User talk:Maury Markowitz/Archive Jul 2007

Help needed

Would you take a look at Chevaline and its history and talk pages? I could really use some help here with a persistant person who I believe is being malicious. I could be wrong, but that's my earnest belief. He is consistently trying to obliterate any reference to a well-recorded event supported by citations that he perceives as critical of the former USSR, when the reference is merely used as background-setting material for other wider issues. There is no criticism of the USSR in my text, and, I've offered to compromise if he will suggest a text. Its not acceptable for someone to persistantly vandalise articles in order to whitewash the Soviet Union. And I'm convinced that is the motivation here. Similar references have been obliterated from other articles, one being Suez Crisis. I've asked two administrators to intervene, but it seems that no one is interested. An object lesson in how to drive away contributors who try to add content and value. Wikipedia won't survive long-term if destructive people are not kept under control. Brian.Burnell 17:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go Nuts! No chance, I like it. It needed a radical overhaul. I just couldn't see it. Too close to the wood to see the trees. It had got into the state it was by a creeping process of adaptation of various unrelated bits and pieces added by several contributors at different times, with no-one standing back far enough to look ar it critically. Although Dr Richard Moore an expert in this area had given it an OK. But I guess he was not concerned with its style or wiki conventions.

The Khruschev remark was well-documented, but it was not the only example that could be used to illustrate where the UK govt motivation was coming from. Chevaline grew and drew on several different research strands from the decoys and penaids planned for Blue Streak, evolving into similar items for Skybolt, and transferred to Polaris with later addition of the Antelope research strand. A collection of bits and pieces again.

There are illustrations in the pipeline for the Chevaline page, but were being held back until things cooled down a little. I'm not a professional illustrator; its just an enjoyable pastime that relieves stress. After discussions with others about photo copyright issues on wiki I'd concluded that one way to circumvent these probs was to use self-drawn pics where copyright couldn't be challenged. I plan more because in this area of nuclear history the only photos available are likely to be Crown copyright. Although I'm planning to raise this issue with the AWRE technical historian next week. She may be able to grant access to better pics.

Thanks for your help Maury. I feel relieved of a great weight. Brian.Burnell 23:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chevaline illustration

The first of a pair is ready for use if required on the Chevaline page. Its uploaded to Image:Polaris A3TK Chevaline RV and PAC toe-in and tilt-out.gif. 200px should size it similar to the one on the Polaris page. Brian.Burnell 22:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded a pic at Image:Chevaline front end.jpg that we might be able to use if I can resolve copyright issues. I'm uncertain about these at present. And the pic is of poor quality, and I'm hoping to get access to a better quality copy from AWRE. I took a phone call Tues from the MoD about it and they seem to want to help. More on the rocket motor questions shortly. Brian.Burnell 23:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very glad you are in!. The decoys were 'popped' from the tubes using a small solid rocket motor. The pipes you see are armoured cables running to the tube latches that open the top hatch rather like a lidded beer tankard. The two forward-facing rocket exhausts are the liquid-fuelled manouevering rockets. Liquid-fuelled so that they could be ignited intermittently. The hot gas system exhausts were on the side of the conical structure and were used to turn the PAC on its forward-aft axis. The remaining two rocket motors were solid-fuel and can't be seen on this pic. They were v.large and pointed aft to separate the PAC from the second-stage after tilt-out. The hostility to Chevaline shown by the Navy was in part because the Navy were reluctant to have liquid-fuel stored aboard subs. Remember the Kursk? The RN had a similar experience around 1947-55. The decoy tubes numbered 27 in total and pointed fore and aft, and were of two types, long-throw decoys and short-throw. It was certainly v.complex for a beer keg. The actual PAC structure was of an aluninium-balsawood-aluminium sandwich, and you might have noticed from the Polaris drawing that the nose cone was made of laminated wood. A good trick question for a pub quiz. The illustration in progress shows the sequence from nose cone eject onwards in a series of boxes. Rather like a theatre storyboard format. The uploaded pic will need some work done on it to bring it up to a better quality. Brian.Burnell 23:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. There was also a solid-fuel rocket motor in the flare (or skirt) of each RV to separate the RVs from the second-stage booster and the PAC. Similar to those in the original Polaris A3T. When these motors separated the RVs the second-stage was relieved of their weight and accellerated away between them. That wasn't a prob on A3T but it was with Chevaline, with a number of collisions on test. But all this stuff is really too complicated for a short encyclopaedia article. Brian.Burnell 23:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS again. The drawing at Allen Thomson's FAS page you suggested might be cleaned up etc. I got there before you. That is the pic I'm using, cleaned-up, simplified and reduced in size as the basis for my storyboard illustration, which is about ten days away because of other committments. The FAS pic is not complete anyhow. It doesn't show the heatshield, which I'll add. The heatshield was located over the front of the PAC, inside the nose cone to protect the delicate bits other than the RVs from Exit Heating after the nose cone ejected. Exit Heating is the aerodynamic heating generated by the missile accellerating through the v.thin atmo on the upward trajectory. Re-entry heating in reverse. Most pics don't show the heatshield because it can obscure other details. Its still in place at tilt-out and ejected before PAC/RV ejection. The armoured cables referred to above were armoured to protect them from EMP and X-Ray heating from ABM bursts. The glued-on cork sheet also visible in places (and also wrapped around the decoy tubes) was protection from exit heating. Brian.Burnell 07:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for all this material are already cited in the main article, although the principal one is the published papers of the R.Aero Soc, also cited. Its now available in electronic format only from me as a OCR scan. Zipped-up at about 1Mb it can be sent as an email attachment if required. Nose cone removal. The nosecone ejected fairly early and wasn't intended to deal with exit heating, because on original Polaris, exit heating wasn't a prob because A3T didn't have all that delicate kit up front. It still ejected early on Chevaline because the Navy's 'minimum changes' requirement led to the original nosecone and eject control kit being retained on Chevaline. The actual release mechanism was an explosive line charge that severed the nose cone at its base as the eject rocket ignited. You will have gathered from this that exit heating was an unanticipated event that pushed up costs and extended the delays, and early tilt-out also exacerbated exit heating probs. The RVs could deal with it unaided, but the rest couldn't. Brian.Burnell 07:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message ref penaid deployment and part complete illustration at my Talk page. Brian.Burnell 19:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reply

I replied on my talk page. In short, you will have to hash it out with User:WillowW. BTW, you may want to archive some of your talk page, it takes quite a while to download and render. linas 03:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chevaline illustration

Is ready. Its inserted into the Chev page below the toe-in tilt-out pic, but might be better relocated to break up the large blocks of text. Its rather large, but thats inevitable given the subject and layout. I see from the new text that you've been assimulating the stuff in the symposium papers. Its quite involved for a beer keg. If there are other illustrations needed elsewhere eg. other pages I'll be happy to help out. Met the resident historian at AWRE Aldermaston on Sunday and had an email from her today ref access to photographs. Not good news. We may need to recourse to the Fair Use provision with Crown copyright photos. Aldermaston have invited me to visit the site next week and I'll raise the photos issue again because the same prob exists across all Wiki UK nuclear weapon pages. Brian.Burnell 22:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Tilt-out is a bit unnecessary now. But its mainly your text. You decide. A message left on my Talk ref a possible photograph. Brian.Burnell 13:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really like the word 'free' to be inserted before 'abridged email download' in the external references. It got edited out, but I don't want impoverished students to feel that it has to be paid for. Brian.Burnell 18:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets get together!

I think we should all sit down and drink and eat and what not. I propose a meetup at Future Bakery, on the corner of Brunswick and Bloor, on Wed. August 16, 2006 @ 7pm. Lets discuss it. joshbuddy, talk 15:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Fusion

You made some great changes to the "Cold Fusion" section of the Steven Jones article. I was hoping, however, that you could cite the source for the added info. Thanks, Levi P. 22:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see it in the original edit...my mistake. Cheers. Levi P. 06:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chevaline Redux

Its really good. Streets ahead of what was there before, because I suspect few people understood just how complex Chevaline was. The numbers of targets to be assessed by ABM radars, and the complexity of them is perhaps why the US are still interested in using Chevaline as target practice for their own ABM developments. But I've seen no hard evidence of whether that's true or not.

Just three points to make.

The final section headed 'Description' might be better moved en block to follow the section on Development, with Further Political Developments winding it up.

I agree with you about removing the tilt-out pic, but didn't attempt it myself because I'd like to see an internal link to it on its Image page for those who want a closer look. But I don't know how to do that so left it alone.

The steep reduction in range was a serious issue for the Navy. It shrank their sea-room by 550 nautical miles as the crow flies to Moscow. I've had a think about how that can be emphasised simply, using a map. There are some archived declassified maps of Galosh sites and Soviet radar coverage on all possible Polaris flight paths ending at Moscow. The quality isn't good and are maybe not suitable for wiki in that form. I'll email both for you to judge for yourself. I was thinking though of reversing the usual format and showing a map with Moscow as the radius centre and with all the sea areas that Polaris could hide in at 2500nm range, with the smaller areas for Chevaline superimposed in a different shade. And also showing just a simple coastline and shallow continental shelf areas not suitable for patrolling in. Brian.Burnell 17:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A curious ref to Chevaline's Harriet primary and its resistance to spontaneous fissioning under ABM attack turned up at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue. The site won't allow direct access. You need to go to the above, and enter 'ES12/307' in the ref search box, or 'Harriet AND ABM'.

The ES ref indicates that the archive originated at AWRE Aldermaston.

The ref to Section 3.4 (of the Public Records Act) indicates that the doc is still classified, but we are allowed to know it exists, and deduce what we can from the titling, thats IMHO a ref to effects other than X-Ray heating, probably neutron flux, and suggests that neutron flux resistance was a feature of the test programme.

There are several docs, some classified, some not, when trawling for refs to ABMs, and might be worth a look. Although they arn't available online. The UK govt is still in the Dark Ages of IT. And the Joint Intel Staff archives might be worth a look for ABM refs. Unfortunately, if ABM doesn't appear in the titling it won't show in an online search. I'll have to pay them a visit. Brian.Burnell 10:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request came from a reader (with a British Foreign Ministry e-address !) asking that I share with him the precise National Archives references that are just grouped together as one item in 'References'. I intend to revisit Chevaline and without changing the existing text, insert individual reference notations. After the style used in Violet Club. Its a chore, but will benefit people who want to dig a little deeper. Brian.Burnell 14:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deployment sequence graphic changes are the result of a visit to see the PAC at RAF Kemble featured in the photo. I've been pondering on how it was possible for the PAC to assume any attitude in space with only the hot-gas jets to rotate it, plus the two rearwards pointing rocket motors (that are not vectoring). At Kemble I found that there are two more hot-gas jet exhausts as shown in the new graphic. These are fuelled from the same hydrazine tank and are on the lower periphery of the PAC spaced at 90° on one side of the PAC only, adjacent to the rotational jets. These would cause the PAC to tumble tail to nose in two directions. There was no mention of these hot-gas jets in any of the literature, and came as a complete surprise, and answers my questions about attitude selection entirely. I'll get some photos on my next visit. Brian.Burnell 22:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G-lader

hi got your message re the g-type supercharger.... yeah, i also think that's an interesting gadget that deserves some attention, but unfortunately don't have anything on it. i'll keep my eyes open, though. Gzuckier 14:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look on the AppleSearch talk page.

