User talk:Maury Markowitz/Archive 4, 2006

Hello
I just noticed that you had dropped by and contributed to the OPI/OSPGLI DevWiki. Thanks! RJCraig 06:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Cold Fusion
Hi Maury - I'd appreciate it if you could stop by the cold fusion article. I just merged part of the Storms version and I'd like you to look over the result. Also, unfortunately, I forsee considerable opposition, and I think you can help mediate if necessary. Somewhat longer-term, I would love to collaborate with you on the rewrite (since you volunteered ;) P.S. I will have somewhat limited Wikipedia presence this week, I should be back next week however. ObsidianOrder 14:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Connolley
On his request for admin page, your comment seems to say you think Connolley wrote that anitwikipedia rant. He didn't. Please look more closely. Just thought you'd like to know. -- GangofOne 13:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

WMC's RFA
Maury, you voted oppose on WMC's RFA while citing an anti-wikipedia rant. The only problem is that William didn't write that. It was written by supporters of aetherometry with whom William has been in explicit conflict. I would guess he cited their rant on the CF talk page because he found their views to be humourous, and not because he in any way endorsed their point of view. Dragons flight 13:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

that aint true so ive heard William baby is considering becoming an aetherometrist. at least he is considering reading some of it.

Image Tagging Image:Me 163 liftoff.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Me 163 liftoff.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.

There are several in this bag. Stan 05:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Military History Task Force
hi, I just wanted to bring your attention to the Canadian Military Task Force at WikiProject Military history. We're currently looking for the task force people to joint so that we can start to develop and organize Canadian Military history content on the 'pedia.Mike McGregor (Can) 17:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Mac OS, not MacOS
After having corrected a few misspellings of MacOS I thought I might point out, that MacOS is not the correct spelling of Apple's operationg system. In the future please spell it "Mac OS". You can delete these lines after reading them. Cheers. 87.78.21.240 13:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ashton-Tate
Greetings. Hm, well that is suspicious. I don't know how to track down IP addresses, but I've seen it done on Wikipedia. I believe User:SlimVirgin and User:Kbh3rd have done this, so you might ask them, or you might try asking at Help desk or Reference desk/Miscellaneous. Hope this helps, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ashton-Tate
Hi Maury, thanks for your note. Not much I can do to help, I'm afraid. The latest two IPs resolve to San Jose, CA, and the third to Portola Valley, CA, but that doesn't tell us much. As they're not violating any policies, we're not allowed to request a user check, but in this case, I'm not sure we could learn much else anyway. People are allowed to edit their own articles and articles belonging to their companies. It's not encouraged, but we can't stop it. However, they do have to edit within our policies, so if you think they've added POV or unsourced material, you're well within your rights to change it. Sorry I can't be more helpful. I love the title of your source, by the way: In Search of Stupidity. LOL!! Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

ZRAM / Z-RAM
It looks like the company making Z-RAM calls it Z-RAM with a dash, and that it is trademarked that way. I noticed you edited the article both ways, why did you switch it back to ZRAM? -Ravedave 16:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada
Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 04:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Feederliner redirect nominated for deletion
I noticed your comment on the feederliner redirect. I agree and I've nominated it for deletion. Just letting you know in case you wanted to comment on it. Mexcellent 08:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Maury. Well done on rewriting feederliner. Just one small quibble: next time you remove the RfD template from a page, could you please put a note on Redirects for deletion that you are rewriting the article? Cheers. Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Bmw 803.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Bmw 803.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SteinbDJ 02:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Carl_Gustav.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Carl_Gustav.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 09:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot tagging
Well for one, how does it decide what to orphan? Images without tags? There are lots of those, tagging wasn't introduced until more than two years into this project. Maury 13:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OrphanBot goes after images that have been tagged as "no source" or "no license" by someone. And there aren't that many old untagged images -- about a year and a half ago, there was a very successful drive to add copyright tags to all images. --Carnildo 18:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Short 25 Pounder
I have reverted your merge of this aricle with the general 25 pounder article. The vote on this issue was even. --Nick Dowling 23:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

re: Lawrence High School
I think we should block that IP for a week and see what happens from there. I've placed a repeat vandal tag at the top of the user page and will be keeping my eye on it. Thanks. &mdash;Wayward Talk 07:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Buteyko
BUTEYKO

Hi Maury

I’d like to comment on the changes you made to some of the critical components of the last edit.

