uzi SMG article and was sternly rebutted. In my opinion, pop culture refs in firearms articles are pointless. Such lists serve no purpose for the reader. Ashmoo 04:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The "bypass redirect" in Atmospheric Reentry
George,

I just wrote this in User talk:Diberri :

- Sorry about that

Your original "bypass redirect" at "atmospheric reentry" looked like vandalism due to a typo, i.e.

"This article is about the atomspheric phenomenon. For reentry in the heart, see Reentrant dysrhythmia."

I don't have a clue what "Reentrant dysrhythmia" means and the word "atomspheric" looked like a play on "atomic weapons" against "atmosphere". I concluded (incorrectly) this was some form of lunatic vandalism.

There's must be a better way to do your bypass redirect. As it stands, the "bypass redirect" has uglified the Atmospheric Reentry article.

I don't want to get into the "reversion / unreversion" loop. An expert should be consulted about this.

Egg plant 03:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC) -

Any advice that you have about this would be appreciated.

Egg plant 03:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's my take... his point about a disambiguation link is sensible. The way he phrased it was particularly bad, but I mostly fixed that when I edited it earlier, which though Diberri and Variable are editing back and forth a bit they have left alone.  The particular way to put the link in, at the top like that, is Wikipedia standard, even if it is a bit ugly.  I think we can stand on principle that either you or I or someone else from the aerospace side should author the redirection comment, but let the two of them fight it out over where it should point to.  Though it's ugly, it is WP standard, and I think we should live with that.  Georgewilliamherbert 04:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If it's WP standard then we're obliged to tolerate it. However it's unfortunate that the first thing one reads in the Atmospheric Reentry article is some oddball disambiguation comprehensible only to a medical specialist. Egg plant 16:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Leonard Francolini
The article has been kept now. The admin closing the AFD removed almost all the text, but I suppose most of it can be brought back and NPOVized. I guess the magazine covers and all that is easily verifiable if one has access to the publications, and some of it can probably be found on the web. up+land 17:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
With apologies for the impersonal AWB-ness of the message... Thanks for your support on my recent request for adminship. It passed at 91/1/0, and I hope I can continue to deserve the community's trust. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you, and if I make a mistake be sure to tell me. My talk page is always open. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm stirring up trouble about the Space exploration article
George, I just wrote a long diatribe in Talk:Space exploration against the Space exploration article and its extremely low quality. I thought you might want to join in. Egg plant 17:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * George, I read your reply. IMHO, the best approach with "Space exploration" is to wipe the slate clean and make a fresh start (shock approach).  However an alternative is to do a "Grandfather's Axe" approach of rewriting it a bit at a time until the whole thing is rewritten (that's mostly what I did with "Atmospheric reentry").  The second approach would be more painful, i.e. with every two steps forward someone would jump in with reverts/re-edits and knock the article back one step.  I had it easy with "Atmospheric reentry" because it was a specialist's article.  The "Space exploration" article would attract more interest from randoms.  After you're done with your proposal, perhaps you and I could write a new article off-line, e.g. here in your user talk area.  Once it's complete we could swap out the old "Space exploration" article with the new one and do a fait accompli.  Egg plant 04:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

AFD
Care to vote?

Articles for deletion/Scholars for 9/11 Truth (second nomination)