Mattisse (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fusor

Hi Maury, do you happen to remember the sources used for your major revision of the fusor article on Feb 25, 2003? The edit notes only say "lots of new stuff, sectionized too". I am currently working on the German version of it (which now runs under the German words for "inertial electrostatic confinement", de:Elektrostatischer Trägheitseinschluss); I have had a look at the article by Hirsch in J. Appl. Phys., but there must be much more that you have used. Many thanks! --Anastasius zwerg 20:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AppleSearch

Since you seem familiar with Wikipedia, then you know that the references at the bottom are not adequate as you read on the talk page. NLOleson 22:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AppleSearch

That was a summary of these comments of yours:

I'm getting rather tired of your edits, Mattisse. I have asked you on several occasions to point out exactly what your complaints are, but to date you have refused to do so. In the three exchanges so far you have simply invented some other set of complaints instead of answering the questions I asked. One might conclude that you have no basis for your complaints.

In your latest series you have scattered "reference needed" throughout the article. As I have pointed out twice now, once here, once on the article's talk page, the references have been provided. If you could be bothered to read the ones I included, you will note that every place you inserted a "reference needed" is covered in one of the four linked documents. In fact, one of them is the actual software that you stamped with a "reference needed" for its existence!

You appear to have started with good intentions, but your behavior since then appears to be driven largely from hubris.

Maury 14:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

TomTheHand said that, although he found your reaction surprising, he thought you would shape up and that I wasn't realizing you were a newbie. He said if you didn't shape up he would send you a message, which he did:

Maury, the article would benefit from in-line citations. I believe that's what Mattisse is requesting. Yes, the information in the article is from the sources at the bottom, but what information is from what source? TomTheHand 15:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So that is what was going on. We are just trying to get you to source your article properly. Mattisse (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Reading this talk page because you sent me a completely inapropriate note regarding this issue. (Why?) And I find the talk page of AppleSearch more than adequately outlined the problems of your article. Perhaps you are not able to understand? Ask someone more capable to aid you. NLOleson 02:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(For the reader: Mattisse marked up the article in question with four tags, and didn't bother to post in the talk page why he/she did it. At least some, if not all, of the tags were innappropriate, and as Mattisse didn't respond to questions about them, I removed them all considering them to be an example of drive-by tagging. Mattisse then immediately placed a PROD tag into the article (against rules), and posted in the talk a completely different set of complaints. When I pointed out how they were baseless as well, he/she then made another complaint. I then found that Mattisse was mis-representing this chain of events on several other user's pages, essentially insulting me. I have asked for an appology, this is the response. Here he/she wishes to claim this is all a harmless request for references, which were in the article from before the first tags went on. Feel free to check the histories of all the pages in question. I am not the only person to question this behaviour, the talk page is literally filled with such examples, and Mattisse's edit log is filled almost entirely with PROD tagging and AfD's.)

(Also for the reader: it turns out NLOleson is one of many sockpuppets that Mattisse was operating to post "support" for any controversial edit, including single-purpose accounts for voting in favour of AfD's. Mattisse has since been blocked for this behaviour. You'll note a name-calling post below, along with another "vote of support" message.)

Gaffitti in Cray?

Dude, what's going on in Cray? You hardly seem the sort to add graffitti. Is someone impersonating you? Maury

You mean the "Pretty cool, huh?" edit to the image caption? Yeah, that was me, I thought it was a pretty apt description for what is generally considered a pretty impressive piece of hardware. --NEMT 19:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are an odd little fellow!

What makes you think I could possibly be interested in your preoccupations and ramblings? NLOleson 00:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Not a problem, glad to clarify. For the purposes of sourcing, Apple documents in an article about Apple software are considered self-published sources. If you look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves, the guideline places restrictions on what types of information sources of this nature can support. Some of the statements in the AppleShare article conform to this standard (such as system requirements and release dates), while others do not (the section on the Advanced Technology Group, the re-use of code within Sherlock, etc.). More specifically, things of the latter nature conflict with the passage of WP:RS which states that reputable self-published sources should not "involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject". Given this, placing tags asking for more/better verification was not an unreasonable response. I'm sure that truly independent sources could be found without too much work; you just need a library with a stock of back issues from Macworld or MacUser, plus a little free time. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look, and I found a few articles that might be useful, if you can find paper copies of these publications (or don't mind paying for the digital version):

"AppleSearch 1.0", a product review in MacWorld.
"AppleSearch revised for Internet", an article on the updates to 1.5 in the same source.
"AppleSearch; how smart is Apple's intelligent agent?", a product review with accompanying article in "Online" magazine.

Best of luck! -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-sequitur: You were there for the Rosebud demo? That's so cool!) Unfortunately, we can't use direct personal evidence, for source reasons, and I'm honestly not sure we'd be able to use it even if you still had the e-mail. On the bright side, there appears to be a print reference to the two in this book, which would probably do the trick. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The big issue with personal experience is that it can't be verified by an outside party (and thus is in conflict with WP:V, even though it's not explicitly stated). If someone wants to look up a print citation, they just need a copy of the book/magazine, but if they want to look up whether you dropped by Steve's desk back in the early '90s, they're stuck. Like I said, though, that book reference largely confirms the account, so if that's added to the article as an inline citation, it should resolve the issue. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delayed response; I've been away for a while, and I just noticed the continuation of the issue. In answer to your questions:

The guideline on when to use citations can be found at WP:CITE#When_to_cite_sources, and on which style to use at WP:CITE#How_and_where_to_cite_sources. Many different styles are considered acceptable, and if contributors can't come to an amicable consensus, the standard reverts to the preference of the majority contributor (in this case, that'd be you). That said, more specific citations are generally better than more general ones, and I as a preference usually go with footnoted in-line citations (as described at WP:FOOT).
It's generally not good form to remove a "cite needed" tag that you did not add, unless it was obviously added in bad faith (i.e. added as a WP:POINT violation, or by an indef-blocked editor, or something similar). Even if you don't think that the statement in question really needs a citation, it's often best to do so in the interest of comity, and ultimately all statements are supposed to be verifiable according to WP:V anyway. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: newbie

Thought you were a newbie because TomTheHand said you were one and that I shouldn't bite the newbies with you. He thought I was doing that on the AppleSearch talk page -- expecting too much of a newbie. For me, I hadn't thought about it one way or the other until he mentioned it. But it is something I should think about as TomTheHand has made clear. Mattisse (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimood

No I did not create the wikimood images, you have Cool Cat to thank for that. But I would be happy to help you set it up if you would like. The way I do it is to transclude a subpage - User:Maury Markowitz/Wikimood for example - anywhere I want the image to appear. Then add the text {{WM|<alignment>|User:Maury Markowitz/Wikimood|<level>}}, as well as any formatting to the subpage. Then voila! Simply update the subpage anytime you decide to change your mood. The levels go from -10 to 10, and note that a leading zero is required for single digit numbers ( 09 for example). That just about does it, let me know if you need any help. Happy editing! Prodego ^talk 22:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the leading zero (it should be 01) and you linked to the page instead of transcluding it on your userpage. I think that should fix it up. Prodego ^talk 22:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help! On a side note, if you, Mattisse, and TomTheHand would like some unofficial mediation, I would be happy to help you out. Prodego ^talk 22:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well based on the look of it TomTheHand wants to make sure everything is referenced. I think using the Wikipedia:Footnotes notation would be best, which, while not mandatory, is pretty convenient. All I think he wants is a nice fact check on the article. So if you don't mind helping me find sources for everything, this will be all cleared up. Prodego ^talk 23:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well including references is policy (Wikipedia:Verifiability) so tagging uncited claims would be a productive change, although not as productive as citing the sources yourself. There is no way for it to be vandalism. Where did you get the information on AppleSearch? Surely you can verify it from there? Remember that "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain" (from WP:V). Prodego ^talk 00:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that isn't really vandalism per se, but as long as it were only one article it is fine. Now if I went around doing to every article you create it would be Wikistalking. You should be able to cite everything anyway (ideally). Now you said it mostly came from one source? Could you use the Wikipedia:Footnotes style and reference all you can? That way we can see what is left to be done. Prodego ^talk 00:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that is a separate issue, which I will deal with as well, separately. Please simply add the references. If you can't do so, remove the material can't cite sources for. Please do that before bringing up any concerns about TomTheHand's behavior. This will make things a lot easier. Prodego ^talk 02:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right. Thanks for refrencing what you can, and your help and cooperation. If you need anything, don't hesitate to let me know. Happy editing, and good luck. Prodego ^talk 12:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See message from you to me about Mattisse being so wrong

Looks like Mattisse was right after all. I have read Tom the Hand's page about you and have also noticed that he has repeatedly reverted your AppleSearch page whenever you improperly removed the citations needed tags. The result is that article is coming around and the proper citations are being added. So the net result has been good for you page, not "damaging" as you wrote to me.

Hopefully you are learning from this experience. It is a little scary to think that you have done all the editing you claim without understanding the basic requirements. NLOleson 13:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You sent me a Barnstar!

You think I'm a better editor because now I think Wikipedia is joke, I guess. TomTheHand won't even deal with you anymore. Mattisse (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mattisse

Mattisse has promised to follow the rules from now on; there's not really any reason to force him to keep the sockpuppet notice on his userpage. It's all there in the history if someone is interested. Thanks anyway for your concern; I appreciate it. Regards — Dan | talk 19:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SA's nukes

SA is the only country to have developed an independent nuclear weapons capacity and then renounced it (and dismantled the weapons). It's a slightly more precise definition than just giving up the weapons—a number of former Soviet bloc countries inherited nuclear weapon capabilities at the end of the Cold War and eventually gave them all to the Russian Federation, which technically counts as giving up the weapons (they could have, hypothetically, insisted on maintaining them as new nuclear states, though it would be have been diplomatically difficult). --Fastfission 17:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I wanted to say that I stumbled across Project Alpha the other day and was fascinated. I see you've worked a lot on the article, good job! --Fastfission 23:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heartening award

The article, Induced gamma emission was my first major effort on Wikipedia. Now, that I see here how many responsibilities you personally undertake, I am doubly appreciative that you took the time to do so much mentoring with me; and then to commend the result. It made a great impression on me about how much dedication exists among the Wikipedians. --Drac2000 21:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rcdsbbes.png

Hi, thanks for your kind post. I decided that I would actually like to delete it which lead to my removal from the FirstClass page. If you can delete, it would be much apreciated. If not, i was expecting that the 7-day delete policy would do it for me. Thanks. Zooobala 02:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One smart fellow:

He felt smart. Two smart fellows, they both felt smart. Three smart fellows, they all felt smart. --153.104.200.23 16:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the teenager single moms with out of control daughters

You're not entertaining Maury. You're just wasting everyone's time. Stop it. This is your second warning (first warning was from TV Guide). --NEMT 19:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huge lasers

Good to see someone else on here with an interest in large laserfusion facilities. I will try to help you with iamges for the LMJ article. --Deglr6328 01:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re : No concensus?