Firstly you said:

(there is no issue about problems due to low carbon dioxide, the concern is that there is no reason to believe they have anything to do with asthma -- it's called "cause and effect", and it's lacking)

And then you deleted the following critical paragraph:

“Yet the profound impact of low carbon dioxide on the biochemistry of the body is well established. It should come as no surprise that such biochemical disturbances could disrupt any of the normal body functions and systems, such as the immune system, one of the major problems in asthma.”

There are three major components to asthma. Firstly, there is the inflammatory hyperresponsiveness, which Buteyko’s hyperventilation theory holds is a disorder of the immune system caused by chronic hyperventilation. The immune system is a finely tuned biological warfare mechanism that has to recognize and remove genuine pathogenic invaders. It has to differentiate these from the body’s normal cells and from non-pathogens. The theory holds that none of these functions are performed well by an immune system that does not have the correct biochemical environment in which to build its components and function. This is why immune disorders such as arthritis, diabetes and inability to pick up flu viruses follow from chronic stress and the chronic hyperventilation it leads to. In other words, the reason asthmatics have red and inflamed lungs from breathing the same air as people who have normal healthy lung is because their immune system is not functioning correctly due to low CO2. The second component of asthma is the mucus plugging, which is the body’s natural way of protecting red and inflamed lungs.

The thrid component of asthma is bronchospasm. There is not a doctor or medical scientist around that would not know that low CO2 causes spam of the smooth muscle such as you find in bronchioles. When CO2 in the alveoli gets too low, then the smooth muscles in the bronchioles of asthmatics spasm to the point of causing wheezing. In those of us who do not have the asthma gene, the smooth muscle still spasms, but our bronchioles don’t constrict to the same degree as do those in asthmatics. The cause and effect in the case of Bronchospasm is absolutely compelling. Indeed, I challenge you to get any asthmatic to hyperventilate deliberately, and you will find they end up with an asthma attack.

The other thing you deleted is the fact that there is a poor undestanding of chronic hyperventilation in the medical community. Maury, I’ve given you truck loads of references on this. What more do you want? Have a look, for example, at the classic by cardilogist Claude Lum: “Hyperventilation: the tip and the iceberg”  in which he argues that there is not even a name in the medical dictionary for this condition. Or take a look at Magarian’s “Hyperventilation Syndrome: A diagnosis begging for recognition.”

This is the whole point about Buteyko. He has developed a therapy based on a very old theory that a small group of doctors still subscribes to, and has come up with these astonishing results just for asthma. What this means is that this theory really needs to be recognized. The battle of the hypervnentilationists has scored a huge boost with this exciting new development.

Could you please restore those two very critical components to the original text. Also, the introduction to the section on Buteyko is misleading and not correct. Buteyko is not just a set of breathing exercises. I have commented on this in the “discussion section”. Unfortunately I cannot edit this section. The introduction needs to read as follows:

“The Buteyko Method, or Buteyko Breathing Technique (BBT) is part of a holistic health philosophy that includes a set of breathing exercises developed by the Ukrainian born Russian doctor Konstantin Pavlovich Buteyko (Russian: Бутейко) (English pronunciation: Boo-take-oh). These exercises are designed to reverse chronic hyperventilation (CHV) and hence the reversible disorders caused by this condition. At present it is mainly used for asthma, sleep apnea, anxiety and panic attacks. However, given the very long list of symptoms attributed to CHV, its application is bound to grow as the acceptance of CHV grows in the mainstream medical community. Chronic hyperventilation has been discussed in the medical literature over most of the last century. Its promponents are bewildered as to why their medical colleagues do not acknowledge this condition. Buteyko has developed breathing exercises akin to certain forms of yoga in order to raise the level  of carbon dioxide in the bloodstream  and the lungs back to normal levels. Advocates of the technique claim that since the root cause of asthma is reversed, asthmatics can eliminate the need for inhalers and live a medication-free life. Sceptics claim that the causal relation is flawed and there is little evidence there is any effect other than placebo, although this has now been ruled out by a number of placebo controlled clinical trials.”

