User talk:Night Gyr/archive

sup
hey thanks for letin me kno about http://encyclopedia dramatica.com not bein 2 popular here.....anyway peace

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pizzahead2 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Ferg of AirFerg
Can you please tell me why you removed the reference to the AirFerg spoof of Pimp My Ride on the Pimp_My_Ride page? There was nothing incomprehensible about what was there, and I'm not sure what your motivation to remove it was?

Brian1975
I have to say, I'm not entirely thrilled by your comment about keeping me out of the rest of Wikipedia. Have I actually made any edits that bother you? Or is it a reaction to my keeping a tight reign on John, which I think is justifiable considering his history and the way he's acting. Snowspinner 13:47, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * "Image:Saddam press conference
 * You list this image as being GFDL, but provide no source, so there's nothing to support the claim that it's been released under that license. Where did you draw the image from? If it was Military, it's PD. Night Gyr 17:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)"

I took the image. I was at the press conference. It is my image to license as I please. Brian1975 19:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Silkworm missile
''This picture was taken from, if I'm not mistaken, but it's blurrier and larger than the original picture, so I'm guessing you upsized and stretched it. Wouldn't you be better off just using the original picture in a straight conversion to jpeg, cropped if necessary? The upsizing seems to have hurt the image quality significantly. Night Gyr 10:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)''

Hi from Adrian! I did put the pic on WP (in 2003) but have no memory of where I got it or how I processed it. I only upload my own pics now, taken with my own camera. So you are welcome to process or change the original as you wish. Thanks for writing - Adrian Pingstone 14:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Paul W Klipsch
Why did you revert back to copywrite violation page? I already spoke to an administrator and he told me to either put back the link to the page or just delete the page entirely. If you are not sure what is happening, please do not edit the page. YCCHAN 15:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

- Yes I blanked the page before however I corrected it with a link...but since it is reverted again, I will leave it there for deletion. YCCHAN 23:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

possible reason for deleting Ionian School article
The fact that this article was in several encyclopedias does not mean that it is not inherently misleading. Referring to any group of philosophers whose only common attribute was geography as a school is misleading--they didn't all agree with each other, and were from several different time periods in Ancient Greece. Perhaps this usage is sufficiently common that it should be retained in Wikipedia as a stub to point at schools of philosophy which are not arbitrary classifications. Anyway, I challenge anyone to come up with a different reason than geography for including all these philosophers in a 'school'.

So, that is what is wrong with me. WhiteC 02:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

you too?
Are you the same Night Gyr that use to post on Protest warriors?
 * yep.

LOL CD here.

I left that freak show after getting them to vote in a poll that 80% of PW is made up of gay hookers.

Image:MS-DOS icon.png
WRT "icons are supposed to be pixelated, that's the way they originally were" — why then resample it using advanced algorithms? Nearest neighbor would preserve most of its original appearance.

But the real questions is, why at all does the icon have to be doubled in size? Why not keep it at 32x32? --tyomitch 14:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If I replace the image with the original 32x32 icon, will that be OK? --tyomitch 18:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I just don't like the job that 2xSaI did. It seems plain ugly to me.
 * Now, what about doubling the size without resampling? --tyomitch 18:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Mickey Finn
Don't understand; I used the "Move" tab. Is there some other way to have done it? Thanks for any info. If you want to move it to Mickey Finn (drug), that's certainly OK. We just shouldn't leave it as the primary entry when there are others, including someone by that name. -- Tenebrae 17:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi. Not having heard back in several days, I have -- hopefully correctly this time, using the "Move" tab, and checking to see that the history was moved as well -- moved "Mickey Finn" to "Mickey Finn (drugs)" in order that it not be a primary reference for a subject heading with two other meanings, one of which is an actual person by that name. -- Tenebrae 19:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

AK-56
Hi, I responded to your message on my talk page. --Pravit 03:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

AFD protocol
When nominating for deletion, don't forget to use  instead of just. Cheers  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-25 09:49Z 

Any idea
how to deal with Rhobite? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.241.245.49 (talk &bull; contribs).
 * Grazon, I don't have a problem with you. But when you add your opinion to articles, such as adding Category:Persecution to Ann Coulter, I'm going to remind you of the WP:NPOV policy. Rhobite 01:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Warning/disclamer - fault composite image
It seemed appropriate to add the warning, especially since one of the images was low-resolution and should not be relied upon for property purchace, etc. The purpose of creating the image was to illustrate how urban regions have been built over rubble zones. Rather than crop the image you could re-create from the sources should you wish - I would take no resposibility other that to suggest to you that presenting this composite image lacking the warning is (in my opinion) a bad idea. A more appropriate way to answer your objections would be to present the two images side by side or vertically stacked and scaled appropriately for comparison without comment as to the intended use. As the warning on the current version does not obscure the salient information its size and location does not appear to me to be relevant to the discussion. Please respond on my page, this comment duplicated there. Thanks, Leonard G. 05:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Project HDTP
Thanks for the advice. I was being overzealous.--Drat (Talk) 13:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names (2nd nomination)
Despite the overwhelming support for keeping the list in article namespace, the above relisting was closed early. At Deletion review, the deletion is being reviewed once more (to restore the list from Wikipedia to article namespace (it's currently at List of interesting or unusual place names). -- User:Docu

