Jump to content

User talk:Dave1185/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Variants

Dave, There is a manual of style we have been using for aircraft variants and operators. Please use the semi colon for listing variants and operators. With the use of the semi colon, one then uses the colon underneath to describe the details of the variant or operators. We use the asterisk for list items with info or data immediately following the item like on Survivor or Specification sections. Please follow these styles for all aircraft. Please peruse/read the WP:MOS and WP:AIR articles. Thank you. Cheers. Lance..... LanceBarber (talk) 07:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Lance, appreciate your pointers with regards to the matter. I'll read the articles and try to keep it in mind but I don't know if I can keep up with so much things in wiki. ;p Anyway, thanks again and cheers. -- Dave1185 (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Another Welcome

Hello Dave1185 and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your ideas for editing the Canberra articles.

Since you are interested in aviation articles. There is a group of editors here at Wikipedia who have come together to form WikiProject Aviation in order to improve aviation-related articles. You are invited to check us out and, if interested, join our Project Team. Our Outreach page has a lot of resources as well as article guidelines that you might find helpful.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Also, you can edit your user page and introduce yourself.

I went through the same "growing pains" last year to the month in trying to edit aritcles and other editors like User:BillCJ and User:Bzuk and others were helpful in directing my energy (and reverted my stuff too, lol). Patiences with nubies (me) and learning the ropes (you) comes with the territory. Hang in there!!

Again, welcome aboard! Sincere regards, Lance....LanceBarber (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Cripes

You need a star for the spacing removal alone :| as for the airport chaos of south east asia - probably should be a taskforce just to ward off the midgets or should that be the mosquitos :( SatuSuro 02:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Sorry but I don't quite get what you meant by that definition of star and for what spacing removal? Gawd, I'm still trying to catch up with myself over so many corrections, edits and deletions which I've done over the past 6 hours... I need to catch some Zzz now! Don't worry about them mozzies, there's always a bug spray for any kind of 'em, eh? Now midgets... that is a whole different story, which I won't dwell into. Cheers! -- Dave1185 (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The Minor Barnstar
I think most barnstars are passe - so i figure the tedious space correction n the singers places art is worthy of some reward - so maybe just that - a star - sleep well SatuSuro 02:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

West Coast, Singapore

About the article, i indeed have some mistakes, or huge mistake I'ill say. So, feel free to help me edit my article. I created this article because i myself have live in West Coast. So, feel free to edit my article! Bossieboy (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2008 (SST)

Police Coast Guard

Hi Dave.

You reverted my avoid redir change to this article with the comment PCG doe not use the term "water police" to describe itself, proper designation is "Marine Police"; besides there is no redir here, see for yourself.

My change was to change the link [[Marine Police]] to [[Water police|Marine Police]]. This has no impact on the text of the Police Coast Guard article, but it lessens the load on WP servers by avoiding them having to do extra database accesses in order to follow the redirect.

Marine Police most certainly is a redirect. If you follow the link you will find yourself at an article called Water Police. Just below the article title, you will see the small text redirected from Marine Police. This shows that Marine Police is a redirect.

Whilst PCG usage has a bearing on the link text (which my edit did not change) it has no bearing on the link target. The whole puspose of the link is to provide a link to an article describing water based policing in a worldwide context, which is what Water police is. WP's manual of style suggests that the title of such an article should be based on the most common, non-ambiguous, name used by english speakers worldwide.

I hope this helps explain why I reverted your reversion. -- Chris j wood (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Singapore Changi Airport

Resolved
 – User:Audude08 has retired.

Please read up on Changi Airport's edit history and the related discussion last week at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports. Those words did not originate from User:Audude08, they were first used by the intended recipient. HkCaGu (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

removing an image

Hi - just add {{db-g7}} to the image page, and myself or another admin will come along and delete it shortly. Black Kite 21:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:111Sqn_shoulder_patch.jpg

Resolved

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:111Sqn_shoulder_patch.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 05:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved
 – troll
Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:CF 001015.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved
 – troll
Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:TengahTimes029.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  • No words to describe this kind of senseless bots with no patience to wait for the uploader to find the appropriate license tag for use with their uploaded images. Anyway, both images are now tagged with their own appropriate license tag and I stand corrected. --Dave1185 (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