I didn't count (the mantra these days is that AfD isn't a vote), but I did notice that there are anonymous IP votes that have to be discarded. Even if we go by your tally of 9 to 22, there is still no consensus as the majority is only a mere ~60% (the usual treshold is around 70% or more). - Mailer Diablo 23:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Pro Front Row

You can't activate it, thats the thing. But its definitly installed:

System/Library/CoreServices/Front Row.

I am going to find my install disks and perform an "Upgrade Install" and make sure I install Front Row. Maybe this will make it pop up. --15:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

My Bot

I am not having bot problems Category:Satellite navigation(redlink) does not exist. That is the reason for the removal please feel free to create the category and repopulate it. 19:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

High-Z

You did some cleanup in Laser Mega, but one of the links is wrong, it links to "high impedance" instead of "heavy metal". I would argue that "heavy metal" is a better term anyway, the average reader would seem to be much more likely to understand it at first glance.

Also, I'm questioning my own terminology that I've used in several of these articles. In all of the public information about these devices, the civilian fusion research side is stressed. They either ignore the x-ray issue entirely, or alternately say what I copied into the articles, that it's more efficient. But after comparing the indirect drive systems in the US (and France) with the direct drive systems in Japan, as well as the PDD papers from Omega, it seems that the only reason one would use the indirect drive is for bomb research. Do you think this is accurate? Maury 13:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oops. I just assumed "high Z" would go where we both thouht it should. I'll change it. I think you are excatly right about the use of X-ray conversion in hohlraums being pretty much only used for weapons research. What you may be confused about with regard to efficiency is that while YES the efficiency of a target absorbing x-rays is better than one absorfing UV light, and one absorbing UV light is better than one absorbing infrared light, the fact remains that the INEFFICIENCY of the conversion of the UV beams to X-rays is so bad that it makes the overall process of hohlraum use not worth while if your're going for total overall efficiency. The choice for total overall efficiency is I think invariably going to be direct drive with either UV or green irradiation. --Deglr6328 20:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!

Thank you so much for your help on the llnl laser series!! I'm so pleased with the way things are developing for those articles. I thought I'd have to do it all myself when I started!! :o) --Deglr6328 20:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optical frequency Multiplication

Second harmonic generation is not usually called optical frequency multiplication, nor is it usually done with quartz. Could you please switch the article back to its former name? Go ahead and write another article for third harmonic generation - they are quite distinct processes - using completely different setups or materials. Where did you get the impression that SHG is usually called optical frequency multiplication? Is this a term that is common in fiber optics or chemistry?--J S Lundeen 12:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for switching it back. Second harmonic generation is not always a device in and of itself but sometimes part of a larger device (e.g. SPIDER or a frequency tripler). For that reason and because it is usually called "second harmonic generation" it should probably remain under the current title. As you have likely discovered, quartz was the first material used (as the article notes), but nowadays people use specially developed crystals, such as the ones you mention in optical frequency multiplication. BTW: The SHG talk page still redirects to the OFM talk page. --J S Lundeen 15:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darn,,,

Looks like a bit of an impasse in the laser articles, I've got a big e-mail out to one of the main HiPER guys with some tech questions, but nothing back yet. Can you believe they actually picked a name that's already being used for a laser at GEKKO?!? I mean, come on guys!

Anyway I'm also gathering materials for the NOVA article, which is in a sorry state. Anything you wanted to do before I jumped it?

It's also interesting to see all the fallout from the fast ignition approach. It seems that any idea of using ICF for commercial power disappeared after NOVA and the MJ-level ignition requirements, and since then every design has been weapons related (GEKKO and Omega pre-date this realization?). But now the compression levels needed are so much lower to get reasonable gains that everyone's jumping back in. Even heavy-ion compression is starting to see development, there's a couple of good intro-level LLNL articles on it and it seems they're really looking to do a testbed in the next little while. 20-40% electrical-to-compression, beats the heck out of lasers! There's even some sort of canadian team getting going out west (I wonder if Triumf would be useful for this stuff?)

I might be a little busy over the next couple of days, my Mac Pro should be arriving shortly and I'll likely be playing with that a bit. 30" screen... mmmmmmm I'm also in a bit of an edit war in the CANDU article (hey, would you mind taking a look and telling me if I'm full of it?) that I'd like to cool off from.

BTW I noticed the post above. You might want to try the Firefox 2 beta some time. It has a built-in spell checker that isn't all that smart but still gets 95% of the dumb things I type.

Maury 21:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I think the choice of HiPER is ok. The HIPER program at GEKKO is really only an experimental configuration campaign. Its the same laser, they just reconfigured the beams to impinge on targets in a certain cone-like formation so they can do some specialized equation of state/high intensity shockwave propagation in metal stuff. Definitely no fusion capsule implosions with this thing. It actually looks like they may not even be using that config. anymore.....but I'm not sure. I wish I could visit that place to see thier setup.

"(GEKKO and Omega pre-date this realization?)." yes that's correct. --Deglr6328 04:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:HiPER baseline design.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:HiPER baseline design.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Teledyne Ryan M-350 UAV

You put a note on the talk page of this article in relation to deleting it...would you mind dropping the same line over at the AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teledyne Ryan M-350 UAV? Thanks! Akradecki 15:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heinkel HeS 40

hey, I just came across this article and it's looking pretty interesting, but it really needs some references. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

License tagging for Image:ICF laser power.png

Thanks for uploading Image:ICF laser power.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

new memory cat?

I didn't add any new catagory. I just noticed that the "Obsolete..." catagory existed and that core memory and punch cards were in it and none of the other contempory obsolete memory technologies were. So I added the ones I knew to be obsolete (practically anything from the core memory era and earlier). -- RTC 22:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the "Obsolete..." catagory should be a subcatagory of the main one and the obsolete ones removed from the main one. -- RTC 22:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mid 1990's apple

hey maury

i noticed you contributed a lot to the "Copland" article. did you work at apple? how do you know so much about this? are there any good books about all the internal issues? i am researching this topic and any info you could lend will be helpful

thanks Copland's Robbas 02:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks maury Copland's Robbas 16:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspam tag

Hello - I tagged those articles because it was a case of the blog's author (Daniel Eran) adding the links to his own blog. I've read his articles, and they seem well-researched, but they are also highly opinionated and slanted. At the very least, it shouldn't be Eran adding the links to his own blog; that violates Wikipedia's original research rule. In my humble opinion. —Cleared as filed. 21:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Brunel

Thanks for the revert. I was planning to edit the page then changed my mind; thought I'd cancelled out. -- Chris j wood 12:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did You Know?

On 21 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Migma, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 06:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On November 21, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Riggatron, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

GeeJo kindly nominated this article for inclusion. Please don't feel ahy about self-nominating - 80-90% of articles are self-nommed!Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prod deletion

As an admin can you deleted/get someone to delete a proded page for me (it has been prodded for 7 days). Me and several other members of the WP:PW have been on a drive to route out and remove non-notable fan-cruft tag team articles in wikipedia and it would be a great help if you could get the ball rolling by removing "Snitsky and Tomko" one of the many non-helpful fan-cruft entries on wiki. Thank you --- Paulley 13:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StarFire (navigation system)

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article StarFire (navigation system), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:StarFire (navigation system). You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. TheRingess 16:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hawker Siddeley

Since you may (I stress may) have moved the article, "Hawker Siddeley" to "Hawker-Siddeley:" can you find a way to move it back? I believe the correct designation is Hawker Siddeley. Bzuk 11:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fairchild channel-f.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Fairchild channel-f.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 04:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avrocar

Maury, where is this information coming from? There are many extant documents that detail the Avro Special Projects programs including the Project Y-1, Project Y-2, Project 1794, Project PV-704, Weapons Systems WS-606A and the Avrocar. What are you using for information? BzukTuesday, 26 December 2006 T 18:11 UTC

Well aside from the details of the prototype machines, which is fairly easy to find, the information is either in the article already, from the videotape from a few years back, or from an extensive history of the Avrocar that was published about five years ago on a US web site. Is there something in particular you feel is incorrect that I should find independent confirmation on? Maury 01:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I have the US site cached on my old PC, I'll see if I can pull it for you. It was quite excellent.

The reason I asked where you found your information is that I have the actual Avro manual on the Project Y "spade-shape" tail-sitter. What I have deduced is that there was an attempt at a "rolling takeoff" rather than a VTOL approach and in landing, the pilot basically did a similar STVOL approach and landed in more of a conventional "bush plane" short-field landing approach. The US website may be the one that had a lot of misinformation on it. I recall sending data to a website that susequently revised their articles. The "true" VTOL programs began with Project Y-2, the so-called "flat riser" that went on to spawn a family of "flying disk" or "fying saucer" craft. BzukWednesday, 27 December 2006 T 1:45 UTC

The models I've seen of the Y-1 had two small landing gear struts that folded out rearward from the "fuselage" spine, tipped with a wheel that was likewise quite small, and appeared to lack any sort of suspension. I can't imagine it could be used for anything more than positioning on an airfield. Nope- that was its landing gear. Here's two pictures of the original mock-up, [1] (I've seen other pictures that don't seem to show anything additional). IIRC the craft was supposed to launch at about 75 degrees and land at an angle of about 45 degrees, raising itself back to almost vertical. No? No. The craft is marked "VTO" as well, although I'd be the first to suspect it was marketing, given some of the later performance-estimate "inflation." Maury 15:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC) It couldn't really do a "VTO" but Frost did have a near-VTOL performance in mind. It was the daunting prospect of takeoff and landing that finally convinced him to go in a different direction. The "tail-sitters" of the USN and USAF had similar problems. He also was aware of the "flying bedsted" approach that Rolls-Royce took and planned on "freeing" PV-704 to do a similar flight testing- straight up and straight down. The incredibly dangerous engine runs in the Schaeffer Building discouraged him as well as nearly putting an end (virtually) to the project. A brave (and dumb) engineer actually pulled the fuel lines off the Viper to stop it. An example of the Viper still exists; after a stint at de Havilland Canada, it appeared at the Toronto Aerospace Museum in their reclamation yard. Someone from TAM once phoned me to ask about the Viper and I couldn't believe that it still exists- the last vestige of the "trapped" flying suacer of Avro Canada.[reply]

Maury, you have done a splendid job in adding details to the article. It may be a bit much for the layman but you have essentially identified the problems in trying to make a frisbee fly, which is the problem that absorbed and drove the creative mind of John C.M. Frost. I will add some further details especially about the "black" funding provided by the C.I.A. and the bizarre "Project Ladybird" connections to the story. A lot of what came about was due to the genius of John C.M. Frost and you might want to look at the article posted on Wikipedia related to his flying saucers and other creations. I intend to nominate John Frost for inclusion in the Cnadian Aviation Hall of Fame. Care to second the nomination? Bzuk Wednesday 10:02 27 December 2006 (UTC) Write me- don't be a stranger.