O.K. Corral image
Thanks for cleaning up the images, but you resurrected an image I didn't want. You perhaps didn't notice that I was trying to delete one of them that was marked erroneously with an X in the wrong place. I was trying to get two images of the same site with X on one (which would obscure the real photo minimally), and white on the other (which would be more clear), but take out some historical area. Both images should be the same, otherwise. I'll point out which is the bad one, and link only the other. If you can't find, the good one with the X in the right place, I'll put it up later. Sbharris 07:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Please revert bulldozing of ship decom articles
I appreciate your desire to help with the decom articles, but I don't think we should be so quick to merge the lists. I was perhaps too strong worded in my initial response on my page, and I hope you won't take it wrong, but I do believe firmly that the yearly listings will have sufficient entries to warrant their maintenance as is. Having to break them up along the way presents a host of problems and extra work. Josh 20:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Ship decom articles
I appreciate your desire to help with the decom articles, but I don't think we should be so quick to merge the lists. I was perhaps too strong worded in my initial response on my page, and I hope you won't take it wrong, but I do believe firmly that the yearly listings will have sufficient entries to warrant their maintenance as is. Having to break them up along the way presents a host of problems and extra work. Josh 20:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Coun height.jpg
Thank you for thinking that the graph idea is helpful. You see ugly compression artifacts. That's the way Office works as the graph comes from XL : copied the first 20 on the list, tried "Insert - Graph", saved ... no external format provided! I had to snapshoot, open MSPaint and save a .jpg. My Photoshop version ignores .pngs and I still can't see how to carry the graph to it ... Any idea ? Else you or someone may delete images like that and make nicer ones (tallest churches, human height), thanks.

P.S. Night Gyr, have you seen this ? --DLL 22:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

On [[Image:Bonneville Salt Flats Speed racer.jpg]]
On User talk:Dino, you note a problem with an image, . I found the same image on a Utah US gov't site. Removed copyright notice.

dino 19:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I guess Image:Bonneville Salt Flats Speed racer.jpg is toast. I couldn't find a copyright-free version. Reverted my changes to the image page. So goes.

dino 19:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ramatis
If you gave up because of the whole 2nd nomination thing, 2nd works. NickelShoe 20:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

22/7
Stong Keep. It is absurd to say a proof on its own is not an encyclopedia article. What about all of the other pages devoted mainly to mathematical proofs? Will you nominate ALL of them for deletion? What about  ALL OF THE ARTICLES IN list of pi topics?? Should the ALL get merged into pi? That is absurd! Wikipedia is NOT supposed to be only for beginners. "Night Gyr", may I inquire about your experience with Wikipedia's mathematics articles? "Kiss the Lizard" very clumsily misses the point of this article. 22/7 is of course one of the earliest convergents in the continued fraction expansion of &pi;. By contrast, those decimal expansions are rather arbitrary. "kiss the lizard", what is the nature and degree of your experience with Wikipedia mathematics articles? This topic has great esthetic charm. Michael Hardy 01:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not out to wipe all proofs from wikipedia, and I don't appreciate you attributing such a hostile intent to my action. The reason I feel it shouldn't exist in its current form is that despite all the claims to elegance and such, there's no objective criteria for inclusion that justifies this article, such as historical importance or proof of a significant property. The other articles in category:proofs are either about methods used in proofs or important proofs that are well known and have been useful.  This proof doesn't have any historical importance attached to it in the way that a proof of a major problem in math is&mdash;mathematicians have known pi<22/7 far longer than they've been doing calculus.  "indiscriminate collection of information" applies because this proof becomes the equivalent of an "interesting fact" about a person--worthy of inclusion in the article on the person, but not worth its own article.  On its own, it's unencyclopedic. Night Gyr 23:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as "vitriol" goes, I described some comments that seemed unbelievably irrational by saying they seemed unbelievably irrational. In fact, they seemed irresponsible; it looked as if people were expressing opinions about matters they didn't know about. That was really a separate thing from my stating reasons why the article should be kept.

You seem stuck on comparing this to other articles in a particular category. The fact that someone included it in that category seems to me to be among the least important things about it. You also seem to attach far too much importance to the fact that a proof is a means of knowing that the proposition being proved is true. The fact that we know independently of this proof that &pi; < 22/7 has nothing to do with anything relevant to this article. Also, the fact that it may have no historic importance is irrelevant, since no one claimed it had historical importance.

The article identifies a fact in mathematics that is enlightening to most people (except perhaps most non-mathematicians) who already knew that &pi; < 22/7 before they learned what this article says. It can cause one to suspect that this is merely the tip of an iceberg still to be discovered by further research. That, in fact, is how Herbert A. Medina, author of the article in the Monthly that I cited here, made use of his knowledge of this integral. And that may be the reason why most of the mathematics articles on Wikipedia are worthy of inclusion. Often it is not because of historical importance, nor because it is applicable to something other than mathematics, nor because it is applicable to other things within mathematics, nor because (in the case of proofs) it is a means of being certain of the truth of a mathematical proposition. Ask the people who posted the "keep" votes, if they would consider any other math article they may like, whether they think it has historical importance, whether they can identify its practical utility. In many cases, the answer would be "no". If mathematical content were deemed worthy of attention only when its historical importance or its utility could be identified, the whole enterprise of making new discoveries in mathematics would cease. Mathematics would be abolished. Indentification of historical importance or of utility often waits until later. Michael Hardy 00:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Summary: With math articles, there is probably no objective criterion for inclusion or exclusion that could be applied by those who don't understand the articles, and even those who do would at best be hard put to state a criterion clearly and well. (And BTW, I agree with user:Trovatore that it is grating to read "Is there a criteria..." instead of "Is there a criterion...".) Michael Hardy 22:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware of this Wikipedia talk:Censorship ?
For myself, I would like to say that the method is not innocent. The subject is truly important : there is one talk page and twoscore people discussing auto censorship for one million (counting non active users). Will you give your advice ? --DLL 20:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Foreign object damage
Argh, and you even narrowly beat me to recatting Foreign object damage! I hit the edit button, and there it was, already done! Excuse me, I must go commit ritual suicide to preserve my honor... Melchoir 22:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Beecroft
Amended. Please let me know if you feel anything else is not original enough (I was merely tryng to be uncontroversial).Pliny 18:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

