User talk:The Land/Archive/Archive01

The Land

Beggars are made of dog poop. Why should we be beggars with the ballot in our hand? God made the land for the people! Gerry Lynch 12:16, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Indeed! Hurray for Georgism! Matthew Platts 14:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested in this

I've just created The Land (song). Perhaps you might be able to add to it? Matthew Platts 14:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

About the Fifth World Council (5WC)

I'll have you note that Cesidian law is not my own legal system if there are over 200 people who have accepted it, not to mention that your own computer follows the same law naturally...

In addition, I'll have you note that among the members of the 5WC are also 2 real and registered international organisations, one registered intentional community, one Australian cooperative, and an American organisation. As John Lennon once sung, "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one..."

Also, the fact that my nation (TTF-Bucksfan), and other Fifth World self-defined micronations are virtual entities, does not in itself make them non-noteable. Amazon.com and Google.com are also largely virtual, but nobody says they are not real or non-notable.

I would ask you to go to the Fifth World Council's website, and do a little background research, before you single-handedly and arbitrarily exclude its existence from the Wikipedia. I'm not going to fight with you on this, because I'm too busy with my nation, my organisation, and my own problems to do so, but if you think your will, not God's, is going to win in the end, I can assure you that you are very mistaken. --IndigoGenius 15:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Closing AFD

A reminder: {{oldafdfull}} goes on the article's talk page, not the article itself. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion process for more information. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just twigged that ;-) - Thanks! The Land 09:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great work spotting nonsense articles. But, if it is patent nonsense, or meets one of the other 'speedy delete' criteria {WP:CSD), could you tag it as {{nonsense}} or {{db|give whatever reason}} or even just {{d}}, instead of sending it to afd? You'll find it a lot less effort - and it saves work for others too. Thanks. --Doc (?) 16:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Military dolphins

Hey, Sorry, I didn't realise we were editing that page at the same time. Still:

Well, I included it on the basis of an article in the UK Independent newspaper. You are probably right that it's nonsense - but I'd prefer the article to cover it.

My point was that it is covered in the U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program article, which I think is the right place for it, since that's what it's referring to. Also, the fact that the indie and many other papers, TV stations, etc. have covered this doesn't give it any additional credence, because they're all just quoting the Observer article, which in turn comes from Leo Sheridan. Wide coverage doesn't give a story weight if all the coverage can be traced back to a single source who doesn't provide a shred of evidence for his clearly wacky claims. It does merit a response, which is why there is a response in the NMMP page. — Johantheghost 14:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Calton

Sorry, it's my given name. --Calton | Talk 23:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

High Kings

The Annals of the Four Masters is the main source of the mythical/legendary/semi-legendary history of the Irish people and kingship.

It can be found rendered online at http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/T100005A/

Regards --JohnArmagh 19:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza Spam

Hello Esperanzians! A few announcements.

The Advisory Committee election results are in. In tranch A are Acetic Acid and Flcelloguy. In tranch B are Ryan Norton and Bratsche.

My other annoouncement is that our founder, JCarriker, has founded Esperanza's sister project, Wikipediology. I have written two essays here (my name is Matt Binder). My essays are under Teenage Wikipedians and Anon Editors.

On behalf of myself and Jay Carriker and the other wikipediologists, I would appreciate it if you were to join.

Cheers Esperanza! R e dwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 23:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

coercive monopoly

Thank god somebody else grasps this "coercive monopoly" thing. Or, I should say thank you for taking the effort. (RJII)

"...continuing to argue with him [ User:RJII ] will not solve anything except making both of you more angry." You may be right (although I'm not angry, just kind of exhausted). I keep hoping that he will come around and participate in a reasonable discussion: seriously, what's the alternative? We have to reach a compromise and a consensus, don't we? I don't really see any other avenue to that other than to continue reaching out to him. The only other alternative I see is for everyone else to give up any attempt at creating a NPOV article and stop editing completely (which was what had happened prior to the page being protected: everyone had more or less given up and abandoned the article to RJII). That's no good for anyone, Wikipedia least of all. So we have to keep trying to reach a compromise with him. Sooner or later, he'll come around. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 17:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer believe that he'll come around, but I am at a loss. I have no idea what else to do. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 16:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

coercive monopoly survey

Jossi Fresco suggested a survey as the next step to break past the deadlock on coercive monopoly. I am posting this message to all of the editors who have attempted to contribute to this article in the past few months. I hope that you will find the time to participate in the coercive monopoly survey. Thank you for your time. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 23:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now RJII is deliberately disrupting the discussion, scrambling up responses so that the thread of the discussion is completely lost.[1] Can I get a show of hands on who would support a complaint at this point? I have really, really tried to avoid this, but I don't see any other alternative at this point. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 18:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Sorry about how your RfA went; as it says on the tin, editcountitis can be fatal. :( I'd be happy to nominate you a bit further down the line, when you'll be innoculated against it. :) Rd232 ^talk 18:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I too am sorry. Just stick around, build up a good edit history, and you'll make it down the road someday. Cheers. --Lord Vold e mort ^{(Dark Mark)} 13:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Wolfgang's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA. If my RfA passes I will use my new abilities with the common interest in mind. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ] 16:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Just wanted to drop you a note of thanks for your response to my RfA. I really appreciate the comments. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute on WP:GRFA

I've set the ball rolling for a WP:RFC survey to start, discussion is on the GRFA talk page. Please comment. Borisblue 04:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Age