RE:Huaiwei

Thank you for your suggestion and encouragement. I would just like to reassure you that my zeal to improve this project remains as strong as ever, unlikely to be wavered even if I a strict minority concerning some aviation-related issues. I hold strongly to my editorial philosophy, one of which is to not allow personal grievances and prejudice influence my editing actions against specific articles, including targeting any one article for no better reason than having a personal issue against them. And it perhaps for this reason that I work extra hard to ward this evil off affected articles, of which a few Singapore-related articles had been a target of. I can only appeal for fellow Singaporeans to patrol these articles and evaluate each case with reasonable logic rather than by pure nationalist or emotive sentiments, the former of which I feel is sadly lacking amongst many I have encountered here.--Huaiwei (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Singaporeans are pragmatic people, we have always been so and we always will be. We are not "kia-see", more like "bo-chup". Having said so, there are various degree of "bo-chup" in us... heck, if that thing might burn down my neighbour or my house, you have my guarantee of us acting in unison and in record speed to snuff it out. Also, I have replied you on your talk page. Cheers. --Dave1185 (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

137.132.3.7

This IP address resolves to bluewhale-ext.nus.edu.sg which should suggest that it is a NAT router that is shared by the entire National University of Singapore. Please turn down your rhetoric on that talk page because there's no need to brand every student behind that router/firewall as a vandal and no administrator will ever block it indefinitely. If you suspect a sockpuppet is operating behind that firewall, file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser and let them handle it. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And for crying out loud, take a closer look at Special:Contributions/137.132.3.7, some of those edits that you accused them of being vandalism were test edits that were self-reverted. Install Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups so you can preview EVERY diff. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • My bad. What can I say? That sneaky bastard snubbed me on his email hence me ranting here now like a mad man. Sorry and I've replied you on your talk page. (You did see my "RUN FOR COVER" sign above, right?) --Dave1185 (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


Resolved

Thanks for uploading Image:120Sqn shoulder patch (new).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 escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Replaceable fair use Image:Black Knights 2000-1.jpg & Image:Black Knights 2000-2.jpg

Resolved
 – Read User talk:Polly
Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Black Knights 2000-1.jpg & Image:Black Knights 2000-2.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page (for Image:Black Knights 2000-1.jpg) and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
  3. Go to the media description page (for Image:Black Knights 2000-2.jpg) and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  4. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Polly (Parrot) 20:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sembawang Hot Springs (AGAIN?!?)

Resolved
 – asked Rifleman ownself go write the article!

I deleted this article per WP:CSD#G12 - blatant copyright infringement. It is a near-verbatim copy of the one listed at the National Library website. I don't doubt it is a worthwhile article to have, but there is no value in a copyright-violation article.

If you are still interested in this article, you can write an article from scratch, using the various available sources, and properly citing the sources used.

Do take a look at WP:CITE, WP:COPYRIGHT. In particular, from WP:COPYRIGHT:

Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt the project. If in doubt, write it yourself.

Thanks.--Rifleman 82 (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Buay tahan you la... do you know how many sources I went to re-search in order to set it apart from the NLB version? Plus, I only used like 35% of the original NLB version, the rest I took from MINDEF, old ST article from NLB and the Chinese version ley, some more I put in external sources for the images woh. KNS la... you write this article then, I quit! --Dave1185 (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I examined both articles side by side, and they were, as I earlier commented, near-verbatim copies. If you still disagree with my judgment, take them up to Wikipedia:Deletion_review. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm too tired, panda eyes now. Don't wana waste my energy on senseless article no more. BTW, the NLB version also used some text from that old copy of Straits Times... talk about plagiarising, sheesh! --Dave1185 (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Troll talk

Resolved
 – asked peep to read his own talk page

Hey now, I wouldn't say that, wouldn't say that at all... I live a bit away from there. Nice try though! - "state college" peep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.221.232 (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC) When did I say anything about living in State College, or in that ZIP code in the first place? Perhaps you should read your own talk page also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.221.232 (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Definitely vandalism to Singapore, but you warned him/her, and he/she stopped. A little advice -- I wouldn't do the "I know where you live" stuff to vandal IP talk pages. It only riles them up. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Roger. That's why I'm waiting for him to display more signs for us to do whatever is required to do whatever is neccessary to him. Reminds me why I like muffins in the morning. --Dave1185 (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Taunting blocked vandals is probably not a good idea. At any rate, it's completely unnecessary. Perhaps you could go make some useful edits. Tan | 39 21:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, you did get served by him so I'm just the bad guy here serving the unthinkable thing to the vandal. I know you must hate me by now but I really do like teasing them, kind of like trolling for fire if you will. IF he's reading it now, you're welcome! And please, have a muffin! --Dave1185 (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
You might find WP:DENY enlightening. The bottom line is that you are not being useful to Wikipedia when you do things like this, and really, we're not here for your personal amusement. Tan | 39 21:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Great, now I mildly feel like a dick. Look, just try to keep our higher goals in mind, okay? Tan | 39 21:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
What? Was it something I said? Hey, I don't mind being a dick sometimes if it helps, 'coz someones' got to do the dirty job, you know? Oh come'on, lighten up already! Smile! --Dave1185 (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