I'm appalled to hear he hasn't been nominated! Where do I sign up? BTW, you're right about the way I worded the VTOL section the first time around, I have re-worded it to make the landing more clear. BTW, I seem to recall somewhere that there was a window on the bottom of the craft for the approach? Yes- it was below the pilot's feet where the legs would literally straddle the opening. Am I thinking of the French design perhaps? Also, I am curious about the development of the pancake engine. Most of the diagrams I have of the Y-2 design (the pure disk one) illustrate a pancake engine, but both the PV testbed and the Avrocar used separate engines blowing on the turborotor instead. Did they give up on the original engine design? Yes- the pancake engine was only considered for the "Project Y" (Avro Ace) I am not sure about the Ace of Spades connection, a little too pat, and the Avro "Omega" projects. Nothing other than "paper" designs on the pancake exist. Frost never did patent the "pancake engine" although he did patent many of the components and concepts of his first designs in Britain, US and Canada. I have Frost's original blueprint and it is obvious that it was still a conceptual project. Did the typical axial engine catch up in performance? Yes and more- the use of the six Viper engines would have pushed PV704 into the supersonic range and beyond. I always thought the pancake would make a most excellent design for stationary power generation. You could stack as many as you needed along a common drive shaft in the middle and the size would not grow extreme. It would seem perfect for ship propulsion, you could have a stack of 1/2 a dozen, for instance, and light them up as needed, cycling through them in low-power regimes to balance the load or take some offline for in-the-field maint. I always thought this was Frost's greatest gem, but it never really got built as far as I can see. You're right, just another of those blue-sky dreams that looked promising on paper but didn't really get past the drawing board. I will add on some of the "TinWiki" ideas- oh, yes, the Avrocar exists there, propped up by Campagna's and Whitcomb's speculative quasi-research. Maury 20:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC) BTW, we need five authoritative referees for the Canadian Aviation Hall of Fame recommendation. I had forwarded his name previously in 2002 but since that time, three of the people who had backed up the nomination have passed away: Don Rogers, Avro Chief Test Pilot, Peter Cope, the last Avro pilot to 'fly" the Avrocar and S/L W. A. "Bill" Waterton, the Gloster Chief Test Pilot who had worked with Frost on the XC-100. Bzuk Wednesday 14:56 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hs 129

In the article about the Hs 129 you term the Hs 123 used in the Condor Legion as generally unsuitable for the ground attack role. Could you explain what this is based on, because as far as I have understood the Hs 123 was considered succesful in the ground attack role in Spain. If you have any data that tells otherwise I would be intrested in knowing about it, as I made a major edit of the Hs 123 article and would obivously like to know if I am on the completly wrong track. Uhu219 21:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were retired after the Fall of France, but then put back into service at the start of the Balkans Campaign, after which they served in an ever dwindling number until 1944. They main reason they were in service for so long was simply the problem of finding a suitable replacement. Uhu219 09:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandia images

Hi! Did you ever receive a response to your inqiry here [2]?--Deglr6328 19:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot all about that! No, Mike never wrote back. I'll give him another call in the new year. Maury 14:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Social Impacts of Fusion Power

Hi, I've added my section on fusion power back to the article, under proliferation. It seems to me that the entire discussion of fusion power as a potential future resource is "speculative", and including the potential impacts of a limitless energy source to the future of warfare needs to be addressed. While fusion may provide a clean energy source, it must be carefully controlled to ensure that dictators and maniacs do not use its power for evil. If you wish to question certain aspects of this logic, or wish for clarification, please amend those sections, but removal of the entire section would imply that harnessing the power of the stars will not have social implications, which is obviously wrong. Sven43 16:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in this statement makes any sense to me. For one thing, fusion power is hardly "a limitless energy source". It's extremely expensive and has very limited density. Your argument is essentially identical to claiming that we should control steam power, "to ensure that dictators and maniacs do not use its power for evil". There's nothing magical about fusion, it's just electricity. Your original inclusions in the article suggested a real lack of understanding of the basic physics, and these musings here seem to re-enforce that. Maury 20:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irreducible Complexity edit

I'm puzzled by your removal of the mention of computer simulations from the irreducible complexity article on Jan 4. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irreducible_complexity&diff=98471185&oldid=98301601

In your edit summary, you wrote "whose THAT going to convince?" Well, I'd say a good number of people, particularly the evolutionary theorists. Exaptation (coopting one functionality into another) was always the traditional Darwinian answer for IC systems, but until the Lenski et al. 2003 paper, no one had actually *shown* that exaptation will give you IC systems -- it merely seemed a reasonable idea and was assumed. I am unaware of any solid, scientific, experimental response to Irreducible Complexity that predates the Avida simulations. Admittedly, many creationists fallaciously argue "the machine was designed, therefore it proves nothing!". However, at the very most this is an argument for a deistic God tweaking the universe, not an argument for God tweaking evolution, or evolution not occurring at all, as Intelligent Design people claim. Simply because there exists an incorrect or irrelevant creationist rejoinder doesn't qualify as sufficient reason to remove this mention. I'm of course open for discussion, and you may be able to convince me otherwise, but this is how I currently see it. Romanpoet 23:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to "prove" anything with a computer simulation is an intelectual minefield. I can write a perfectly valid simulation of the tooth ferry, but I don't think that will convince many people of its reality. In this case, unless you can make an ironclad argument that the simulation in question really does simulate life correctly, who cares if it can generate IC patterns? So can lots of things. And Avida is such a basic simulation that any such argument is likely to be tortuous. Hey, I'm a failed physicist who writes code for a living, this simulation doesn't convince *me*. Do you think it's going to convince an IC proponent? They'll just dismiss it out of hand.

Further, your argument is based on the IC proponents claiming that exaptation is unobserved. Having read most of the IC main works in question, I cannot recall this argument ever have been made. Perhaps it is a more recent rejoiner, but in that case it hardly seems like something that should be in the intro section. The flagellum example is a perfectly clear example of this process that seems to be more than obvious enough, and it's one of the IC examples, AND it's an example of exaptation . If one truly claims that "we do not see this in nature", then indeed, this example is not good enough. But in that case, a computer simulation is hardly a solution either, because that's not "in nature" either.

In general, computer simulations of a complex multivariate natural event are unlikely to convince anyone of anything. A single missing input can render the data invalid, and in a case as complex as this one, its safe to say we don't even know what the inputs are. Real world examples are much more convincing, and the flagellum is a perfect example. Maury 23:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bren Ten

I used the {{inappropriate tone}} tag because the article (the History section in particular) reads like a dramatic story rather than an encylopedia. Yeah? You don't agree? Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. It seems like a fairly un-dramatic story actually, a shoot and a miss. Do you have a particular example in mind? Maury 21:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't. Shouldn't really read like a "story" at all as far as I'm concerned. The overall feeling to me was that it was telling a story rather than just doling out the facts. But hey, I'm not going to split hairs. It gets the point across I suppose. Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water fuel cell

You may not be aware that there is a revert war going on. Have another look and see if you like the other version... Man with two legs 14:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link for quote you posted?

Hi, you added this to Talk:Water Fuel Cell not long ago:

"We do not need a cite for obvious material. Don't take my word for it, take Jimbo's, "The reason we can do all of that is that, usually, those statements are not controversial to any of the parties in the debate." That certainly seems to apply here. Maury 21:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)"

Its a useful quote, have you got a place it came from? Thanks! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's right on the page, just scroll up a little and look for the external link that's titled "here" (or something like that, you can't miss it). Maury 19:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Indeed, the established practice is that obvious vandal-only accounts can be immediately blocked for an arbitrary amount of time or indefinitely. In addition, the user had an obviously inflammatory username, which also warrants a permanent block for the account. Could he appeal this block? Yes and no; yes, he can place {{unblock}} on his talk page, or e-mail Jimbo, or something - but in all likelihood the request to unblock would be summarily rejected. For details, see our blocking policy. - Mike Rosoft 15:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike! Maury 16:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOSER!

WHY DO YOU THINK YOU CAN MESS UP MY BATTLE WITH GLEN S? I DON'T LIKE HIM, AND NOW I DON'T LIKE YOU ... BUT DON'T WORRY THERE'S STILL A CHANCE TO BE FRIENDS. SERIOUSLY THOUGH, I REALLY, REALLY DISLIKE GLEN S, AND I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND WHY IT IS THAT I DO WHAT I DO TO HIS USERPAGE!!! PERHAPS YOU WOULD LIKE SOME JOKES TOO: "TWO PEANUTS WALK INTO A BAR, AND ONE'S A SALTED!!!!"

HARDY HAR HAR HAR!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.25.106.203 (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A fine example of the sort of educational quality I expect these days. Maury 20:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CJ610/J85 merge

Why did you go ahead with the merge when there wasn't a consensus? It was actually pretty evenly split, and I don't see that you even participated, much less addressed the issues that I'd posted regarding why not to merge. I've reverted. Please discuss further, and address the issues before you do this. Akradecki 23:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's called "be bold". The articles clearly required merging, and a lack of consensus doesn't change that fact. More to the point, both articles bit in their previous form. Now they're barely tolerable. Maury 03:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The solution is to expand both, not to do away with one. The point of a stub is to provide the starting point. Don't abort the process. Akradecki 04:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you were the only person who disagreed with the merge. There was no process. Maury 04:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean there's no process. On the contrary, many articles start with a stub. I started that article because the information in the J85 article implying that the CJ610 was a mere variant is simply incorrect. Yes, the article needs to be expanded. The process I refer to is the one where articles grow, given time. You still haven't justified merging articles on two subjects that are not closely related. Why the need to consolidate? How is the end user benefitted from this? Akradecki 06:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on. Not closely related? The two designs differ by the badge on the front. Maury 12:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Texan II

I reverted on purpose because I felt there wasn't enough accurate information to keep in the text, and was hoping the rewrite would be better. - BillCJ 04:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about that text do you consider inaccurate? The same claims appear on the PC-9 page. And what exactly did you add the cn to? It's inserted into the middle of a statement. It seems you are questioning that BAe is marketing the aircraft. Is this your concern? Maury 04:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trolls

She's obviously a troll. The only thing to do is to ignore her. Hayford Peirce 18:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess. My only concern is that without discussion the edits should be rv'ed as a matter of course, and I hate doing that. Maury 18:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Wikipedia:What is a troll. Trolling is a deliberate, bad faith attempt to disrupt the editing of Wikipedia ...Genuine dissent is not trolling. I'm only saying that the AE article header reads like a press release written by GP. Since none of you seem to know who GP is, for starters, I suggest you ask me over on the talk page. Thanks and no, I'm not playing games, I'm trying to understand how much y'all know about this topic. Gwen Gale 18:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

plonk*

MB/MiB issue

The current MOS section does state that a change to MiB is not required but should be accepted if made. The only reason I reverted back to the MiB on many articles was because an editor who made good-faith changes had been called a "vandal" for changing those. It was suggested that if there's a problem we reopen discussion on the matter, so I'll post at the village pump and on some relevant Wikiprojects when I have time later. Still, I see no reason not to follow the current MOS until and unless there's some consensus to change it. Seraphimblade 22:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly be my guess that the anons probably belong to someone (or someones) involved in the edit war, and are jumping around 3RR. (Of course, this is only my guess.) It's up to you whether a block's appropriate, but that might be the best option-that'd be a lot of pages to (semi)protect! Why am I foreseeing a new entry on WP:LAME... Seraphimblade 22:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blast from the past

Maury -- I remember you from rec.aviation.military, circa 1995-96, a key participant in the never-ending "Avro Arrow was the greatest plane in history" battle...--Voodude 23:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

CF-101 Voodoo

Hi Maury. The inclusion of the DND image was to shamelssly test the system. It seems Geni has been very industrious and has removed a ton of images that came from DND. I have used their images in the past in my books and they come with no strings attached other than citing the source and not messing with the original image. The fact that Wikipedia administrators seem to take issue with that is what I am testing. Bzuk 23:56 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Bummer. *sigh* Bring on the lawyers! Maury 03:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Genick

Hi Maury. Since you've been peripherally involved, perhaps you could have a look at Genick, particularly as regards his involvement in Shock wave. Amongst other things we could use another cool head. You should be aware of Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-01_shock_wave (in which I was probably less polite than I should have been).