Thank you for the apology. I removed age as a criteria for my nominating someone (not voting for or against someone) about a month ago. I realized it was in error, especially when juxtaposed with a comment I made that people who vote on edit counts are off base. I said something along the lines of that a person at 1999 edits not having the qualities needed to be an admin while at 2000 they suddenly do is absurd. It's equally absurd that a person of 24 years 364 days would be someone I'm not comfortable nominating while someone 24 years and 365 days is. The clock strikes midnight and suddenly they're golden? I was wrong. The rest of my standards for nominating (not voting) take care of any issues that might come about because of immaturity. Some people age 10 are more mature than some people aged 50. My actual voting standards are really pretty low. I'd quite happily vote for someone with 200 edits if I otherwise thought them worthy. Have a look at my comments on Wikiwoohoo's RfA, who had 147 edits at time of his first nomination. --Durin 16:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE Fuddlemark RfA

Hi Land, Yeah, it dawned on me while I was having lunch. This wikibreak I'm taking is getting the bad side of me, since I've been only reverting vandalism on my watchlist and by the time I read those comments my joke detector was off. Oh well, I guess making a fool of myself for once cannot hurt anybody. Right?

Anyway, thanks for the heads up.

Best, -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 14:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Vaughan

I don't think this should be AfD'ed, I think you should remove it. Quentin Pierce 19:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the AfD completely. The person is notable, but instead just let the AfD take its course, who am I to decide whats good or bad for wikipedia. Quentin Pierce 19:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark's RfA

Thanks for your support. I'm kinda befuddled, still, so looks like you succeeded :-). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hi The Land,

I would like to thank you for your kind support on my RfA. I'll do my best to be a good administrator. If you need anything, or if I ever do something wrong with my new powers, please contact me. Mushroom 16:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article was protected after discussion with Jimmy Wales, given the contentious nature of the article, and the upcoming CNN interview about it. Danny 18:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin now!!

Thanks a ton for your support to me and to Durin's beard on my RfA. The final tally was 50-0-0 and I assure you that I'll work to the best of my ability in upholding the integrity of Wikipedia. --Gurubrahma 11:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not...

..WP:DNFT. -Splash^talk 13:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Another RFA Thank You Note to clutter up your talk page...

The Land:

Just wanted to drop you a note to thank you for your vote of support in my recent RFA. I will attempt to utilize my knowledge of online communities in a manner that benefits Wikipedia.

All the best.
→ Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 13:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's Looking Good on Your RFA

I thought i'd congratulate you early. Good job, my friend. karmafist 02:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notability/WP:Importance

I have often seen notability used as a reason for deletion. Please supply me with evidence that this is not a reason to delete.--File Éireann 19:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what are you doing with Bogdanov Affair?

your edits to Bogdanov Affair and Talk:Bogdanov Affair are curious. why didn't you just revert the vandalism? it almost appeared, at first glance, that you were taking part in the vandalism. it all just looks odd. r b-j 16:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the reply. i didn't understand all of it, but at least i am convinced you are not a bogdanov sock-pupppet doing vandalism to an article that is unflattering to them. r b-j 18:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza elections

File:Voting box clipart.gif

Hi The Land/Archive/Archive01: This is a quick note just to let you know that there's an election under way at Esperanza. If you'd like to become a candidate for Administrator General or the Advisory Council, just add your name here by 15 December 2005. Voting begins at 12:00UTC on 16 December.

You've received this spam because you signed up for it here. To stop the spam, pop over and remove yourself and you'll never hear from Esperanza again!

➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 19:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 05:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, use it wisely. silsor 06:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, congratulations! --Whouk (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw in the Signpost that you've become an admin. I'm glad to hear it. I'll know you'll do well. Congratulations. -Willmcw 10:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look?

Can you take a look at speedy Big Gay Bear, esp the history? I don't want to get stuck with a 3RR, though I really doubt it would apply to me. Thanks.

Oh. And congrats. --Elliskev 21:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, that was a definite speedy candidate, now deleted. :-) The Land 21:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Peppers

In the spirit of Wikipedia, I support getting a consensus on AfD, but you seem to forgotten to put up a new vote on that page.

Did you simply intend to link to the vote records as a way of promoting debate? If that's the case, I think you should have done so on the discussion page.--Aleron235 22:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the listing with a new AfD page. The Land 22:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe's RfA Thanks

Thank you for your kind support on my successful RfA! If you are in need of support, my door is always open to you (and anyone else who may need a sympathetic ear). Regards, Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 04:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for supporting my RfA. The final tally was a fantastic 22/4/1. Deltabeignet 23:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hi The Land, now that I'm an administrator, I just wanted to thank you for your support on my RfA. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Cyber Law

Hi, I get into places, get very enthusiastic, and I hope I do not go overboard or out of bounds. I have now been trying to help out with the Cyberlaw project ... you can see my presence on the talk pages of the project, of most of the student groups, and I added a little bit to the project itself. Also where some of them had posted stuff & left off the 4 tildes, I did an attribution fix, then tried to do a helpful reminder on their talk pages about that. Where I found a student group had already learned that technique, I supplied tips for them going a step further on what can be done. User:AlMac|^(talk) 07:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to post this to the talk pages of the two administrators helping out with the project: +sj + and The Land User talk:The Land. Since I been burned a few times stepping on toes with different views than mine about what's appropriate, I have become a little less bold, and stated stuff on Talk pages before some input, giving folks a chance to encourage me, or say No. Acting on Sj guidance, I went ahead and made some comments on the various student group user pages, to try to help them out, and also on the Harvard site. (here I am there.)