W vs B and physics package
I'd like to see a reference on the W referring to the physics package. I've been doing in-depth nuclear weapons research in the open source materials for nearly 20 years, and the consistent usage in all secondary and all available primary sources is W for Warhead (type), B for Bomb (type). The only references to W61 are related to the earth penetrating warhead version for a cancelled 1980s missile, about 20 years after the B61 physics package was standardized. Georgewilliamherbert 02:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for rethinking your position. Do you want to change it back, or do you want me to?  Georgewilliamherbert 03:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"vitriol"
What is the occasion for your use of this word to describe anything I said in the course of the recent discussion of the proposed deletion? Please be specific. I read some truly shocking and absurd things and characterized them fairly, without saying the individual persons who wrote them are generally shocking or absurd. One of them even suggested that a "mathematical equation" is an unfit subject for an encyclopedia article. One can forgive him on the grounds of childish naivete, but it seems shocking that a people who have never begun to suspect that such a field as mathematics exists are routinely admitted to universities. I also pointed out that some people who entirely missed the point of the article did in fact entirely miss the point. It was not until yesterday, a week after the discussion ended, that I realized that some people who voted may have thought the purpose of the article was simple to convince the reader of the fact being proved. That that was one of the possible ways of missing the point was a new idea to me. Michael Hardy 04:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

frigatebird
I'm not querying the significance of your Operation Dominic link from this page, it's just not clear why what would normally be a disamb type link points to something with a completely different name. Either the link should point to some variant of frigatebird, or it's on the wrong page. Could you please clarify, jimfbleak 05:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've set up a disamb page, is this OK? Jim

T-4 ADM article wikify tag
Can you clarify what you are looking for with the wikify tag on the T-4 ADM article? I'm trying to build all the new warhead/bomb/device articles out to stand-on-merits-w/o-tag status in their initial build, but if I missed or spaced on something or it just doesn't cut it, let me know. Georgewilliamherbert 06:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Pretty Baby
Could you please explain at Talk:Pretty Baby why you rolled back my recent edits? I've just inserted a link to List of sets of unrelated songs with identical titles as there are lots of songs titled "Pretty Baby", but the rest of my edits were all in compliance with Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Extraordinary Machine 21:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

New Zealand Sign Language
Hi, I noticed you edited this article saying that the law had not changed yet, and that royal assent needed to be given. Did you see the third citation at the bottom of the article, i.e. Governor-General gives assent to Sign Language Bill? -- Avenue 22:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fine, easily fixed. -- Avenue 01:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Boresight == ==

I dont understand why you merged my Boresight Firearms with Boresight Antenna, when I was trying to disambiguate the two ?? The resulting page only has categorisation for Telecommunications, not Firearms.

WIles' Image
That site does not own the image. It was released by the profressor who took it and is in photos libraries.Timothy Clemans 22:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Timber
Now all the pictures don't line up and the graphs are all over the place (at least in Firefox)...


 * I'm using 1400 x 1050. --NaOH 07:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're up to it, I figure the tables could be purtied up a bit. I think they're HTML, should they be wikicoded or whatever? --NaOH 07:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Now there's a big white space, though. --NaOH 07:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll try moving images about... --NaOH 07:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yours was good, but I didn't want to nuke buddy's image, so I tried as you see. What do you think?  We can revert if required, right? --NaOH 07:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Fly at 'er. That was just me experimentating. ;P --NaOH 07:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Good stuff, dude. Thanks for your help. --NaOH 07:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Mark IIII
Hi! What's the problem with IIII? Have you checked out a clockface recently? --Surgeonsmate 09:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

II and III
How confusing!

The fact is that IIII is standard, if you check a clockface. I'm not one to make a big fuss over it, but I do like to hug these little facts to my bosom! --Surgeonsmate 21:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you are getting at - you said using IIII was nonstandard and confusing, and as IIII is used on clockfaces with no trouble for most people, obviously neither applies. Can't see why you should find III and IIII confusing if you can distinguish between III and II. Perhaps it is a matter of what we are used to. --Surgeonsmate 09:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Beretta Cx4 Storm Pic
So help me label the thing correctly. Its clearly a public image seeing as Beretta created it as a wallpaper for free download. Alyeska 23:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Games vs. Guns
When a Video games sells millions of copies, it deserves its own article. When a gun is depicted in a video game, it deserves mention under the article for THAT video game. It's stomping when kids put it into the firearms section. There is no concensus or majority or anything of the sort. It's an article about firearms, keep it about firearms.--Asams10 15:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Remington 51 Citations
I can cite four articles and three books, but I have to get back to my library. Seems like you're calling me out, but I'll bite. I still don't think that video games need to be in Firearms articles.--Asams10 05:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Assuming good faith works both ways. You can assume that I've researched the information I'm posting and not just giving my opinion.--Asams10 04:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Holographic Universe
The latest edits are by an anon w/ vandal warnings. I don't know if their adds are legit or nonsense. I figure since you started the article you could tell better than I. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

On dealing with copyvios
I noticed you just deleted the copyvio section of the article 55 Cancri Ae. I'd just like some clarification: wouldn't that still result in a derivative work unless the article is reverted to a pre-copyvio version first? Thanks, Chaos syndrome 21:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for the info. I prefer to err on the side of caution in these matters. Regards, Chaos syndrome 21:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Reliable replacement warhead article
We have a new user (User:RRW jockey, who's making edits to the Reliable replacement warhead article, which I disagree with. I wanted a third opinion about whether his changes are Neutral POV or not, so I'm asking a few other wikipedians who have worked on nuclear related articles.