As background: Genick appears to be an active and motivated editor. He is probably knowledgable, but writes in poor English. He appears to have self-published a book on fluid mechanics. On talk and user pages he is rude and abrasive. I (and several others) have been trying to convince him to calm down and work in consensus. I have, however been forthright in reverting his large edit to shock waves in which he replaced the entire article from scratch with material of dubious correctness and very poor English. Considering how long he's been on wikipedia, he appears to have an active disregard for the norms of wikipedia behaviour.

Thanks, for any help you might decide to give. AKAF 13:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been keeping an eye on this situation since seeing his post to Deglr's talk page. I still feel he owes him an appology, but c'est la vie.

I agree with your basic summary; he clearly has some understanding of fluid dynamics (more than mine, for sure), but it is difficult for me to feel confident about allowing major edits, and I support your RV completely -- I think you handled it with more tact that I would manage as well. I too tried reading his "textbook" to get a better feeling for his credentals and knowledge level, but it is so completely indecipherable due to spelling and grammar that I didn't get very far. I am more than a little concerned that he believes himself qualified to write a textbook in a language that is obviously not his mother tongue, and the seeming "hero worship" of his former prof really makes me question his NPOV both in that book and here on the wiki.

Add to this his continued wish to include OR, insulting messages accusing you and other editors of various nepharious activities, and activities like taking up mediation (see below) incline me to be more vocal than I have to date. Yet not biting newbies is also important to me, and I don't want to scare him off and find that it's nothing more than a language problem. So I have avoided posting anything more "forceful" to his user page, although I do believe such action may be warranted. I'll keep watching in the meantime, if this behaviour continues I will ask other admins what they feel is a good course of action. I'd hate to create a tempest in a teapot, but by the same token, I think his insults really have to stop. Maury 15:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Baker (chef) mediation

Hi,

Thanks for the heads up on the mediator credentials. Appreciate the advice. David Lyons 15:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maury, it's Steve from SoftArc (FirstClass). Hope you and your family are well. Enjoyed reading your FirstClass and other historical stuff. We're actually doing quite well with around 10 million seats and some big very servers. There's also quite a bit of missing or wrong info which I can send you if you're interested. If you are in the Buttonville area (still flying I hope!) drop by for a coffee, we'd all love to see you. You can email me too (you know the address). Cheers, Steve.

Hey man! Long time!

Well I can't say I get north of the city much at all except on weekends. I basically live downtown, and I even got rid of my car, I just never used it. The only time I get north of Steeles these days is when I run the Toronto Donut Ride on Sundays, but there's not a lot of people around at that point. Roxy and I get up to my parents every so often, and skiing once or twice a year, but beyond that I'm a confirmed urbanite these days.

Feel free to send me anything you have -- ESPECIALLY SCREEN SNAPS! I think the article looks boring as-is, and some images would really breath life into it. Any corrections you have can be posted here, or you can just go ahead and start editing, the general rule around here is to "be bold". I wrote the whole thing on 10 year old memory and some of the events post-date my departure, so I'm not at all surprised some of it's wrong. Not a lot of 3rd party refs out there either.

Maury 17:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well I'm pretty busy building an archiving system right now (legal compliance is big at the moment) but I'll see what I can send or add. What's the best way to send stuff to you? -Steve

I guess the best way is to use e-mail, you can do that by clicking the "E-mail this user" link on the left -- hopefully it's on your screen, you might have to go to my main page. If not fire back, I can send my address in e-mail. Maury 19:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, check out the Microsoft Mail article if you get a minute. I'm trying to remember if the Mac version used a shared drive, or used a client/server AppleTalk link? What I mean is did the client access the server's files by linking to it via the file system, or did it talk to the server "internally" and then the server did the file access on that end and handed back the results? Maury 20:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, there were two mail systems with the name Microsoft Mail, but they had no common code. I think the Appletalk one used Appletalk to talk to the server. If you wanted to cross connect them I think they used the "file under rock" method. -Steve-

"Black triangles" article

Just wanted to let you know that I had very similar sentiments of annoyance as you when reading the article on Black triangles, that UFO thing. I added a short criticism section instead of just deleting (like you wanted to) the particularly ridiculous part with the "TR3A BS," as you called it on the talk page. I also tagged it for NPOV and tried to make the whole article more neutral and balanced with regards to the validity of their claims. When I then saw that you shared my complaint and that you're a far more experienced wikipedian (the Project Alpha page seemed especially relevant), than myself, a simple beginner, I thought it might be a good idea to ask your opinion about my edits. Mycroft7 13:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have completely forgotten about that article. I applaud your efforts! Maury 14:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed Apple initiatives category

I hope you're coming back to that talk someday. I did not delete the category...a bot renamed it. See the talk page for full reply. --Jason C.K. 22:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HiPER

I don't know if you listen to the bbc at all but this week's Material World is about HiPER and ITER.... [3] nothing in depth, but sttill...--Deglr6328 06:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YC-14

I guess I'm not sure how the edits improved anything. In a couple of cases, data was removed. Anyhow, I did add in a couple more of your sequence edits; but you did have one item of speculation that I did not think belonged (unless we can find a source that the YC-14 did influence the Coaler...) —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 22:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what you have done now is significantly better than the first go. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 02:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

de Havilland Comet

Maury, please read the edit history and the article closely; It is full of completely spurious material that is wholly unsupported. Please re-tag this as POV ({{unreferenced|article|date=January 2007} {{POV}}, see Trevor MacInnis for reasons why (he is acting as an administrator presiding over a very flawed article which is the result of an out-of-control edit war). Here is an example of some of the dubious claims: "The de Havilland company were criticised in a UK Channel 4 television documentary for selecting the company's own Ghost engine, but this ignored the facts that in Major Halford the company had one of the world's most brilliant engine designers (he contracted a sudden illness and died unexpectedly not long after the 1954 disasters), with a proven track record of jet engine design at a time when the technology was new, the Ghost engine had also been selected for the highly successful DH112 Venom and Sea Venom, the Ghost was a development of the proven De Havilland Goblin as used on the Vampire and when selected for the Comet was the only jet engine in the world certified for civilian use. It has been described as "underpowered" and so it was in comparison with the engines used a decade later on the Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8 - with a rating for the Comet 1A of 5,050 lbs static thrust however it was at the time one of the most powerful jet engines in the world.{{Fact|date=February 2007}}"

And another:

"Because Lord Cohen permitted the Farnborough Report to be introduced late in his inquiry he deprived counsel for the de Havilland Company of the right to cross-examine its authors as to the discrepancies between its conclusions, their own water-tank test results (see below) and the company's own testing. ^{[citation needed]}In the events which happened the de Havilland Company's commercial reputation was unfairly damaged, and the world was led to believe that the Comet design team were unaware of the cyclic effects of pressurisation and metal fatigue, when the true position was that the company had not only foreseen the possibility of metal fatigue but had subjected the Comet fuselage to the most rigorous test regime the world had ever known, using pressures which would only ever be encountered in airline service by the BAC/Sud Aviation Concorde three decades later (equivalent to over 50,000 ft) to an equivalent of twice the expected service life of the aircraft, arguably more since the Comet 1 was an interim design and was always intended to be replaced by the Comet 2, as more powerful axial-flow turbojets (the Rolls-Royce AJ-65 Avon) became certified for commercial use.^{[citation needed]}"

and another:"The airline (BOAC) tracked the rigorous test program throughout and it may be for that reason elected not to sue de Havilland, at any rate no proceedings for negligence were commenced against the company by BOAC, South African Airways (SAA), the hull insurers for Comets Yoke Peter and Yoke Yoke, or the personal representatives of those who lost their lives in any of the Comet disasters, further depriving the company of the chance to clear its name in a court of law. ^{[citation needed]}"

The editor continually altering this article is a conspiracy theorist known worldwide for controversial and untenable positions on everything from 9/11, the Comet airliner being unfairly maligned to claiming a British ex-cabinet minister was assassinated. Check the edit history on the Gloster Meteor and Messerschmitt Me 262 articles if you want to get a picture of how strident this editor has become in creating an emotional and subjective commentary. Bzuk 4:18 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Actually I was just going to remove all of the material in question, but I went to bed first. It won't be POV for long. Maury 12:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Maury, it was awkward for me to do it after all the accusations that had been levelled at me, now onto the Avrocar! Bzuk 13:35 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Macintosh support for creating/editing/maintaining content at Wikipedia

You asked on my talk page for some suggestions on Macintosh supported wiki-assistant software - the first list of software i can find is over at Wikipedia tools. There seem to be two general kinds of software - external software and javascripts. The javascripts seem to be hard to manage - so something that would sensibly let a non-programming user figure out how to support that would help. I just learned there is a javascript word editor - User:Cacycle/wikEd. On first blush that's the general kind of thing I've been seeking personally - something to handle easy fixes that require a lot of typing, and also supply support for the wikipmarkup coding like <ref></ref> stuff. I've already got some monobook.js stuff and I've tried an failed to add more to it. I see that User:Cacycle/wikEd requires Firefox, which while nice could be better if it supported Safari (in quick trial it sort of works but doesn't render the page right). Anyway, the single most often referenced software I've seen is along the same lines as this javascript based editor - it's called AutoWikiBrowser. Along with making <ref></ref> easier to use I've also wished for an easy way to list pages' i've created on my user page, or pages I've made significant edits to. I don't like the threaded way the watchlist is not required to be set in order to show all edits (I don't know if you've seen this.) I've seen some people do this but I think the manage the whole thing very manually.--Smkolins 10:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found one - it helps doing citation - see User:Dmoss/Wikicite2. There is an online alternative which kind of works, with source code.... here. There's a short list of tools here WP:REF#Tools.--Smkolins 05:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My eyeballs :)

Sure, what can I do for you? Prodego ^talk 03:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can do that. Could you give me some diffs though? It would help me figure out what is going on a bit more quickly. Thanks, Prodego ^talk 15:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would define a few of these situations as content disputes, but most as violations of WP:V, WP:CON, ect. You can leave warnings for repeated WP:CON violations, you should leave friendly messages for the WP:RS violations, and for any content disputes (where there sources for both sides), try to gain consensus with uninvolved editors, ect. Use the WP:DR process, doing so will allow you to gain consensus on the users actions. I would reply more on the talk page, and get discussion going. Even ~~an argument~~ a debate is better then no discussion at all. Make sure the user knows relevant policies and guidelines. The goal is to avoid this. Do not be afraid to block, but give very clear warnings about the above policies/guidelines first. If you have any questions, feel free to ask, Prodego ^talk 22:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad I could help. This shows everyone is reasonable, and is a good step to having a civil discussion. Good work! Remember to remain cool, that is the most important thing to do. Prodego ^talk 02:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comet

Please see my talk page then. Gwen Gale 15:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jet Engine Combustion Chambers

Cannular is immediately obvious in that each combustion chamber is seperate, with a small interconnection to it's neighbours, and can be individually removed from the engine. e.g. Avon 100 Series. Can-annular has seperate combustion chambers but they are all in an 'outer skin'. e.g. Avon 200 Series, Speys. Annular has just one circular combustion chamber. e.g. Viper Externally there is no obvious difference between can-annular and annular.