RE:Changi Air Base

Please do not turn such discussions into a personal matter, for I will make decisions based on content concerns rather than to avoid "letting anyone down", so to speak. The existance of three article is very simple: Changi Air Base still exists as a unit of the RSAF. Each of the two remaining articles are for the two distinct physical branches of Changi Air Base, each with its own facilities and Squadrons, so this technical distinction is important. It will be most appreciated if you may discuss such drastic changes in future before executing them.--Huaiwei (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine then but the question still remains, are you against merging CABW with CAB OR are you just contended with letting it remain as it is for now? --Dave1185 (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I am solely for keeping the status quo. It used to be just Changi Air Base, but when the new base was setup, we had the articles Changi Air Base (East) and Changi Air Base (West), with Changi Air Base as a redirect to Changi Air Base (West). However, this actually makes little sense for Changi Air Base still exists within the RSAF umbrella. Thus, Changi Air Base was recreated. To have only Changi Air Base and Changi Air Base (East) also dosent quite make sense because how can you have an article for an entity which includes the other, yes omits the existance of its second constituant part?--Huaiwei (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Right then, I will concentrate on the main page of CAB but I will also restore the "CABW" section but add a main article for it under the same section, how's about that? IF agreeable, could you please take care of CABW then. --Dave1185 (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

Sure, no problem. :) Thanks for the smile, too. Is there anything on Wikipedia you need help with?

Regards, Midorihana~いいですね? はい! 14:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... Well, I think the first thing to remember is to stay cool-headed. :)
I usually don't deal with images, but I'll try to see what I can do. Can you prove that your image was released on Wikipedia first? Midorihana みどりはな 07:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
If it's from a newspaper, then it would be copyrighted anyways, correct? It would be a derivative work then, I believe. I'm not too sure about this - you may want to ask other admins about this. Regards, Midorihana みどりはな 07:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
(note that this is not concerning the comparison between your image and the other one - this is about its actual status). Sorry for any confusion. Midorihana みどりはな`
  • I know, that website downloaded my image and re-edited it for their own use, whereas I made this image from scratch by scanning an old newspaper clipping and then edited it for use here on wikipedia. It could be considered as a derivative work since I did the adding of a title caption, a border and adding English text to replace the Chinese ones. Problem now is, I have long since disposed of that clipping after I was done with the scanning process and I cannot remember which newspaper or where I got it from (you know how newbies are, first time doing things on wikipedia and in the excitement of all of it). Oh boy! --Dave1185 (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... now this kinda just mixes up everything, doesn't it? :) Your image is a derivative of the Chinese newspaper image, and that website's image is a duplicate of your image minus the caption, correct? Now, I'm not too sure how to handle this - you may need to get an uninvolved admin's take on this. Midorihana みどりはな 08:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yup, you got that right. Now, I'm in a fix now since this was my very first image I uploaded to wikipedia and I had only done the whole editing in the belief that it was my own work, hence I released it as such into wikipedia. Not that I give a hoot about that website taking this image from wikipedia for re-use but the original image did not had a title caption, my part was just to add that and the borders as well as adding English text to replace the Chinese text in the quote boxes. If that qualifies as a derivative work, who should I be directing my queries to now for assistance... --Dave1185 (talk) 08:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
You would need to tag your image as a derivative of the Chinese newspaper, but you would need to know exactly what newspaper it is... Would it be possible to search in an archive for the newspaper? I'm not too sure who to ask, but I think continuing discussion with jbmurray and other editors should be enough. Midorihana みどりはな 04:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"Don't pose this to me again"??

