User talk:Maury Markowitz/Archives/2008

Stop delete tags
I will report you to the editors for you deletion tags. The Pages have ref. to NY Times, CBS News and the Washington post. These refs are needed. Thank you for noting the missing pardon ref. it has been added. A presidential pardon is notable. If your name is listed in a report by Kenneth Starr and the Washington Post page A01 notability has been met. Telecine Guy 00:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Be my guest, go ahead and report it to the "editors". BTW, new comments go at the bottom of the page. Maury (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

T:DYK.
Happy new year, and congratulations! · AndonicO Talk 12:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Coatrack articles on Whitewater
Hi, I saw you revived the prod on Stephen Smith (Whitewater), which I originally put on. I'm concerned about a number of possible WP:COATRACK articles on Whitewater figures that User:Telecineguy has created; you can see them under Category:Whitewater figures, including Eugene Fitzhugh, John Haley, Larry Kuca, John Latham (Whitewater), Charles Matthews (Whitewater), Robert W. Palmer, William J. Marks Sr., and possibly others in different categories such as Neal Ainley. You're an admin, do you think Wikipedia is exposed on WP:BLP grounds on these? I originally broached the issue about these last year in Category talk:Clinton administration controversies, but maybe I should have been more pro-active. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * BLP is over-applied, but these articles mostly fail COAT. Thanks for the heads-up, I'm PRODing them as I go. Maury (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Telecineguy took off all the PRODs. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I said the prod was invalid because it was contested, not because it was a COATRACK (which, you're right, is a perfectly good reason to prod an article). A prod contested for any reason other than vandalism or an edit from a banned user cannot be reinstated, regardless of whether it addressed the issue. I tried to edit the article to remove the coatrack-y stuff, it seems like the guy may be notable for his political capacity during Clinton's governorship, and did receive significant press coverage for the Whitewater stuff, though that might be a case of WP:BLP1E. If you think the article still fails coatrack, feel free to nominate it at AFD. You may wish to nominate all of them together, as I see above there are several. Rigadoun (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

MoRsE medal
Great work on the Berlin Blockade article! I will award you a MoRsE medal for your efforts! --MoRsE (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Maury (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Avro Tutor
I guess using the above as a disambig page would by the DS answer... happy to go with whatever you want though Winstonwolfe (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

CF-105
Maury, our old "friend" User:Opuscalgary appears to be back. An IP, User:70.73.172.15, began editiing Opus's old comments on the Talk:CF-105 Arrow page. After I reverted the IP's edits for changing another user's comments, he lambasted me for "pointless edit warring", "trolling", "degrading Wikipeida", and "pointless insult wars", and claimed that he was editing his own comments. It sure didn't take much at all for the "old Opus" to show out again! Can you look into this? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Consider it done! Maury (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sock in our midst
Maury, the gentleman who tried to scare you away from participating in the article on homeopathy and memory of water has become blocked indefinately due to having several socks. By the way, one of the world's leading water experts, Martin Chaplin has begun editing on the memory of water page. Your wisdom could add to the mix. Dana Ullman Talk 01:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the updates! BTW, I have no expertise in this topic whatsoever, merely a passing interest due to the Q&Q episode, which if I remember correctly, I was listening to in the car on the way back from university for holidays. Maury (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:He 113.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:He 113.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. —  Κ aiba 04:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hs 129B-3.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Hs 129B-3.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. —  Κ aiba 04:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see Non-free use rationale guideline. Saying simply 'it is fair use for this article' is not a satisfactory rationale and the tag will continue to be readded until one is written which is satisfactory with WP:NFCC. —  Κ aiba 18:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Tell you what, I'll even spare you the time reading the entire page and take out the excerpt I wanted you to read

- A well-written use rationale must explain how the use of this media meets the Non-free content criteria and should state:
 * What proportion of the copyrighted work is used and to what degree does it compete with the copyright holder's usage? For example, if the image is a photograph or logo, the entire work is likely being used.  A screenshot that reveals the most important discovery of a documentary or the ending of a movie, for example, though a very small portion of the work, may disproportionately compete with the copyright holder's use. In the case of a music sample, the length should be no longer than 10 percent of the song's original length or 30 seconds, whichever is shorter.
 * If applicable, has the resolution been reduced from the original? In the case of music samples, has the quality been reduced from the original?
 * What purpose does the image serve in the article? If applicable:
 * Is the image a logo, photograph, or box art for the main subject of the article?
 * Is the image being used as the primary means of visual identification of the subject or topic? (e.g., a corporate logo or the box art of a DVD)
 * Does it illustrate the topic of the article? (e.g., a screen shot from a movie)
 * Is it used for commentary on a particular topic? How?
 * To what degree is the image replaceable by a free content image?
 * If the image is a screenshot of a movie that for an article about the movie, or a corporate logo, there is obviously no such thing as a "free" version of it - all of the resources in the world could not produce one. If, on the other hand, the image is a photograph, the image is more easily replaced, even if Wikipedians may lack the resources to create a replacement.
 * Any other information necessary to assist others in determining whether the use of this image qualifies for fair use.''

Please provide that for these images, thanks. —  Κ aiba 18:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe the current tag contains more than enough information to fulfill the two criterion in the article you link to. The current body clearly explains that it does not infringe on the copyright holder's rights, because the aircraft no longer exists. It also states that it is free use within articles on that aircraft.
 * So please, can you be more specific about exactly what it is that is lacking? Maury (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about fairuse? The boilerplate templates are not a rationale. In fact, that tag says at the bottom: To the uploader: This tag is not a sufficient claim of fair use. You must also include the source of the work, all available copyright information, and a detailed fair use rationale. Use something like Non-free use rationale to make a rationale. See the image Image:White goddess.JPG for an example of a rationale. Use Non-free use rationale guideline as a guide if your still having trouble. —  Κ aiba 20:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Data General Super Nova.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Data General Super Nova.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Me 410-A1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Me 410-A1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 meets the criteria at Non-free content, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:R4M.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:R4M.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 meets the criteria at Non-free content, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Me 410 with BK50.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Me 410 with BK50.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 meets the criteria at Non-free content, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Prograph_cpx_logo.PNG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Prograph_cpx_logo.PNG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. Project FMF (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

National Ignition Facility
This article was put on hold one week ago, and it might be failed tomorrow unless some productive effort is directed towards improving it. I was hoping you might be want to the person who does that. Cheers! &Lambda;ua&int; Wi  se  (Operibus anteire) 11:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Me 410 with BK50.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Me 410 with BK50.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:R4M.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:R4M.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is not right
An image I uploaded some time in the distant past was tagged, but yourself IIRC, as having no source or something or other. Big boilerplate messages all over my user talk page. Then OrphanBot saw the tag and removed it from the article. More big boilerplate all over my userpage. Now that it's orphaned, it can be more speedily deleted, because orphans are less important.