I request that you first visit Wikipedia:Wikiproject Cyberlaw, noting the links I placed under Teams and Participants, and also in Structure, Note that Frontleft has added a couple of images. I have doubts that there has been a correct statement of copyright permission from Harvard students to Wikipedia. This may be a test to find out how soon WP finds out that there is a copyright problem, or it may be a student inexperienced in what needs to go on Image pages. User:AlMac|^(talk) 07:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goods

Sorry about reverting your changes, but large changes like that really should be discussed first on the talk page, there is already some discussion there and some external links that directly contradict some of your changes, not that I dont think it could be improved! Martin 23:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal Revolution

I'm not sure what possesed you to believe one of the most popular economics blogs is "not notable." The phrase "not notable" does not mean "not notable to The Land". It means "not notable to anyone but those involved" (BOCTAOE). If you are against any blogs what-so-ever then just say it. Some blogs really aren't notable. But this one is. --MShonle 02:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]

AFD relistings

Please don't do that. Just re-transclude the existing discussion page and leave the discussion open. Uncle G 21:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fascist economics

PLEASE help with the dispute in this article. Do you recognise this as manipulative pseudo-intellectual propaganda, or is it just me? Thanks --sansvoix 22:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Superinflation

Is there a particular reason you wanted this deleted? If it looks underdone, I'm still working on it.

I replied to your comment on my talk page (I prefer to keep the conversation together) TimNelson 10:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I moved the entire discussion to the Discussion page for "Superinflation cycle", as I thought that's where it belonged TimNelson 10:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some people just never learn...

Thanks for the revert and block of Broadmindedtwentysomething. We figured he might have given up, but I have a feeling this one's going to be a headache for some time to come yet... Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 19:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rant of the day

Quit removing discussions on article discussion pages. This is a violation of wiki rules. If you think they are personal attacks...think again. Stating that people are engaging in ideological disputes is not a personal attack. You have, once again, a warped view of rules...but this is of course because you wish to abuse rules to get your prefrences achieved...as I've said the whole time. CUT IT OUT! (Gibby 16:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC))

Yawn. The Land 16:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Meetup/Birmingham

This is just a reminder that the Birmingham meetup of UK Wikipedians that you have expressed an interst in is happening tomorrow. Sorry for the short notice. Thryduulf 15:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Homepage

Why are you deleting my homepage and leaving strange message on my User Talk page ? Cordially WritersCramp 22:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because your statements were offensive; you're blocked btw. The Land 23:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Writer's Cramp

This guy User:WritersCramp is a Neo Nazi but he is obsessed with the English bulldog and keeps reverting my Bulldog edits.

Is he about to be banned for Nazi racism and anti gay policy?

Personal attacks right? Batzarro 10:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accouting good

Why on earth have you redirected accounting good to economic good? I can understand wanting to merge the two articles, but you dont seem to have that intention, please ensure that you merge in all the information that will otherwise be lost. Also the article will need a new title, otherwise it is a bit misleading for someone who is looking for the accounting good article. Martin 22:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you have "merged" in global public good to public good by simply adding a single sentence? this is terrible. Martin 22:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone searchig for "accouting good" will not want to be redirected to "economic good", if you do want to merge them then the article will need a new title. Martin 22:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, accepted on global public good, but I think we should rename the Good (economics) article to something else, possibly Good (economics and accounting). any better suggestion? Martin 22:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Many thanks for supporting my RfA...

...but unfortunately it wasn't successful on this occasion, receiving seven support votes, seven oppose and seven neutral - about as balanced as it gets really. I appreciate your support and hope we get a chance to collaborate on something in the future. All the best, Jamyskis

Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 16:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hi The Land/Archive/Archive01, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). If you voted in support of my request, thank you! If you decided to oppose me at this time, then I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old VfD Discussions

You may want to know that an automated bot is currently responsible in making sure that 5-day-old VfD discussions are moved daily. Please avoid moving them yourself, as they may not have passed the 120 hours maturity period yet. Thanks! - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 12:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Dispute"

Hi again. I wish to avoid seeing others blocked. I have never spoken to this person prior for him blocking me on account of anti-pedophilia views. Unlike ~~some~~ most, I have never wheel warred, but I urge you to reinstate the block to avoid any further friction for today. Thanks again. Regards, El_C 23:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't be appropriate. Talk pages are the place to discuss this; disagreements are not helped by blocking one another. The Land

Thank you

Thank you for trying to defuse the situation tonight with that silly userbox and the ensuing fiasco.--Jimbo Wales 06:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sandwich of Exceptional Excellence (Potato Salad of Congenitality cluster, 1st. Class) *In Panis, Veritas.*

A well deserved award for you, The Land. Thanks for your efforts at defusing the great "Paedobox Imbroglio"! Well done, noble editor! Hamster Sandwich 15:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Excellent work on smoothing ruffled feathers - David Gerard 16:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

A request for arbitration where you have been listed as a party has been opened by Raul654 (per Jimbo Wales). Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war, as well as provide evidence at /Evidence and comment on proposals at /Workshop. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war case Raul654 23:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Covered call

Any chance of getting you to comment/edit on 'Covered call"?

Thanks, Smallbones 14:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Welcome Message

Thanks for the constructive olive branch, Land. I would love to if you know of another way to get signatures for it, ultimately to me who signs it isn't as important as how many people have signed it, for a reason you're hopefully going to see in a few weeks(that's a secret for now).

As for the newbies in wiki-politics, that argument just isn't cogent to me -- Joeyramoney was a newbie with no knowledge of or desire to get involved in Wikipolitics(he was a kid who saw a userbox that he thought was funny -- that's it under AGF), but he had it thrusted upon him anyway by a bloodthirsty mob. I'm sure if I looked there are probably more instances like that, and at this rate, there are going to be more like it. Newbies are still intelligent people, and I don't pester them if they don't sign it-- right now the ratio of people i've welcomed with that template to people who have signed is around 3%.