Dave, what in the world is that supposed to mean? I assume you're objecting to the request to cite your sources properly. That's NOT optional, per WP:RS, et al. While we appreciate your enthusiasm for adding info to areas that lack coverage, please don't dissmiss the concerns of editors in good standing. - BillCJ (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha... sorry bout that Bill, I got a bit cheesed off when I was editing and amending the data there when I saw that tag. Well, for starters... I really get annoyed at this kind of "citation needed" thingies when I know that what I am contributing is correct but fact is it was widely known amongst the A-4 operators in the world that PTM stands for Peculiar To Malaysia for their A-4PTMs. According to the Jane's Defense Aircraft recognition handbook (1998 edition) I have, it is what it says here. Regards. --Dave1185 (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
You still have to cite your sources - it's not that widely known. Btw, I'm not happy about the expansion on the A-4SU page. I known I don't "own" the page, but it would be nice if you'd brought the matter up on the talk oage first. - BillCJ (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Relax Bill, let me have a free hand here, I promise I won't screw this one up for everyone here. Besides, what I wrote was a chronological description of how the A-4SU came to be, as for the datas... well, isn't it safe to assume the same as the A-4 since nothing was done to original wings of those refurbished A-4Bs and Cs? --Dave1185 (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Dave, your flipant flouting of one of WP's core policies doesn't inspire any confidence in your work. Also, I'm the one who created the A-4SU pagem and who added the specs, so I know where tose figures came from. The range figues are for the A-4SU, are directly fom the given source, and contradict what you've been adding. Please remember that the A-4SU is an older airframe than the A-4AR, which is based on the later A-4M. Please realize that by aadding information that might not be from reliable sources, you are creating more work for editors such as myself who will have to try to find reliable sources for your info, or else remove them. - BillCJ (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, I apologise for having done that without first consulting you. First, let us go through the range thing, is it or is not possible to go that far with 3 drop tanks? I remember that A-4SU of RSAF are regularly deployed to places like Australia, Philippines and Thailand for training exercises and they are usually seen with at least 2 drop tanks and sometimes 3. Second, do you agree that the wing for all version has not change a bit since the day the first airframe left Douglas aircraft factory in 1954. Third, you might not be aware but Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) has a very bad habit of under-declaring things all the time. Why wouldn't I know that? I'm from Singapore, I know very well how the SAF top brass feel about security and information disseminations all the time. But since the type is no longer in front-line service, I'm sure they won't mind me leaking a bit more than usual. Take it easy, Bill. Regards. --Dave1185 (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

My point, again, is that you've changed sourced information for unsourced, but not added your new sources. Anyone who has access to the listed source can double-check the figures, and see that thay are different. WP cannot use Original Research, ie. first-hand knowledge - we have to have sources that are verifiable, meaning that have been published (print or internet) by reliable sources. Even if the info is not quite right, it's better to use a source that isn't quite right then add info that no once can verify. - BillCJ (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Bill, leave the page of A-4SU to me, I promise you I will get the relevant data cited ASAP. Regards. --Dave1185 (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

A notice on a complaint

Resolved
 – Ask him go F spiders!

Dear Dave, though your actions are well intentional, even touches on fundamental issues of virtues & ethics earlier (conveniently brushed aside nowadays), pardon me saying here, but I find your 2nd warning to Bossieboy is unwarranted & your tone of comments & actions towards him has been rather harsh. I believe u are fully aware that repeated text or image copyvio will definitely catches the eye of any watchful patrollers or admins with follow-up warnings, & the removal of such images/text/article(s) speedily. I would like to highlight another similar case committed by a fellow SGpedian recently. Let's hope that Bossieboy would learn from this episode and read the 'Welcome Message' carefully, so that he can understand to contribute in a positive & responsible manner towards Wikipedia in future. Most importantly, to build up his trust & respect in the community. Stay cool & continue with your good work on the military hardware, formation and information which u have done relentlessly to date mate. Lastly, do note that the discussion below is already superseded by events, as such, it's pointless for u to respond now. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 06:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just to inform that u were strongly criticised on your heavy-handed ways in dealing with a user encountered during your patrols recently. In due fairness, I find that u were not given an opportunity to give an account of your actions earlier, so please refer to this talkpage for details. Please be cool & civil in your response. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a friendly note

The next time you feel inclined to say something along the lines of "please keep all your 5 cents or 2 cents worth of comments and cramp it up where the sun don't shine, this is not about you so don't make me come after your edits personally", don't. Period. I'm not easily offended, but others might take it the wrong way. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

  • What? I was borrowing your words only, and I can assure you it wasn't directed towards you but if you do take it as such then you can cramp it all back for all I care. I stand to be corrected. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


Possibly unfree Image:MATADOR_cutaway_diagram.JPG

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:MATADOR_cutaway_diagram.JPG , has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've left some comments on my talk page, though as I say think that any further discussion should take place at WP:PUI. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Aermacchi S-211

Dave, I've been looking at splitting the M-311 off of the Aermacchi S-211 page, but we don't appear to have any pics of the S-211 anywhere on WP or Commons. I note that it is used by the Republic of Singapore Air Force, so I was wondering if you had access to any free/usable images of the aircraft, especially those you may have taken yourself. Besides the S-211 page, the would make a good addition to the RoSAF article. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Alrighty but it might take me a while to sift through my past collections... could a picture from a magazine (as published by a defunct company that went bankrupt) be use? If yes, I will need to sniff it out somewhere from within my house, as I've said. Cheers! --Dave1185 (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Take your time, a couple of months is OK - we don't have deadlines here! As far as magazine pics go, I don't know if those are useable. It would depend on the copyright laws of the nation where the magazine was published. - BillCJ (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