If you can pop over there and take a look, and if you have an opinion leave it on the article talk page, I would appreciate other feedback.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 19:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

List of scheduled rocket launches
I can see no serious objection to the proposal that you posted on my Talk Page. It would probably make sense to do so. I will create the article that you mentioned, and place merge tags on both pages. --GW_Simulations 19:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:2LCdisambig
There are no reason given to let it redirect to. Much of the pages using "2LCdisambig" are conventional disambiguation pages. Do not change the redirect to again. --82.182.82.20 11:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2LC = 2 letter combination, 2CC = 2 character combination. The two mean the same thing, so why shouldn't one redirect to the other? Night Gyr 19:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to United States Congressional Delegations from Texas
Your recent edit to United States Congressional Delegations from Texas was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 21:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just revert the bot. The bot will not edit war, so if you make the exact same edit a second time, the bot will generally ignore it. - TexasAndroid 21:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I see you've fixed it, thanks for your understanding -- Tawker 22:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio
I've blocked for an hour and left a note. Thanks for cleaning up. Mackensen (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Jinx! Perhaps un-necessary, but it's not even a slap on the wrist. I wanted to make sure you had a chance to catch up. Good that he stopped. Mackensen (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK!
Good find! I agree, the hookline is short and sweet! Thanks for your efforts!  + + Lar: t/c 15:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Image
I made it SirIsaacBrock 22:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Earth's Special Forces
Hi

How did you catch the copyvio? I'm trying to do a better job of catching that sort of thing. Thanks. :) Dlohcierekim 19:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Dlohcierekim 00:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop spamming my talk page
SirIsaacBrock 20:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

'No references?'
On Boss (video games) you added the 'unreferenced' tag without stating anywhere that needs a reference added. I'm therefore a little curious as to what you mean. Hrimfaxi 05:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Kweisi Mfume / activepol category
"(→External links - remove maintenance category from main page)"

What was the reasoning behind removing the active politician categorization for the Mfume article? He's currently running for the U.S. Senate. Ben Cardin has the same categorization, as his main opponent in the primaries.Fearwig 20:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit: My mistake, Cardin doesn't. Am I mistunderstanding the purpose of the category? Fearwig 20:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit again: Okay, I get it now--the activepol designation on the talk page adds it automatically. Apologies, and thanks for the fix. Fearwig 20:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Brands of Cola
Can you please explain to me why you removed some brands of cola from the colas template? President's Choice, Sam's Choice,Sinalco, and Soda Club all have distinct flavors, I think that it is a subjective decision to remove them. (Ritz belongs on that page,too.) They are, in fact, colas made by different companies. Therefore, they are "brands".

Can you tell me why you reverted the article on Shelby Mustangs, removing nearly a months worth of additions?

Shelbys
Can you tell me why you removed nearly a months worth of additions to the Shelby Mustang Page?

KLF
"Sister Project links -LOL" : WikiSpecies. Hehe! Give us a chance mate, I hadn't got that far down the article with my trimming knife! Quite amusing though, I'll give you that :) --kingboyk 14:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, but...
... why did you delete the section that I added to the Shelby article? No copyvio there.

RE: TFD
Yes, my voting rationale is to see whether the template is of any purpose to articles, whether it is currently used and useful, whether the template is redundant and other factors as well. I hope this answers your doubt. --Ter e nce Ong 16:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Dog Day Afternoon
The cast table has been moved, per your suggestion (which makes sense for films, I just got used to an early cast table from editing Cheers). The article has also undergone further copyediting by Zepheus. Hope it will garner your support. Thanks! Staxringold talkcontribs 22:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that
User:MostWanted05 is a problem and he left unsourced images on article pages. It's a shame that that user makes a small thing into a problem. I apologize for my behavior. LILVOKA

Vandalism
Please do not delete the rules on my vandalism page. Thank you. -user:Crisspy

3100
Thanks for fixing that, I don't really know why I messed up that redirect. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 17:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of is no longer recommended
Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply, if you can.

Thanks! -- Where 03:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Bleach releases
Hello, I am curious to know why to moved Bleach media information to List of Bleach releases. IMO, the previous title seemed to fit the article's content (for example, voice actors) better. Please leave comments at Talk:List of Bleach releases. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

USSTRATCOM Page
Hi, thanks for your note on the USSTRATCOM page about NPoV. We try to follow the guidelines, but miss a few now and then. I have cleaned up the article to remove the government PoV as well as I am able sitting on the inside, but I was wondering if there is a review board or something to help develop a concensus on the PoV of the article to remove the PoV stop sign. Thanks. USSTRATCOM PAO 19:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Shadow of the Colossus FAC
Hi. Thank you for your comments on this FAC. We've made an attempt to address your concerns. Please review these changes and let us know if they are adequate. Ryu Kaze 19:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Metapolitefsi
Hi there. Can you please suggest a few places that you think are way too colourful in the Metapolitefsi article? Thanks. Dr.K. 16:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Username
I have to ask is your username from a certain game produced by FASA? Or somewhere else? Whispering(talk/c) 21:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Command and Control
Well, I was just cleaning stubs when I stumbled into this article. I think it's more of AFD. I fixed the double redirect. Feel free to boldly edit the stuff. ;) &#39;&#39;F3-R4&#39;&#39; 15:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Archiving
Hi, I think you're right about archiving/deleting. I think I got a consensus after more than 3 users has posted concern about this. Thank you. :D I'm setting up a bot to autoarchive instead. &#39;&#39;F3-R4&#39;&#39; 02:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 

has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Len Tower article, sources
Greetings. I read your comment on the second AfD for Leonard H. Tower Jr. expressing a potential interest for the article, should there be sources showing notability. I have found and cited some sources which I believe you might find relevant; they are cited in the second AfD, in this comment by myself. Capi 14:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

FAC review on Gliding
Thanks for the useful comments. I have copied my response from the FAC page here. I hope you do not mind.