Many thanks

Peter Kolb Biomedical Engineer pkolb@wt.com.au

Image Tagging for Image:Super_Caravelle_three_view.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Super_Caravelle_three_view.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 12:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft engine specs
Hi. I know you've done a lot of work on aircraft engines so I wanted to bring this to your attention. A few of us at WikiProject Aircraft have worked out a standardized set of engine specifications for reciprocating and gas turbine engines – WikiProject Aircraft/page content. I have written two templates to format the specs into a uniform layout, they are: Please feel free to use these templates if you agree with them and of course feedback/concerns/criticisms are always appreciated. You may see me converting the engine articles to these templates for the next few weeks. - Emt147 Burninate!  23:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Template:Jetspecs for all gas turbine engines, see General Electric J79 for an example of output.
 * Template:Pistonspecs for all reciprocating engines, see Rolls-Royce Merlin for an example of output.

Heinkel He 112
I'm having a bit of a hack away at the article to make it a bit punchier. It would good if there was a statement on the source page or on the article page from you that the work was licenced as appropiate so no-one makes a mistake later and labels it as a copyvio. GraemeLeggett 14:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

News on Prograph History
Howdy. Sorry, no news. I've been pretty well tied-up with work-related stuff for the last few months; meant to redo some of the OSPGLI site in March but ended up not having enough time. No progress for my part on any of the open-source stuff. All a bit depressing, but what can we do?

I kind of have a POV problem with Cox myself (long story) and now tend to regard anything by him with a great deal of suspicion. Other corroborating sources are always a good idea, anyway, eh? RJCraig 09:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

2001
You were "removing some rather stilted prose, but the movie description area still strikes me as maybe double what it should be."

Considering that much of the "stilted prose" was written by me -- Huh??? Also, it is ALWAYS refered to as THE monolith, not A monolith.

What, no comment?

-- Jason Palpatine 18:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I always have a comment
What, no comment?

Sorry, my time machine is not yet fully functional, so I was not able to comment on your comment until after you posted it.

The "stilted prose" I referred to was the considerable amount of "internal thoughts" of the characters in the movie that there is no way you could possibly know. For instance...

''It is unclear whether to hope or fear. There is no way to know beforehand if, out among the moons of Jupiter, he will meet with good or evil – or only with ruins a thousand times older than Babylon.''

This is stilted prose, if there ever was. Given that none of this appears in the movie, and that there is no way to know what he thinks considering there is no dialog, it is pointless verbage.

I also notice you re-added this particularly odious tract...

''As it dances among the moons of the giant planet, the monolith watches the new visitor plunge into the Jupiter system to put itself in orbit. For some time the two observe each other; then a pod departs Discovery One to move directly toward it. ''

"Dances among the moons"? Sheesh. And I'm really curious how it is that you claim to know the "monolith watches the new visitor"? Neither of these scenes appears in the movie either.

And your edit comment on this is particularily amusing: Jovian monolith was in a dynamicly active constantly

Well not only is that also outside of the movie, and therefore speculation, but your original text does not refer to the monolith dancing, but the Discovery.

Also, it is ALWAYS refered to as THE monolith, not A monolith.

Do you suggest that all four of the monoliths that appear in the film are actually all one and the same? If not, how should one refer to them?