No no no no no!

Someone fix this.

Maury (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you want me to do? If you can provide source information then I can undelete the images. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't care if the message is deleted or not, what I don't want is different policies "ganging up" to reduce the amount of time one has to fix the problem, while at the same time spamming my user page. Maury (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Hs 129B-3.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Hs 129B-3.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 meets the criteria at Non-free content, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

My name is nowhere
This is coming back a bad link. Maybe you've got a more recent one? Also, for my own interest, have you got a site with pix of his helical radial? I'd love to see it. (Or is that the Bristol Mercury?) Trekphiler (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the Mercury is definitely not the helical one, although I've never come across a picture of it. I think it looked a lot like the US "corncob" engine, Pratt & Whitney R-4360. As to the link, which page is that from? I know the site was operational a little while ago, so maybe they just changed the link format or something. Maury (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not mentioning the page I found the dead link. I'd guess it was Roy Fedden‎ or one of the Spit variant pages. If you do find the bios, put a note up on the talk page for anybody interested; I'm not such a specialist I'd want (or need) a special notice. (Yeah, let's not bankrupt the maker of, what, the most expensive car in the world? Take all the profit out of 'em, I guess.) Thanks, tho. Trekphiler (talk) 02:22 & 02:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Hs 129B-3.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Hs 129B-3.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

re:Help please
I replied at my talk page, check back there for updates and replies. Regards, —  Κ aiba 16:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please provide a website that you got the image from? —  Κ aiba 13:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It was many years ago, I no longer remember. Maury (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you please look for it? We can manage without it for a while, but having the website might be more helpful. —  Κ aiba 14:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on rotary engines?
Hi Maury - I'd love to hear your thoughts on the best way to organise our content on rotary engines... there's a discussion taking place at WT:AIR. I'm sure you're more than aware of the confusion the term causes! --Rlandmann (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Heat engines
Hey, my pleasure. I've just tweaked a little more -- are three lines what you intend in the "Engine types" section? Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

BBC's and ABC's 20/20 Homeopathy Test was Junk Science
I just saw an old post of yours from March 2007 where you thought the BBC's study of homeopathy was different from 20/20's study.. To clarify, Ennis assumed (incorrectly) that the Horizon experiment was a replication of her study, until over a year later when I obtained the protocol from the experimenter, Wayne Turnbull. I have now posted the protocol that he used. I discovered this serious problem just before the 20/20 program was going to begin their study. This information shocked the 20/20 producer, but typical of tv, he decided that the "show must go on." Unlike the BBC that specifically stated that their test was a "repeat" of Ennis' work, the 20/20 show didn't make that claim (wisely). They instead asserted that "their" experts said that the study was well-designed and well-controlled, though they didn't mention that none of their experts had any experience with basophil research, let alone homeopathic research (whoops). Therefore, junk science became junk journalism. If you have any more thoughts here, let's talk. This is quite an interesting and amazing story. Dana Ullman Talk 06:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand your concern. In order to replicate an experiment, one does not have to use identical setups. In fact, it's much better from a scientific standpoint if the systems employed are different. The only real concern is to ensure that the experiments, in the end, measure the same thing. If two different experimental series come to the same conclusion, that's far more convincing than when a single experiment comes to the same conclusion that it did before. Ennis commented on several steps of the procedure, but I don't see any sort of claim that the experimental concept is invalid. To the contrary, she clearly stated I can not say what impact they would have had as I have not tested out his protocol.".
 * The article does state this, it seems balanced in this respect to me, but maybe you can be more specific as to your concerns?
 * Maury (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, I DO see the problem. Before I agree to an addition though, I have one question: did Ennis, as the Horizon transcript implies, sign off on the testing procedure? Unless we have positive evidence to the contrary, I have to accept the quoted transcript, and if the procedure was agreed to before it was run, then her complaints do not appear to be germain. Maury (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * When I talked with Ennis, she had assumed that the BBC had repeated her same protocol and was surprised (very surprised) that Wayne Turnbull had created a dramatically different protocol. Her email to me asserted that Turnbull obviously had little experience with research basophils, and further, he used certain chemicals that would kill the basophils before the homeopathic doses of histamine or the control treatment could be provided.  She also described several other problems.  Neither she or I doubt that the study was "well controlled" and "well conducted" (as per the experimenter's protocol), but our concern is on the protocol that he developed.  For the record, Turnbull has no history of published research.  As to your question whether Ennis "signed off" on this experiment, no one has ever said or suggested that she did. Ultimately, when "reality television" meets "science" we get junk science and junk journalism (though this is a pity because it didn't have to be this way) Dana Ullman Talk 02:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Having read over an extensive set of documents on the 'web, I think I have a good overall understanding of the situation. Yes, I did misunderstand the connection between Ennis, Turnbull, Horizon and 20/20.
 * To recap, Ennis was not involved in the Horizon tests. This was effectively between Milgrom and Randy. They, and the other parties, agreed to a test protocol and followed it as outlined. Then, when the experiment failed, Milgrom complains about the protocol. As Turnbull pointed out, Milgrom, Treuherz and Ullman were all physically present when the experiment was being carried out, and were actively encouraged to bring up any complaints. They didn't. After the fact Milgrom comes up with several complaints, mostly an inaccurate weighing. Turnbull points out that since the dilutions were so high that it doesn't make a difference if the initial weight was off, one way or the other there is zero histamine left in the vial. Milgrom's next letter I characterize as a personal attack on Turnbull's experimental capabilities, but again, he had every chance to select another person to do the experiment before it was carried out. Again, he didn't. Sounds like sour grapes to me. Or a bruised ego.
 * What I do not completely understand is the difference between the 20/20 experimental run and the Horizon (BBC) one. I had initially thought they were one and the same, but I Milgrom implies this is not the case. Perhaps you can point me to documents that would better explain this?
 * Maury (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * First, I appreciate your efforts to try to understand what happened. Let me clarify a couple of things. The protocol that was used by Horizon and 20/20 was the same. No one involved in homeopathy was present during the Horizon experiment.  Milgrom and Treherz were there for the 20/20 study (Ullman was not). We all had assumed that they were following Ennis' study (sadly, we had "good faith").  However, Ennis and I were not sent the protocol until after the study was conducted (but before the results were announced).  Before the results were announced, I formally complained to the 20/20 producer that Wayne Turnbull designed and conducted the "wrong" experiment.  The 20/20 show specifically said that I questioned the protocol, though they also said that "their experts" (none of whom had any experience in basophil research!) considered the study to be "well-designed" and "well-conducted" (its blinding was good, but most of the specific steps in the study are riddled with problems, as Ennis notes).  Get it now?  Let me know if you have any other good questions... Dana Ullman Talk 15:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, well I think all of this suggests the reference to Ennis's comments needs to go back into the article ASAP. Would you like me to do this, or would you prefer to do it yourself?
 * But your post above does lead to one more question. If the test series used in the two shows was identical, and the one carried out for Horizon was signed off on by several prominent homeopathic practitioners, then why is it you refer to the 20/20 experiment as "junk science". Please understand the context here: you have not described the original Horizon experiment in this way, but here you have described the two experiments as being similar. I am confused on your position here.
 * Maury (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[Maury], I would prefer if you made these changes. There are some people who revert almost anything I do, despite my protests and concerns. As for the BBC study, Ennis and no one who I know "signed off" on this experiment. When I wrote Nathan Williams, the producer of the BBC's Horizon program, and told him that Turnbull did a different and seriously flawed study, he insisted that it was the same as Ennis' (the Horizon progream described it as a "repeat" of Ennis work). However, when I asked him if he had actually seen and compared the protocols, he didn't respond and hasn't responded to my subsequent emails. The previous links to Ennis' email and to Turnbull's protocol (used in both BBC's and 20/20 experiment) were previously provided. Please note that some editors assert that my site is not RS. However, the words are Ennis are RS, and further, the link to Professor Martin Chaplin's site is a good 3rd party confirmation Dana Ullman Talk 18:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is also the fact that Dana is banned from editing this article. Homeopathy related alticles such as water memory are also under a special probation at the moment --DrEightyEight (talk)