I have now added even more references including books that cover the whole subject (there are now 57) to meet your request. The fully cited list was at the request of Sandy. Are there still any remaining specific facts that need to be referenced? Please note that sometimes the reference at the start of the section covers all of it. A promo for gliding that has a long list of hazards is not good advertising, so some attempt has been made at NPOV. I added the Challenges section also for this reason. Are there any other aspects which would add balance? In its defence the article attempts to answer the questions: "why would anyone voluntarily get into a cramped, unpowered aircraft and fly for hours away far from the airfield in turbulent conditions?" and "how do normal people start?". Nevertheless I will tone down the stuff about freedom etc and delete the bookings by phone (I suppose it does sound like a promo).

I think I have fixed the article to meet your objections. Let me know if it still sounds too passionate. If you are happy, would you withdraw your objection? If there still outstanding matters, please let me know. Thanks again for your interest and time. JMcC 22:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC) PS I then read your user page and see that you do not like 'notable'. Would 'famous' be better or is 'notable' OK in this context?

Mr Hands video
 WP:NOT - Wikipedia is NOT CENSORED! The video is:
 * Clearly marked as graphic
 * Relevant to the subject

WhisperToMe 03:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh! I forgot about that... If it's illegal under Florida law, it has to go. I'd check the actual laws first, but if it's against Florida law it may gave to go. WhisperToMe 03:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * At least in 2004, Florida may not have a law against bestiality. Let me check. WhisperToMe 03:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * According to this, Florida does not have a specific law against it Zoosexuality_and_the_law WhisperToMe 03:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It turns out it is not specifically outlawed in Florida - According to that Wikipedia article. I cannot find a bestiality law in Florida either. Why not mark it as "This video may be considered illegal in many jurisdictions" - Bestiality is not universally banned like child pornography is WhisperToMe 03:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July05/Gordon0728.htm also states Florida has no law against bestiality. WhisperToMe 03:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the video in question is not *the* video that captured the fatal incident, so it was removed.. WhisperToMe 03:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Something you might be interested in
Since you requested deletion for the One Peice attacks, I thought you could help out here: Articles for deletion/List of Dragon Ball special abilities. Hydromasta231 04:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

F.Y.P
I did the citation as a "See Talk page" because the citation is in print form and the links on the talk page link to scanned in versions. There is not an online version of the interview from the year 2000. Messwemade 17:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure if I'm doing it right....?!?! Messwemade 19:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Erotic Lactation, missing references
In article Erotic Lactation You added the flag "References missed". I have corrected this (thank You for the hint). Can You remove the flag if all is OK for You now? --Fritz Bollmann 11:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

List of sports clichés
You recently marked this as "proposed for deletion". I decided it ought to go through the AfD process, since it didn't seem to be a clear "delete" or "keep" to me, but in so doing, I found it already went through AfD a few months ago, and it was ruled "no consensus to delete". I'd just keep it around for now, but perhaps you could put it through AfD again if you really want. - furrykef (Talk at me) 10:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Regarding the article Vernian Process, which you tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "it is an article about a band which does not assert the notability or importance of the subject", I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This article does not qualify for speedy deletion because the article says the band has 4 albums, which is an assertion of notability. If you still want the article to be deleted, please use the process. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The Spirit of Truth
Good day. I noticed that you added the original research template to a section on The Spirit of Truth. Would you mind talking a bit about your reasons for this over on the article's talk page? Thank you. --Takeel 12:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Matches / Electric matches
The term "match" as used for a means of providing ignition is not limited to matchsticks, and this article already says as much by referring to fuses. Why is it such a big problem to include a single sentence mentioning matches fired by electricity rather than friction? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The original edit caused several difficulties. Primarily, it overlooked the first paragraph in Match that states that matches are typically a wooden or stiff paper stick. The edit re-defined non-electric matches as being wooden, thereby discounting waxed card (Vesta) matches. Secondly it conveniently overlooked, as did Talk:Match, the first paragraph in Match that matches are ignited from heat of friction when struck. Fuses are discussed in the article, I added them, but the view point is fuses ignited by striking; whereas electric fuses are electrically initiated - not initated by heat of friction. Electric fuses (and electric fuse compositions) are not new, they were discussed as long ago as 1968, by Ellern in his book on pyrotechnics. The edit to match appeared to be a contrived insertion that was unrelated to matches, other than sharing the name match and it distorted the article; which is why I moved the edit to Match (dissambiguation). I agree the article is somewhat wider than matches, as it mentions quick match and slow match, fuses, etc, but I think electric matches could have been better inserted into the match article. I’ve done a re-edit to match that hopefully meets both our concerns.Pyrotec 18:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Vijayanagar Architecture
Can you please explain this note "needs a copyedit for a lot of flowery pov language". Can you please tell me which lines are flowery and has POV. All info on the page has been sourced and reworded at times (playing down adjectives) to avoid COPYVIO. Dont forget, you are perhaps talking about the "Rome of India" and a UNESCO World Heritage Site.Dineshkannambadi 17:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Objective vs subjective
Could you please tell me how a sentence like "Vijayanagar architecture is an impressive dravidian style of architecture" be reworded for subjectiveness, especially when the sources are provided which itself is an indication to the user where the credits came from?Dineshkannambadi 17:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Karnataka Tourism
Can you please post your comments on the corresponding discussion page??. You can find my reply there. Leotolstoy 18:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Elephants
hey, thanks for moving my silly elephant article back to my user space instead of just deleting it. i appreciate it. john k 19:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Erotic lactation
Hi, You set the "unreferenced" flag to the page Erotic lactation. The article is good referenced now and highly improved. Can You check, whether the flag is longer valid? Thank You, --Fritz Bollmann 09:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Uploaded as JPG
Done. Hello32020 19:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

events on the 911 page
911 (disambiguation), there is absolutely no reason that I can see for the three dates to be listed which aren't connected in any way to the number 911. There is a link on that disambiguation page to the date page which lists all of the events that occured on that day anyway.

