User talk:Rmhermen/Archive11

The Downlink: Issue 0

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 16:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

File:LocMap Tongariro National Park.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:LocMap Tongariro National Park.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the 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. Kelly hi! 07:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 1

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 15:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

Bombing...
you wrote:
 * You recently rewrote part of the lead to this article. Resulting in this sentence:


 * "In four raids, altogether 3,600 planes, of which 1,300 heavy bombers dropped as much as 650.000 incendiaries, together with 8,000 lb. high-explosive bombs and hundreds of 4,000-pounders, in all more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices were dropped on the city, the Baroque capital of the German state of Saxony."


 * I suggest that this is very poor grammatically and too information dense (In fact, it looks just like the kind of sentences I, myself, write and then regret). I would suggest the sentence be broken up and that all of that detail is not required in the lead section at all. Also you have mixed . and, in large numbers. English Wikipedia uses comma separators. Rmhermen (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Most any summary on such complex topics would have to be dense with information I think we'll have to sccept if we are to be honest in any sense of the word. I'll contend and defend that the accuracy in this case is not only needed but crucial to be had at the very outset, if the rest of the issues in the article is to be properly understood in any meaningful way. Mixing, and. cant be a problem big enough to point out to me, the conventions on it differs in the US and Europe, even between European nations. Whats your agenda here? Discrediting me and my abilities?? I'm perfectly capable of cleaning up the syntax some more if that's your real issue. Curious effort you make here, but thanks for your feedback anyway. Nunamiut (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

But you are correct. I found a single mistake in the use of, and. in numbering. My bad. Thanks. But next time I think you can safely assume that you can correct such quick oversight mistakes of others immediately on your own without going to the length of contacting the editor to point it out to him. Nunamiut (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Analytical engine
I notice you originated the text for the article Analytical engine. Was this text written by you, or did it come from a different source? What accounts for the unusual line breaks? If it was from a different source, what was that source? Thanks, Robert K S (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked and I certainly did not write this text. This dates to before the conversion to the new MediaWiki software where all history was not preserved and other oddness. The original author could perhaps be found in the newly recovered history of Wikipedia. Rmhermen (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was started with a large initial edit containing most of that text by User:AxelBoldt. Rmhermen (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Where do I access this "newly recovered history of Wikipedia"? (I must have missed the memo about that.) Robert K S (talk) 07:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are links to it in the December 12 issue of the Signpost. Indexes are available online and the full text is a smallish zip file. Hopefully, it will get reintegrated into article histories in the future as other recovered pieces were. Rmhermen (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 2

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

Deletion of wikipage referring to Sebastian Graham-Jones
The wikipedia page referring to the "Lark Rise" plays provides a red link to a deleted page referring to my brother, the late Sebastian Graham-Jones. This page was deleted at 03.33 14th October 2008 by Rmhermen, apparently for copyright infringement. Review of Rmhermen's activity log does not give any access to the allegedly inappropriate material. I would be grateful if I could be permitted to see what was regarded as so offensive that my brother's entry in Wikipedia should be erased. Thank you Felix Graham-Jones. contact at :- felix.graham-jones at snet.net 69.177.26.100 (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Deletions for copyright violation are just that. There was no offensive material; however, the article was simply a cut-and-paste of the Guardian's obituary which can still be seen here: . This does not say anything about the subject's notability, just that we do not have a legally "free" text to use as an article. (When material is deleted, it is intended that it no longer be accessible. For legal reasons, only administrators can view deleted material.) Rmhermen (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Wind power in the United States
Why did you removed cited material without a word? Please discuss your reasoning on the talk page before doing such things, this looks like simple vandalism.Tirronan (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.Tirronan (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 3

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Spaceflight at 09:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

Sendai earthquake
Hi, can you please point out what edits are so offensive specifically? I am not on a campaign to remove any mention of non-Japanese events in this disaster; however, one of my goals HAS been to remove non-NPOV material, a lot of which seems to be added by folks who think that things like a couple of subs tossed around in Guam is worthy of mentioning in the article. If you'll notice, I've only removed specific events like that, which are not relevant. The other stuff I've removed are the mentions to excessively specific detail (e.g. that table listing out tiny islands that had no damage, just warnings/evacuations), while leaving things like the coastal warning for the West Coast. I've brought up MANY topics on the talk page if I thought they might be controversial. Not to mention other topics there, just in the spirit of community editing. If you look at my own talk page, you'll note that I've resolved disputes and so forth in a pretty reasonable fashion, not by calling people offensive...

