User talk:MBK004/Archive 3



Thanks for the ship template information!
Thanks for improving Invincible class battlecruiser with the Sclass and HMS style templates. I hadn't seen those before, but are very, very handy. Thanks again! &mdash; MrDolomite • Talk 19:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

April GA Newsletter
The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Verification for Eagle Scouts page
You can verify that I am an Eagle Scout using the following link. www.sportsdds.com/jefferson.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.131.40 (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you say so, I will not argue with a higher authority. Are you still active in Scouts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.131.40 (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hehe...to bad editing on wikipedia does'nt count as notible. ;) lol. 74.72.131.40 (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Jefferson

lol...your about page is quite nice, love your photobucket pictures
 * I'm ESTJ and your pretty funny. Spanish 0 ;).lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.131.40 (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol...you identify as a lesbian, i love how thats right next to the Boy Scout boxes. wow. That made my day... ;. Btw, I to am a trumpet player      Kurtcool2 (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2008

Can you let me in on the joke please? P.S. Your really good at this stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtcool2 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Que? Kurtcool2 (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I joined a wiki projecy the second I logged on  Kurtcool2 (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

why are you watching my page? Kurtcool2 (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Its ok, lol, i'm watching yours as well. Kurtcool2 (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

you've got mail!
Message responded to at User talk:Travellingcari, talkback disabled. -MBK004 15:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Nav bar
Hello! and sorry for so long in making a single header. Well please see this one which I am working on, it's still not complete. If you have any reservations against this one please tell me so, that I can remove them. I will remove this copy of yours once you give an "OK!" signal. Thanks! -- S M S  Talk 04:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- S M S  Talk 05:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Slamdunk09
Hello, MBK004. As a prospective future administrator, I would like to respectfully request your input on my recent response to the vandal Slamdunk09. (I'm asking you because you were the administrator who blocked this user.) Did I increase the level of warning at an appropriate rate? Was it too fast or too slow? I just wanted to get an opinion from somebody who is a bit more experienced than myself. Thank you for your time! Paradoxsociety (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Jordan (Katie Price)
Sorry about that edit to the Jordan (Katie Price) article. I saw that one of the editors had made a number of vandalism edits and went back in the history to grab what I thought was the last "good" edit. While I was doing that, you must have already reverted the vandalism and then I just chose the wrong version of the article. I made a poor choice of article versions but wasn't intentionally vandalizing the article. I think if you look at my edit history, you'll see I'm not a vandal. Dismas |(talk) 19:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit on MPLM
How can I go back and add the edit summary?-Basketball123456 (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Lucy Pinder
Hi there

I see you recently were making some changes to this page, in particular the pictures used. I have actually been trying to get some advice on uploading pics, because for the life of me, i cant figure out what is and isnt acceptable as an upload. there is SO much information on the FAQ pages, and essentially i have a problem with the licensing aspect. I have access to several more "encyclopaedic" images of Lucy, rather than the current one used for the article, which I feel are more appropriate. I don't think it is entirely necessary to have her posing, do you?

whats your position on this, and can you help?δ ² (Talk to me! ) 16:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your message
I know. There is an explination for you on User:NanohaA'sYuri's talk page, if you are interested. Sorry. 129.108.96.45 (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Concerning US Airways edit

 * I reviewed the order, and US Airways isn't mentioned. The guy who put it there is a liar.User:Seanwarner86 (talk)

Horsesam
Blocked indef now. Thanks.  MBisanz  talk 05:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

News! Tag & Assess 2008 is coming ...
Milhist's new drive – Tag & Assess 2008 – goes live on April 25 and you are cordially invited to participate. This time, the task is housekeeping. As ever, there are awards galore, plus there's a bit of friendly competition built-in, with a race for bronze, silver and gold wikis! You can sign up, in advance, here. I look forward to seeing you on the drive page! All the best, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 13:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)




 * }
 * }
 * }

Vasa (ship)
Within the last 40 or so minutes, the IP Address 71.37.155.224 has replaced the entire page with retarded...well, stuff at least three times. He has also been vandalizing a growing number of other pages. Is there something that can be done to stop it from happening again? Cromdog (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ User was reported to WP:AIV and blocked. Parsecboy (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Article rating
Hello MBK004, I saw your edit summary on the Attacotti article talk page, so I added the most relevant pictures I could find. You're welcome to have another look, and if these additions won't do, suggestions are welcome, as there is nothing factually known about the Attacotti beyond what is quoted in the article. (And candidly, I thought that some project banners might be removed, but didn't want to act on that POV) Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter
The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)
The April 2008 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. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

ORIANA
Why did you delete my PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE information?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boeingaircrafts (talk • contribs) 02:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Question about reversion of a minor edit
Hi MBK004,