I propose to remove attica prison, Chilean coup and s11. Any thoughts? Cross posted on relevant talk page. Grumpyyoungman01 22:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

LPG
Thanks for the note. I made some minor corrections. I think you're right. It looks better now, doesn't it?

Cheers, --Achim 04:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Your AFD for Colbert Report Crecurring elements
I noticed you nominated the Colbert Report Ecrring Elements for deletion yet you did not create the debate page to explain why you want it deleted. Care to do so? If You're doing so as I'm writing this message ignore it--Acebrock 20:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Stormfront
There have been numerous, unnecessary edits to the Stormfront disambiguation page, particularly to the entry on Stormfront (website). However Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) says that "The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link." As each of the entries is so different from the others, simply giving the full title of each is sufficient. We have enough work to do keeping the actual article about the Stormfront (website) NPOV, let's not double our workload. Cheers, -Will Beback 05:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you think anyone will confuse the website with the weather phenomenon or the Billy Joel Album? -Will Beback 06:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You do have a point about the novel, it'd help to have the author's name. -Will Beback 06:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As soon as there's another website named "Stormfront" we'll be sure to update the dismabiguation page. GHowever I consider that to be an unlikely event, given the notoriety of the current one. -Will Beback 06:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Lou Gehrig and other baseball player pictures
What do I put if the image was from a web site and there was no information as to the use of the material from the web site? Thanks Never been to spain 13:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sig
Why don't you like complex signatures?  •S  e  an•gorter•  (T) (P) 01:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You try finding the actual content on a page that's got four lines of sig to every line of text. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiLove


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Just doing it for fun and to spread the WikiLove.  •S  e  an•gorter•  (T) (P) 01:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No Shave November
Can you please tell me why my page on No Shave November was deleted? It is my first article; I just want to make sure I did everything right.

Thanks. Wikiwikiwikiscratch 05:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review for Colbert Report recurring elements
Hi, you may wish to comment at Deletion review/Log/2006 November 1. —Angr 14:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Night Gyr,
Re, I found out about the picture nomination by random wikisurfing! I think I've made comments that illuminate certain dark aspects regarding this picture and would like you to evaluate them and respond. Thanks! •N i k o S il v e r• 11:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

AutoMat1930.jpg
This is an image of an AutoMat built in 1930 in order to illustrate the automat article. What copyright tag should I use? Thank you. Disco79 15:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please let me know if the tag I proposed on my talk page User_talk:Disco79 is correctly done. Thank you. Disco79 01:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Font samples
Actually, typefaces can't be copyrighted, at least in the U.S. Computer font files can, because they're considered programs, but the actual designs can be completely copied. That's why Bitstream can create renamed knockoffs of every major font. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  00:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

superdickery
The site has a 289,000 hits on Google and an Alexa ranking of 43,671. Notability is established.--KrossTalk 12:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Questioning my deletionism
Thanks for postintg that! Next time I get seriously involved in AfD again, and someone accuses me of, well, the things I get accused of for advocating an article's deletion, I'll have to refer those people to your comment.

Oh, not everything I nominate for deletion gets deleted, either. Daniel Case 15:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Your vote in Articles_for_deletion/Third_holiest_site_in_Islam_%28expression%29
Will you please care to answer if I ask that what motive you to vote for keep in that AFD? I will be thankful with your reply. --- ALM 17:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and I have replied back too. Should I talk here with you or at AFD page. I have replied in AFD. -- ALM 19:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:AAFlight191 newspapers.jpg
I am sure that got that image off of the FAA website .. i can't seem to seek it out.. will look again. perhaps u could help?  maxrspct  in the mud  15:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

External links in disambig pages
Re Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation

That section was blank because I had not finished editing it. I set it up first as dummy to make it exist so I could check another page that linked to it. I have now set it up as the intended text. Please read it again. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard 09:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

hi
just like to say that i read your little blurb about your struggling to read comments because of all the fancy formatting in signatures. i changed mine to make it just a bit easier for you haha. thanks for the good advice. --marbl e .wonderi ♥ ny 04:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Trigger (firearms)
You reverted my tagging of the article as unreferenced. I posted on the talk page, because I still think that the article needs to be tagged, as it is completely lacking in sources. Kncyu38 08:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied on my talk page. Also, thanks for the welcome message! Kncyu38 11:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Paintball references
Hey,

I noticed that recently you've been taking a look at some of the paintball articles under the WikiProject Paintball. Although your claims that paintball articles like Speedball backman need references are justified, be careful when it comes to paintball; it is still a relatively new sport, and references are hard to find. I believe the sheer amount of visits that paintball articles get from informed, intelligent editors is sufficient to guarantee it's factual accuracy.

Nonetheless, thank you for adressing this point! As the lead coordinator of the WikiProject Paintball I will do what I can to get my members and myself to use more references and find some for existing articles.

RavenStorm 12:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Jonestown, Demerara
(Please reply here. I have the page on watch.)

Seriously, do you think someone would make that stuff up? Jonestown, Demerara is a real place. If you doubt me, just Google "Jonestown" with "Mahaica" (two words, no quote marks) for confirmation -- for example, this. I've just never gotten around to adding references -- I created it as a complete WP neophyte -- because I moved on to other things and figured no one would bother such an innoccuous and well-crafted article. Any chance I could prevail on you to withdraw the AfD? I can round up references, eventually, but would rather not try to do it in a panic. And I really don't need the aggro. I sure wish you'd talked to me about this first, instead of forging ahead with the prod and then, so promptly, an AfD nomination. (Naturally, I've opposed the deletion already.) -- Lonewolf BC 08:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't delete just trying to change the name to solve a conflict among editors Gottoupload 02:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Two cows AfD
I found and added 5 print sources which presented and discussed the joke. Edison 19:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Korean Idiot Teenagers
As the page is now gone, and my memory t'aint that great, what I do remember is that it was put up for a speedy delete, that was removed by the author, then put up for the simple prod (not full afd) and that was removed by the author without any rationale given. I believe that it was the drmafd template Template:Drmafd that uses that warning about vandalism (i don't mess with the template language); or the Template:Drmspeedy.