  • BTW, I have tweaked the article. Hope you find it a much pleasant read than the previous version, do let me know if there is anything else you might want to be improve upon. As for the photo, I'm still looking high and looking low for them, I just hope that no silverfish would get to them first. --Dave1185 (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good overall, but should the USA be listed as an "Operator" if the aircraft was never used? I think that info would be better in the text. Btw, Aermachi and Boeing just announced a deal to jointly market the M-311, and we should probably reference that in the article. - BillCJ (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, I did labeled USA under "others" in that same section and added "(read variants)" so it shouldn't confuse plebians out there too much unless they didn't bother to read properly first. Pertaining to the new collaborative effort of Boeing and Aermachi, please add it under "External links" so I can add it in later as I have other fish to fry at the moment. Cheers! --Dave1185 (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dave, in response to your message on my talk page, I'm not really sure I can be of much help here. I think you've already done a good job of covering the reliable sources for the status of Philippine Air Force S-211s. If I read anything new though, I'll try to help. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Re-prioritise your Wiki goals

Just to drop by to give u a friendly advice here. To go along with the priority & long-term aspirations of Wikipedia, it would be wise & sensible to devote your precious time & energy to beef up the content or to improve the quality of your interested article, rather than wasting time on the procurement/editing of unfree images, or worse, fighting with the anti-fair use brigade every now & then. Even though I've won all my 'battles' (or at least a compromise to revert to the original status quo) against these pedantic folks previously, & even confident of engaging in an all out protracted war with them. I choose to devote my limited free time to write more DYK or GA quality articles for Wikipedia/SGpedia instead. I intervene only on certain cases to ensure fair play & treatment or to 'terminate' hardcore vandals & trolls. High profile cases which I fought & won were later used as a precedent or lasting reminder against any future troublemakers or wannabes. For a recent example, u can check out a case I fought during the on-going GAN exercise which I undertook personally for SGpedia here (u will notice that I've my fair share of supporters too). Consequently, these folks will think twice or shudder by the whole experience afterwards, & will either maintain a low profile or keep a respectful distance in future. If u can't take a pix of the subject or unable to find a free alternative next, heck with it! Let others create or find such images in the near future. No point pulling your hair out or retire over this frivolous matter which only benefited these folks in the long run. If u re-priortise your wiki goals now, you'll find yourself to be a much happier and saner person in the long run here. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur, Dave. Fighting the fair-use nazis is generally a losing battle, because they don't actually THINK about what they are doing beyond their agenda to rid WP of ALL non-free images, period/full-stop. I call them "nazis" because they show up like stormtroopers to "arresst" good images that might not have all there ducks in a row, and the pics are never heard from again! They are not generally reasonable at all, so there's no use arguing with them. You've done a good job improving several articles, and are well on your way to becoming a very good editor. Don't let the stormtroopers scare you off! - BillCJ (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

UAA

I just had to expunge almost the entire user-reported section at UAA because you were reporting borderline/non-violations per WP:U. I also noticed complete mis-categorizing. Please be more careful. Thank you! Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages

Just FYI: talk pages are almost never speedied. Talk:Stop Obama Express might be offensive, but it was technically created when the account was. --Justpassin (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Roger, wilco. Anyway, I checked both his user and talk page, both were splattered with his blatant advertising hence I just tagged one and left without looking back again. Cheers! --Dave1185 (talk) 05:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Much too late

Resolved
 – Subject much too late to mention

"Please don't make me bite" was a little too late there. Stop biting and use a little more civility. Fleetflame 00:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • For your information, I had told him to read through the welcome page in detail or refer to me for help before making so much controversial edit within the article of Doug Wead, he did not want to comply despite my several attempts telling him to slow down. Plus your comments to me is now... and I quote you "Much too late" as well. I have moved on and I will proceed to strike this conversation off since the issue is already past the time for the cows to come home. --Dave1185 (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