I haven't been here for a while and just now saw that you reverted a minor edit that I made on the Buzz Aldrin page and left a message on my UserTalk page as follows:


 * Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  -MBK004 01:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am just curious as to why you left that message when all I did was edit the first sentence to include Mr. Aldrin's mother's name since the first sentence says that he "was born to..." and then named only his father. Surely, he was born to both his mother and his father, so I guess I just don't quite understand why you reverted it and left a message saying that it "did not appear to be constructive". Thanks in advance for any light you can shed on this. Jazz2006 (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)]


 * I got your reply on my talk page, thanks. I will add a reliable source - there are many. It would have been useful if you had simply asked for a reliable source initially instead of simply saying that "it did not appear to be constructive". Alternatively, it would have been useful if you simply added a [needs citation] tag, but thanks for the explanation. {Jazz2006 (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)}

Highway 35 in Texas.
Hi, MBK004, I got a message from you about citing the things I added on State Highway 35 in Texas.. It's kind of hard to cite things on what I put about the highway when I live a block from the highway and travel it every day. I will try and cite what I can but just about everything I have put is what I see everyday or what I have known forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.70.193 (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

USMC page
You reverted Fliegerfaust's edits incorrectly. If you click on the image to view it in large size, the soldier is quite clearly wearing Cpl. rank and wearing a nametape that says Lucas. I therefore reverted your edit, as the source is clearly included within the image. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  02:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wunderlich
How come Wunderlich Intermediate School hasn't been deleted, but Krimmel Intermediate was? I even see that you edited it when I checked the last time it had been edited in the history. -- Obaidz96 (talk • contribs • count ) 03:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

USS Princeton (CG-59)
Why you added a section tag in the article?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But do you think the article USS Princeton (CG-59) has enough information like the other to be broken into sections?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

your message to me
hi, idk how to cite stuff but Kirsten Storms confirmed it herself to my friend at an RJA show, and it was confirmed by rja's lead singers wife's best friend on the bands message boards... —Preceding unsigned comment added by YourGuardianAngel2 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok...Ummm idk how i can get you factual stuff but, considering it came from Kirsten herself i figured that it was safe to put up because she had a huge rock on her hand —Preceding unsigned comment added by YourGuardianAngel2 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * hmm....different places are already confirming it...he's changed his myspace status to engaged, she talkes to him about getting the ring resized on his myspace, and she changed her status to engaged on her fansite —Preceding unsigned comment added by YourGuardianAngel2 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Space Camp - Advert
I'm curious what about the Space Camp article reads like an advert to you. It had been previously marked as such, and I've been working to edit that tone out of the article. Another editor (ComputerGeezer) had previously removed the ad-status on 20:58, 7 February 2008. What specifically are you calling out? Crkey (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
I noticed you are willing to give rollback rights to users. I am very interested. How can I apply? Wiki  Zorro 19:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Collapsible ship infobox?
At the peer review for USS Princess Matoika (ID-2290), said that you might know how to make infobox sections collapsible. Is that right? The box for the Matoika is really l-o-o-o-n-g, and, for aesthetic reasons, I would rather not split it into eight (or so) individual boxes. Thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU
Hello again. The Highly Active Users project has gone through a complete revamping per popular demand. We believe this new format will make it easier for new editors to find assistance. However, with the new format, I must again ask you to verify your information on this page. I attempted to translate the data from the old version to the new, but with the extensive changes, I may have made some errors. Thanks again. Useight (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam
, just a note of appreciation for your recent support of my request for adminship, which ended successfully with 112 supports, 2 opposes, and 1 neutral. If there's something I've realized during my RFA process this last week, it's that adminship is primarily about trust. I will strive to honour that trust in my future interactions with the community. Many thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

And an extra thankyou for also supporting my previous RFA :) Gatoclass (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Please check the Spike TV schedule again.
Could you please check the Spike TV schedule again? I want to make sure no mistakes were made in removing Star Trek: Deep Space Nine from the schedule. AdamDeanHall (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the infobox template reminder, must have slipped my mind. American Patriot 1776 (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Your Action regarding my corrections to the Implacable content
Sir,

With respect, I disagree with your position vis-a-vis my statements to the content on the page containing content supposed to be about the "Implacable Class" carriers of the Royal Navy.

The "flow" of the article is in need of being "disrupted"; it is inaccurate and misleading, both, and these are serious problems in an article of such brevity. You will note that I have cited my primary source, that I have written and edited other WK articles on HM ships, and that my corrections are matters of fact, not opinion.

So long as we continue to infer that Wikipedia content is verified---the caution that all content must be verifiable appears on every page, and one cannot but draw the inference from the statement---it is incumbent upon us either to do so, or to take significant action to correct the record when errors of fact---that is, errors which are at direct variance with specific factual records---occur, or when the opinions expressed are not supported by argument and are contrary to any established thought.