But, if you can backtrack and see where I did put up a "vandalism" warning (which I don't think I did) for that, it would be appreciated. SkierRMH 20:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

(p.s. Could you point me to the source of your statement "As an addition note, blanking your talk page without any sort of notice is frowned upon." I have had 2 admins tell me that it's my space to use as I see fit - there's no solid policy - and for me, I keep something up there til' it's resolved and then blank it.)

"Edit war → User edit war positive" and archiving your talk page
Most debates in Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 December 3 are closed. What are you going to do with this debate that went on for several days, yet there ain't a single vote sighted?

Also, your talk page is getting way too long. Rather than removing content, you could move most of older discussions into an archived page. See what How to archive a talk page guides you. --Gh87 23:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's been five days after I posted this message, and the result was deleted. And yet, you haven't consider about your older, longer posts. Would you like to archive it as soon as possible? --Gh87 05:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

STS-116
The STS-116 picture is now in an article. I don't know if this will change your vote, but now the reason you gave for not voting is null. Sharkface217 23:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Otheruses
—Centrx→talk &bull; 12:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have discussed at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation and there, like everywhere, there is agreement that this is bad wording. There is no reason to have four different templates when one can simply be made good. Template:Otheruses4 has the same bad wording anyway.
 * Disambiguation pages are for articles with similar titles. Why would a topic on a disambiguation not have a similar title (perhaps "related title")?
 * Why do you like the current wording so much?

Aerophilately
Astrophilately is a legitimate area of study and collecting within aerophilately for mail in space that also includes rocket mail. So I have reverted your edit. ww2censor 03:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that was just the kick in the pants I needed to start on the article... Stan 03:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Check out astrophilately now! Stan 04:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

re:
Template redirects== on User talk:100110100 ==


 * We here on Wikipedia do not delete things just because they are a problem. What is plausible what is not?  I've never been taught that in school.100110100 22:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Dire animal (Dungeons & Dragons)
Good evening. You have tagged this article, which I have been very involved with writing, with an 'in universe' tag. I was wondering what you thought was too in-universy about it. Thanks. J Milburn 17:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Bruchim

Glad to hear there is a Jewish side to the web. Your just identified as being Jewish in leaving your comment on the deletion page. That's something many Jewish editors do here, which means there is a Jewish side to wikipedia, its manifests in the form of the Jewish and Israel wikiprojects, and general networking and collaborating, but overall the wiki community is very anon, so it would understandable to say there is no "side" wikipedia. I was an editor here for three years and never used a talk page until I opened an account to create an article, (about 20th account, kept on forgetting) and I got welcomed by another user. So again, welcome to the Jewish side of wikipedia! FrummerThanThou 08:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

BLP
You said:
 * "BLP is a strengthened enforcement of existing policy, and things that wouldn't pass muster under BLP wouldn't pass muster period, BLP just means that we should be more aggressive about enforcing compliance."

This is not true. There are two vital differences. The first is recognition of the legal and moral right of nonpublic persons to privacy. This is unique to BLP among WPs policies. Please don't sweep it under the rug. Second, the content policies that you rightly refer to as more agressively enforced in BLP are based on what is good and useful in the creation of an encyclopedia and as such were used in the past without regard to common human decency when dealing with the subjects of articles in terms of asking them to accept that eventually the article will be better, that the good off all outweighs and specific harm to them, and in general treating them no better than a building because to do so would not be neutral. BLP is not based on law as much as common human decency. Please don't sweep that ubder the rug either. Saying BLP is just "a strengthened enforcement of existing policy" terribly misrepresents the entire reason for its esistance and thus encourages its misapplication. WAS 4.250 22:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fiction guidelines
With regard to the comments you've been making about Dungeons & Dragons monster articles and problems with in-universe perspective, I feel you're referencing slightly the wrong guideline: I would say the problems are with WP:WAF, which suggests the style in which articles should be written, not WP:FICT which suggests which articles should exist in the first place. That said, I entirely agree with what you're saying, so please keep it up! Cheers --Pak21 08:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Benson
I am unhappy about your merging in of people at Benson. This is a page where I regularly fix the incoming links using popups, and it will be very difficult to do this with the page so long. Accidental links are for places called Benson. The Benson dab page should be for articles naturally named just Benson. A separate surname page is in accordance with Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). CarolGray 19:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. CarolGray 19:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thought you may be interested

 * Best wishes, Travb (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Page protection
Because of concerns about the posting of personal information. Tom Harrison Talk 22:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Challenge coin article
Dorry about removing that reference. Not sure how I managed to even do that since I was deleting something at the bottom of the page. Montco 23:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ski jumping training
I can't give a really good answer about training, but according to this introduction page, you start off small jumps and work your way up. I think you also get some instruction about how to do it beforehand. Andjam 13:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind welcome!
The holidays left me with a lot of free time at work, and Wiki is a fascinating and quite useful resource, so I thought I'd give what I can. -- Snicker undefined°€ 14:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Take off the prod?
I've done some extensive work on the Space warfare in fiction page. Although it is far from done, I think it is salvageable. I ask that you take off the prod or instead send it to WP:AFD.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  01:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:659 hornet.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:659 hornet.jpg. However, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. MECU ≈ talk 20:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Swiss F-18
Please read your reply here Thanks - Adrian Pingstone 22:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