Maury 21:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Early today I removed some truly ‘’odious’’ wording from the article. However, the user in question, User:Robeykr, was apparently offended and has since re-added it again. I am deleting it again, but for the record I will place the removed text here, with comments on why I am removing it.


 * Odious – adj, inspiring hatred, contempt, or disgust
 * That’s strong language. My edit has been on line for 2 weeks now, and YOU are thus far the only one to object to my prose.  Why, exactly is my writing “inspiring hatred, contempt, or disgust” in you?

''As it dances among the moons of the giant planet, the monolith watches the new visitor plunge into the Jupiter system to put itself in orbit. For some time the two observe each other; then a pod departs Discovery One to move directly toward it.''

And your edit comment on this is particularly amusing: Jovian monolith was in a dynamically active constantly ‘’changing orbit.’’

Well not only is that also outside of the movie, and therefore speculation, but your original text does not refer to the monolith dancing, but the Discovery.


 * No, this is definitely NOT outside the movie and is definite fact. The monolith was shown to be in constant motion about Jupiter.  Just watch the segment again.

Also, it is ALWAYS referred to as THE monolith, not A monolith.

Do you suggest that all four of the monoliths that appear in the film are actually all one and the same? If not, how should one refer to them?

a: the indefinite article, used before a singular countable noun to refer to one person or thing not previously known or specified, in contrast with “the,” referring to somebody or something known to the listener indef art

the: an adjective, the definite article, used before somebody or something that has already been mentioned or identified, or something that is understood by both the speaker and hearer, as distinct from “a” or “an”


 * Although there clearly must be more than one of these, their significance would clearly indicate that the use of “the indefinite article” in referring to any one of them would be incorrect. For example:  When someone refers to any one of the pyramids a Gaza, it is not “a pyramid’ it is “the pyramid.”  Same rational applies here.  The monoliths are not indefinite objects, but distinct and significant.

All of this is speculation. There is certainly no eyeballs on the monolith in question, so it's not obvious how Rob knows that it was watching the Discovery. Nor is there any point in the movie where one could suggest that "For some time the two observe each other".


 * The ‘’’Moons of Jupiter’’’ sequence is ‘’without a doubt’’ depicting the monolith’s POV. That “there is certainly no eyeballs on the monolith” is irrelevant – it is a functioning device and does not need eyes to observe its surroundings.   The sequence clearly depicts it to be in a dynamic, constantly changing orbit about Jupiter – unlike the static unmoving (in relation to IO) depicted in the film and novel versions of 2010.  At one point it is moving along Jupiter’s equator, then later a polar orbit (the shot shown in the article).


 * The monolith is the center of the segment. With each shot, the angles bring Discovery into view at 3 different times:
 * when Discovery plunges into the Jupiter system to put itself in orbit.
 * when Discovey is on the night side of Jupiter and has successfully entered orbit (given the different distances in proximity to Jupiter of these 2 shots, they MUST be days apart).
 * when the monolith passes BY Discovery and the pod bay doors open to release Bowman in the pod (with the rest of the crew dead, who else would be piloting the thing?). The first 2 passes of them by each other were at considerable distance, but this last pass is close  -- a rendezvous maneuver would have required time, days even, to carry out.


 * Since the HAL breakdown event occurred approximately 3 week after launching, it stands to reason that Discovery’s arrival at Jupiter would be ‘’months later.’’ Simple observation of the sequence and logic show that a considerable amount of time was being shown in the short amount of time in the film; such maneuvers about the system do not take minutes or even hours.  If you don’t belive me, check out the web site history for NASA’s ‘’Project Galileo,’’ the probe took days, even weeks, to navigate the system the way the monolith and Discovery did.


 * These shots would clearly indicate that the monolith IS, as I put it, “watching the Discovery.” And since Discovery rendezvoused with it, the reverse must also be true.


 * You say, “All of this is speculation.” Were you paying attention to what the monolith was doing?  It definitely wasn’t at a standstill.  Perhaps you would describe its actions differently?  Why don’t you?  Please explain your remark about “odious”?