Also, i'd like to thank you for trying to defuse the situation last week that got me temporarily desysopped. I wish I had your calm demeanor in situations like that, but when someone innocent is being hurt by anyone, even Jimbo, my dander goes up. This goes for you too, please let me know if I can help you in anything if you've been attacked by someone. Karm a fist 04:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Katsulas

J. Michael Straczynski is the creator af Babylon 5, and the creator of Katsulas' best-known role. If anyone's comments beling here, it's his. The video is as close to official as you'll get - I was given the okay by JMS to share it, as I've done this before for Richard Biggs, and have been employed in the past by JMS to create similar works. The point is to share something with the fans. Please do not remove the link again. TheRealFennShysa 21:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introduce myself and ask for feedback

Hello The Land, I want to talk with you about two semi-related issues.

1. I read your comment on Pedophilia Project page. Your suggestion was much better than mine : ). (I suggested something like child abuse) I left a comment saying such and it was removed. The comment that replaced mine diminished your comment. Everyone doesn't how to agree with us. : ) But our opinions need to stay on the page. For now, I'm very willing to WP:AGF and consider the removal a strange wiki-error. (DanielCD put my comment back.) That said, I hope you will return to the project frequently to make sure your view is expressed.

2. As a co-incidence, I am planning to Rfa ASAP. I fear my involvemet with this project could cause the type of negative votes you mentioned on your Rfa sub-page. There are other things that complicate my nomination. If I lay out the situation would you look at it and give me some advice about how to present myself in the best light. Of course, if you have serious issues with my nomination I want to hear them also. Thanks, FloNight ^talk 00:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you, your comments were very helpful. I planned on doing more Afd, but got side tracked by WP:PROD. I'll get back on track. : ) I made a check list of items to complete before RFA. I'm just about done. Again, thanks for the speedy reply. FloNight ^talk 01:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serbophobia

This is an article that survived an AfD vote a while ago, but has since been relisted due to obvious violations of WP:NOR WP:Notability Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words and WP:POINT. Please go here and vote. Asim Led 18:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well first of all, I don't see what the problem is. Was it somehow horribly wrong for me to do so? And second of all, if you want to ask me a specific question I believe the proper course of action is to ask me on my talk page instead of leaving a completely unrelated comment on the AfD page in bold text and with two questionmarks for emphasis.

To answer your question, I suggested the AfD to you because you had previously voted for deletion in a related AfD case so I thought the issue might be of some interest to you. I also know you're not from the balkans, and think the debate could use some reasonable outsiders instead of being turned into another partisan issue. If it's not of any interest to you and you disagree with this, you could've simply ignored it: simple as that. Asim Led 19:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He does that to many, nobody likes it, and he still keeps doing it. Only questions is - should it be renamed? Instead of deletition proces, there should be a vote if it shold be Serbophobia or Anti-Serbism --Milan Tešovic 12:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economic impact of AIDS

As you are a member of the WikiProject Business and Economics, your help is kindly requested in the section of the AIDS article linked to above. Any help would be appreciated. --Bob 18:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just another RFA thank you note

Dear TL, I appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA nomination

Thanks for the nom. I have accepted and my nomination is now live. —Wh o uk (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whitemoor9

Hi, I have changed this one's block duration to indefinite as is policy for this type of page moving that he did.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 11:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote on my RFA

Thank you for voting on my RFA, however I've decided to withdraw my nomination. I'll perhaps nominate myself in the future once I have more experience, and not to immaturely release RFAs. Until then, I'll continue working on Wikipedia. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 21:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tone's RfA thanks

Dear The Land/Archive/Archive01 — Thank you for your support on my recent RfA. It succeeded with a final tally of 46/2/3 so now I am an administrator. I'll be taking things slowly at first and getting used to the new tools, but please let me know if there's any anything I can help you with in the future. And please correct me, if you spot I make a mistake. Thank you again. --Ton e 23:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hey there

Thanks for commenting on my RfA...it was greatly appreciated! --Osbus 21:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfa

Was successful, but honestly, I didn't appreciate your WP:POINT statement. Indeed, I found it downright insulting. -- Samir धर्म 08:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding ==Master Craftsman==

Thank you for your comment, it really made ME feel valuable.

68.148.165.213 17:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine's Day vs. Saint Valentine's Day

Sorry for any problems I may have created. The discusssion of Valentine's Day vs Saint Valentine's Day has been on the board for over a year and it seemed to me there was a consensus. Anyway, I'm fine with whatever name you want.Kauffner 07:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

I'm a new user at Wikipedia -- that is to say, I only recently created an account -- and I was wondering how you get those cute little boxes that say things like "this user is an intermediate violinist" onto your userpage. It didn't say how to do that anywhere I read. Can you answer me on my talk page, please? Thanks. -- Ellie041505 14:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm going to have a lot of fun with that right now.....:). Ellie041505 21:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bubba

I shortened it to 48 hours. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Hi, not to be contentious (I've already said that I'll quit updating the Amnesty International page), but.. "1. you are getting paid to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (either directly, as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly, as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes); 2. you expect to derive monetary benefit from editing Wikipedia, as, for example, the owner of a company you are writing about;"

I meet neither of those descriptions. I'm a professional journalist who works for AI, however, my contributions to wikipedia are as an individual with knowledge about the organisation and its campaigns. I am not being paid to edit here, nor do I expect to profit from editing here. I'm concerned with ensuring NPOV status of the article (including asking for proper write-ups of criticism to balance the piece between left and right criticisms).