Thanks for the welcome. Gawthorpe Dave 12:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B-1 Lancer

Hello Maury, It looks like you added a fair amount of history on the B-1A in the B-1 article on Dec. 30. Do you happen to have a reference for what you added? I'm trying to fill in some references in the article. Info on the B-1A is hard to find. Thanks for any help. -Fnlayson 23:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA on Nova

Well we did it, we passed GA on Nova. Now for HiPER... Maury 00:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WOW!! I have to say I didn't think it was really likely 'cause I thought it was kinda short but good job! It was mostly your work of course. I will help you with HiPER if you want, I think I just saw some pictures of fast ignition cone-in-shell targets somewhere.....--Deglr6328 05:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Earhart article

Maury, your advice and help is needed here as another editor has constantly reverted the introductory passages of the Amelia Earhart despite the contentious nature of the statement that is made. The fact that the issue of Earhart's flying skills is addressed later in the article is not the real issue. Please read over the exchanges and then hopefully you will see a need to intervene. The aforementioned editor has constantly rebutted any arguments that show a different referenced source to the one that is purported to be the authoritative source. I have real reservations over the reliability of the TIGHAR information that is presented but irregardless it is the disregard of other editors' work that is the source of my consternation. Bzuk 21:38 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Ok, let me take another look and I'll let you know. Maury 22:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to comment on your proposal for an RfC: I don't care either way. This is a public wiki and I support its policies. So far as "another editor has constantly reverted the introductory passages" goes, this is very misleading. I have only tried to add a referenced verifiable quote from a reliable secondary source carried by a credible publisher. Gwen Gale 04:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avro Arrow & CF 101 Voodoo - go ahead& re write, Maury!

I've given my views in favour of cost controls & General Pearkes. ,& won't clip or alter.

It was a great machine. Way too much machcine for the task,IMHO.

&When I replace my home water heater - I'll get a superheat ofice tower size steam boiler!!! Hey, what's cost at the altar of mehcanical perfection? :-')'))

cheers

Opuscalgary 14:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Sorry to be a pain, please feel free to research the history of the Hughes missile fire control system on the Convair F106, ten years after the Cf- 105 Arrow. ?I have tried to do 'Arrow accounting". How these planes were to cost eleven million each, with an 5 milllion dollar fire control & missle system alone, is beyond me. When Pearkes estimated a 40% increase in the CDN defense budget if the Arrow was chosen, accountants trembled " "...[reply]

Maybe I'm just an aero philistine...

The Avro Arrow debate

I think it is interesting that the debate about the relative merits of a cancelled aircraft project still warrants commentary nearly sixty years after its demise. However, for the respective views to be fully aired, a degree of dispassionate and objective perspectives must be maintained. Although I am fairly new to the Wikipedia world, I do have an interest in Canada's aviation heritage. For prospective Wikipedia editors, the basic tenets of Wikipedia use include the following:

Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them;
Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations;
Stay cool when the editing gets hot;
Avoid edit wars and follow the three-revert rule;
Act in good faith;
Never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point;
Assume good faith on the part of others, and
Be open and welcoming.

I have posted this comment to Opuscalgary who seems compelled to drag out an argument in the Avro Arrow discussion page. I ended with the comment "I trust that you will follow these tenets." Bzuk 15:23 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Bill, Maury ,please quit posting to my personal site, Get professional help. REAL help.

In deference to the Family of Lt Govenor & Gen Pearkes, a greater man than any of us, drop your vendetta. Opuscalgary 17:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what "personal site" you refer to. I take offense at your insults here, especially after warning you that such insults are not acceptable on the wikipedia. Maury 17:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 22:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}[reply]

Image talk:Bally Professional Arcade.jpg

I did reply. Look again. —Chowbok ☠ 17:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What on Earth are you talking about? You created that page. See [4]. —Chowbok ☠ 20:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to tell you. That's the image talk page. If the image was on your watch list, then the talk page was too. You disputed the tag and left a note on the talk page, and I replied six minutes later, and that was it. I don't really understand your complaint. —Chowbok ☠ 20:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File a deletion review if you want it back. I don't see why it should be brought back, though. It could reasonably be replaced. —Chowbok ☠ 21:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gnetwerker

Hi Maury

Most of the information in these kinds of cases is confidential, and may be shared with members of the Arbitration Committee, but is not made generally available. 13:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Maury. Why are you concerned? This is not public information. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I brought the incident to the ArbCom list, and explained my actions there. There were no objections, including from Jimbo. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to e-mail me if you want more detail. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Why would you want to know exactly? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which block you mean by the "latest," as there have been quite a few. There's a lot of evidence and it's all over the place, so it would be quite a bit of work to pull it together; also, much of it has been viewed by the ArbCom and they turned down an appeal against the ban. If you can e-mail me to explain exactly why you need to know, that would be helpful. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Titor edit conflict?

Maury, why did you undo my edits to John Titor in this diff? Was that an accident? A Train ^{take the} 14:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it again, Maury, it looks like we just had a simple edit conflict there and you just added your edit without looking to see the other changes. No big deal, I'll just make my edits again. A Train ^{take the} 14:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry, there's no effective "merge" function, so I just C&Ped my edit back in -- it was too extensive to do by hand. IIRC the edit you made were superceeded by mine anyway, at least the one fixing the ref and some of my earlier grammar. Maury 14:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Titor

Hey Maury,

I really don't like the "Information about his life" section heading. The name implies an accuracy that I don't think the article should assert. What do you think we could change that to? A Train ^{take the} 14:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! And yeah, I think it kinda stinks too. Hmmm, do you think "claims" vs. "predictions" is too fine a line to use? Maury 15:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have a problem with that. Nice work on the article today. A Train ^{take the} 18:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maury, I'm thinking about a reorganization of the Titor article to group the sections a little more coherently. At the moment, the article is laid out like this:

1 Titor's claims about his life

2 Titor's alleged time machine

3 Predictions

4 A hoax?

5 Summary

6 In other media

7 References

8 See also

9 External links

What do you think about this instead?

Titor's claims

Origins

The time machine

Predictions (fold the current "Summary" section into this section)

Evidence of hoaxing

In other media

References

Re: Removing links from Wikipedia:List of encyclopedia topics

Are we really supposed to be removing links from this list? I would think the value is much higher with them left in, because it not only shows you immediately how much coverage we have but also the value as a "List of encyclopedia topics" is greatly reduced otherwise. Maury 12:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a couple of points. Firstly, if you are interested in the overall progress of the "List of encyclopedia topics" subproject, you can see at a glance how much has been done by looking at the table on the main Wikipedia:List of encyclopedia topics page. Secondly, and more importantly, despite its name this list is not (and was never intended to be) an actual, usable list of encyclopedia topics. It's a maintenance page, part of the missing articles WikiProject and intended only for work on the encyclopedia, not for reference purposes. The name is misleading, what it actually is is a list of encyclopedia topics that Wikipedia does not have yet. Even if we did not remove blue links, this would still be true. The list was created some time after Wikipedia was started, and its original version contained around 78,000 links none of which, at the time, had articles. But by that time there were already tens of thousands of articles in Wikipedia and many "encyclopedic topics" had already been created. In short, the list never served that purpose (and never could, practically). If you want a list of encyclopedia topics, then there's always Special:Allpages; in theory, if our policies are followed, everything on there should be an encyclopedia topic, though that's not always the case. Thanks – Qxz 12:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing, if you do want to see the original lists in their entirety and see what has turned blue, simply go to the page history and select the oldest version. It is easier for people who are looking to create missing articles (the intended target audience of the page) to see only what remains to be done and not what has been completed. Thanks – Qxz 12:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may also be helpful: if you are looking for a page that is intended to be a list of encyclopedia topics, there are several around. Obviously attempting to list all encyclopedia topics is infeasible (there would be millions), but there have been several attempts to pick out a smaller collection of a few hundred "important" topics; one example is Wikipedia:Vital articles. Thanks – Qxz 12:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CN Tower level names

Hi! I just wrote a suggestion for a compromise on how to phrase things. How does it sound? It would, of course, be desirable to have some information on when and why the names changed, but there's no doubt that they did (intentionally) and Wikipedia should reflect the new ones (or, at the very least, mention them). --Gro-Tsen 13:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hooligan firm

Hi, I have tried to answer your questions about that page on the pages Talk Page. Of course to fully answer would take up way too much space, but hope that my answer somewhat helps! Tangerines 22:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paragon board

I'm afriad I didn't understand your question. Simpsons contributor 20:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the eBay auction that I bought it from: [5]Simpsons contributor 21:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stupidity in action

Hi Maury, in the case of the Miles M.52, I made an elementary mistake in editing which I can only attribute to late nights and lack of attention. I edited off-line, erased my own comment, thought someone else had done it and administered an admonition that had been derived from an earlier submission in Fokker talk. Not looking very carefully, I simply re-did my comment to another editor. I have made an apology and asked for redemption :} (not really but I do think I was a dunce in this case. Thanks for listening. Bzuk 1435, 23 April 2007, (UTC).

Mistakes are natural, and after looking over the history it was pretty clear that's all it was. Insulting responses to mistakes are not accidental, and I'm pretty sure being called a liar is not a typo. Thus my response. This anon editor is acting in an uncivil manner, and that I will not abide. Maury 18:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Ball_Park_at_Christy_Pits.JPG

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BigDT (416) 00:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah ... unfortunately, the old {{pd}} tag doesn't let us distinguish between "I made this image and am releasing it into the public domain" vs "I found this on some website, so it must be public domain, right?" Anything with that tag that doesn't say explicitly what the source is really needs to be fixed ... I know it's annoying, but it's important to make sure that images we are saying are free really are. I re-read the warning ... the first paragraph is about the actual problem (no source). The second and third paragraphs are basically saying, "oh and by the way, you also need a tag along with your source if you don't already have one." That warning is Template:Image source. Maybe these templates are due for a redesign ... I don't know. --BigDT 04:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, was it a robot that posted the message above? If so, maybe a simple solution to the problem is to change the error message to include a statement that older tags need to be upgraded. If I got a message that said "The PD tag is deprecated and you need to upgrade the tag or the image will be deleted" would have been a lot less mysterious. I guess my concern is that even though I "did the right thing" as defined at the time, the images could still be deleted as non-conforming, and I'd like to be sure we try to help the user avoid this as much as possible. Maury 12:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLATO

Maury, you mentioned in on tha Talk page for PLATO that it needs some pictures. I think you're right -- do you have suggestions for what sort of pictures? Paul Koning 18:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Software used?