‘’’Whether it is machine or being,’’’

Well, who cares? This statement just confuses things.

Well, who cares who cares one way or the other? The amount of debate concerning exactly WHAT the monolith is has been going on for decades. In 2010 it was compared to a Swiss army knife. It has been called many things from “that damned two-by-four” to ‘’God.’’ You ask, “Well, who cares?” I think a number of people out there may. Is it just a machine or is it alive? Just one of many questions the audience asks. So we might ask ‘’ In that event, who cares that you don’t care?’’

''He was not totally unprepared for this... ''

Again, there is nothing to suggest this in the movie.


 * Again, simple logic comes in to play. It is now months after HAL killed the rest of the crew.  What, exactly was Bowman doing this whole time?  He was clearly still alive and running the ship as the maneuvers made to bring Discovery into orbit indicates.   As a responsible astronaut, after regaining control of the ship, he would have/did contact Earth.  Since “But because they are dead, he must complete the mission alone.”  It stands to reason that he would have been briefed in the months before he arrived at Jupiter.  Get real.  In 2010 it was shown that he was communicating his observations as he left the ship for the last time: “Oh my God!  -- It’s full of stars!”  So I think it IS suggested.  Even the fact that he rendezvoused with the monolith and went EVA to make a closer inspection of it would validate this conclusion.

fantastic sights which could be either natural or artificial

Ditto.


 * dit·to interj
 * used instead of repeating something that has just been said to indicate that the same thing applies to you (informal)


 * adv
 * indicating that whatever has just been said about one person or thing applies equally to somebody or something else


 * Take a good look at the image the caption is referring to. The effect was designed by Kubrick and was called “The Mind Bender.”  Is what is there natural?  Are those diamonds we are looking at ships or some other forms of artifacts like the monolith?  Explain your answer.  The FACT that they may be one or the other seems to me to be a matter worth pointing out.  In fact, in some reviews I read at the time of the film’s release, I remember that it WAS pointed out in the review I read in the ‘’Philadelphia Bulletin’’!

I still say the description is way too long. Is the wiki really a supposed to be a scene-for-scene description of the movie? Maury 22:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Given everything we know, who says otherwise?

Jason Palpatine 02:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC) speak your mind


 * Who is "we"? I agree with  on all points. &mdash; Scm83x hook 'em 02:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As you said "who is we?" Let's see, this article has been in the enlarged format even prior to my edits during the past month. Others created the article in its extended form before I came along. So who's we? I don't see much in the way of any majority speaking out here. One voice angainst another. I can count the number of "oposing opinions" here in one breath. I see no vast majority speaking here.

And you have not offered a rebuttal to any of the points I have listed here.

Jason Palpatine 03:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A lot of what Maury is objecting to (and I agree with) is what is called original research. Put very simply, Wikipedia policy on original research is that:
 * "Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position."
 * In the context of this article, statements such as "He was not totally unprepared for this..." and "the monolith watches the new visitor plunge into the Jupiter system to put itself in orbit. For some time the two observe each other" cannot simply come from the head of the user writing it. They must first be written in a reputable verifiable source, such as a film review or critique.  Wikipedia is not the place to write lengthy stylistic plot analyses for films.  Those things are more suited for personal webpages.  Wikipedia is simply not a publisher of original thought. &mdash; Scm83x hook 'em 04:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the material did NOT come out of my head -- but your copyright policies do demand that I use my own words! There are plenty of materials out there already published that cover and make mention of the various facts I have laid out here. My opinion was what I believed you wanted and I gave it. For sources:


 * 1) Kubrick's "2001" by Leonard F. Wheat
 * 2) Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey : New Essays by Robert Kolker
 * 3) The Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Stephanie Schwam (Editor), Jay Cocks (Introduction)
 * 4) Moonwatcher's Memoir: A Diary of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Daniel Richter (Foreword by Arthur C. Clarke)
 * 5) 2001 Filming the Future by Piers Bizony
 * 6) The Making of Kubrick's 2001 by Jerome Agel (its almost a bible to the film)
 * 7) And the jewel of my collection the April 1968 issue of LIFE magazine with its first pictorial preview of the film from beginning to end.  It even showed the Star Child!
 * 8) and of course, Arthur C. Clarke's novels of 2001 and 2010

in chapters 37 and 38 of 2001:

ch. 37 --

It is shown that for three million years, this monolith had been on Japetus, waiting to be discovered. It was left behind as part of an experiment conducted by this extra- terrestrial civilization. The originators of the experiment had traveled the universe, trying to encourage the development of life wherever they found it. As they had an entire Universe to explore and cultivate, they could not stay around Earth and watch to see what developed. Earth was only one of many worlds on which they had attempted to push along the evolutionary process. These beings had, themselves, long evolved. First, they had outgrown their bodies of flesh and, having learned to store their brains in machines of metal and plastic. Ultimately, they learned to store their thoughts in light and freed themselves from all matter and time.

"Now the long wait was ending. On yet Another world, intelligence had been born and was escaping from its planetary cradle.  An ancient experiment was about to reach its climax.”

Ch 38 --

“For weeks as it stared forever Sunward with its strange senses, the [monolith] had watched the approaching ship. Its makers had prepared it for many things and this was one of them. It recognized what was climbing yp toward it from the warm heart of the Solar System.

“It observed, and noted, and took no action, as the visitor checked its speed with jets of incandescent gas. Presently it felt the gentle touch of radiations, trying to probe its secrets. And still it did nothing.

“There was a long pause, then, before it observed that something was falling down toward it from the orbiting ship. It searched its memories, and the logic circuits made their decisions, according to the orders given them long ago.”

And I stand by what I have said.

Queen to Bishop 3

Your move. -- Jason Palpatine 05:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC) speak your mind

Image Tagging Image:Bristol 198.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bristol 198.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Renata 06:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Bristol 223.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bristol 223.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Renata 06:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Packistani A-bomb
This article has been up at Articles for deletion/Packistani A-bomb. Your opinion on this matter would be appreciated. --DV8 2XL 04:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ivy King
Hi Maury. You might want to have a look at the Ivy King Talk page again following your mails with FastFission. I've added some material that may answer your questions. Brian Burnell 19.00, 06 June 2006 (UTC)

Ivy King - Orange Herald
Hi Maury. I've posted an answer to your question on the Ivy King Talk page. Brian.Burnell 17:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ross Rifle Bayonet
Thanks for catching that repeated paragraph. Michael Dorosh 21:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

A few unattributed images
Just a heads-up:

Copyright problems with Image:Copland_Platinum_theme.png
An image that you uploaded, Image:Copland_Platinum_theme.png, has been listed at Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Also note the following images have also been tagged: Jonathan Grynspan 03:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Copland open file dialog.gif
 * Gizmo_theme.png
 * Copland open file dialog.gif

Orange Herald pic
As promised I've uploaded a pic at the Ivy King Talk page although I've got into a muddle over attaching a copyright tag to it. Full details of where it came from etc are uploaded, but I'm uncertain about whether the pic can be used on Wiki. Brian.Burnell 00:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

AL-7
I have clarified the AL-7 page -- only the first stage of the compressor had supersonic flow. Unfortunately, I cannot provide a very good reference for this -- the information is translated from a Russian website that I know posts verbatim paragraphs from books. Unfortunately, their AL-7 page does not cite the source. - Emt147 Burninate!  03:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge of GPS-WAAS into [Wide Area Augmentation System]
Thank you, Maury! A very nice merge. Dr1819 23:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

88 mm gun
Are we to rename the 88 mm to 8.8 cm, or is it only for specifically named guns that we should use cm? Oberiko 19:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, ordinarily I'd advocate using the "xx mm gun" name, but the Germans had several types and Allies also used that size. How about just 3.7 cm FlaK? Oberiko 19:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)