--Striver 20:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah.... What view do you hold on this issues, if i may ask?--Striver 22:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * All of the technical arguments put forwards by conspiracy theory critics of the "official story" of 9/11 are, in the final examination and my opinion, bogus science. It is clear that the designs of the WTC towers were intended to structurally survive a jetliner impact, but the fire that would follow was not modeled adequately in the design and the buildings weren't survivable from a post-impact fire.  The claims that explosives caused the final collapses are ludicrous; the "puffs of smoke" seen are clearly smoke being pushed down stair shafts and then escaping (and blowing out windows) on floors where fire doors to the shafts were propped open or were pushed open by pneumatic effects.  The claims that the top floors of one building tipped and fell in one solid block and should have stayed that way to ground level are ludicrous; once the collapse started, the falling top floors were crushing and collapsing floors below at an accellerating rate, but at the same time the impact zone would be damaging the bottom of the block of falling floors at the top.  An 11-floor tall block falling would be ground into dust as the block fell through the next 11 floors of building below it.
 * I would rather not take every claim made by those conspiracy theorists and write a long rebuttal on it here and now, but I have not seen any claim made which stood up to engineering and physics review. If the physical claims of conspiracy aren't supportable, the claims of various conspiracies behind the event other than the claimed AQ hijackers are moot.  Ockham's razor suggests that the standard theory is correct.  Georgewilliamherbert 22:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

AFD
Thanks for telling your view, i appreicate them. Also, take a look at this: User_talk:MONGO --Striver 03:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

RfA counting
Hi. You just left a message on my talk page with the above title, but didn't leave a message. Did you miss something? Cheers, Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It was supposed to be a short silly comment, but something went wrong with editing it. I was editing it to repair the damage simultaneously with you coming here to ask... the initial edit suffered a tab/return user error and closed the edit session with "Save page" as I was trying to tab to the main section entry and type in my comment and signature tag.  At least, I think that's what happened.  I typed ahead a bunch and it flipped in the middle from the editing page to the subsection title only having gone through, without my having clicked on Save page.  Just not my best day.  Georgewilliamherbert 22:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

hey, i'm wondering ...
Per your job description, do you technically get to pull out "Well, I *am* a rocket scientist ..." when you're arguing on WP:AFD? 'cos that'd rock.

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 13:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Jersey Devil RfC
Per your comments on one of the AfDs, I thought I'd fill you in on Requests for comment/Jersey Devil. Pepsidrinka 04:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I think your (GWH) comments on the RfC are sensible, though I don't agree enough that I can endorse them. I think in most cases his articles are below standards. I also think in most cases he does not "fill it in over an extended period of time" (e.g. The meaning of the Holy Qur'an (book), The Holy Qur'an: Text, Translation and Commentary, A Life of Mahomet and History of Islam to the Era of the Hegira, History of the Saracens, etc.). I also think that quite a lot of the time the articles simply do not meet the requirements for inclusion in the WP, not that they are in need of being tagged — though that is a good option to remind people about. I would be interested to know of articles of his that are "very strong" that become so primarily or solely though his own efforts. Esquizombi 06:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Nikah Mut'ah, Tawhid, Bilal, just to mention a few.--Striver 11:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I read it
Don't question the purpose of my post...Striver pushes his Shia POV and the fork project he created was due to his disagreements with the main Muslim Guild Project that didn't agree with his POV pushing. I also see no overt evidence that Jersey Devil is stalking Striver. Happy editing!--MONGO 08:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? I might say that you questioning my post is confrontational. The Rfc is an accusation of whether Jersey Devil is stalking Stiver and I commented that the POV pushing of Striver is going to be a magnet and point of confrontation for a number of editors and that I see no evidence that Jersey Devil is stalking. Happy editing!--MONGO 08:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