I do not argue that content must cleave to established thought, only that if content is to challenge an established viewpoint, it must do so in an organized, logical, and scholarly manner, with facts to support it.

However, an error of fact is a different manner altogether. I may disagree that Admiral Darlan was a Fascist, but the facts of the Implacables are not subject to interpretation---they did not owe any aspect of their design to Ark Royal (see my citation for confirmation of this fact). To write that they did is to misinform, which is contrary to the purpose of a reference, and does not improve the reputation of this site.

I have posted corrections to "Talk" pages before, only to discover that they never go any further. Perhaps you find it edifying to read these pages; perhaps you believe that users will peruse them before relying on the information in the article itself; I do not hold such views.

Where I can, I make minor edits (I just made such an edit on the page for the 'County'-Class 8-Inch Cruiser Shropshire). Where the content is grossly misleading or factually incorrect, I state so clearly.

Until some means is established whereby an entry containing clear errors of fact, or mis-statements not supported by facts, may be replaced by one based on facts, I disagree with the intent of your focus---its ought not to be the continuity of the erroneous page we concern ourselves with, but the accuracy of the information.

I should prefer that the article on the Implacables was moved to the "Talk" page and the simple statement of fact that I wrote be put in its place; but in any event, the errors of fact must be removed.

Thank you for your time and concern.

Very Respectfully, Caryn96 (talk) 07:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sir,

II would have preferred to email you concerning our differing thoughts on the Implacables entry, but cannot seem to find your WK email address, or any quick means of emailing you otherwise.

Thank You.

Caryn96 (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sir,

It would appear you have deleted my corrections to the Implacables page, rather than moving them as you inferred. As I am only able to see the "Discussion" tab ("old skins" as I gather from the "Help" pages), I am not certain, but it certainly appears that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caryn96 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

My edit to USS Topeka (SSN-754)
Hello. I should have realized that a claim such as mine needs to be sourced. Thank you for noticing and taking the time to post on my talk page. To back it up, I cannot cite the blog in question (The Stupid Shall Be Punished ) because of Wikipedia guidelines on blogs. I could probably contact the blogger though - what could he produce to serve as verifiability? It's pretty clear from reading his blog that he is very knowledgeable about the blog's subject of submarines, and I'm completely sure that he indeed served in the Navy and on Topeka. I can't use that as a source, though, can I. Could you offer any advice, both about how to verify my claim and about whether you think all this is notable? KNVercingetorix (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Your Replies
I do not wish for the article to be replaced by "mine", so we are in agreement on that point, though I acknowledge the gratuitous tone. I wish the article to be made convergent with the facts. My paragraphs were intended to make clear the serious errors of fact present in the article, not to substitute for it---I have no objection to anyone writing a new, factually accurate, article, your own August Personage included. I confess I find it appalling that you are more concerned with style and form than with content. Why "the flow" of an article riddled with errors of fact is so much more important to you than the remedy of those errors, I cannot fathom.

If you lack the technical knowledge to understand my points, pray make use of my references; if you lack sufficient background to understand the technical points, help those of us who do to work with you to meet your style and form standards, while still presenting useful and factually correct information.

Caryn96 (talk) 07:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your message
Hmph. Perhaps destroyers just don;t have any wow power to motivate people like the battleships do. At any rate, that is interesting, the contributer who worked to bring HMS Ledbury (L90) up to A-class should get a barnstar or something for being the first to get there. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the battleships always have commanded great attention, so I guess its only appropriate that they get first dibs for attention. And we are working on the Carrier: HMS Ark Royal (91) is closing in on featured, albeit slowly (she just recently failed an A-class review). (Incidentally, thats going to look real bad for the States if the British get a carrier to FA status first, but I'm not complaining :) TomStar81 (Talk) 08:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Axe that: HMAS Melbourne (R21) is an FA-class aircraft carrier. I guess we do have one after all. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want to up the ante, you could work on a carrier of ours that is presently a museum ship; in this way, we could technically have a stake in the "firsts" since no featured carrier article here is a museum ship yet. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Man your lucky. The only museum ship I have ever been on is Niagara, and thats sort of a technicality since Niagara was rebuilt after raising. Lex should be next then, before we fall to far behind our carrier operating breather n. On a separate note, I think the states have claim to the first featured warship because I do believe that Missouri was the first warship to be featured (certainly the 1st battleship), so we get bragging rights there anyway :) TomStar81 (Talk) 08:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Someday, I suppose, I'll get to tour these great ships. In the meantime we got plenty to keep us busy here. I went ahead and dished out a WP:SHIPS barnstar to the A-class nominator for Ledbury, correcting that oversight. I am trying to rebuild Iowa, but have put it off until after the Montanas clear FAC. And I have located some new info I intend to add to the Iowa class article sooner or later. (more the former than the latter since I go back for summer school June 9). TomStar81 (Talk) 08:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with the Wisdom Teeth; I had mine pulled about five years ago, and it was...an uncomfortable experience, mostly for the first 48 hours, owing to the swelling of the cheeks. With regard to T&A 08, try and put in a little effort for the "phase two" reload, Roger is going to try and get the drive relaunched in mid june, and I promised I help by starting then to try and regenerate some interest for the those editors who are throwing in the towel. As for the inquisition: I am ready to go (aside from my nervousness, but people can't see nervousness when edit from behind a username); I'm just waiting for Roger to get the nom up and running, then answer the question and see what happens. With any luck, the third time really will be the charm :) TomStar81 (Talk)
 * Also, a cursory glance at the editing history for suggests s/he may be on extended break; there are long periods of inactivity in the contributions tab. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Palmer Station Citations
You called for more inline citations on the Palmer Station article. I am happy to do what I can, but I would appreciate it if you could be more specific. The guidelines requiring cites say "They are appropriate for supporting statements of fact and are needed for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, including contentious material about living persons, and for all quotations."