 * Note the high-level chutzpah here. Shortly after this comment above was made, User:DrEightEight was found to have multiple sockpuppets.  I may have been restricted from editing homeopathy articles temporarily, but Dr88 is no longer with us.  DanaUllmanTalk 15:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, well in that case I think I'll choose to stay away too. Maury (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm actually relatively new to wikipedia. I edited less than a handful of times before the end of November 2007. Being green to wiki, I made some errors and was blocked.  I got unblocked, with the aid of a mentor LaraLove, but am temporarily not allowed to edit articles. Big deal. Please note that I am transparent--like yourself, I use my real name.  Because I am known to be knowledgeable about homeopathy (having written chapters on this subject in 3 medical textbooks, including pain management, oncology, and veterinary medicine, and having written several books and innumerable articles on the subject). Being transparent and due to the contentious atmosphere in homeopathic article here, I was successfully targeted. Despite making some errors, I have some important contributions to make on wikipedia, and I have collaborated with various editors to improve the quality of various article.  You seem to have read several of the references that I have provided, and I encourage you to review a good 3rd party source:  the website of Martin Chaplin, professor of water science at London South Bank London University at: . Although articles on homeopathy are under probation, we need (!) a moderating voice, an outsider, to look at issues and shed new light. You can do that. One should not be scared away; one simply has to be respectful, thoughtful, NPOV, RS, and V.  You may be a rare one who can do this...Dana Ullman Talk 04:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is true that the homeopathy articles are presently on probation, and this is why a 3rd party or outsider's wisdom is needed and can provide some special insights. Hope you'll reconsider.  The implications of the BBC's and ABC-TV's "tv science" are significant...and quite fascinating.  Even though tv had a great opportunity to merge "reality television" and "science," but they conducted a verifiable junk science study, thereby creating junk journalism.  See for yourself.  Dana Ullman Talk 07:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Geared turbofan
Maury, wouldn't most of this info that you added to Pratt & Whitney Geared Turbofan be a better fit at geared turbofan. It seems like too much explanation for an type article to me. Just asking, as the info tht was there is actually from the geared turbofan section, where I copied it from! Just asking, thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought about that, but it seemed to greatly expand the fan article. Additionally, the only way you could get context in the P&W article would be to read the entire fan article from top to bottom. Yes, redundant. Maury (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

NK-321
I reverted your edit, but without any malice. I just need to know what military engine is currently bigger, so I can link there from the article.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right, I didn't see the "kg". Might want to fix the spelling though. Maury (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's OK then. I was trying to work out what kind of military aircraft would need a more powerful engine 8-)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Conway 707
Thanks for the reply, happy with your ref I think it probably needs a ref in the article (although just the book would probably do) as everybody will assume it was for BOAC and keep questioning the entry. MilborneOne (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Laurence Olivier
Thanks for your note. Unfortunately, I can't take credit for improvements to the page. I think it's been the efforts of several different editors. When we undertook the effort to prioritize the top 100 articles in the WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers work group, we took a lot of things into consideration during the process to come up with our list. Relative prominence over a period of time, contributions made, ground-breaking work, awards won, critical acclaim, as well as articles that could be raised in quality, all of which tried to take into consideration individuals representative of the English speaking world. Then we voted, bartered and bargained until we came up with a list that was more or less satisfactory to everyone involved. Hopefully, the categorization will encourage involved editors on the individual pages to keep improving the article. If you'd like to see the present list (barring any odd changes someone might try and slip through - like James Brown the singer being a top film group priority !?!), you can see it at here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I can't say I know much about the "golden age", but I have to say the articles were extremely good in general. I had no idea about Pickford's power in Hollywood for instance, and found the story of UA really fascinating. The only exception was Rita Heyworth, which seems really underdeveloped IMHO, but at least some of that appears due to the "fight" over that one biography. Maury (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Omar Khadr
Hi, I think I've dealt with your issues, removing a few images and reducing sizes and changing the layout to prevent whitespace breaks. Can you let me know at Featured article candidates/Omar Khadr if you feel there is any other aspects preventing a support vote? Thanks! Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 14:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Frank Whittle
No problem at all Maury, these things happen! It's an interesting topic, and perhaps with a bit of tidying and the addition of some inline cites it might be worth nominating for a GA. --Red Sunset   21:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just noticed your conversation with Ahunt above: in my (limited) experience inline cites tend to be a big issue with most GA and FA reviewers! --Red Sunset   21:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In my experience it tends to be the only issue. I have a sneaking suspicion no one actually reads the articles... I'm becoming grumpy in my old age. Maury (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not alone after all! --Red <font style="color:#AA0000;">Su<font style="color:#DD0000;">ns<font style="color:#FF0000;">et   22:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL! Actually, I guess that should be _sigh_. C'est la vie, I'm here to write, not collect stars! Maury (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC encouragement
Hi Maury, don't get discourage on the FAC. They generally run for at least a week, and yours has only been up for 2 days. If you are making good progress at fixing the issues that have been raised, then it may even be open longer. Reviewers change their opposes to support as their objections are met. Keep posting progress reports, and that will give us (the reviewers) an opportunity to strike our comments or help clarify our meaning. Karanacs (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry Karanacs, I didn't see your message until just now. Another edit pre-empted it in the diff. Thank you for your note. Don't worry though, I'm always this grumpy, not just during this FA! :-) Maury (talk) 02:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