As for my somewhat intemporate language, there you have a point ;) In my defence, I am Irish! Donnacha 16:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick request, could you have a look at my three posts in the Amnesty International talk page? They're being ignored and there's some dodgy stuff in the article that could do with fixing (which I've said I won't do anymore). Donnacha 23:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Steve Irwin:

You recently protected[2] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 18:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism

Ya, you're right. I just reverted (a sort of "hey, look" revert) but its senseless trying to initiate a discussion about the larger issue now. I should bring it up on the village pump. But it should be brought up. Why is Steve Irwin's death the largest section of his article? It speaks to the strengths (we can immediately verify it) and the weaknesses (that which can be immediately verified gets undue weight) of the system. You know what I mean? I see the recent event articles and think "hey great", and at the same time "why the hell are we wasting so much time with this!" :). Cheers, Marskell 22:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bint Jbeil

I would welcome your continued participation on that page, as some users are content to revert my edits without bothering to expalinthemselves on Talk Isarig 23:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.

How certain are you about this? So I was being discriminated against and now I am the incivil? I'd rather call it white arrogance and, just arrogance overall. Who do you think you are just to overrule someone else's hopes of beginning an admin? --Scotteh 18:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Yates

Please restore Scott Yates, which you deleted a few minutes ago. It was nominated for deletion by User:Njtigre , a possible vandal whose contributions consist only of prods and speedies. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Land Yes I am a new registered user, however I have been a fan of Wikipedia since its beginning reading random pages with passion. I am dismayed to see a fantastic resource of knowledge with very scholardly researched and written articles mixed into a mishmash of low quality useless information. I see Wikipedia turning into a landfill of garbage. Clicking on random pages now returns mostly article with low quality content, on people with no or very minimal short lived notoriety, companies advertising themselves, 6th grader school projects,..... Would you consider some local loser who made the newspaper for a car crash worthy of an encyclopedia article? I don't. One of the articles I proposed for deletion is a player (whatever game - I forgot) who, according to the article, never won anything. Useful knowledge for furture generations? Encyclopedic knowledge? I think not - this is landfilling of garbage. I only registered to propose some articles for deletion. I do ot consider myself arrogant enough to be able to write a scholarly article worthy of international peer review. Your colleage from Toronto, named above, calls me a potential vandal.... Is proposing to remove useless clutter is vandalism? Obviously his opinion. Most of my academic colleages share my view of the dumming down of Wikipedia. Excellent science articles, fascinating biographies simply burried under garbage. You mention in the talk page of the Toronto guy that you will be "watching me". Don't worry I will not propose anything for deletion of any article. I am losing my fascinationa and interest in wikipedia. I do not enjoy anymore clicking on random pages, because I have to click 20 times to find an article that interest me. Biographies of anime or game charactors do not interest me. My brief involvement was only my attempt to put my 2 cents in. They have been thrown back in my face. NJTigre

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chantli

I have noticed when you closed the above AfD, you did not remove the category template, "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD". By deleting this when closing it pulls the discussion out of the category. I have deleted it from this discussion, but if you could review any other closures you have done recently and remove the tag from them it would be greatly appreicated. This is a fairly recent change. The official policy is at WP:AFDC. I have been going through the listing in each of the categories CAT:AFD and removing the tag from pages that are closed and adding the approriate category code for those in the uncatagorised group. Thanks.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 19:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go raibh maith agat!

File:Ireland 37 bg 061402.jpg

Hi there!

Thank you so much for supporting my RfA! It ended up passing and I'm rather humbled by the support (and a bit surprised that it was snowballed a day early!). Please let me know if I can help you out and I welcome any comments, questions, or advice you wish to share.

Sláinte! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 23:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel77 on Keanu Reeves

I saw the capital 'W' and assumed it was the Willy on Wheels vandal, because that guy posts capital 'W' on the end - as in "WoW." EFG 02:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flaying

Is this what you really meant to do? Your edit summary says "rv unsourced 'rumours'" but it looks to me like what you did was to split an item in a bullet list inexplicably into two pieces, remove the request that the unsourced rumours be cited, and remove several appropriate links. If this had been done by a non-admin, I'd simply revert it; instead, I'm bringing it here, on the off chance that something is going on here that I am missing. - Jmabel | Talk 04:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ah-ha. I had reverted it to the wrong version! Thanks for pointing this out. The Land 10:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy

Hi. You contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. If you have the time and interest, I'm asking contributors to past a brief summary of their position on the proposal here, thanks. Herostratus 20:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Chuck Wissmiller

I have just asked for a deletion review of Chuck Wissmiller. I believe the article should have been afd'd, not speedied. Since you speedied the article, I would like to ask you to comment on the deletion review. Aecis ^Apple ^knocker ^Flophouse 18:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woo!

Your comments on Duja's RfA made me laugh :)) Thanks! - FrancisTyers · 13:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content Forking

See User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard#Content_Forking. Anthony Appleyard 08:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting an indef block

69.76.224.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This user was previously indef blocked by you but then modified to a 1 month block in December of 2005 for their comments and innuendo concerning child predation, pedophilia, and Wikipedia. They have recently made comments on the Talk page of the DOPA bill in Congress that suggests in the least that some editors of the article are child predators and attempting to spread disinformation. They also left a diatribe on another user's talk page that included comments like "Wikipedo-admin". Considering this user's inability to control themselves when it comes to these issues, I'd like to see the indef block reinforced. Thanks. ju66l3r 14:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know the hardships of dealing with anon IP edits (in the past, I've bloodhounded a particularly difficult IP vandal who had access to all of Telstra's IP ranges). I appreciate you checking over the recent comments by this IP. I will let you know if it becomes a further issue. While Rookiee's edits may have been a problem, the rant that was left on that user's talk page (prior to wipe) included far more insinuation about Wikipedia and those who choose to edit it than anything pertinent to the banned user. There becomes a point where nothing of value is contributed and everything contributed has no value. Thanks again. ju66l3r 17:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Pulsifer