This Diff edit was not vandalism. Please don't bite. Jeepday (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Why would I bite if I had gave him a welcome page to read on? Be fair to me! I merely told him to stop making disruptive edits to the disamb page of RBI (which was arranged in perfectly working alphabetical order) and also to stop him from removing the RBI redirect from the page of Run battled in. You guys just jump the gun without digging deeper, what's the matter with proper and thorough investigations? Sheesh! --Dave1185 (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
He is clearly not familiar with all of our policies, but that edit was not vandalism. You both have a different opinion of how the links should sorted, and per WP:BOLD he has the right to change them. Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. He thought they should be one way you thought they should be another. If your way is correct per a manual of style it would be more helpful to list a link to that manual in the edit summary then to accuse the editor of Vandalism. If there is no manual supporting your choice then leave the edit as is while you talk about it. It takes two to Wikipedia:Edit war. Jeepday (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Jeep, I had told him so but he refused to listen and You might also note that most disamb pages are arranged in alphabetical order. What I did simply was just telling him to slow down and go read the welcome page I gave him to familarise with wikipedia before doing with his sweeping edits or pushing his view again. Well, let's see if he would really go read the fine prints first before editing again. I don't want to BITE because I understand being a newbie here. --Dave1185 (talk) 02:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
LOL, cheers to you as well, happy editing :) Jeepday (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

{{Inuse}}

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Soltam M-65, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/artillery/mortars/soltam_120mm_m-65/Mortar_120mm_M-65.html. As a copyright violation, Soltam M-65 appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Soltam M-65 has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Soltam M-65 and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Soltam M-65 with a link to where we can find that note.
  • If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Soltam M-65.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you. Lusum (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Vortex generators

Hi Dave. Thanks for the great photo of the Super Skyhawk, showing the VGs on the drooped leading edge. In the caption you refer to the "roll of vortex generators". I am puzzled as to whether you intended the "role of vortex generators" - ie their purpose and function; or if "roll of vortex generators" is a bit like "forest of vortex generators", as in "roll of drums". There needs to be a little fine-tuning of the caption. Cheers. Dolphin51 (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  • First of all, I would like to thank you for pointing that out to me because I was edit checking with my eyes half open... XD my bad, I've fixed the typo error on the other related pages as well. Anyway, thanks again! Cheers mate! --Dave1185 (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Fingers Mckenzie

May I ask why you suspect this user to be a Grawp sockpuppet? Algebraist 15:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering too. To me, there seems to be no evidence... the editor was nicely asking LaraLove to make here ribbon smaller so it didn't cover the navbox, what's so suspicious about it? Calvin 1998 (t-c) 15:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Guys, it was just a educated guess. There's been a lot of Grawp or Grawp clones activities today and I personally tagged thirty usernames for Persian Poet Gal to review (read her talk page!), they were all banned. Check the edit history of UAA, you'll see what I mean. --Dave1185 (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but on what was the guess based? I see an innocent username and a perfectly justifiable complaint. Algebraist 15:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • And btw, he seems too seasoned to be a new user. It might have been by chance that he navigated to Lara's page but I sincerely doubt so. I had originally tagged a welcome template on his page but before I could complete the action, I saw his comment on her page and then I started to conclude things. Thus, my welcome template to him as well as a sock template. If this had happened on any other day Grawp was inactive, I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. Henceforth, my educated guess. --Dave1185 (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Re your message

Sorry. I'm just really stressed out. Like I said, it's test season, and I had an incident with Huggle/Rollback. Check out mine and Keeper76's talk. If you read up on my story, you'll see why I'm so stressed. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 20:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Relax, you have a few options and they are...
  1. Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down,
  2. Wikipedia:There is no deadline,
  3. Wikipedia:The Most Important Thing Possible,
  4. Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state,
  5. Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built.

Most important of all, get a good rest, there's nothing worse than having not enough rest to cope with life's problem and that includes those on the intrawebs as well. Cheers mate! --Dave1185 (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe its just me, but I don't think some of those work.
  1. I don't like tea, and I am alrady sitting down.
  2. There is a deadline. I have to be off in 45 minutes before my mom gets home.
  3. The most important thing possible is what i am working on right now: showing everyone I am a trustworthy contributor and not some troll who got lucky.
  4. I don't focus on the future. I focus on now.

Thanks...dude? (I'm from CT, we don't have any regional greeting) Shapiros10 contact meMy work 20:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Having the drive to do things is good but sometimes it just might push you too far before you realise it... so like I've said, just relax and do what you can. Secondly, tea is far better than coffee than you might like to believe but it is true, go read up on it! Lastly, like I've said just now... take your time but hurry up! Go figure! XD --Dave1185 (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer apple cider, but I get the message. I'll relax! Shapiros10 contact meMy work 20:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Right, as long as the thing (anything) serves its purpose to sooth your nerves then you would be relaxed enough to prioritise things in their natural sequence and accomplish them accordingly. Cheers mate! --Dave1185 (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines formal request for mediation

Hi, User:Russavia has recently started another request for mediation in relation to the Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines fleet articles, but have omitted your name from the list. In light of your major contributions to the said article(s), I have added your name to the involved parties list. If you agree to participate, please sign your acceptance on that page. Thank you. --Huaiwei (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, if you indicate whether you agree or not, it'd be greatly appreciated by all involved. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I can agree to it although in my official position as a staff of the company it would compromise my standing on this and there you go. Go figure. --Dave1185 (talk) 03:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
So you're fine with the mediation going ahead without you? Daniel (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What now Ms Dave?