I see few statements that are contentious or likely to be challenged, so the "need" part is unclear. As for statements of fact, much of the article has been written by individuals who have spent a lot of time at Palmer Station and some the facts are based on personal knowledge or experience. While in a scientific paper you might see a reference to a "personal communication", in this case some of the facts I see are really information being transmitted by a primary source.

Your advice on how to handle this, please, and examples of things you recommend citations for would also be appreciated.

dufour27216.164.51.18 (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Triple Crown
Already there :) Just waiting on an answer to the questions before moving forward. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, in answer to your A-class question: I wouldn't link just the hull numbers; from where I sit there wouldn't be enough context for the link and the material would be better covered in the Iowa class battleship article; however, if you wish to link the hull numbers you are more than welcome to. Who knows, it may be a hit with the project people. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright then. Hopefully, this FAC won't be as controversial as the Illinois FAC (I'm still have nightmares over that nom...)

Re:Avro Vulcan XH558
Thanks for undoing the last edit on XH558. The edit made by the last person, was just trying to spoil the page. Thanks again Ollie Harvey (Schlongboymega) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schlongboymega (talk • contribs) 01:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

About Me
Hi,

Thanks for the note. Please be assured that I'm the only user using this account in keeping with Wikipedia policy. I am the lead guy for educating people about the Navy's new maritime strategy that calls for greater cooperation among the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard, as well as, enhanced global partnerships to prevent war. This is the first time in history that all three sea services have signed a common strategy and I'm updating relevant pages to reflect that for historical purposes.

I figured I should have a username that provided transparency to this educational effort but if you think I should do these updates anonymously instead, please let me know.

Have a great night.

Best,

NavyPublicAffairsOfficer (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)NavyPublicAffairsOfficer

Regarding your revert to [[USS George Washington (CVN-73)|USS ''George Washington'' (CVN-73)]]
One of your recent reverts was not justified and was reverted back. Your revert reverted useful content to the article: USS George Washington (CVN-73). Just be cautious that not all edits that are bad in grammar constitute as vandalism. WinterSpw (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Unsourced edits should always be checked up. Thanks again. WinterSpw (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Block needed
Please block User:OOC OCD for continued vandalism of Living Lohan. He or she keeps adding info copied from the show's web site and images that haven't been uploaded correctly and keeps changing links to other Wiki articles. Thank you. 67.78.143.227 (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The Inquisition
I brought up the rfa point on Roger Davies' talk page, and wanted to let you know so you could comment there on the matter of another rfa for me. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Take care, and get well soon. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
The May 2008 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. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU
Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

John Young (astronaut)
According to Wikiproject Military History the articles does not fall underneath the category: "Note that military service does not in and of itself place an individual within the scope of the project—particularly in the case of service in modern militaries. To qualify them, an individual's military service must have been somehow noteworthy or have contributed—directly or indirectly—to their notability." JonCatalan (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Pathfinder
I actually am working at the USSRC at the moment and have seen the damage first hand. If you would just wait a minute I was working on uploading a photo of the damage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.111.165.1 (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

steven decatur
i put a direct link from the page to the jersey devil page that tales of the same report!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.35.75 (talk) 05:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect request for Andrea James
Please see my comments on the talk page, now that the warring editor is indefinitely blocked for BLP vandalism and sockpuppetry. Dicklyon (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[[USS Camden|USS ''Camden'']]
Hi MBK,

I see that you reverted my edits on the two USS Camden articles. Would you mind directing me to the guideline you mentioned that introduces an exception to the guideline I cited? I tried WP:SHIPS, but I couldn't find anything applicable, and as it was a WikiProject, it wouldn't have been binding if solely located there anyway. I tend to have to cite this particular guideline quite frequently, therefore it would be very helpful for me to know of any exceptions.