I see you've deleted Simon Pulsifer. This flies in the face of the AfD that was closed by Mailer diablo yesterday. Your deletion flies in the face of community consensus; even if it did not, the article did assert notability and A7 did not apply. Agent 86 22:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Simon Pulsifer on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Simon Pulsifer. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. Agent 86 22:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

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

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—and wherever—you'd like:

Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines outline some things to include.
Interested in working on a more complete article? The military history peer review and collaboration departments would welcome your help!
Working on featured-level articles? We have some advice for nominators, and an A-Class review process to help check high-quality articles.
Want to help with specific requests for assistance? Our requests page has extensive lists of requested articles, images, maps, and translations.
Interested in a particular area of military history? We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, or periods.
Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 16:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you for reviewing me I will take your comments and try to use them to help me get better.--Sea dog .M.S 17:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thank you

Thanks for reviwing me. I've deleted some of the stuff you suggested to on my userpage, and I plan to participate more in AfD and RfA. -- TheGreatLlama ^{(speak to the Llama!)} 18:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And my sig is still crying! -- TheGreatLlama ^{(speak to the Llama!)} 18:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The move that he was proposing was totally ridiculous, as everyone else also said. Someone else compared it with moving President of the United States to Argon (United States). By proposing such ridicilous moves, of which you know that everyone else will oppose you and that they will not be carried out, you make a fool out of yourself. That's just a fact, not an insult. --Daniel575 | (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see dead people

Thanks! It was in Wikipedia humor space but somebody from the No Fun Brigade PROD'd it while I was away and not one person saved it... I userfied it anyway though. Herostratus 19:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snrk. I just read it again -- it is amusing IMHO. The nerve of them deleting it. Yes sure go to down. I wonder if Wikipedia:Biographies of undead persons has promise... Herostratus 20:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rational Response Squad AfD

The Land, I don't understand why you deleted the page for the rational response squad. The organization clearly exists, clearly has tens of thousands of listeners, and clearly has a ton of avid supporters (which unfortunately manifested themselves as socks). The article is encyclopedic, contains no weasel words, and is not promotional. I hope you will reconsider and re-look at the votes page. I am not a sock. I just can't understand any rationale for this page being deleted.

I agree. If a | Small Radio Station in the Midwest can have a Wiki page, then why not? I'm a Wikipedian since January 2005; I also happen to listen to their programing which is where I heard about the attack on their wiki page - does this make me a sock? Bdrasin 00:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the AfD discussion and find it rather distasteful. In full disclosure, I have not actually read the article in question (it got speedy deleted before I had the chance). After many/most of the "Keep" comments were comments like:

- Comment User's first edit in seven months, thirteen total edits.
- Comment This appears to be a single purpose account; 17 out of 19 total edits have been to the article Rational Response Squad, its talk page and this deletion discussion.
- Comment This user's first edit.

It is hard to find any way to interpret this than the commenters think that only authors who regularly edit wikipedia should be allowed to discuss/vote on AfD. This is most definately NOT the way things are supposed to work according to [[WP:AFD] (my emphasis added):

Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight.

Notice it doesn't say anything about the number of edits the user has made in the last n months? The AfD process isn't supposed to be a "vote" but an exchange of arguments; again according to AFD :

The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments.

Since the anonymous/newly created accouts were themselves actually presenting arguments (again, I don't know if I would agree with them because this Administrator took it upon himself to short-circuit the discussion) wouldn't it make more sense to answer the arguments? And isn't a priori assuming that an anonymous/new account must be a puppet a violation of assume good faith? Bdrasin 11:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have an archived copy of the original article that was AfD'd. --Cbenard 01:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Clerk, FloNight 21:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rightmove

A deletion review has been opened on this article at WP:DRV#Rightmove. Since you deleted it, I thought you might like to comment. Mango juice^talk 17:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

A Little Help...

Mind explaining semi protection to Mahal11. Seems I'm not getting any where with him :P...¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Ironclad

Hello. There is a dispute going on over the scope of the article, and as along as this is so, you would not be able to include your material, I am afraid. Why don't you vote here to speed up the process: Talk:Ironclad warship#What is the argument about? I am btw for the inclusion of your material. Regards Gun Powder Ma 20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to inform you. A separate article on Pre-industrial armoured ships has already been created (beside Turtle ships and Atakebune). What do we do with it now? Regards Gun Powder Ma 19:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be so kind to provide the exact source of your definition of an ironclad? See Ironclad warship#Ironclad Technology. Regards Gun Powder Ma 21:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ironclad warship

Yes, it needed a makeover, and I did it! It really needed some structure. Carajou 01:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

banned

I have been ip banned for no reason! I am the brother of User:Daniel10, and am not a sockpuppet. A user has banned me for accusing me of that. I have been here for a long time, and i'm extemely angry. PLease unban me, i did nothing wrong! Joshuadude II 10:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Ironclad/battleship imbroglio

Hello, The Land.

Thanks for putting me right over ironclads. Following your request at the Maritime warfare task force talk page, I’ve come up with some ideas; given how high feelings are running at the moment, I’d like to run them past you one-to-one before putting them to the community.

Looking at the discussion on Talk:Ironclad warship, I think that a consensus is emerging that we need substantive articles on the following subjects:

Ships-of-the-line
Ironclads of the period 1850-1890 (very roughly)
Battleships of the period 1880-present (again, very roughly)
Pre-industrial armoured ships (Turtle ships, Atakebune, etc.)