I am trying to write from a long-term perspective and avoid WP:RECENTISM as well. The fact is, most of the non-Japanese language news has been reporting on these minor things, but in the long run things like a misc non-notable city having had storm surges is NOT going to be relevant to this article. (Sorry, but Brookings, OR, which appears to have about 6000 people and is only reported as having had a "storm surge" and nothing more, is not notable.)

Oh, and btw, I can't really add more detail about the Japanese side of things than your average editor...because I'm an American, don't speak Japanese, have lived in the US my entire life, and have no ties to Japan! (Well, I did once visit Tokyo for a week, but I've visited a lot of places.) Though I have tried to add what I can, on both sides of the equation. (Edit: I will gladly admit I have removed more non-Japanese related material than I have added...simply because there has been an undue amount of it added to the article by others.) –flodded ☃ (gripe)  03:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't add a lot of detail. Just what was in the online newspaper article I saw. I couldn't believe there was nothing on Wikipedia. I'm content with what's there now about what didn't happen in Japan, as long as it stays. The tsunami didn't get a separate article, so there was only the one place to put it. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 22:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * My above comment was meant for User:Flodded who asked me to read what he wrote here.


 * This one is for you. It appears you removed what appeared to me to be a perfectly valid edit on Fukushima I nuclear accidents and User:Peace01234 reverted, calling it vandalism. I'm not sure I'd go that far, and I'm not sure of the proper warning, or even if this is misconduct. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 18:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * After seeing this, I'm guessing User:Peace01234 is actually the one guilty of vandalism. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 20:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I did accidentally revert you, sorry about that. I managed to undo that fairly quickly, but I think you can understand with the edit rate, slow saves, errors, edit conflicts, etc, that it can be a pain to get everything right the first time. Though it is kind of a fun game racing to even just change a character or two and save it before you get a conflict. :) –flodded ☃ (gripe)  17:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see from the Village Pump that all of Wikipedia has been running poorly the last couple of weeks. Rmhermen (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima I accident talk page, 'Question on the Title' section - calling me out?
Hi, Rmhermen, I originally posted this on the Fukushima I accident talk page, but later removed it because that isn't really an appropriate forum for a personal issue. Your comment right after my comment about the emergency struck me as you calling me personally out for continuing with the discussion. It seemed like you thought I was hell bent on getting the name changed. In actuality, that was only my second contribution to the discussion. I was only pointing out what I thought was a flaw in the title. To respond to your comment about why I continued the discussion, the reason why I responded to it was that my input was solicited by another editor regarding the suggestion of 'Emergency'. I was prepared to let this go after the initial response to my inquiry (saying something about it being an official nuclear industry term or whatever), but since my continued input was requested, I simply felt the need to give that input. If I misinterpreted your comment I sincerely apologize.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 06:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. Not directed at you personally but at the constant Wikipedia tendency to spend more time fighting about the title than writing the article. Check out the multiple archives on corn/maize or the hundreds of pages of babble about whether U.S. cities should follow one consistent naming schema - and then the hundreds of debates over which ones were important (special) enough to break it. Rmhermen (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problem then. I apologize for my misunderstanding.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I probably shouldn't comment there about this. The newspaper I subscribe to has been referring to the Daiichi Plant instead of the Fukushima Plant. Imagine my surprise to go the article and find that Daiichi means "number one". Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 18:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a Reliable Source?
How? Tankman786 (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC) Do you just hate Serbs? Tell me the truth. Also, we did have a tactical victory. Clinton had too much focus on the Lewinsky Scandal, and he just bombd us because he wanted to stay on term. Blaming the Serbs for all the fake lies. He then bombed us. For us knowing well, we hid all strategic military elements. They destroyed all the final elements out into the open such as barracks, outposts etc. But we still attacked them. I think you should just take a look at Lessons Of Kosovo, its from YouTube, an "unreliable" source. But the video is not from YouTube. Just watch it and take some notes my friend, Because all I know of, is that we Tactically won, but NATO Strategically won by making us retreat, but did not destroy our power machines. Im just saying, we can just work this out and not get in an editwar so I am just gonna revert it, please respond for your opinion, thanks Tankman786 (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:Reliable sources. An online discussion board about military photos is not a reliable source about wartime deployments or casualties. Rmhermen (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Why did you take down my page?