Neelix (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles newsletter
Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 01:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

HMS Formidable
I don't mean to sound argumentative, but asking the question, did Britain not have the capability to repair aircraft carriers during the second world war is connected to the article. If it were true, could it not be added to the article? Joe Deagan (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Joe Deagan (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
The latest newsletter is here! View it at WikiProject LGBT studies/Newsletter archives/2008 6. ShepBot (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[[SS Normandie]] and [[USS Lafayette (AP-53)|USS ''Lafayette'' (AP-53)]] merge(?)
I saw on the talk page of SS Normandie that you were going to do a proper merge of USS Lafayette (AP-53) into the Normandie article. Since it looks like it didn't get done, consider this a friendly reminder about that. Hope you enjoyed your vacation :) — Bellhalla (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

CIA
This is no joke. Anderson Cooper did work for the CIA. HRCC (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Google "Anderson Cooper CIA" and you have pages and pages of links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HRCC (talk • contribs) 22:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Source added to article. This was no joke as you can see but hard fact. HRCC (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

User 209.195.162.149
Hi, Can you block the above indefinitely for repeated vandalism to the "German warship Scharnhorst" pag? Thanks, bigpad (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The Inquisition
After checking my schedual I left a note on Rogers talk page outlineng a two-week window when I can balance school and an rfa. Since you offered to co-nom I though t I would let you know so you could keep an extra close eye out for blue trim around the third nom. With a little luck I may actually pass this one (: TomStar81 (Talk) 06:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

USS John F. kennedy
Yes I would like to know why you removed my edits for the USS John F. Kennedy 1983/84 for lack of reference when it was linked to 2 other Wikipedia pages and very easily verifiable with a simple web search. atelesco —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atelesco (talk • contribs) 11:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008
I've got a couple of books that make mention of the unique construction of the Albany and Topeka, but I'm not home right now. I'll look them up later today. I was a bit surprised that no one had caught and added this information by now. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Admin nom
Well, that explains why preferences is so far off from wannabe kate, and sorry about forgetting Illinois as being yours to begin with. I'll make a point to wait until you post the co-nom before filling in the blanks. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll handle the rest from here (except, or course, for the voting :) Thanks for the co nom. Lets do this thing! TomStar81 (Talk) 06:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm in!!! Alright!!! TomStar81 (Talk) 09:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

USS Solar Infobox
Hi, I was wondering if you would mind explaining to me what the template newinfobox|type=ship means on Talk:USS Solar (DE-221)? I'm guessing of the 3 meanings you're referring to the infobox as incorrect. If so, what would be the correct one? Thanks.--Flash176 (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Flash176 (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)
The June 2008 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. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Italicize ship names
How did MOS arrive at that? I can't recall doing so while I was in the Navy. Durova Charge! 00:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU, Status, and you!
As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible) system - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot  22:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The traditional rfa thank you message

 * BTW, I took a look at your messages at the rfa talk page, and it is my opinion they weren't really of concern. Part of the slow rfa closure is that the Deskana, who usually closes the successful rfas, is out with a health problem (or problems, as the case may be). I suspect that was a big contributing factor here. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

APOLOGIZE FOR OVER ZEALOUSNESS ON FLYING FISH
I apologize for my error. I am a former crewmember from the Flying Fish (93-96) and in my eagerness to "Show off my Boat" I used our Welcome Aboard Pamphlets that I have kept over the years. In addition, I used our last Plan of the Day that contained some of the information. All of these I can provide for you.

Again, I was a little eager and did not fully understand all of this. The NUBE that I am, I was misinformed by a college of mine. Problem corrected.

Please let me know if you would like a copy of said above material for verification. The information that I gave out was correct and I would like to see it reinstated. Please reconsider putting it back online. She was a good boat with a proud history.

I would also like to post the former Commanding Officers as well but again, all I have is my pamphlets that have them listed.

Thank you and have a great day.

V/R MECHCOMMANDER2008

Mechcommander2008 (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

pennant names
have replied on naming page, but wiki article names are as a matter of policy not chosen because they are technically correct, but because they will be most easily identifiable to a reader ignorant about the subject. The pennant number conveys no usefull information. Sandpiper (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Come now, thats just making it difficult to read the vote section on one edit page. Sandpiper (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, no. I take it back. I see hows its been sectioned. Sandpiper (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see many. But I am not responsible for whatever way your archives may work. tail wagging dog? Sandpiper (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have put the sectioning back again: editing the whole block in one was unmanageable. As the page still had comments from two years ago, I would not have thought that sudden archiving is likely to be a problem? Sandpiper (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

USS INGRAHAM (FFG-61)
I would like to know how you would like me to refrence the ship nickname of "battle wagon" when it is used on the ship. Would you like me to cite everyday conversations I have on board? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wigglepuppy2012 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

deleted response to comments on wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Ships
Please be aware that deleting comments made by other users is frowned upon on wikipedia.