afd
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/Articles for deletion--Striver 16:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The RFC
I have to strongly object here; I realize that I didn't sign the Cerify section, but had I realized it hadn't been done I would have done so immediately, and I am reasonably certain there are 3-4 other people who would do so. Stifle, you may have acted in accord with the letter of WP policy, but you have done the spirit a huge disservice here. This was an active ongoing discussion, and the particular subject of it (Jersey Devil AfD'ing stuff) just happened again with another dozen or so nominations of striver's articles. The letter of WP policy should never be used to destroy something which is important and in active use and not harming anyone. This is already blowing up in AfD again, and now has nowhere else to go because you killed the RfC page. This is incredibly frustrating. I strongly urge an undelete. If you do so, I will certify as soon as it happens and I am next logged on to WP. If necessary I will contact others and get someone else to attest here that they will certify if you do so. Georgewilliamherbert 21:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's already undeleted and userfied. I'm sorry that you did not follow the instructions to certify the RFC, but there is no way that I can "assume" two people will support it. If you get two people to sign it at User:Jersey Devil/RFC then there's nothing at all stopping you from moving it to Requests for comment/Jersey Devil. Please remember to assume good faith and be civil. Thanks! Stifle 21:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I said that I'll let things cool down a bit. Things are getting to heats for all parties involved. I am not saying that I am going to stop afding Strivers articles altogether but I'm just going to wait a few days for things to cool down.--Jersey Devil 04:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it your intention to use the AfD alternative tags such as  per AfD policy rather than simply AfDing all Striver-created currently insufficient articles?  If you will limit yourself to tagging them per above for a reasonable period of time (2 weeks?), and if lacking sufficient cleanup / improvement after a couple of weeks then AfDing them, then we're done here and you can go ahead for all I care...  Georgewilliamherbert 04:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahem: Event of the Cloak. NPOV since July 2005; cleanup since since November 2005. Esquizombi 09:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Very well, and when Striver adds a sentence to claim it has been "updated" and removes the tags I'll list them up for Afd. But I am more than sure that I will still get as much attacks from the same people when that happens as well.

Ex. Khattab ibn Nufayl (Clean up/Bio Context since July 2005, Striver removed the tag after adding this.) --Jersey Devil 10:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The Khattab article got two short paragraphs (4 sentences, 40 words of content), and a reference in that edit. It's still sort of short and lacking some context even now, but at about 100 words of content now it's in the low end of the typical range for normal articles, and considerably larger than anyone's reasonable definition of stub.
 * I don't know enough about the Event of the Cloak and details of Sunni/Shia theology to know whether the NPOV note still fairly applies. The cleanup there seems to have advanced significantly over time, though I agree it's still not perfect.  The presence of a tag doesn't imply it's too bad of a mess to deserve deleting, it just means that it's known to be a mess.
 * The tag still being on the article doesn't mean that it hasn't been cleaned up at all. It means that it's still in a state of needing further cleanup.  Some articles are bad enough that they should be AfD'ed if they aren't cleaned up promptly.  Others are a mess, but don't justify AfD even if they never are cleaned up.  Generally, the determinant there is notability and whether there's enough useful information there.
 * If Striver does, in fact, delete a Cleanup tag after adding no more than a sentence to what's clearly a stub article, then I won't object to AfD of that stub.
 * If he leaves the Cleanup tag on something, but expands it past 100 words and a reference or two and such, then I would suggest that it's reached the point that it deserves to live, unless there are other problems like gross POV or other issues. Georgewilliamherbert 18:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to defend these kinds of additions as well? If I revert them am I, yet again, "abusing" Striver? I just have to wonder how far he has to go before any of my changes to his edits are justified by his defenders. And with regard to Stifle's comments, see Striver's talk page about the Rfc. Striver: Can [the deletion of the Rfc] be un-done? Stifle: Generally, no, but since User:Jersey Devil requested it, I have put it at User:Jersey Devil/RFC. So, according to him Rfc's are not for the most part undeleted.--Jersey Devil 15:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if you think this is appropriate?--Jersey Devil 19:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

rfc
Would you like to sign this?
 * User:Striver/Jersey Devil RFC

Thanks --Striver 16:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Since the old one was deleted, i created a new one:


 * Requests for comment/Jersey Devil

Take a look. peace.--Striver 12:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

are you intrested in signing this? thanks --Striver 14:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you can both certify an RfC and add an "outside view"? I am not sure about the rules of the game, but my feeling is this should be in the section Discussion. Lambiam Talk 03:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can. Georgewilliamherbert 08:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I've updated this template per your suggestion, I realize the powers of 10 don't mean anything as a series, was mostly for making rows, I've made the series tags be only html comments on the template to show where to add new listings. Please take a look and see if it works better now. — xaosflux  Talk  03:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks great now. Thanks!  Georgewilliamherbert 03:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