Hello, for the HiPER_baseline_design.jpg image that you uploaded, I was wondering, if you possibly knew what software was used to create the image? -- Frap 20:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know. The image was provided to me by one of the project members. Maury 21:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but if you talk to him, or find out, please write a message on my userpage, thanks. -- Frap 22:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I'll fire him an e-mail. Maury 01:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MOST_with_Jaymie_Matthews.jpg listed for deletion

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:MOST_with_Jaymie_Matthews.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[6][7]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. Interiot 08:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ringworld

Hi,

The discussion I mentioned removing referred to a discussion on the talk page, not the main page. Here is the edit where I remove that block of text. --WLU 17:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Maury 17:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Pro

The article lacks some crucial elements, such as consumer or professional reviews as well as criticisms. So basically at this point it's a good 'start', but needs more breath and expansion to be considered a 'B' class. This is of course my opinion. After reviewing the class structure requirements here, if you feel that it's 'B' class, you may change it. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are these really appropriate for a wikipedia article though? It's normally these sorts of "value judgments" that I try to avoid except on historical topics. It's one thing to state the Cray-1 was the fastest machine of its era, but its more difficult to say such things (like this, not this specifically) with more recent articles because the evaluation is likely to change over time. Maury 13:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Hanna Reistch.jpg

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Renata 22:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Sage_terminal.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[8][9]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. Eastmain 13:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This relates to an image which you uploaded in 2004. -- Eastmain 13:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The block of User:Brian.Burnell

I wasn't the blocking admin (that was User:Proto, I believe), but the reason was Burnell's real-life threat against another user here. That's a violation of WP:NLT, a raging violation of WP:CIVIL, and IMO fully justifies a ban. May I ask what brought this up? | Mr. Darcy talk 15:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user is not blocked - he's banned. You can't just undo that unilaterally. In addition, Burnell contacted the university at which another user was a student and attempted to get that user suspended or expelled. That is absolutely grounds for a permanent ban from Wikipedia. I appreciate that you feel that you're trying to right a wrong here, but you have gotten an incorrect impression of the situation, and it would be a mistake to remove the administrative block when the user is in fact banned, and is banned for a very good reason. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should review the discussion of this incident here, on AN/I. The ban was proposed, no one objected. In case it's not perfectly clear, I thoroughly oppose any attempt to unban/unblock this user. And FWIW, I find your conduct in this matter to be completely inappropriate. For you to levy false accusations on my talk page in defense of your desire to unblock a legitimately banned user is outrageous. You wrote: You "demanded" an apology on behalf of a 3rd party, something that is equally objectionable IMHO, and when that was not forthcoming he was banned. This is not how it is supposed to work. I did no such thing. I asked him to apologize, then asked him at the least to explain his actions. He was banned because of the original offense, not because he failed to apologize. What are you really trying to accomplish here by mischaracterizing the legitimate actions of other admins? | Mr. Darcy talk 02:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, take sixty seconds and search for it. If you search for the user name in question and "noticeboard" in Wikipedia space, you'll usually find what you're looking for. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 15 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dandy (computer game), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 15:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA copy-editing

There are no copy-editors to my knowledge who specialise in just FAs. Reviewers often don't copy-edit themselves, or they'd have no time to review. Thus, I encourage nominators to locate copy-editors who are interested in the general topic. This kind of collaborative networking is very important to WP. Tony 03:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

free crap is still crap

firstly, thank you for the incredible compliment about the quality of my image. i'm flattered that you think its crap.

anyway, the copyrighted image is not "Free use", it has not been released by Apple, it is fair use. and per Wikipedia:Fair use, Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia. so not only should the non-free image not be used, it should be deleted. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 19:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

more reason than "its free"? no more reason is needed. the non-free image has no place on WP, because per the above quoted section of WP:Fair Use, it is easily replaceable. The same reason non-free pictures of living persons aren't allowed. "its free" is perfectly enough justification to replace a non-free image. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 19:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GBps

"bps" is the "accepted short form" ? By who ? units with "/" are rare ? Since when ? You may want to read the SI brochure Sarenne 21:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look yourself, GB/s, Gbit/s are not rare, even here on the wiki and it's the correct writting according to the SI. Sarenne 22:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gb/s now exists. GB/s is also used in the article where you wanted to put "Gbps". I reverted your change per consistency within the article and the encyclopedia.Sarenne 22:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nCUBE

Yes, I was assessing many articles, and most were start class. The article in question has zero references, which I would think means it is "lack[ing] a key element" per {{Grading scheme}}, not to mention everything there would then have to be considered original research. Then there is no infobox or any graphics, but primarily it is lacking sources. With sources then it is a B, but not without them. Not to mention without reliable sources it would not meet WP:CORP. Add some references and it can be changed to B. Aboutmovies 21:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way I would recommend that you assume good faith, as I'm sure you know everything you submit can be accessed. With article assessment, as can be done with even a GA review, one can quickly look at an article and see if it is missing a key item (thus the Quik fail option on GA reviews). A quick look at a stub and you know it is a stub (too short for anything else). If it's more than a few sentences then you look for other indicia of of a Start class. If it appears long enough and has some formatting to it, then skim through and see if it meets B class criteria. If not it's back to Start class. So, it really does not take that long to determine between the three grading options (since anything higher would go through a different process) when you have done around 500 assessments over the months. And in those 500 or so, you are the only one to have an issue with it so I must be doing something right. Addtionally, the ability to copy and paste greatly speeds the process, as does the fact that with the WP:ORE assessment run I've been working on contains many articles already assessed by other projects or contain Stub templates so that there is no need to assess, just a need to insert the rating that already exists.

Additionally, with nCUBE, since there are no references that means the article violates original research, a copyright, or is plagerism. None of which are allowed on Wikipedia. Aboutmovies 06:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Prefixes, again

Can you be more specific? I've been involved in various discussions on this issue for months, and I'm not certain of what you're looking for. -- mattb 16:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither am I really. All I know is that I saw a post from you to Saleen asking her (?) to stop rv'ing articles while the issue was resolved. That was a couple of weeks ago, there was no link to the discussion in question. I did see a lengthy thread in one of the discussion areas about this from the same period of time, but then it seems it just stopped with no actionable items. Maury 16:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Phoenix Mountain Ski Resort

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Phoenix Mountain Ski Resort, by Nuttah68 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Phoenix Mountain Ski Resort seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Phoenix Mountain Ski Resort, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 11:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Mountain Ski Resort‎

At the moment offers nothing other than -Phoenix Mountain is a small ski resort in southern British Columbia located just north of the Washington border- which, as the the resort is an organisation, fails on WP:BIO and potentially WP:SPAM. If the article is expanded and changed to an article on the location rather than an organisation it may pass. I'll give it a couple of days before deciding whether to take it to AfD. Nuttah68 12:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I care not whether the article is a stub, just short or the length of time here or if you an an admin. TBH, your reply is amazingly condecending. What I am concerned about is that there is an article on an organisation that makes no effort towards meeting the requirements of the various notability guidelines. Nuttah68 12:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're an admin. Go through and see how many of the 'complaints' you would uphold. I'm afraid your 'I've been here longer, I know more' attitude does not solve the problem. Make the article meet WP:BIO, WP:SPAM and [WP:RS]] or I will take it to AfD. I've looked and Google offers nothing more than directory listings. As you created the article (and removed the speedy tag) I assume you may have access to sources beyond the internet. Nuttah68 12:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reintroduction of original research on RTS

Why have you reverted me on Real-time strategy? The information that is being re-added is unsupported, unverified and mostly original research and as such you are going against our policies on the matter.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm sorry! I thought Wikipedia was built by consensus and was a community? That means that the policies are the documents set out by the users of the site and are therefore 'our policies'. I would have thought an Administrator would have a grasp of this, and would also have a grasp of those policies else they should not be an administrator - especially if introducing original research and unverified information is a habit of theirs, which reduces the hours of work spent trying to improve the article by myself. If readers are calling for original research then they should not be using this site for it, they should be looking elsewhere.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, we can dream can't we :D (BTW. Sorry if I came off as being agressive).-Localzuk^(talk)

re:Recent reverts on Toronto Donut Ride

I fail to see what a two minute YouTube documentary adds to the article, no matter how "great" it is. There is also no indication as to the copyright status, and who are "Donut Ride Pictures" anyway? ... discospinster _talk 15:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the logic for your revert? That you fail to understand how a movie about the Donut Ride adds to an article about the Donut Ride? Shurely you jest. Maury 15:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite serious. What does this movie add to the article? Just because it's about the Toronto Donut Ride? I'm sure lots of people on YouTube have made movies about lots of things, but we don't need to link them from the articles. ... discospinster _talk 17:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does this movie add? Ummm, how about talks with the founding members? Direct confirmation of the speeds that the ride reaches? Demonstration of the size of the peloton even in late season? Several excellent shots of the sprints? Your argument, being based on "this", requires some alternative media to compare to in order to be valid. Unless you can provide it, and I'd be glad if you did, any media we can get is good media. Maury 17:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Throttles for rotaries

I'll confess that I don't know! The only examples I'm familiar enough with to say one way or the other are the ubiquitous Gnome-Rhone and clones; so when the Profile publication on the D.IV said that being throttlable was an unusual feature of the Sh 4, it sounded right to me. If you feel this to be inaccurate, please feel free to correct it; that comment was pure "monkey see monkey do" on my part. Cheers --Rlandmann 08:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heinkel He-100

Maury, I am about to do some drastic editing of your article but I would like to make you aware that the proposals I will be advancing is to "tighten" the piece rather than savage it. I see a great deal of pertinent information but it has been the subject of another editor's questioning of style, labelling it as an essay and unencyclopedic. I made revisions only to one paragraph to show you where I am going. If you concur, I will undertake a similar direction throughout the article. One place that I did make a "radical" change is in the references section. Looking forward to hearing from you. ABTW, your assistance with the Amelia Earhart article is much appreciated and engendered the following note in my "talk" page: Our mutual friend: Take a peek at this. Were you aware of any of this history? Ronnotel 20:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC) What is that old refrain, "what goes around, comes around?" (:0}) IMHO Bzuk 18:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Feel free to butcher away! The original article is out there on the 'net, so it's not like I'm "losing" anything I want to keep. And you're right, it was written as an essay, not a wiki article, and desperately needs work. So, good luck! Maury 21:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Front (computer game)

Hi, Maury. I rated it as start class because there are only five references, and as such there are many statements that do not have a citation to verify them. I suggest that for a start, you remove the "Unless otherwise noted, this description is adapted from the original game manual, available here", and instead simply cite the manual wherever appropriate. As for cleanup, this was probably a bad word to use...what I meant was that it could be broken into more sections, so that it is easier to navigate through the article. I'm sorry if the rating went against your opinion of the article, but I saw it on request at WP:S GAMES, and went ahead and did it. You're welcome to relist it there. If you have any more questions/comments, please reply on my talk page, - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 04:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I'm pretty much giving up on the whole ratings effort. In every case so far the comments that come back are focused on formatting issues and never make a single comment about the content itself. (this is not a jab following, just dejected observation) This is another example; every statement in the gameplay section is referenced directly in the manual, which the article clearly states, but because of the "odd" format it has been downgraded to "start". A multi-page article that required me to hand-decode the original 6502 source code is "start". Color me confused. But maybe I'm just missing the point of the rating system. Maury 12:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bede BD-10