In this particular case, the discussion was started by user Brad, who made a personal comment about me. Now, I dont mind this, I was more curious than offended, but the comment clearly ridicules the debate which I started on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships)‎. You claimed that my post which you deleted was a 'POV inserted into a neutral notice'. It may have been a POV, about the desireability of starting any major change sooner rather than later, but this was in response to another comment suggesting that the proposed change would produce lots of work, and thus the implicit POV that it was undesireable. It was no more than a response in kind to the previous posting. If you are going to start censoring postings, then I would suggest you do so impartially. You did not censor the response in a way which restored the original section to a short notice, but merely removed one comment. Rather than restoring impartiality, this might be seen as biasing the tone of the debate.

Far better that you do not delete anyones comments. I would suggest reading No personal attacks. I'm not sure what deleting others posts comes under, try Etiquette. Sandpiper (talk) 09:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, I've rolled it all back to the original notification. I was rather impressed by the way he makes a claim for his right to say what he pleases and quietly edits out your comment that happened to be critical of him. Benea (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that constiitutes another personal attack. tut tut. I felt it would be less embarassing for the both of you that the comments be deleted. If you wish, we can put the whole lot back. Sandpiper (talk) 08:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I commented, but now I'm not sure I understand your previous line. was that comment addressed to me, sandpiper, or MBK? ah, the difficulties of multiple conversations. Sandpiper (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A-class review for American Palestine Line
I posted a note on WT:SHIPS about the A-class review for American Palestine Line. If you have a chance, I'd appreciate it if you could review the article and offer your opinions. Thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

MBK,
My reliable source is my father, William Byrne. He grew up in Texas and he raced Lance Armstrong several times when Armstrong was just a teenage boy. He even has a picture of himself pulling ahead of Lance for just one or two seconds, but my dad pretty much lost every time.- BeeBopDroid (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Birmingham, Alabama
FYI, Hoar Construction is an actual company in Birmingham, and has been since the 1940s.   This edit by  wasn't vandalism. - auburn pilot  talk  19:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hoar Construction, per your suggestion. Thanks, - auburn <font color="#CC5500">pilot  talk  23:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship FAR
Iowa class battleship has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

SS Normandie merge
Greetings, would you be willing to merge the USS Lafayette (AP-53) article into the SS Normandie one as stated on the talk page? It's been two months now since that message. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information
I want people to find out about the events scheduled for the commissioning of the ussny. The best way I could think to do that was show the link to the official commissioning site. Not to mention the fact that all funds raised by the commissioning event go to the families and crew of the ship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattwilson0501 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk page archiving vandal
Thanks for catching that. I saw the comment and had replied to it (not that I suspect the editor will ever see the response since it's an AOL IP) but didn't notice that the archiving had been changed. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
The latest newsletter is here! View it at WikiProject LGBT studies/Newsletter archives/2008 7. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b<font color="#FF4400">oi 14:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Military of the United States
I don't know if you are a outsider looking in or a friend of the user Signaleer, nor do I really care! You changed the subject of Military of the United States, with out hearing both sides. So here's my arguments:

If you go by the oldest service. Then it would go the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard & then Air Force. The USMC was created on 10 November 1775, but the USN was created on October 13, 1775. Now you tell me which is older!? Read the USMC seal, it clearly says the Department of the Navy & United States Marine Corps, but the Air Force is it's own department. I can show you a Army, Navy or Air Force Medal of Honor or Army, Navy or Air Force Service Cross. Show me a Marine Medal of Honor or Marine Cross? Why can't you, is because it's part of the Navy. People may not like it or even say yes but technically it dose it's own thing. It still doesn't change any thing the United States Armed Forces may have five branches. But only three Departments. That's how almost all of us in the military, except those in the USMC & it's supports see it. Who say well we are older then you. Put it this way you could be a 15 year E-6 in the Army and I'm a 12 year E-7 in the Air Force, I still out rank you because of the grade not the time in service or what service your in.