John Titor
Hi there. I noticed that you made a couple mistakes while editing the article on John Titor. Even though you caught the mistakes and corrected them yourself, you can avoid these mistakes, and prevent excessive entries in the recent changes and the page history, by using the preview button before you save your changes. Happy editing! --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 15:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/National Ignition Facility
Hi. Saw your message. I'll try and get over there today. --Dweller (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Take it to PR... and be patient waiting for comments. Invite help from people at active WikiProjects and get in touch with the League of Copyeditors. Good luck... I look forward to supporting it at FAC in a few months. --Dweller (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems I do not understand prose as well as I thought. This is a fringe topic, so it's not surprising that it's so difficult to get help, especially after the wiki-lawyers chased the only other interested party. Maury (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Maury, I hope this FAC did not discourage you. There are some articles whose minor issues can be fixed during the course of an FAC, but this was not one of them. I think if you work with a strong copyeditor, an MoS expert, and a graphics-oriented person who can fix up your diagrams you will be well-positioned for another attempt. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really know anyone that could do this though, and I'm pretty eager to move on to other projects. I booked off time for the FA so I could respond quickly to problems as they came up, but I really don't want to spend more than I already have. I don't think any of the edits I was able to make have actually improved the article itself, and the ones it does need to improve it are clearly not for me to do. I'm perfectly happy with it the way it is, so I'll just move on. Maury (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Check this out. They'll help. You might have to wait a little, as they're usually bogged down. But definitely start by opening a Peer Review, perhaps with a focussed request for what you're asking for help with. NB fringe topic or not fringe topic, shouldn't and doesn't make a jot of difference at FAC and/or with the copyeditors. --Dweller (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think LoCE is borderline useless these days so I would recommend skipping it. For this or any other article, I recommend opening a Peer Review (as Dweller suggested) and tapping the volunteer list which is a treasure trove of people willing to get involved sorted by topic. -- Laser brain   (talk)  18:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry guys,I appreciate the effort, but as I said I've pretty much exhausted my interest here. If it's not an FA, it's not an FA. No harm done. Maury (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Maury, I'm sure it's frustrating that you're getting unclear feedback at WT:FAC; I've been under the weather and it's frustrating for me, too, when long-time FAC regulars don't dive in to give accurate answers when I'm busy or away, and since this is a Wiki that anyone can edit, sometimes you get inaccurate answers and feedback. Dweller and Laser are giving you good advice: the best way to move forward is to open a peer review, following the tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 and inviting everyone who participated in the FAC as well as volunteers culled from similar articles at WP:FA and the peer review volunteer list to comment at the peer review. By doing this, you'll also build a network of editors who will help you over the long term. You might also peruse User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article, which is helpful and humorous. NIF and LLNL are not at all fringe topics (especially not to Stanford and Berkeley physicists who went through there before the freeways and shopping malls and car dealers and windmills), and there are people who will help; browsing WP:FA will help you locate FA writers on similar topics. When I first came to Wiki, I was quite dismayed to find that I was literally the only person on Wiki who knew my topic, so I became a part of the FAC machine and built a network of people who could show me how to write a Wiki FA months before I brought Featured article candidates/Tourette syndrome. Now, thanks to that article, there are a few more people on Wiki who know TS, but I was truly alone writing that article, so I understand your frustration. You also seem very unclear on how FAC works; I suggest first seriously digesting all of the instructions and links at WP:FAC to understand the process, and then observing some other FACs for a few weeks. It is not at all true that the last comment stands, and whenever I see someone ask for something on a FAC that is not grounded in WP:WIAFA, I (or someone else) will point it out. But this is Wiki, anyone can edit, and you will always get all kinds of feedback, some good, some less good. I hope you'll move forward with the PR and we'll see you back at FAC soon. Best regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well as I said, I figured the article would go FA with some "crossing the T's" and set aside some time to work on that. But as it became clear there were larger problems and they were not going to get fixed in the FAC, then I basically lost interest. However, the experience has pointed out what I consider to be real flaws in the process, and I think it's much more important to focus on fixing those than trying to fix problems in a single article. Maury (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Shortened notes
Case in point! They may or may not work splendidly in any one case, but in any case they don't work on their own and can not be compared with Harvard referencing or whatnot. Rather, they are a means to implement a particular system of referencing.

In taxon articles - which is what I do almost exclusively - it's usually one-third to one-half of the sources referencing the bulk of the text (and being used over and over again), and the rest being used once or twice. So MMV indeed. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So then the next question seems obvious: is there a single system that might work in all cases? Perhaps that needs to be considered fully before jumping in with both feet! Not that that stopped me... Maury (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Mid-Canada Line
Hi Maury, nice to hear from you, thanks for your comment. I tagged the article because, while it has general two references cited, it has no in-line citations or footnotes to show where individual facts come from. As Citing sources explains citations should be included in all articles:

"Wikipedia is by its very nature a work by people with widely different knowledge and skills. The reader needs to be assured that the material within it is reliable: this is especially important where statements are made about controversial issues or living persons. The purpose of citing your sources is:


 * To ensure that the content of articles can be checked by any reader or editor.
 * To avoid claims of plagiarism.
 * To show that your edit is not original research and to reduce editorial disputes.
 * To help users find additional information on the topic.
 * To ensure that material about living persons complies with Biographies of living persons.
 * To improve the credibility of Wikipedia."

The key thing is really the Wikipedia policy of Verifiability. Without in-text citations it is very hard to tell where the information came from. Was it from one of the listed refs or was it something that someone added from personal experience (which as you know is not permitted in Wikipedia articles, as it is WP:OR)

The policy states it simply:

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question."

I hope this all explains the tag. I am hoping that some editor will be able over time to add the citations. - Ahunt (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The tag doesn't say it has "No references", it actually says "	This article or section is missing citations or needs footnotes." which is true, it has no citations or footnotes. The policy (qv) says it needs them. Ahunt (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ummm, sure it does. The References section. Those are citations. Maury (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that "citations and footnotes" mentioned in the tag are "in-line". That is why the template also says "Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies." It wouldn't say that if it were referring to any references. It is a call for in-line citations and footnotes, as Verifiability says (qv). There is a completely different template for "no references" which is  . - Ahunt (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Check out "General references versus inline citations" in Citing sources. Bottom-of-page refs are perfectly acceptable. Maury (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a "style guideline' and not a "policy", but it doesn't contradict the policy (qv).