I have no idea who put the sand in your metaphorical vagina or why your women keep wanting rich Indonesian and Ang Mo dicky, okay? You must hvae eaten some dodgy Chinese hawker food or something- BUT you've got a nasty case of the shits and your're squatting at me today. Perhaps I can only guess you don't like the inconvenient truths that Singapore is US-UK colonial outpost and regional headquarters acting as a parasite of Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia, or the fact it has more secretive banking than the Swiss, or that it ain't a democracy and is actually more repressive than the Suharto regime under "I wish I was actually smart like Mao and Winsemsius" Lee Kwen Yew and Sons Inc (with British hand up his bottom), or that Chinese-Indonesian criminals routinely defraud money from Indonesia to stash in DBS and Temasek- guess what- grow up. It won't change facts. Who knows? Leave me alone please, the novelty of annoying each other is wearing off. PS- I already apologised. Stop being such a typical Sing-Army Sarong Party Girl cry-baby.Starstylers (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  • I have no idea why you would want to resort to personal attacks on so many editors here granted that you have been editing here since 2007 and why you would have no idea to the whole concept of civility even though you claimed to be a university graduate, you should know better than to be so combatively disruptive to the well being and functionality of wikipedia and it's community. Please note that I have reported you to the WP:ANI for your degrading racist remark here, please await whatever fate might befall you. Cheers! --Dave1185 (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If there are any other culturally different insults that you receive, feel free to message me on my talkpage. I suggest that you explain why they are considered insulting - so I may judge what may be an appropriate response - and please note that I may consider that the "insulter" is ignorant of the effect of the use of language and may only be (further) sternly warned. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • As stated, I will give you the exact meaning if ever I receive this kind of insult from the likes of him again. Thanks for your help and cheers! --Dave1185 (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

For the information of others, this outburst of incivility, assumption of bad faith and general incessant cluelessness about wikipedia is by no means a one-off. I’ve tried hard to work with this editor with a calm and encouraging manner for some time - see his talk page for some evidence. From memory, he got along with me OK, but his wiki-ettiqute and grasp of NPOV was non-existent. His term “moral masturbation” sticks in my mind, and in my opinion sums up his temperament and approach to NPOV fairly well. --Merbabu (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies- can we shake hands and move on?

Dear Dave

I offer my apologies for being immature and abrasive. If I may point out though- you are not entirely innocent- although I was indeed wrong and childish to continue annoying you.

Furthermore- I have no ill will against you or any fellow complainant- I fully support your freedom of speech, opinion and association- and though many others within SE Asia do not enjoy such intellectual liberties- I along with Voltaire feel it means allowing defending others' right to shout in your face what you find most offensive. I am more than willing to more forward as if this whole silliness never happened. Also I promise to respect your privacy the same way as I'd expect of mine. I hope we may put this matter behind us, agree to disagree as civil gents and move on. Please indicate on my talkpage if you'd like to move forward without animosity.Starstylers (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Talk is cheap. And all talk but no action makes one like you sounds so fake, however your contrite your apologies maybe, so we shall observe you and judge you by your deed. Also, your poor attempt to antagonize me with your double posting of this same message (which I had removed whilst adding this message), speaks much volume of your intent and you shallow mindedness. I forgive you. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Singapore Airlines.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.