B61/W61
Actually, I think you're right here, since the B61 was never used as a missile warhead in its original form, the derivation was from the bomb, so B61 is the designation. I just assumed that since numbering corresponds to physics package and letter corresponds to warhead/bomb, a warhead would be based on a warhead. Night Gyr 03:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
I thought I'd bring the currently atrocious B85 nuclearwarhead makeover to your attention, as you've been writing a number of articles on nuclear weapons. Choess 04:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter, Issue I
delivered by Loopy e 04:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear images
Just as a note... if you upload public domain nuke images to Wikipedia Commons, they are easily centralized for all Wikipedia projects and make a nice image gallery to boot! I'll probably migrate the recent ones you have uploaded soon anyway but just thought I would let you know, since I've been trying to organize the nuke images over there and really make it into a good collection of images (and it can keep us from duplicating each other's work accidentally). You can see how I've put it together at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons. Thanks! --Fastfission 19:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

One other thing... I was thinking of created an article specifically about implosion design weapons (and so move a lot of the excess info from nuclear weapon design into it), and illustrating each component discussed with first a large, all-encompassing image, and then with smaller images which highlight or zoom in on the particular subcomponent (an explosive lens, the tamper, etc.) Anyway, I have created a prototype at Image:Implosion nuclear design.svg. If you could take a look at it and suggest any changes you can think of, it would be helpful. I want it to be somewhat generalizable and generic, and not an attempt to claim to be any particular bomb design. --Fastfission 23:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Any suggestions you have are welcome. And I do appreciate the irony of spending so much time to show 60-year-old technology, but such is how things often work in terms of explaining the basics of how things work, of course. Once people have the basics down I think it is easier to jump from there to the more complicated and modern, conceptually (that is, it is easy to understand implosion once you understand the conceptually simple gun-type assembly, and it is easier to understand non-spherical implosion once you understand spherical, conceptually speaking of course). I don't know which British Fat Man scans you refer to (the interior pictures of the Blue Danube?); I've probably seen them if they are in the standard sources but feel free to send me a reference just in case. --Fastfission 14:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello again! I decided that the last image lacked visual oomph so I created a new image in a pseudo-isometric view: Image:Implosion_nuclear_weapon_-_all_visible.svg. There will eventually be many versions of this one once I finalize it -- there are layers which can be peeled away like an onion and in this way highlight individual pieces. I thought it would give a somewhat better sense of the 3-D quality of this, because I think the normal "cut in half" approaches look a little, er, flat. The lenses leave a bit to be desired for in terms of accuracy but I think they will allow one to get the basic point across without too much detail. There is some weirdness in how MediaWiki is renderling the line strokes which isn't in the original but I will sort those out eventually (I am fairly sure I know the source of the problem). Any other thoughts you had would be appreciated if you have the time. --Fastfission 02:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response on the AN/I
I honestly appreciate your guidance. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 08:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

StarHeart
''This is neither the time nor the place to be having a size queen contest about how many friends, family members, or aquaintences of ours and yours have been victims of police states. If you happen across me in a bar we can drink to absent friends, but please be civil here''