 * I read it and what it actually says is:


 * "General references versus inline citations


 * Articles can be supported with references in two ways: the provision of general references – books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article – and inline citations, which are mandated by the featured article criteria and (to a lesser extent) the good article criteria. Inline citations are references within the text that provide source information for specific statements. 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."


 * So essentially end-refs can be used, but it indicates that in-line citations are better and are required for all featured and good articles. I didn't tag it because end-refs are not allowed, but because in-text citations are better, prevent accusations of plagiarism and all the other reasons cited above. The tag says "This article or section is missing citations or needs footnotes", not "end references are prohibited". They key thing in both this guideline and the policy is that they are required if anything is challenged. I only started using them when I had end-referenced material challenged and removed in several articles. Now I footnote everything as I add it.


 * Anyway this is probably enough time on this subject. If you personally don't want to footnote this article then by all means remove the tag. I won't re-instate it. - Ahunt (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Maury: Just to let you know - I found a tag for this article that may be a better description. - Ahunt (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Data General Super Nova.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Data General Super Nova.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --20:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Chipotle
Maury,

I have reverted your removal of the "reads like an advertisement" banner. There has been much discussion about this banner on the Talk page, and users agree that the page does in fact, read like an advertisement. To remove it would go against what the community has already agreed upon. If you still feel that it's removal is warranted, please bring it up on the talk pgae after reading the thorough discussion on the topic. If an agreement is met, obviously it's best to remove it.

If you wish to respond, please let me know via my talk page, so that I can check back in and review your response. Ryancwa (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Galleries
Hi. Your recent edit to the Image use policy was a little far reaching, and relied a bit too much on a failed draft guideline. Such an important change needs more discussion. Having said that, I agree with you that the existing policy language is very confusing, and it is possible to read it as "all galleries are bad" (which shouldn't be the case). However, you edit goes too far the other way, and essentially guts the policy, except for full-page galleries. I suspect we can come up with some draft language that addresses your concerns, but doesn't allow for gallery free-for-all, and we can get some consensus for it. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, would you like to re-open the thread somewhere? Maury (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I just made a few point after your postings on the talk page. I note that this discussion is interesting.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reading over the thread you posted, and following links from there, I think my original opinion is being re-enforced: there is a terminology issue here and from what I can see all of these comments are about "pages full of images and little else". Am I missing something in there? It is pretty long. Maury (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't read it that way at all. It seemed to me that while some editors believed all galleries to be good, and others believed all galleries to be bad, most believed some galleries to be good if done properly.  This is more than a terminology issue.  Even in a full, well-written article, a gallery can be useless (and even often detracts from the article).  Where the gallery is annotated, and as a collection the gallery makes a valuable encyclopedic contribution to the article, it improves the article.  In those cases, the gallery does more than simply illustrate the subject (arguably, one does not need a gallery to simply illustrate the subject), but rather it demonstrates the points being made in the article.  For example, a gallery can show an under-construction Burj Dubai, the world's tallest building, slowly rising from the desert - that particular gallery needs more annotation, but it is a good use if a gallery.  Conversely, there are galleries that simply contain a number of images of the topic, and even if annotated, but don't really add anything to the article.  That is the sort of the gallery that the current wording, no matter how obtuse the wording, was intended to avoid.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am definitely missing this discussion then. Can you link to a few pithy diffs perhaps? Maury (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Saturn (rocket family) & Milton W. Rosen
Hi, I think you might want to look at the last reference (Stages to Saturn ) in the article on Milton W. Rosen. It has a lot about the history from 1957 to 1962. Rosen played a major role in configuring the Saturn V. He was chair of the committee that added the extra F-1, as well as writing much of the Jan 1959 report to Eisenhower.

I modified your sentence about the Viking rocket, having read Rosen's book (ref 1 in his article) about that when I was the 8th grade, a year or two after it appeared. I think you might accurately say the Viking was inspired by the V-2, but it is not clear there was much detailed information, based on what I know. The engine was from Reaction Motors, who did the engine for the Bell X-1 before that. The turbopump may have been influenced by the V-2, but probably not, because they had trouble with it on the first two flights. The airframe was drastically different, as was the guidance.

I also recently have a copy of the original NRL satellite proposal, of July 1955, but still have not read it thoroughly.

Nice work on the Saturn article! Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please, jump in! It's still a complete mystery to me how the Titan C was supposed to fit into this. I know the AF was going ahead with it anyway as their SLV-4, but it appears ARPA was either going to force them to use Saturn, or were hedging their bets. But how could ABMA claim not to have known about it at all? Maury (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, Stages is online at NASA, it's a little easier to read there than Google. Maury (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Toronto Magnetic and Meteorological Observatory
Hi there - as requested, I've done an informal peer review on the article, which can be found on its talk page. In brief, what's there now is very good; I think that some aspects could really benefit from expansion. Let me know if you'd like to get a formal peer review, and I'll help you with the formatting and stuff; I know exactly what you mean about "breaking" things! Best, Risker (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Risker! I'd rather avoid too much formality, if possible. Maury (talk) 11:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Lince (tank) FAC
Hey! I responded on Featured article candidates/Lince (tank); I found that the size was limited by Spain's railroad network, which was added into the article. An oppose against two supports is pretty strong, and I rather not risk its failing because someone opposed. If you could look over my response (particularly the last two responses), I'd appreciate it! Thanks! JonCatalan (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize for being persistant, but is there anyway the oppose can be retracted? JonCatalán (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Lissa (1811)
Many thanks for you comments and suggestions on the above article that is now a Featured Article. Your assistance during the review process was much appreciated and helped make the article what it is today.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! Maury (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support
I just wanted to drop you a line to thank you for this. This is my first FAC, and I've sort of been waiting on tenterhooks for overall feedback, rather than specific critiques, so your comment helped a lot. Even if it doesn't wind up passing, at least I know I've written an article that's in the vicinity of being an FA, which is nice. As for your last sentence, I think my next target for FAization is Pierre Trudeau, and I think I'll be able to manage at least this much detail in that one (actually, I may need to do some sub-articles - we'll see). Anyway, thanks again. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! And I'd be very interested in helping out on PET. Maury (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Macintosh Classic
I've replied to your comment at the Talk page, but I'd like to suggest here that you spend more time at WP:FAC if you think you can contribute to nominated articles. — <strong style="color:#f42c39;">Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 15:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Advert tag
Thanks for your message. If you can link me to the exact article you had in mind, I'd be happy to review the edit and provide rationale or remove it myself. Cheers, --Ryan Delaney talk 17:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Scare quotes
The use of scare quotes is frowned upon by the WP:MOS. This comes up often in Featured Article reviews. For example [|here]. Scare quotes should be used sparingly, if at all. In practice, it possible to avoid using them in almost all cases.