On 19 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bede BD-10, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 00:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Working Man's Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this "Working" barnstar for your tireless and endless work on the more laborious or repetitive wikipedia tasks especially in relation to Russian Woodpecker. We need more like you! Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mailplane

You left a bit of a mess in moving Mailplane to Mail plane and then putting a new article into Mailplane after you had just turned it into a redirect. Then you started a new article on the main page, so all 33 linked articles then pointed to Mailplane and not to Mail plane as they would have if you left it alone at that stage and started your new article with a new page name, such as, Mailplane (software), as would have been the right thing to do. However, the talk page of Mailplane now points to the talk page of Mail plane because IT IS STILL a redirect page and you may have to get an admin to fix that as I don't know how. I think that you really should have discussed this move first due to the way you did it. Anyway, I have corrected all the wls, but the talk page is still an issue, so please deal with that or have some one else do it. Cheers. ww2censor 11:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just figured out how to resolve the talk page problem, but you go to it first. Everything looks fine now, but please remember to check linked pages before doing a move and if possible don't leave the cleanup to someone else. Cheers ww2censor 11:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, next time just say "the inbound links are broken, can you fix them?" Maury 11:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I suppose that's another way of putting it. Cheers ww2censor 12:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foto-Mem

Sorry about that. It's honestly a hasty mistake; it had been tagged for speedy deletion by User:Kelapstick. I was plowing through CAT:CSD and I guess the article in its state looked like CSD material. Sorry about that, Maury. I have restored the article. Please accept my apologies. Regards, Anas ^talk? 18:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding. :) I can't wiki full time too, but usually CSD articles are deleted in hours, or even minutes, after their creation. All the best, Anas ^talk? 18:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

de Havilland Tiger Moth

Maury, a curious and curiouser note for your behalf. I spotted some supposedly innocuous edits in this article under the "minor" editing notation (but without explanation) by a "newbie" editor. The amount of changes did alter the article somewhat and would, at the very least, warrant a major revision notation, but it was the kind of changes that tweaked my interest. They seemed for the most part to be stylistic and "good faith edits" but they did subtly change the context of the passages. I did a quick check back through some of the aforementioned editor's other "work" and found the same pattern. He edit/corrects the article in question in his own interpretation and in the Douglas DC-5 and de Havilland Hornet articles, for example, I found his changes alter the subtext of the submissions, not a lot but enough to change the actual context/intention of the original posting. Not a big deal for now, but keep an eye on this. FWIW, BTW, nice job on the BD-4/5/10 articles. Bzuk 14:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I just went and read the editor's talk page. Just when you thought the wiki could get no weirder, you find something like this! It's one of the reasons I remain so fascinated in the whole wiki concept. Keep me apprised! Maury 18:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Molniya Orbit Diagram...

Hi Maury,

The cartesian map-diagram is a correct illustration of a Molniya orbit footprint. What you're looking at is actually a 24-hour period; there are two apogees and perigees displayed (e.g. two orbits). One of the apogees is over the US, the other is over Russia. (I think you had this backwards). In the 3-D diagram, the satellite appears to "hang" or dwell over the apogee location for a large portion of the complete orbit. I hope this helps!

It does, thanks! I've updated the article accordingly. Maury 12:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Compact_pro_icon.gif

This file may be deleted.

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. The Sunshine Man 16:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know the definition of annoying? It's getting a message from a robot because you uploaded a perfectly valid image, but couldn't figure out the absolutely Byzantine tagging rules and end up getting a nasty post like, this impugning your credibility. Destroy All Bureaucrats!. (sorry Sunshine, it's not you, I've got so many of these I'm Falling Down) Maury 03:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, ok...

I think I know what this is about deep down. Whatever. For the wiki, as a more or less disinterested and trustworthy admin, if you happen to think of anything I can do that might help Alex settle down, I'll do it. Thanks for the help. Gwen Gale 16:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my tardy reply, I'm not ignoring you, honest! I kinda have my weekends off for a bit, so I've been hammering on the bike so I can do the Donut ride and I haven't been too involved for the last week. Anyway, Alex, yeah. Well if past history is of any guide my guess is this is short-term troll. Did you see what BZ and I had to put up with in Comet (IIRC, you did). And then it just kinda went away. My best advice, for what it's worth, is ignore it for a week. If it doesn't just go away on it's own (sadly, it's been too long a thread to expect it will) write back, I'll do what I can. BTW, I really can't claim to be that experienced! I try to avoid real admining as much as possible, I'm here to write. Maury 02:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds helpful to me :) Thanks. Gwen Gale 22:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elsie macgill.gif

A tag has been placed on Image:Elsie macgill.gif, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Image is actually a JPG despite the name. This led to increased filesize when thumbnailed. Reuploaded as Image:Elsie macgill.jpg. File identical apart from extension.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:Image:Elsie macgill.gif|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Colin°^Talk 11:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Template:Orbits

Thanks for your edit to {{Orbits}}. Unfortunately, a Polar sun synchronous orbit is unique from a polar orbit, which need not be sun synchronous, and a heliosynchronous orbit, which is an orbit about the sun, rather than the Earth. I have reverted your change. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 19:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text of Sun-synchronous orbit indicates that you can have a Sun-synchronous orbit with an inclination other than 90 degrees, making a Polar sun-synchronous orbit not the same thing. What am I missing? — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 20:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:BMW 803.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:BMW 803.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. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Bede BD-5

Nice job so far Maury. Guess what, I'm going to be in the GTA at the end of July, coupla reasons, just coming back from the world-famous Norseman Floatplane Festival and then again there's the Police concert that my sons want to see (turns out the group represents the first rock concert they saw on their own). Oh yeah, TO is where my granddaughter hangs out. FWIW Bzuk 22:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Ha! The only plane I haven't jumped out of! Well, that and the Found... hey, there's an idea for an article. When you get to TO drop me a line and I'll shoot you my cell #. Beer on me! Maury 23:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bede BD-10

Some energetic editor has stripped the photos from this article. I replaced a photograph and added a crude drawing into the piece. Do you have any photographs that go with the BD-10 article? FWIW Bzuk 01:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Image:Datamax uv-1r.jpg

Hello. Do you have any more information about Image:Datamax uv-1r.jpg, such as the e-mail address of the photographer? Also, could any new photos of Datamax UV-1Rs be taken, or are none of the devices publicly available? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the devices exist any more, with the possible exception of the one in the image. Google "Jane Veeder" for e-mail, I don't generally pass them along. Am I being wikistalked? Maury 11:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I just Googled for her, but I'm not sure if there's more than one Jane Veeder. Does the one I'm looking for teach at San Francisco State University?

Yes.

You are not being wikistalked. Rather, the last of the Wikipedia-use-only images are being reviewed and brought into compliance with the current policies. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 16:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

I was joking. Poorly it appears. Maury 17:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of National Ignition Facility

The article National Ignition Facility you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:National Ignition Facility for things needed to be addressed. shoy 01:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fusor running.jpg

Hello. Thanks for getting a free license for Image:Fusor running.jpg. Could you get Richard Hull to send a statement to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org as WP:COPYREQ requires, so that we would have an official record of the permission? A statement such as "I authorize the redistribution of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fusor_running.jpg for any purpose, without any restrictions, provided that due credit to its source is mentioned." would be very good. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 17:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but I am disinclined to do so. It took me one week and a total of eight e-mails to get this much. I think he wants to kill me now. Maury 18:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, without an official record of the permission it's as if we don't have permission at all. Someone could claim that you just forged the e-mail. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that's the case, but then in the case of a subpeona I'd happily present it. However, is it possible that the e-mail to this address is held in private? I wouldn't mind forwarding it in that case. Maury 19:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The OTRS records are stored in a secure database, hidden from public view. Even so, I doubt that you can just forward the permission to OTRS because of forgery concerns. I think you need to get the copyright holder to send a statement directly to OTRS. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but in this case I'll try it anyway and we'll see if my good name is worth anything. Maury 19:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit of St. Louis

Maury, there is a newbie editor that has insisted that the flight of the Spirit of St. Louis was the first non-stop flight across the Atlantic and has constantly reverted the article to eliminate the word "solo". He has not responded to the discussion page or to the note left on his "talk" page. These are his only contributions to Wiki articles and he continues to make spurious claims, see: [10] He will not stop the reverting although he has been politely informed that constant reversions without explanation on the discussion page is not considered appropriate. Asking for help here. Thanks Bzuk 13:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC). [reply]

Image:Datamax uv-1r.jpg again

I got a message back from Jane Veeder stating that she doesn't think this is the device she donated to the SIGGRAPH exhibit and doubts she was the photographer of the image. This invalidates the source information that you provided. Jane Veeder did say that she may be able to find a UV-1 photo for us to use this January. Until then, I've retagged the existing image under fair use. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Ha! Check this out!

Copyedit form my "talk page": "I hope this link works... open this version of the page and read the last paragraph: [[11]] Maury 20:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)."[reply]

Maury, this is too delicious for words. Thanks. Now if you can just determine that our gal pal on the Amelia beat is also a composite character (sorry my mind was racing there, as I said earlier, I think she is actually a good sod after all...) |:¬) Bzuk 20:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Archives

Help needed

Chevaline illustration

reply

Chevaline illustration

Lets get together!

Cold Fusion

Chevaline Redux

G-lader

Look on the AppleSearch talk page.

AppleSearch

Re: AppleSearch

Gaffitti in Cray?

You are an odd little fellow!

Sourcing

Re: newbie

Wikimood

See message from you to me about Mattisse being so wrong

You sent me a Barnstar!

mattisse

SA's nukes

Thanks for the heartening award

Image:Rcdsbbes.png

One smart fellow:

Enough with the teenager single moms with out of control daughters

Huge lasers

Re : No concensus?

Mac Pro Front Row

My Bot

High-Z

Thank you!!

Optical frequency Multiplication

Darn,,,

License tagging for Image:HiPER baseline design.jpg

Teledyne Ryan M-350 UAV

License tagging for Image:ICF laser power.png

new memory cat?

mid 1990's apple

Linkspam tag

Edit to Brunel

Did You Know?

Prod deletion

Hawker Siddeley

Image:Fairchild channel-f.gif

Avrocar

Hs 129

Sandia images

Social Impacts of Fusion Power

Irreducible Complexity edit

Link for quote you posted?

Block

LOSER!

CJ610/J85 merge

Texan II

Trolls

MB/MiB issue

Blast from the past

CF-101 Voodoo

Nick Baker (chef) mediation

"Black triangles" article

Failed Apple initiatives category

HiPER

YC-14

de Havilland Comet

Macintosh support for creating/editing/maintaining content at Wikipedia

My eyeballs .mw-parser-output .monospaced{font-family:monospace,monospace}:)

Comet

Jet Engine Combustion Chambers

B-1 Lancer

GA on Nova

Amelia Earhart article

Avro Arrow & CF 101 Voodoo - go ahead& re write, Maury!

The Avro Arrow debate

Survey Invitation

Gnetwerker

Your note

John Titor edit conflict?

More Titor

Re: Removing links from Wikipedia:List of encyclopedia topics

CN Tower level names

My eyeballs :)