Great line. T  K   E  07:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking of starting my own Quote of the Week, and this is first. T   K   E  07:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Guess the bomb
Which model do you think the physics package on this LANL page belongs to? It looks a lot like a W80 to me but I was wondering what you thought. Any speculations as to the identity of the RV above it would be enjoyed as well. --Fastfission 22:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I bet "Guess the Bomb" is an al-Qaeda party game. Joe 22:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh. Fortunately this picture is already well publicized and doesn't tell anyone anything useful about the design unless they already understand nuclear weapons extremely well.
 * Clearly a W-80; compare with the W80 being handled on ground image at nuclearweaponsarchive.org's W80 page. Georgewilliamherbert 22:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Round two: What's the weapon design and reentry vehicle in the upper image on that page? Georgewilliamherbert 22:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I thought it looked a lot like a W80. And while of course it is already well-known, I did think it was gutsy for LANL to put it on their history page! Not so much because anybody would be able to use it for anything nefarious, but that has yet to stop congressmen from saying "Look, it's practically a guidebook for making a thermonuclear bomb!" (Cf. the Cox Report's reprinting of a LANL handout from the mid-1990s). As for the RV, I don't know enough about the differences between RV's to have any real guess yet. --Fastfission 01:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Glock photo
Unfortunately, the uploader had lifted it from someone's personal image gallery here and falsely claimed he'd authored it. We got a complaint from the original owner, and it seemed best to pull the image - there wasn't going to be any potential for a fair-use claim and the actual ownership of the photo didn't seem to be in doubt. (The editor had uploaded two photos, both from that site and under a claim of "Photographed by me with a Casio Exilim Z-40, 400 watt light, and diffuser box. This is free to use by all", which is hard to take as a good-faith mistake) Shimgray | talk | 18:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

IT Operations
"It appears to be an advertisement for TraverseIT.com. Georgewilliamherbert 21:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)" Yeah, I was trying to come up with a diplomatic way to get that idea across. :-) FreplySpang (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Old Skool Esperanzial note
Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Cel es tianpower háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Little Boy
I'm happy to re-draw Image:LittleBoy Diagram.png in a way which is aesthetically more pleasing, works better for internationalization (i.e. not using English on the image itself, using call-out numbers), and as a vector (allows for use in print). I wanted to clarify one thing first: you've got two seperate things listed as the sabot -- is this intentional or accidental? Also: have you seen John Coster-Mullen's book on Little Boy and Fat Man? He has done some rather interesting and elaborate work to reconstruct all aspects of the internal work, and has the conclusion that it was actually the "rings" part which flies at the "bullet" part, and I was wondering if you found that compelling or not. Anyway let me know what you think on these, and maybe I'll tackle a full re-draw this weekend. --Fastfission 23:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't need the Visio file, no worries. I'm not too worried about the DOE barging down my door anytime soon; encyclopedia diagrams should never be so detailed that one actually could build something from them, anyhow, much less something like this (they are not engineering diagrams). I'll send you a link when it is complete, for your suggestions. Also -- what's your source for the technical info about the South African bomb designs? I hadn't come across that before, though I admit I haven't looked much. I thought they pretty much trashed all their documentation right before they went public with it? --Fastfission 03:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, I never thought to read Sublette's bit on South Africa. In any case, I'll let you know when I have a first draft of the LB done. --Fastfission 00:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