In this particular case, "front-line" is referring to top-of-the-line fighters such as the F-16. Dictionary.com defines "front-line" as relating to, being, or involved in a front line. I think the usage is consistent with the main definition of the term, so there is not really any reason to set the term aside at all. In other words, just say that a certain plane is a front-line fighter. You don't need to set the term apart from the rest of the terminology in the article. It is an article on a military plane and the reader should expect to encounter military terminology and to go look it up if necessary. If you think the reader will need explanation, and since this is a wiki, you can help out the reader by linking to Front line. That article mentions that "the adjective front-line is also used to describe weapons, ships or aircraft that are of the latest fighting standard, or army units intended to serve at the front line."

If you are uncomfortable using a word or phrase without putting it in scare quotes then the preferred alternative would be to choose another phrase. The WP:MOS indicates that scare quotes are often the authors way of saying, "these are not my words". In that case, it is appropriate to use words that the author is actually comfortable with. For instance, "top-of-the-line fighters" or "more capable fighters" or "more advanced fighters".

You asked what is the alternative when wanting to indicate that the word or phrase is pejorative. I think the idea is to re-word so that you are not using a pejorative.

To avoid scare quotes, I try to do the following:
 * 1) Use standard English as much as possible, and use words according to their common meanings.
 * 2) If a word/phrase is likely to be misunderstood by the reader, then either explain it or link to an article where it is explained.
 * 3) If the word/phrase is extremely unusual, then choose a different word/phrase.
 * 4) If it is important to indicate that a word/phrase is used mainly by a certain set of people, then cite who those people are.

I hope that helps. Great article though. I definitely learned something in reading it.

Best, Johntex\talk 03:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Help desk -- list of articles needing copy edit
Here you go: CAT:CE. It's a category, not a list. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Maury (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

102nd IW
I cannot thank you enough for doing what you did to this article. At least you were able to do the references combining without messing it up. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I live to give! Looks like I missed a few though, editing on an iphone is not exactly ideal... Maury (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Help????
Please see Aircraft of the Battle of Britain. Heated editwar taking place. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC).

ping
Topic? Tony  (talk)  04:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Whittle
Thanks for your comments. I would certainly like to see the article reach FA status, but I wouldn't nominate it myself as I wouldn't presume to be the principal editor; however, I'd be happy to do whatever else I can. --Red <font style="color:#AA0000;">Su<font style="color:#DD0000;">ns<font style="color:#FF0000;">et   23:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added citation footnotes wherever I could using the existing web sources, but now references to the Daily Telegraph obituary and the Whittle Commemorative Trust dominate the reference section. I would prefer to see a good proportion of these replaced with cites to written publications such as those noted in the bibliography, as well as additional ones for the areas of the article which currently have no inline cites.  Without these I doubt that GA could be achieved, let alone FA – do you have anything that would do the trick? I'm also confused as to the date of his death, variously given as August 8th or 9th, 1996 depending on source. Cheers. --Red <font style="color:#AA0000;">Su<font style="color:#DD0000;">ns<font style="color:#FF0000;">et    18:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for a new copy of "Jet" to arrive. My original was lost in some move, although I haven't had one of those in years, so who knows. The new one should be here any day... It's such a great story, precisely the sort of thing you want for FA. Maury (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

F-20
Hi—I looked at the lead. PS Are you in agreement with taking up the option of not using date autoformatting? (It won't make a difference to my reviewing or declaration. If you are, let me know and I'll run a script through it; if not, that's perfectly fine.) Tony   (talk)  14:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Its development began with dramatically improved performance ... (recast)
 * "Among its many new capabilities compared to the earlier versions of the F-5, the F-20 included beyond visual range air-to-air capability and a full suite of air-to-ground modes capable of firing most current U.S. weapons."—"new" and "compared to the earlier version" is excessive; unsure how to reword. "compared with" for contrasts. to for similarities. "current" means now or when the reader reads it in the future?
 * "In spite of this: a bit negative in tone. "However,"
 * "reworking" in AmEng, I suspect.
 * was established. Again, remove "new".
 * " without the possibility of advanced U.S. technology falling into Soviet hands in the case of a change of government."—noun plus -ing. See this. Change of which government?
 * "that left it competing with front line fighters"—check whether it's "frontline" or "front-line". "it" refers to what? Tony   (talk)  14:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll start working on all of these. One question though; as I seem to have missed the debate on the autoformat issue, can you provide me with a pointer to the debate? Maury (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Saw you working on this article. When you're ready, don't forget about WP:MILHIST's A-Class review. Whether GA is in your plans or not, an A-Class review could be a good tune-up to FAC when the time comes. -MBK004 09:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

SIOP
I am not actively editing Wikipedia at this time, although I am monitoring, and obviously cannot stop you. At present, I do new writing at Citizendium, and am maintaining a new version of the SIOP article there. A removal like that should not, IMHO, be addressed to an individual, but discussed on the talk page of the article.

Had I believed that the nuclear weapons effects were off-topic to the SIOP article, I would not have put them in it, and indeed have written on effects of nuclear weapons. If you look at some of the references, going back to Eisenhower and Kistiakowsky, one of the specific reasons for the introduction of SIOP was a concern that SAC was unrealistic about weapons effects. Subsequent documents on SIOP, particularly at the National Security Archive, show a continuing White House level concern about matching weapons effects to various Attack Options of the SIOP. Also, there is considerable theoretical interaction between weapons effects and the strategic roles, such as counterforce.

SIOP and its successors are intended to be based on national strategic policies, which, using the current buzzwords, emphasize "effects-based targeting". I don't see how it is possible to develop a nuclear plan without intimate tradeoffs between weapons effects, target systems affected by the Attack Option, and overall national strategic policy. If that relationship is not clear, perhaps I need to emphasize it at Citizendium.

