User talk:Fusion7

Welcome!

Hello, Fusion7, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages 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 someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Johntex\^talk 06:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is my pleasure to have had the oppoturnity to welcome you. It looks like you are off to a good start. One minor note, if you type four tildes, like ~~~~, when you leave a message for someone, it creaes a link back to your page, which makes it just a tad easier for the recipient to reply to you. Please let me know if I can ever be of assistance and I will do my best to help if I can. Johntex\^talk 04:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article nomination for ocean sunfish article

After lots of work on the article, I've nominated ocean sunfish for Featured Article status. I noticed your post at Talk:Ocean sunfish, and thought you might be interested in taking part in the nomination discussion. I hope to see you there! PaladinWhite 01:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs

Ok it's not a stub however it was, the GuRoo one was especially small and detail-less before I added most of the info, I placed the stub tag more as a way to get people interested in the Choromet article but I was going to remove the tag from GuRoo because it's obiously not a stub anymore and I was considering doing the same for Choromet, so anyways thanks for saving me some work-Dark Dragon Flame 00:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not personal...

Hi Fusion7. I do hope you didn't take my objections to images on Gliese 581 c personally. Honestly, I have no objection to images on any page, and I do think it looks better. My objection is to images that convey either false impressions, or potentially false impressions to anyone reading the pages, especially anyone without the knowledge to tell the difference between an "artist's impression" and what is really known. No offense, I hope. I am no artist, but can tell the difference between wild speculation and a reasonable interpretation (see my comments re: the dinosaur images). Cheers, and again, no offense intended. (By the way, it was a rollicking good debate, and you held your end up very well!) Esseh 04:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

58 Pegasi B

Hi Fusion - maybe you missed it, but I made an alternative image for the 58 Pegasi b image that you proposed to remove. It's up on the review page. Cheers, Debivort 03:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template removal?

Is there a particular reason you removed [1] the {{United States Naval reactor}} template from D2G reactor? --Kralizec! (talk) 02:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Knight

Thanks and nice work! But for some reason the Defence update link didn't work so i fixed it. --Climax-Void ^{Chat or My Contributions}

Archiving talk page threads at Talk:Racism

Hi, Talk:Racism is waaaay too huge with over 115 talk threads. Would you be willing to help tag talk sections with {{resolved}} and {{stale}} as appropriate so we can start archiving old talk threads? Even a few at time will help! Thank you! Banjeboi 22:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rev War infobox

The Treaty of Paris describes the conclusion of the war in detail. Every other major conflict has a result as simple as possible; the treaty which ended the war. Also, nothing personal but the article has to be kept neutral. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Nobody in their right mind considers the American Revolution a victory for the British. In the war, the Imperial forces failed at their primary goal: keeping the colonies. If a nation fails at its primary goal in a war, can't that be called a defeat? Fusion7 (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whaaaaaaaaat? I never said the war was a victory for the British, so I have no idea where you got that from. The infobox has to be kept as brief as possible, if someone clicked on the Treaty of Paris link that describes in detail the outcome of the war. Or alternatively, they could just read the aftermath section in the article. None of the other major wars, such as the War of the Austrian Succession don't have any kind of "Allied victory" for instance, just the treaty that ended the war. Wars in this era rarely ended in a "total victory" for one side like in the medieval era, they were ended more often than not with a formal treaty. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You just said that the infobox should be as clear and simple as possible. Are you saying that "American victory" is more complex than "Treaty of Paris?" If anything, an average person looking the war up would find it much less confusing if it simply said "American victory" in addition to "Treaty of Paris." What if the person did not know about that Treaty? For your second point, The article on World War 1 uses the term "Allied Victory," despite the lack of a total conquest. By your definition, the article on the Spanish American War should also not use the term "US victory." (But it does) Plus, the British gained nothing from the war. How would that not be a defeat? Fusion7 (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they know about the treaty is irrelevent, all they require to do is to look up the treaty. The British did gain some territory from the war, the Dutch ceded some territory in south-east India to the British. The problem is, if someone puts American victory for example, other editors will begin adding more and more such as "American victory, colonies ceded by Britain to America, ignition of American-Indian struggles" etc etc etc and it will just get too cluttered. Some infoboxes have been repeatedly spammed to hell due to people wanting to add more and more and more information, notably ones on the Hundred Years War and I think the World War 2 article also had the same problem. World War Two would have the "Allied victory" in the result as it was a total conquest of the Nazi German empire. As for World War 1 I guess you could say it was a total allied victory as the German armed forces (to my knowledge) had been completely broken and was completley unable to resist the allied powers. While in the American Revolution, the British Army was effectively broken, there was still around a dozen thousand troops stationed in New York or so, but the political side of it was so enormously pressuring that there was no support for the war any longer; and also, the Royal Navy was still free to do whatever it wanted. As an example, after the Siege of Yorktown, Washington believed the war would drag on for another year. It didn't it dragged on for another two; mainly at sea. The British navy won several decisive victories following the siege. Following the Hundred Days Offensive in World War 1, and with the Royal Navy blockade at sea, the German armed forces could do pretty much nothing.

As to your query, it doesn't alert me if someone writes on here, but it does alert me if something is written on my talk page. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I suppose you could have "Allied victory" in it, not American victory as without the outsider support that America received during the war they would have most likely lost the conflict. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I found out something new. The reasons why there is a listed victory on the First World War, is because Germany and its entire government and military formally surrendered to the allies. The British government never surrendered during the American Revolutionary War, there is a difference between a formal sueing for peace and an unconditional surrender. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Proposed deletion of Diesector

The article Diesector has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources. Might be mergable to Battlebots but does not warrant a dedicated article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death of OBL

U.S. presidential address: Let's put this to a vote. Brmull (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012 Study of authors of health-related Wikipedia pages

Dear Author/Fusion7

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address recently edited an article on Dubin Johnson Syndrome. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain and if interested, please visit my Talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Fusion7. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]