rfa
Thanks for the support on my RFA. Unfortunately, it did not achieve consensus. I look forward to your support in a couple months when I apply again. Holler at me if you need anything. &rArr;  SWAT  Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  19:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue II
The April 2006 issue of the project newsletter is now out. You may read this issue or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following the link. Thanks. Kirill Lok s h in 18:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Little Boy
OK, I have a rough draft of a new LB diagram: Image:Little Boy internal diagram.svg. Suggestions welcome. I'm probably going to play around with the casing color at the very least, as I find that all of that green comes off as somewhat ugly. I left out the sabot info -- I think it could be mentioned in the text but visualizing it makes for a somewhat confusing diagram, I think. --Fastfission 22:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, those are good comments. What I'll do is fix the tamper ratio, and I'll put the slot for the boron plug/core insertion and we can just say in the caption that it would have been put in there. I don't think we'll get much out of showing the plug itself, but having the slot for insertion of the target assembly and the plug ejection would make sense, if I understand it correctly, and not detract from the overall effect. One thing that confuses me from Sublette's description is how the neutron initiators are supposed to fit in there if there is supposed to be a hole for the plug to be ejected? --Fastfission 15:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, take a look at it again. I've made most of the modifications. I still don't see where the neutron generator goes. Sublette says that there should be a "recess" for the boron plug to go into. I've drawn a space for that similar to the one you drew. But on the neutron generator, he says:
 * The target was inserted in the form of several rings. The hole above the target was threaded and the gun barrel was screwed in to attach it securely (otherwise recoil from the bullet's acceleration would pull the target/tamper and barrel apart). At the bottom of the hole one or more beryllium/polonium initiator (different from the implosion initiators; simpler in design, with less polonium) could be mounted.
 * and then:
 *  The uranium/steel assembly was designed as a "blind target", one that would stop and hold the bullet upon impact due to expansion of the bullet rings. Even if the neutron initiator failed to work, the bomb would have exploded from spontaneous fission in a fraction of a second. The decision to include initiators in the final weapon wasn't even finalized by Oppenheimer until March 15, 1945. In the end, 4 ABNER initiators out of a batch of 16 shipped to Tinian were used in Little Boy. These were fastened radially to the front end of the target assembly.


 * I'm having a hard time picturing how all of these go together. Any suggestions you might have would be enjoyed. --Fastfission 23:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, one more draft. I made the slot a little smaller so it doesn't look like the bullet would just fly on through, and decided not to worry about the neutron initiator's location so much. I also change the fills around a bit so it looked less "green" and looked more like some of the other images. Let me know what you think. --Fastfission 23:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Reliable Replacement Warhead
Hey George,

I tried to make some edits to what I see as a very biased article on the Reliable Replacment Warhead. After a few minutes it automatically reverted to your last version. What's up? I am new to this Wikipedia stuff, but thought that articles were supposed to evolve to a consensus. How do I get to put in my two cents, without it reverting to what you want to say.

Please respond on the discussion page of the article on Reliable Replacement Warhead. I will check there about once a day.

Regards, RRW jockey

"Atmospheric Reentry" and Night Gyr
George,

Night Gyr just left an "accuracy dispute" marker on Atmospheric reentry. Night Gyr previously left a "Cleanup" marker on the article but Wolfkeeper took it off. We should probably organize a coordinated response. I've also contacted Wolfkeeper about this. Thanks.

Egg plant 04:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper dealt with the problem today. I'm thinking of suggesting to Night Gyr that he get involved with the Space exploration article. That article is so screwed up that Night Gyr could only improve it. Egg plant 17:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:SPACE!
Hi Georgewilliamherbert, thanks for joining WikiProject Space Colonization! Have fun with it.

User:Tmayes1965
Our friend Tmayes is back to impose poorly formatted, poorly spelled, poorly written, wholly unsourced, and often incorrect information upon us. If you wanted to help clean up the mess that counts as his contributions, I'd appreciate it. Expect hysterical resistence expressed in all upper-case letters and accusations of censorship because we don't believe that Packistani A-bomb is a good name for an article or that he should have his own version of the nuclear weapon design article at High energy weapon design. Sigh... --Fastfission 14:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - May 2006
The May 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. &mdash;ERcheck @ 23:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Multi-tier merger
I reverted you before I saw your message on my talk page, sorry about that. I'll just paste my message here:

Well now I'm just confused. To me it seems multi-tier encompasses all the terms: n-tier, three-tier, two-tier, whatever. I was in the middle of editing the article to describe it like this. I'm pretty sure the main article should be multi-tier, or at least n-tier. Also I reverted you too quickly, I hadn't read this message and was getting confused. --Foofy 04:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, give me a chance to finish cleaning up the article text, it might make better sense and you'll see why I thought the multi-tier article should be the main one. If you don't like it after that, just revert or change the text and put it on the three-tier page. :) --Foofy 04:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Little Boy link
I added a link to Upshot-Knothole Grable on Little Boy because the gun-type fission weapon is that rare. Literally, Little Boy and Grable are the only recorded explosions of warheads of that type. --Kitch 01:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

June 8, 2006
Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:67.71.141.228.