You say If I continue I may be blocked from editing! Who care I can just get a new username! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp 8503 (talk • contribs) 02:10, Jul 31, 2008


 * There's been an IP user who had made a series of reverts on the same article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/131.6.84.111 I've reverted the edits twice but do not want to violate the 3R rule. -Signaleer (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

With thanks
Thank you very much indeed for your help with and commitment to the drive. May I please trouble you to comment at the post-drive workshop? Your feedback will help us to improve the next drive. Thanks in advance, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 09:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship
I've been tweaking the section to better adress the concerns of the reviewers, but could use a set of eyes to check and see if the section is still facutally accurate, NPOV compliant, and free of spelling errors. Also, happy one year anniversery on the wiki! TomStar81 (Talk) 22:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)
The July 2008 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. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Charles F. Adams class destroyer
Thank you for pointing that out. I was searching for those ships in Greek categories and didn't find anything. I totally missed the section in the Adams class article. De728631 (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The break out :-)
United States Naval Gunfire Support Debate has been created to consolidate the argument on a single page and (hopefully) allow for a reduction in the size of the Iowa class battleship article. Thought you might like to know. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My RfA
Fair enough, but I think your support would go a long way here. Passionate disagreement is one thing, but abuse of rights is quite another. At no time have I ever misused Rollback to exact revenge or would I ever use admin rights to do such a thing. If I can clarify any of my actions, please let me know. — BQZip01 — talk 05:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

An Article I created
Hi. I was hoping that You can delete an article that does not reach the criteria of nobility on wikipedia. Window Boy. It was tagged a long time ago. And it still hasn't reached nobility standards.-- Obaidz96 (talk • contribs • count ) 23:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Your new book
By my primitive mathamatical standards your new book should be coming in any day now, and I look forward to seeing it used as a source in the articles shortly. On a related note, Iowa class battleship is just about to complete its pass through FAR and with any luck will be reinstated to the FA list without passing through FARC.

Lastly, I asked Tony1 to have a look at the US Naval Gunfire Support Debate article, and he left a bunch of hidden notes for improvement in advance of an FAC, if you would like to look at them. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Double huh? That would be awesome, especial since the enigineering and armor sections are weak. If the book is as good as you say then we may also be able to create a new section/article for the radar and electronic countermeasure equipment the ships have/had installed on them. I've been trying for a while now to get a page like that up, but so far haven;t had any luck. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

USS Asheville and other things
YOU DO NOT NEED A CITATION FOR EVERY LITTLE DETAIL LIKE THE CURRENT CHIEF OF THE BOAT. SHOW ME A WRITTEN RULE THAT SAYS THE INFO BOX MUST CONFORM TO YOUR STANDARDS. WHAT MAKE THIS ARTICLE A GREAT ARTICLE IS THE FACT IT IS UNIQUE AND NOT LIKE EVERY OTHER SHIP ARTICLE. PLEASE SHOW ME A WRITTEN RULE THAT SAYS IT MUST BE LIKE EVERY OTHER SHIP ARTICLE. THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN LIKE THIS FOR OVER A YEAR AND NOBODY HAS COMPLAINED.

AND UNDERSEA WARFARE IS THE DEFINITIVE SOURCE FOR ANYTHING REALATED TO THE UNITED STATES SUBMARINE FORCE.--Subman758 (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually That Image does belong in lead, concidering this the last line in the lead, which you conveniently left in place after moving the picture. "HST was authorized as USS United States but her name was changed before the keel laying."

Oh I am still waiting for you written rules that say the articles must conform to your standards. And I will take matter up with Higher up admin's Subman758 (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Block Me I don't care. You are the one trying make everything conform to your personal standards. By the way I've got like ten accounts. Blocking the I.P. Address won't help you either, I'll switch to a different Modem. The reason Wikipedia is Laughed at, is Admins like you. You nit pick left and right. I don't suppose a Polar Bear Certificate would good enough to document a swim call in Behm Canal. By the way oh and this I am very picky about Whats the deal with you guys putting the diving depth and ship max speed greater the what has officially released by the Navy. That would be you guys publishing Classified Information, A CRIME PUNISHABLE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE --Subman758 (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

One Other thing: There is a reason you will not fine many sources for Submarines. IT IS SECRET. And that is the Reason The United States Has not lost a single Submarine since World War Two, due to Enemy Action. Though we have lost two via accidents. Sure you may not like the fact that we have these secrets, but the we do have them, have many submariners including myself alive.--Subman758 (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I see you have not bastardized the USS Topeka Article. You didn't change the infobox. You didn't add all those unnecessary maintenance tags. And so on that just goes to shoe you are absolutely bias. This just my opinion, and we all know about opinions, their like assholes, we all got them, and they all stink. But people who have not served in the military, really have no business writing about it.--Subman758 (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've courtesy blanked the post to my user talk and left a note to Subman. He hasn't posted since then, so suggest treating this as water under the bridge.  If problems continue, suggest opening the matter at a noticeboard for independent review.  Please notify me if that becomes necessary, and I hope it won't be.  Hoping things settle down,  Durova Charge! 20:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

USS Kearsarge posting
Thank you for the message related to unreliable sources for a recent posting I made to the USS Kearsarge page. However, the information I posted came from the ship's website (which is already linked on the wikipedia page; the specific link is http://www.kearsarge.navy.mil/site%20pages/History.aspx. I did not feel it appropriate to create another reference or link. Therefore, unless you can point me to a wikipedia article that makes your suggestion more right, I believe it was inappropriate to remove the current I provided. It would have been more appopriate to add a citation needed marker than removing the content?  --djharrity (talk) Djharrity (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