Jet Provost T52

Not sure about the dates but I have three former South Yemen Air Force T52s operated by Singapore as 352, 355 and 356. 352 (which had been South Yemen 104) was sold in 1983 as G-PROV (still flying in the UK). MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I'm very sure that the Republic of Singapore Air Force did not operate any Jet Provost but Royal Saudi Air Force did. Btw, both air forces share the same acronym RSAF, could it be that this is the source of all this confusion? Read this http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-30031.html for yourself. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree they could be confusion but it looks like Singapore operated three aircraft for training before they got the Strikemasters. I have now added four different refs that all say Singapore (two from the UK Civil Aviation Authority) MilborneOne (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I buzzed a friend who works in the archives (don't ask!), he says that there were indeed three Jet Provost 9V-0352, 9V-0355 and 9V-0356 registered circa 1975. Was taken out of service around 1980 and replaced by Lockheed T-33 Shooting Stars which was in turn taken out of service in 1984. Thereafter, the RSAF basic jet trainer was based solely on the turbofan engined SIAI-Marchetti S.211s. Looks like this is another one of those over-looked facts which we would have missed out if we didn't went digging deeper, eh? Cheers! --Dave1185 (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
No problems - although I had sources there was an element of doubt so it is nice to have a Singapore source they are a bit lacking on the internet in that time period. Nice if we could find a picture somewhere! Thanks for looking into it. MilborneOne (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:STAR insignia.jpg)

Resolved
 – As I said before, bots are stupid!

Thanks for uploading Image:STAR insignia.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) 06:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Admin:east718 for helping me created the .png image to replace the current .jpg image, you may dispense with this notice and carry on ahead deleting the old format. Thank you~! --Dave1185 (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Advice needed

I think posting on WP:ANI is a good way to bring attention to what's happening. At this point I don't know if there's really anything else to do, unless the same user shows up again. And even if s/he does, there are a lot of other users (including admins) who are aware of the situation and will spring into action. I don't think you have to worry about "clearing your name" since everything is documented. ... discospinster talk 01:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Barnstar

Thank you for the barnstar!You have suffered horrible experiences by the troll, so well have a great weekend as forgetting the "incident". Best regards.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Hey, what can I say? I'm a troll magnet! With him gone, that makes five I've sent to the gallows already. I'm seasoned to their threats and tactics because I deal with people all the time, I know their thinking well enough so they can never be a step ahead of me, even. Cheers and have a great weekend! I know I will! XD ...Dave1185 (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Semprotected this page

Hey, I semiprotected your talk page and your userpage for 24 hours to stop the recent spate of harassment. If you want me to undo this, I will post haste. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm good. This is really amusing because my wife, she said this and I quote her: "You're a man, why do you need someone else to protect you? HA!". Women! So typical... but we laugh ourselves silly. Thanks and have a great weekend! ...Dave1185 (talk) 04:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Started a checkuser request:

[1]. If you have additional socks, post them there so we can feret out any sleepers. Toodles! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't use any sockpuppet although I might use different computers (maybe at home or at work) to login to WP but it's always this same username/account only. Like my wife said, I'm a one woman-man... haha! ...Dave1185 (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
No, I mean I started a checkuser on that tool who has been vandalising your page. What I meant was if you know of any of his OTHER socks, report them there. I could care less about any other accounts YOU may have... Sorry for the confusion. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

A Poem

For our dear thick-skin harasser... and I quote Thomas Henry Huxley:

"To twice slay the slain,

By dint of the Brain,
Is but labour in vain,
Unproductive of gain,

And so I shall bid you 'Adieu'!"

"Monkeyana", from Punch, May 1861.

Welcome to the Military history Wikiproject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! TomStar81 (Talk) 07:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Please take care

As much as some may see this as an example of me "galvanising alliances", I consider it only polite to thank you for directing me to the said section in question, without which I may very well miss it altogether!--Huaiwei (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

SSP case

Hi, Dave1185. Glad to see you've kept a sharp lookout for socks. Thanks for that. Just letting you know that I've looked into your case on User:Genetix1234, and am recommending no admin action be taken. The alt-accounts haven't edited yet, so there's been no abuse. I'll keep an eye on them. Again, thanks for your sharp vigil, and keep up the good work! Cheers! SunDragon34 (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I think your "IGNORE ALL RULES" banner ROCKS. That is awesome. SunDragon34 (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

2nd AfD nomination of Michael Q. Schmidt

An article that you have been involved in editing, Michael Q. Schmidt, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Q. Schmidt (2nd nomination). Thank you.'Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Hi Dave

.. and thanks for the welcome! --Kotu Kubin (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

same here. Thanks! singlish_speaker (talk) 06:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • No problem guys~! Uncle was also a wiki-newbie once... hehe! For Singlish speaker, study well and do your country proud! Or you can be an educated Ah Beng like my nephew now in RMIT, swears like me and loud as hell, it's a good thing his dad didn't kill me for that. XD Cheers~! ...Dave1185 (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Legend of the Galactic Heroes

Thanks. I didn't know about that. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:RSAF Black Knights formation.jpg

Image:RSAF Black Knights formation.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:RSAFBlackKnights-F16-200802.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:RSAFBlackKnights-F16-200802.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dave1185/Archive_1&oldid=1142958388"