Thanks for RV!
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page! LHOON 21:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't vandalism. There is no way that you speak English at a near-native level.  You know that, and anyone who has read your user page or edits knows that too.  67.71.141.228 21:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Nuclear Weapons of the United Kingdom
Ref your endorsement of the Skomer webite " well-researched table of UK Nuclear Weapons Systems/Bomb Models." Chris Gibson (not a Wikiuser) who's site this is takes a different view and hasn't updated it for over three years. When we met in London last month he told me that if he could get back into his old URL he would delete the site completely because it now contains so many inaccuracies not known of several years ago. He asks that no one use it any more. A replacement is still in draft form and I have a pdf copy that I'm sworn not to circulate. I was a contributor to his site and its coming replacement. I can supply his email address by a secure route, perhaps Wiki email, if you want to contact him. Just ask. Brian.Burnell 22:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting... Thanks for the info. My wiki email is enabled, go ahead and send it to me. Make sure you tag it WIKIPEDIA in the subject, so I can spot it among the spam 8-(  Georgewilliamherbert 22:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

RfC request
I have been attacked one time too many by User:Andrew Homer - see his response to my last request he stop personal attacks I am going to start an RfC and I was hoping you would certify it as a user who tried to resolve the problem. If you will leave a message about this on my talk page I set up for this purpose, you can also see more about it as I am drafting the RfC there.

Regards, Lundse 10:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Skomer website alternate.
A good, reliable up-to-date alternative source to Skomer is hosted by the Mountbatten Centre for International Studies at the University of Southampton. Its a glossary with a brief description of all known British nuclear system codenames, put together by Dr Richard Moore as an aid to students studying British nuclear history. Its been peer reviewed and published and is very similar to the Skomer layout. Not surprisingly because both Richard and I were contributors to the Skomer site also. Find it at: http://www.mcis.soton.ac.uk/Site_Files/pdf/nuclear_history/glossary.pdf  Brian.Burnell 02:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. Some intensive weekend reading awaits.  Thanks!  Georgewilliamherbert 02:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Your note
I might be interested in participating in mediation, but I know nothing about the process. Is an RfM brought over a particular event, or issue, or is it more general than that? What precisely would you want to accomplish with this? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Has Tony indicated a willingness to pursue mediation? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever mate
I'm surprised that Bowden's fanciful scenario was even in the article as it almost certainly never happened, and it's taking credit away from the Colombian security personnel who almost certainly were responsible. What I wrote about Bowden was perfectly reasonable.

Whatever man
I'm surprised Bowden's fanciful scenario was even in the article as it almost certainly never happened, and it's taking credit away from the Colombian security personnel who almost certainly were responsible. You only have to read Bowden's books to see his hero worship of Delta. He even puts them above the Israeli Sayeret Matkal and British SAS who have both been not only far more active, but a lot more impressive mission for mission. What I wrote about Bowden was perfectly reasonable.

I've no problem with your correction though, cheers.

Feedback appreciated
As you seem to have an interest in such things I wonder if you wouldn't mind taking a look at Conch Republic. There's been a rather heated discussion going on there between myself and a couple of others for a while now, and an external opinion would be useful in trying to resolve it. The long and the short of it is that 2 editors who have a history of strongly opposing micronation articles are trying to remove the micronation infobox from the article on grounds that I believe to be spurious. --Gene_poole 03:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. --Gene_poole 03:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello again. I notice that someone has vandalised the Empire of Atlantium article by setting up a number of double redirects to Atlantis and BJAODN. Do you mind having a go at untangling the mess? It's a bit beyond my expertise. --Gene_poole 02:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

A short Esperanzial update
As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006
The June 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin 05:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)