In other words, do as you will, but I do not agree with removing the material. If the relationship between effects and the underlying policies that drive SIOP are unclear, perhaps the article needs to be edited to emphsize that. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Invite
I see that you added a citation to AT&T Hobbit, an article I added references to as part of the project below so here:
 * Not a problem, thanks for the reply and happy editing, looks like you do a great job. --Captain-tucker (talk) 07:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-transcluded FAC
Did you intend to submit Featured article candidates/F-20 Tigershark to FAC? It was never transcluded. If you intended to submit it, it needs to be reverted and re-signed to the current date. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I did indeed. I'm not sure what you mean by transcluding though? I'm not sure that's important though, I'll go ahead and re-submit it. Maury (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I had assumed you didn't mean to transclude it, since the article is still uncited. But if it was your intent, please 1) re-sign the FAC with the current date, 2) add the fac to the WP:FAC page, and re-add the  tag to the article talk page.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh geez, I didn't notice that! One of my edits got eaten :-( Ok, I'll fix that first thing in the morning and look at it then. Maury (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm still confused. You've added the fac tag to the talk page, but there are three steps to submit the FAC. You would still need to sign and date the submission, and transclude it to the page WP:FAC (see the instructions there). If you're not submitting it, it should be removed from the article talk, as it will show up on some bot lists. If you want to submit it, you have to sign, date and transclude it to FAC. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, my bad. I started following the steps and when I hit save I saw your next message pop-up in the notification at the top. When I read the article I saw the problem, and you're right, I didn't want to submit until that was in. I had already done the edits, but I guess I didn't hit Save page... uggg. So I'll do it again, but tomorrow, I'm going to go be a couch potato tonight. I'll re-start the FAC process tomorrow, there's no hurry. Maury (talk) 02:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK; until later then, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Article needing to be deleted
Hello,

I am having trouble due to some Barack Obama supporters who refuse to follow rules.

The article Family of Barack Obama should be deleted, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama family. You'll notice that this article was already shown to not be notable and was nominated for deletion. The content was moved into this new article name, and the old article name is now being used to direct to this article. Should be deleted asap.

Also, the article is about one notable persons non-notable family. Articles about notable families like the Kennedys are included because they have many well known and notable individuals in that family not just one or two. The "Obama Family" is not a notable entity like the Kennedys, it's not a royal family, it's just a list of non-notable people related to Obama. Please see wikipedias official policy on making genealogical entries like this one WP:NOTDIRECTORY. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, wrong guy here. Maury (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Atari Task Force
Maury, if you're that interested in improving Atari computer related articles, I also invite you to join the Atari Task Force. We could certainly use your help in the plethora of other Atari related entries under the project. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My interest is pretty focussed - just the machines I actually had. I wish I kept my Atari Hardware Reference though... Maury (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Which one specifically? May have a copy, I run a very large archive. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I had the original manuals for the 400/800, which were an amazing way to cross the line from programming to computer design in general. I started with BASIC but then got that wonderful "The Atari Assembler" and that really made me understand how the machine actually worked at a CPU level. Then the Hardware Manual put that into practice, showing how those assembler instructions were used in a real computer design to do real things. I never had De Re, which was better and more compact. Maury (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the full text of De Re is available here, and you can order a physical copy (if you prefer that) still from myatari.com. There's also scans of the Hardware Manual here. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Invasion Orion
Removing the link to the manual was not my change. However, outside linking appears to be blocked by the site in question (trs-80.com) - and I can't seem to find another way to even get near the manual now. Not sure what the deal is here, actually, but I think the "copyvio nonsense" comment refers to the protections of the site in question, and not any violations by Wiki editors. Duncan1800 (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, that's what's happened... he's instituted some sort of blocking. Bummer. Maury (talk) 11:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Tagging no-refs reply
See my talk page for a reply. <font face="Segoe Print" color="#6B4226">Pie is good <font face="Segoe Script" color="#78AB46"> (Apple is the best)  16:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

2 for the price of 1...
Well done. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Archibald Russell move

 * You Wrote
 * I'd like to write an article on another Archibald Russell, Sir Archibald Russell of Bristol Aerospace fame. I would argue that he is much more famous and important than the current Archibald Russell article, but not being from the UK, that argument might not carry much weight. Suggestions? Maury (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine moving the current article. Perhaps it would be best (and easiest) to simply turn Archibald Russell into a disambiguation page with links to the old one (renamed, of course) and the new one. Thanks for asking.--<font color="Blue">Eva <font color="Red">b <font color="Green">d  09:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Good idea! I'll do that later tonight. Maury (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference desk/Science
Hi, do you know how to archive a particular thread in reference desk?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm really not sure at all. I'll bet some robot does it every so often. Maury (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability tag on Count Zero
I have no objection to a removal of the notability tag on Count Zero once a reference showing it was a best seller is provided (per WP:NB, "Claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability; it is not enough to simply assert that a book meets a criterion without substantiating that claim with reliable sources.") I would search for one myself; but, meh. I'll leave it to those who have a deeper interest and who would be more likely to find better quality sources. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The correct tag in this case is lack-of-refs. The article already contains several claims that the Common Man would clearly interpret as meeting notability, and then the only question is whether or not those claims are true. Maury (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Technically, I think the way the tags and guidelines are worded, both would still apply (the lack of ref results in not meeting the requirements of notability shown at WP:NB); but you're right that they are somewhat redundant. Still, wouldn't the easiest solution be to find at least one ref?  I'll go ahead and search for one now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do, it will likely take less time than restoring the tag again. Maury (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW I think the point here should be explored. The issue is not whether or not there is a verified source that claims the notability, the issue is who is making the claim. This is an important distinction: I can easily verify whether or not I think a book is important, but the tag would definitely apply in that case. However, if the claim is made that its up for a Nebula then it's not longer a case of whether or not it meets notability, the question there is whether or not it really is up for a Nebula, and that's what a V is all about.
 * This might sound like splitting hairs, but it's not, at all. It's very important to understand the spirt of the law. In this case, we're trying to ensure that we have some sort of notability guideline that can be applied to weed out unimportant articles in spite of verifiability. Consider, for instance, all of the garbage that ends up here because there was one article in New Scientist. NS articles are self-verifying, but that doesn't make them notable.
 * Frankly I think the way practically every tag's instructions are written is way too complex and lawyer-like, so these sorts of issues crop up all the time. Nature of the beast I guess. Maury (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * heh - edit conflict (twice) ... you inserted the two refs I was about to add, then a conflict here the first time I tried posting this.
 * Re: the distinction ... the notability guideline specifically states that it is not enough to simply assert that a book meets a criterion without substantiating that claim. Without providing a verifiable source, then WP:NB doesn't meet that specifically stated requirement.  I wasn't basing my opinion on the wording of the notability tag, but on the guideline itself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Avro Tutor
I've puy a note on the Avro Tutor page re your comment: basically your plane is the Tudor.TSRL (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK for M247 Sergeant York
}}

Woolworth Building
Whether or not you're still interested I don't know (or maybe you've since found out the answer), but I've answered your question regarding the Woolworth Building construction image on the said article's talk page. <b style="color:#74AECF">Boo</b><b style="color:#4D97C1">gla</b><b style="color:#0B5A88">may</b> ( talk ) - 17:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Barcode
Hi - you have nominated barcode for DYK when it wasn't in fact substantially expanded. I don't think it meets the criteria short articles whose main body text has been expanded fivefold or more within the last five days are acceptable. The version before yours was 26.3kb and after your edits was 32.2kb. --Matilda talk 21:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That depends on the measure. The text count is, as you note, fairly similar, but if you examine the articles I think you'll agree the changes are very significant. The reason that the byte count hasn't changed as much is due to the large amount of listcruft and such. I supposed I could have spun out "History of barcode" or somesuch, but I hate following links in those cases. Maury (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * appreciate you have made great improvements - and I found it interesting :-). DYK critera used to be strictly article created.  They have now been relaxed to include substantially expanded to allow for small stubs made into real articles but I don't think the criteria has been relaxed to allow for articles improved so that there are better references, more accurate, ... even though that is a legitimate editing occupation and one which we encourage. :) --Matilda talk 21:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahh, I missed that nuance. It makes perfect sense really. Not to worry, I have another 1/2 dozen DYK's already in the pipeline... Maury (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks!