USS Wasp (CV-7)
I see that you have just reverted my last edit to this article using a tool designed for handling vandalism. It must be perfectly clear to you that this is no such thing. The edits I made include a disambiguation of "Betty" to "Mitsubishi G4M", the correction of "Virginia capes" to "Virginia Capes", the corection of D-day to D-Day in line with the article title, the conversion of several ship names to use the USS template, the removal of several superfluous line breaks, the unlinking of common geographic names per WP:CONTEXT and the unlinking of dates, since these are useless and a distraction to >90% of readers (see WP:CONTEXT). Which of these do you object to? Colonies Chris (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're telling me that fixing a lot of small problems with this article, and hundreds like it, and removing date formatting, all in line with the MoS, changes I've been making for weeks and to which virtually no-one has objected, is "gaming the system"? Thanks for your kind appreciation for all my hard work. Yes, date formatting is optional - that means it's OK for me to remove it, and it's OK for you to prefer to keep it. The guidance in the MoS has changed - it used to encourage autoformatting, now it's neutral to negative "Careful consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of the autoformatting mechanism should be made before applying it: the mechanism does not work for the vast majority of readers, such as unregistered users and registered users who have not made a setting, and can affect readability and appearance if there are already numerous high-value links in the text.". If you think date formatting is so important that you want to forego all the other changes, or make them yourself, that's fine, I'm not going to argue with you. Colonies Chris (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * MBK004—I should come clean at the start and say that I'm entirely biased towards the removal of low-value links, including the ridiculous (single years, dictionary terms) and the now deprecated (date autoformatting). There are at least six reasons for dispensing with DA, and they mostly have to do with the improvement of articles such as this, and all of the other ship articles (which tend to be already quite heavily endowed with high-value links). It's precisely because I value the wikilinking system that I've been pursuing a policy of disciplined linking, i.e., of minimising the dilution of the the links we might want our readers to follow, and of reducing colour-clutter. Perhaps as a reading psychologist I'm hyper-aware of the slight impediments to the reading experience that unnecessary bright-blue links represent.
 * Have you really compared the before and after in this article? I'm keen to receive your feedback on my talk page, where you'll find an entry towards the bottom explaining the background to and advantages of the move to dispense with DA. You may also wish to peruse this consensus page. Tony   (talk)  01:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was very tempted to revert back your revert of colonies chris. On the whole I see date autoformatting as totally pointless, though it is not clear to me what the problems it might cause on a page are, perhaps because I havn't set a date format and have no experience of what it does. In three years editing, I have never seen any reason to enable it. I dont find varied dates a problem. I understood the autoformatting was introduced to stop incessant wars over whether to write 10 April or April 10. I never link dates, I havn't quite got so far as to go around eradicating them, but it is quite tempting. Sandpiper (talk) 07:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh
It appeared as though he had been unblocked. :  DRosenbach  ( Talk 04:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion
from 66.123.206.93, I think. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi MBK,


 * I noticed Ncmvocalist's removal of the IP's message on ANI, and I wanted to stop by and ask you to reconsider your block. While you seem to spend a great deal of time fighting vandalism, from my point of view it looks like you blocked someone you essentially had a content disagreement with--this is certainly not vandalism.  I also looked through your contributions and noticed you've been using the rollback tool to revert good-faith (if somewhat misguided) contributions such as ],, and .  To be perfectly blunt, if I saw that a rollbacker had performed these reversions, I would have removed their rights.


 * I'm not trying to attack you or downplay the huge volume of good work you contribute to the project--I'm just suggesting that the extensive time you put in dealing with vandals and trolls may be starting to negatively affect how you handle apparent good faith contributors. And of course, I could have missed something entirely in all of these cases, in which case I'd appreciate if you would point it out so I can start tucking into my black-feathered fowl. Thanks! -- jonny - m  t  06:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Request 3rd Party
Recently, there has been an issue in reference to the article China Burma India Theater of World War II. The user Philip Baird Shearer believes that the CBI was just a theater and not a theater of operations. I disagree. I would like a third party to please review this disagreement and feed their input. I would like a group of mediators to approach this matter. Please respond on this page, I will be watching it. I've also added this discussion at the Wikipedia Requested moves page. -Signaleer (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter
Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Dsegal58
Just dropping a courtesy note to let you know that I've unblocked Professor Segal. We mutually agreed on some editing conditions which I've detailed there and feel negates the purpose of the block, and I plan on keeping an eye on them and reblocking if necessary. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap"><big style="color:#900">east718 // <font color="#090">talk  // <font color="#4682b4">email  // 06:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)