Until recently, all of the first three subjects were covered in the single article Battleships. There is no doubt that the result was impossibly long and cumbersome, and that the decision to break it up is the right one. As for as I can see, there are now four substantive areas of debate:

The break-points between the "ship-of-the-line", "ironclad" and "battleship" articles;
The appropriate names for each article;
”Ownership” of the term ironclad;
Whether the "pre-industrial" article should be self-contained, a “feeder” article directing users to more detailed articles, or broken up altogether.

I agree with User:PHG that unarmoured, wooden-hulled steamships such as Le Napoléon (1850) have no place in an article on “ironclads”. On the other hand, leaving this material in the "Battleship" article, while removing the ironclads, will leave a forty-year hole in the middle of the narrative. The wooden steam battleships should be dealt with at the end of the "ship-of-the-line" article; that is, after all, what they were. The breakpoint between "ironclads" and "battleships" could be traced back to the Devastation class of 1872, the Redoutable of 1876 (which introduced steel construction), or the Admiral class of 1882, which appear to have been the first ships actually designated as "battleships" at the time that they were built (DK Brown cites a paper calling them battleships in 1889, while EHH Archibald claim that the term was introduced “in the 1880s”). In practice, it will probably be necessary for there to be an overlap between the end of one article and the start of the other.

On the issue of article titles, It seems to me that, if the current Ironclad warships article was given a name which described its subject more precisely, such as "Ironclad Warships of the 19th Century", or simply "Steam ironclads", the current edit war could be resolved. Even the most ardent Korean or Japanese nationalist would hardly assert that Admiral Yi’s Turtle Ships or Nobunaga’s Atakebune were 19th-century vessels, or that they were propelled by steam. I was therefore surprised at the line you took in your post of 10:02, 24 January 2007, citing policy for the assertion that “article should be about ironclads as commonly understood and we shouldn't try to make up a substitute longwinded article name”. While I see where you are coming from, my understanding that it is also accepted practice to use culturally neutral terms, where possible. Given the strongly-expressed views of users like Ksyrie and PHG, is it really culturally neutral to insist that a ship sheathed in iron only counts as an ironclad if it was made by Europeans or Americans after 1850?

My proposal would be

Rename Ironclad warships with a title reflecting its actual scope;
Try to obtain a consensus for the existing solution, whereby ironclad links to this article, but the article is headed by a prominent link to Pre-industrial armoured ships;
If there is no consensus on this, make ironclad link to Ironclad (disambiguation)

I have no particular view on the management of the "pre-industrial" article(s), an area about which I am embarrassingly ignorant; hopefully the domain experts can sort that out between themselves.

Hope this is helpful, and not too long-winded. Regards, John Moore 309 14:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for your comment!

I'm fairly happy with the way things are working out. While pre-industrial armoured ships is a bit of a clunky name I'm happy for it to be linked from the top of the Ironclad warship article. And I'm not going to insist on the Napoleon being covered exclusively in ironclad, so long as it's noted there because of the importance of steam power to ironclad dvelopment. And yes it's well worth including in ship of the line as well as battleship, though probably more in the latter. The Land 15:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt reply. I forgot to ask that you post your reply to your own page, so that other users can follow the thread (I normally put a watch on the talk page of a user that I'm in dialogue with). I've taken the liberty of doing that (although given your archiving policy, I presume it won't last long!) Regards, John Moore 309 17:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Short Kent

Thanks for rating this article. Would you please add some comments to provide information on how to improve the rating? Many thanks! TraceyR 20:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by grafikbot 11:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments; much appreciated. I'm unsure about the status of the many images which are available on the net - I don't want to infringe on copyright. I'll have to look into it. All images must be at least 69 years old, most older, so maybe they are PD by now ... TraceyR 21:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy

I've made a stab at the corrections you suggest. Thanks for taking the time to review this article; let me know if you think further changes are needed. Chrislintott 23:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've reviewed Galaxy against the Good Article criteria, and I think it's there, except for some minor clarifications to the lead section. So I've placed it On Hold for the time being, but am very optimistic about it passing within a few days. The Land 21:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. Now that it's GA I'm putting it forward for FAC, so hopefully that will bring it up to top quality. — RJH (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Ship-of-the-line

I started on that article, but only cleaned up the lead paragraph (so far). I'm using the 1991 Britannica as a guide, and so far the article itself pretty much follows the same flow...which leads me to believe that, based on similar structure, the previous editor may have copied Britannica. Good thing it was caught! Carajou 22:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The layout of the article does not need to be changed, but it could use the improvement of information added in to each sub-heading. Carajou 00:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does! We're a bit of a warship-types tag-team at the moment ;-) - I'm going to focus on the ironclads for a while and see if we can get it up to Good Article status. The Land 09:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battleship

Thanks for you work. It's quite rare to find editors here improving old articles with large edits. Good work. --Attilios 09:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The work is good. I've done some style editing just now... maybe you could speak more about the two Benedetto Brin's Italian ships, that at the time shocked all the other maritime powers (I've written something in Italian ironclad Dandolo and [[Italian ironclad Duilio). Bye. --Attilios 11:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Articles listed at AFD

Pear of Anguish (AfD discussion)

You may wish to both read the article and contribute to the discussion. Uncle G 02:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

reply, Mozambican War

Ah, no I didnt see that, will take a look and make changes now. If you are still online when I'm done will you be able to quickly shift it to GA for me if I leave you a note? SGGH 23:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've got it, and have removed as many typos as I could find. What do you think? SGGH 23:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that.