New Years
 Wishing you a Happy New Year from  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  04:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza's MfD Tags
Thanks for telling me! I have replaced the tags back to their proper places (hopefully). I have no idea what time zone you live in. Nonetheless, Happy New Year!-- Ed  ¿Cómo estás? Reviews? 02:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:659 hornet.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:659 hornet.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — MECU ≈ talk 20:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. I just saw your comments you left for me on my editor review. My only problem with that is you seem to have taken a single issue and posted it there, whereas it might have been more appropriate to contact me directly with this matter, since the editor review is supposed to encompass me generally, and not specific issues. Either way, I don't fully understand your complaint about my tagging of Image:659 hornet.jpg. I think that you are annoyed that I marked the image as missing license information when you had put the tag FinnishDefenceForces on there. However, my reading of the tag is that it is not a valid license alone, since it is an unfree image, it must be under fair use, for which the page did not have such a tag. I think I might have even asked about this specific image on the IRC channel and another user directed me to mark it as no license, since that tag isn't a license. You then appropriately removed my tag of no license and put a fair use tag in it. However, this is only partially the job of marking images as fair use. Per the tag you inserted: 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. You already have the source, but no fair use rationale. Since the image was uploaded before May 4, 2006 and has no rationale, I then listed it for IFD because it has no rationale. You now have at least 5 days to provide a rationale for each use of this image in Wikipedia. If you provide a rationale, you can then say so at the IFD and the image will most likely be kept. I would believe it would be difficult to justify the use on Finnish Air Force, but also it will be difficult to justify why this specific image needs to be on Wikipedia. Is standing on it's tail unique to this plane? The image isn't even talked about in the article either. It's used alongside a list of "milestones", which could even be considered decoration. Lastly, with the availability of free images of this plane already on the page, you cannot use "illustration" because it's already (freely, that is, with a free image) illustrated. Please do not think that I am targeting you specifically or hold a vengeance against you or this image. If you should be able to provide such a rationale, I would be happy to vote to keep the image at IFD. Good luck! -- MECU ≈ talk 23:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, one more additional comment regarding me slowing down and not blanket applying images. Of the thousand or so images I have marked, few users have had problems with it. I agree the tagging and notification system is a little "stale" and "impersonal", but I don't think slowing down to customize and individualize each image notification and tagging will be of benefit, since there about literally hundreds of thousands of images. Nothing on Wikipedia is permanent, if someone makes a mistake it can easily be fixed. -- MECU ≈ talk 23:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Featured_picture_candidates/Sandstorm
Is a complete rewording of the comment legal in this case (as opposed to striking out the comment)? -- Tewy  04:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that that was a little strong, and I should do a little more research before accusing someone of that. Thanks for the notice. -- Tewy  04:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

List of big-bust models and performers
I was young and foolish—I never thought anyone would see those pictures that article... :) &mdash;tregoweth (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

FAC closing
Left you a note here, and there was a conversation here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Balkline and straight rail
Really appreciate the kind words. That article took a very long time to write, and I did it all offline so that it would be a candidate for DYK—most people have no idea there is anything other than 8-ball, so I want all these articles to appear on the main page (cushion caroms and carom billiards have been submitted to dyk and artistic billiards, Irving Crane, cowboy pool and Honolulu (billiards) were also dyk'ed over the past few weeks). My editcountitis is screaming at me! Quibbles over wording, complaints etc., are what mostly get placed on talk pages. It's rare to get a simple nice job.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

USRepSuccessionBox
This template has never been vandalized, and has been undergoing edits and improvements. Please do not pre-emptively full-protect pages; it infringes on the fundamental free editing nature of Wikipedia. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's used on over two thousand pages and with the recent template vandalism (perhaps you have not heard about it?), pre-emptively protecting a rarely-edited, high-use template, despite no history of vandalism, is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. You can request an edit using or, if you feel compelled, take the issue to WP:RPP. --  tariq abjotu  05:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

RFA
It's usually not good to respond to every oppose vote. People view it as argumentative and oppose. In cases where you believe the vote is based on a misconception, like the first guy, that's one thing, but when it's a previous disagreement being brought up again, arguing with them won't help you. --tjstrf talk 08:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll move it to his talk page. didn't want to just ignore the guy, after all. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

RfA
I added a question to your RfA Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 20:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I gave a response that needs more :) Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 03:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As an Admin your job is to handle these tasks. The fact that I was the blocking admin and you never asked me about the block raises one question. If you want to be an admin why? as this is a key role that admins play (blocking and unblocking). you are not always able to pick what task you handle. many times someone you have never met drags you into an Issue that you don't want to be in. But as a Wikipedia Administrator that is you job. the fact that you don't understand Wikipedia policy is an issue along with the fact that you said area that I've neither dealt with in the past nor plan to in the future now really scares me. As per WP:SPAM and WP:USERNAME that username is not acceptable. you your self said that. when the user complained about that instead of clarifying that you moved to unblock knowing that the username was spam irregardless of why I blocked in the first place the e-mail address should have tipped you off. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 05:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

RfA
OK, thanks for the explanations. Since I was leaning toward oppose, I'm not going to change my neutral !vote, but I'm certainly willing to take other factors into consideration as the thing goes on. Peace, delldot | talk 23:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Contribs.
Per request, these are Babylon 5 related: # 23:41, 28 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Stock footage (the PD/fee bit is irrelevant to the definition)
 * 23:37, 28 October 2006 (hist) (diff) EAS Prometheus (There's nothing in this article not in that article) (top) [Rollback]
 * 23:34, 28 October 2006 (hist) (diff) EarthForce (true, this article actually describes all of its fan speculation as speculation) (top) [Rollback]
 * 23:28, 28 October 2006 (hist) (diff) EarthForce (in-universe)
 * 23:27, 28 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Forklift truck (it's in the names, often is awkward understatement)
 * 23:24, 28 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Battle of the Line (in-universe)
 * 23:20, 28 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Minbari (more in-universe b5)
 * 23:18, 28 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Shadow (Babylon 5) (needs a lot of in-universe cleanup)

thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 01:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)