I posted a page with 6 links that back up who i am, why did you take it down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyparkdrive (talk • contribs) 21:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This page was deleted as "Shaun hoff" ‎ (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject). This is the third time it has been deleted (2x as Shaun hoff, 1x as Shaun Hoff). You could try the Articles for creation process or to overturn this deletion, you could also go to Deletion review. Rmhermen (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden
Thank you for your quick action and protection of the Osama bin Laden article. Was trying to add a proper date and reference, but couldn't get the edit to go through because people kept adding vandal content. Many thanks, sir. --AmaraielSend Message 02:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Bin Laden
Please, unprotect Osama bin Laden and semiprotect it. Established users should be able to edit without much vandalism. It is important to keep it open to editing. Pristino (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * yes, policy would indicate that semi protection is preferred for this situation. Would recommend setting to semi for at least a trial period. Ronnotel (talk) 03:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't even save fast enough to remove the vandalism. And it was already semi-protected. Rmhermen (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ronnotel, yes, policy would dictate such an action. However, do you really think that semi-protection does anything? There's still going to be vandalism from reg'd usernames as long as this is fresh news. --AmaraielSend Message 03:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You did the right thing,Rmhermen. The article needs to be fully protected.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Les Cheneaux Islands.PNG
Thanks for uploading File:Les Cheneaux Islands.PNG. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not agree that having a source in black text in the lower left corner of the image is in any way making it untrackable or incomplete. I do, however, virtually never contribute images to this project anymore due to the constant hounding of image contributors. If I had to re-source, re-license, re-template each of my text contributions as many times, I would cease those as well. (one global relicensing for text versus up to 5 already for some of my images). If I see suspicious contribution the first thing I do is check google and obvious sources, not template the contributor - remember WP:Bite and WP:Don't template the regulars. Rmhermen (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello
Could you please take a look at  for me. I just realized that Iridescent is not online.  maucho  eagle   ( c ) 18:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you please use Edit Summary (IRT Bagpipes)
Greetings, thanks for your help in improving the layout on Bagpipes, but could you please use the Edit Summary (in general). In particular, that article gets a lot of vandalism, so a clear "moving image higher up for better layout" would keep me from having to check in on the several unlabeled edits to ensure they aren't vandalism. Personally, I've been trying to write decent ESs with every edit since I do a lot of contentious topics, and I find it helps a lot. Just a suggestion, and thanks again for your help on Bagpipes. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * On any article I follow which gets any substantial amount of vandalism, I always check every edit since the last user I recognize as a single batch. I always presume some of the intervening edit summaries are false/misleading. Rmhermen (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Please explain
Why this? Marco polo (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your clarification and glad that I did not somehow fall afoul. Marco polo (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Michele Stratico
I don't know what the CSD is but it's been copy/pasted from this page. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you cleaned this up. My understanding is that editing away potential copy vio material is not a solution(because various tags say not to edit once copyvio is identified) and the content should be removed from the edit history so I've thrown it to the CopyVio process. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That page is on the Italian-language Wikipedia. It is the same license as the English one. As long as the source is mentioned there is no copyright issue. Rmhermen (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Djvhknr
Ya I delete pages called heykidnicerobot because i have no life (unsigned entry by User:Djvhknr)
 * No, I deleted them because another editor noticed they were unsuitable for the encyclopedia and tagged them for speedy deletion. I agreed. And I deleted. Rmhermen (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I just checked. There was only one page - it was tagged by two different editors and deleted by two different admins. Mine was only one of four actions by four different people related to that page. Rmhermen (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction
I misinterpreted the text in the source and was just about to revert the edit but thank you for reverting it back beforehand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ke5skw (talk • contribs) 00:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)