Hey there
Top of the morning Maury. I've been reading your contributions to the Leeds discussion page and was very happy to see ur example of Toronto. I was wondering if you'd like to join me on my cause to get the Leeds Wikipedia page to boast its full statistics. i.e. Conurbation population etc. If we get enough editors etc, we can do it. --Tubs uk (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Spell checker under wikEd - need browser version
Hi Maury Markowitz,

I have filed a Webkit (Safari) bug report for your spell checker problems with wikEd (see Interferes with spell checkers?). In order to solve your problem we need your Safari version number (something like Safari 3.2.1 (525.21), found under Help > About) and your operating system and version (e.g Windows XP, Mac Os X) or, even better, your user agent ID (something like Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_5_4; en-us) AppleWebKit/526.1+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.2 Safari/525.20.1, please check this online tool). Thanks in advance, Cacycle (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Version 3.1.2 (5525.20.1), and the user agent is Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_5_5; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.2 Safari/525.20.1. Hope it helps! Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Please could you also check if the spell checker is enabled under Edit > Spelling and Grammar > Check Spelling While Typing. Cacycle (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It is, I always use it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, fell free to comment under https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21384. Cacycle (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK
There are some issues regarding your entry. Please visit here. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

XB-70 Valkyrie help
Can you help with this article? Another user is being difficult to work with; overtagging and stuff in my opinion. If things would settle down with the article, I could add references in time. Thanks for any help. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks the help! Fnlayson (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

re Start class? What does that mean?
I re-evaluated the article XB-70 Valkyrie as start class because it is lacking in citations. Although it appears to be broad in coverage and has some excellent supporting materials, not every paragraph has a reference, which needs to be so otherwise it fails B-class. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is, of course, a bit of leniency. However, this article is still under referenced for B-class and even contains tags to that effect. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:Aviation has C-class. It needs to be better referenced, but I don't think "suitably referenced" means fully referenced. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mandril.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Mandril.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Requirement
Why did you delete Requirement (conquistadors) with out posing a notice on the page first? I could have made several inbound links if I had known that they were missing. You claim to have merged it, but into what - and without discussion? Please reconsider - the article describes a historical phenomenon of wide interest and importance. It deserves an article and could be expanded instead of deleted.·Maunus· ƛ · 05:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ummm... Well to start with there was a merge notice on the page for the last year, asking that it be merged into Requerimiento. I'm curious how you noticed that the page was deleted without noticing the merge notice, or edit on the talk page about it? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well now that I know where it was merged to I have to say that I agree with the merger. Thanks for answering - maybe we should put a redirect at the previous article name? I noticed because it was on my watchlist and it was suddenly deleted - apparently I must have missed the fact that some one tagged it for merge awhile ago.·Maunus· ƛ · 16:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, I didn't realize that dels showed up in watches. My watchlist has so many articles on it now (20k or so) that it's been rendered entirely useless so I don't keep up with tech changes on it any more. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Little Sark
I see you had edited Little Sark some time ago, so you might be inclined to participate in the proposal to merge Little Sark with the main Sark article. <b style="font-size:0.9em;font-weight:bold;border:1px dashed #CCC;"> <b style="color:#080;">Linguist</b> At <b style="color:#600;">Large</b> </b> 22:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well done
Nice work collecting the stakeholders in the Sark articles. Maury Markowitz (talk) 04:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Anti-gravity and Musha
For your information, Dr. Taaki Musha's IAA paper was published in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society 61(9), 379-384. That peer reviewed journal did not appear to object to the fringe science citations in his work. Tcisco (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am referring to your comments in the Discussion page of Anti-gravity that were made on October 3, 2007 at 12:44.Tcisco (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Blitter
Hi. I saw your work here. I've done some serious editing of this article myself. The blitter is of significant historical interest to Amiga fans and to computer historians. Well done. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK template
Maury, I noticed you were having some difficulties with the new DYK template; I'm sorry to hear that. The template is still very much an ongoing experiment, and I'm working with some other editors to try to make it simpler and make its usage clearer; there is an ongoing discussion at Template talk:DYKsuggestion about ways to improve the template. If you have any thoughts about what specifically you found difficult, or what might be helpful or make the template easier, you are welcome to leave a comment there or at my talk page. The problem right now is, as you probably noticed, the template does some nice things when you're used to using it and know how everything works, but if you're not used to using it then it can be pretty confusing, so I'm hoping we can find ways to make everything more transparent and user-friendly. Thanks, &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 17:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Sainte-Marguerite
The coordinates were pointing to the wrong place. I've removed them. Obviously, there are several different Sainte-Marguerites in Quebec, but this particular one, by definition, is going to be closer to New Brunswick than to Montreal, because that's where Bas-Saint-Laurent is. The Sainte-Marguerites north of Montreal are called Sainte-Marguerite-du-Lac-Masson and Sainte-Marguerite-Estérel, but neither of those have articles here yet. I've added them to the dab page, however. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: 320 mm
Sorry about that. I was in the middle of rolling back because I thought the new ref system was pointless, then realized it and canceled the rollback. Apparently it didn't work... ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I figured it was something like that, but I'd figure I'd ask just to be sure I wasn't going to spark a revert in case I was wrong! Maury Markowitz (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

H8
In the article, only part of the hook is verified (with ref 5) Was that ref just misplaced or should you add a ref for the rest of the facts in the paragraph? - Mgm|(talk) 11:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well then an ALT tag is more appropriate than a reject. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

19th century pictures of windmills
I noted your past interest in the wind turbine article. Possibly you might have an opinion on Talk:Wind turbine. If not fine, I just wouldn't like the effort expended on retouching the 19th century photo go to waste if it is indeed the better choice I believe it is. Thanks. -J JMesserly (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)