Hey, sorry about reverting that. I couldn't see your edit summary so i didn't know why you had blanked all text. Thanks for correcting my error. Goodnightmush 18:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 16:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Green Energy (moved from userpage)

Firstly, If you think something I write is POV (and your choice to report ecotricity's fuel mix as 86% not renewable, rather than 17% renewable seems to be just as blatantly POV as anything I have written), then edit it until you are happy that it reflects a neutral view. That's how WP works. In fact, this is what happened on the SSE page and we've now got a rather lovely section putting both sides of the argument... Secondly, I don't work for any electricity supplier. That's a rather unfair and baseless accusation and I take it as an attempt to slander me and poison the well. Famousdog 17:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, used your user page rather than talk...

I also disagree with your assertation that WP's NPOV policy "means it is inappropriate for articles on British energy suppliers to rely disproportionately on the amount of money spent on new renewable resources when assessing how green they are." Investment is important to the future prospects of a renewables infrastructure, and is not prohibited by any WP policy I am familiar with. Famousdog 17:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Appreciation

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded in recognition of your patient and indefatigable labours on behalf of the Maritime warfare task force, and in particular for your work on Battleship. Please be assured that your efforts are appreciated. Regards, John Moore 309 15:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Torpedo

Hi there, is this page for answer? The idea of self propeling torpedo is clearly from Ivan Luppis from Rijeka- and it is Croatia, then part of Austro-Hungarian empire. Development of that idea belongs to the English engineere who came to work in Rijeka and developed Luppis idea. I'll quote: The result was a submarine weapon, the Minenschiff, the first real self-propelled torpedo, officially presented to the Imperial Naval commission on December 21, 1866.

So you can chek informations of Austrian Imperial Naval commission that recorded that. (Penkala 14:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)) [reply]

Battleship

Don't be too despondent - it is fundamentally a fine article. I'll give it a copyedit, if you think it will help. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Tax

I think you are supposed to give them a full week to respond before failing.--DorisHノート 11:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read your comments ont Talk:Tax and I agree 100 percent. I was wondering why some people fail articles without giving the one-week on-hold-time.--DorisHノート 12:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary Private Secretaries

Thank you for assessing this article. I understand and appreciate your comments. However depending on the article not all can be up to 30k in length. I won't be disputing this decision because you have alluded to what you consider to be missing. Unfortunately, I can't think of anything else to add to an article such as this so I will leave it in the hands of the next person. Again, thank you for taking the time. Douglike 17:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Asteroid belt

Sorry you didn't get any response from the person who nominated Asteroid belt for GA. I've been working to expand the article, so I'll try to include your suggestions as I go along. Thank you for the review. — RJH (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Cannon in the Middle Ages GA

Could you please check Talk:Cannon in the Middle Ages? Your review has been on hold longer than allowed. Thanks! --Grimhelm 17:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Big guns

Depends on how you measure them. I was thinking of calibre. Have a look at Mörser Karl, Big Bertha (howitzer), Schwerer Gustav. Cheers GrahamBould 08:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg

Hello, The Land. An automated process has found and removed a fair use image used in your userspace. The image (Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:The Land/Archive/Archive01. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image was replaced with Image:Example.jpg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 23:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Ironclad warship

Hi there. I saw your interest in 19th century warships on the Maritme History Taskforce, and was wondering if you could have a look at ironclad warship, which I'm in the process of improving. Would be useful to have some comments! Many thanks, The Land 12:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs a huge amount of work. My belief is that paragraphs should be extensively footnoted with proper sources referenced. You might find the article on the Prince_Consort_class_battleship of interest. It gives a list of sources that I would commend to you.

When I get time I plan to do articles on the naval arms races of the 1850s, the 1860s, and the period of naval retrenchment that followed these naval arms races which lasted until the late 1880s..--Toddy1 17:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Pre party

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Pre party, 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). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Many thanks. -- TinaSparkle 13:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 16:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Pearl Harbor page question.

I need your help. One of the issues you mentioned with the Pearl Harbor page was "weblinks thrown in unformatted". I want to fix this, but I am not sure where this is the case. The links have the [#] on them, and are dropped into the references. Is there another step needed? Thanks in advance, CodeCarpenter 15:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. It was Marskell that had that suggestion. He is one of the FAR people. I wrote to him instead. Nevermind, and thanks anyway, CodeCarpenter 19:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battleship external links

You certainly can suggest that I leave them alone, but the first time I removed them, they _were_ dead (all three of them). The next edit I made, I left one in because it cited a source, but neither of the two cite any sources and are personal pages of non-recognized authorities on the subject. Both of these criteria fall under the list of links to be avoided. I think that the two pages in question are interesting but I personally don't think they fit WP:EL criteria. --Chuck Sirloin 18:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

DYK

On 30 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Demologos, 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.

--Carabinieri 00:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italics for ships names

Should all ships names be in italics? I know that titles should be per Manual of Style Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting). If they should be then i should apologise to Reuv as it was i who recommended that he shouldnt have them all in italics in his peer review. I think as long as the article is uniform in its presentation then it is ok. There is no wikipedia guideline as far as i know related to it. Please tell me if i am wrong. Woodym555 20:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i have answered my own question with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships), sorry to bother you and i will go look at the article again!!! Woodym555 20:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Wikimedia UK

Hi,

At some point you expressed an interest in supporting meta:Wikimedia UK. We're now ready to begin receiving applications from prospective members. If you would like to join, application forms and further information can be found at: http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/join. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions, either via my user page at the English Wikipedia or by email (andrew.walker@wikimedia.org.uk).

Thanks, Andreww 14:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Membership officer, Wikimedia UK)

CBOT building

i appreciated your comments regarding popular culture at the CBOT building FAC. i am a silent but staunch inclusionist for most items, especially if referenced, that could later be incorporated into an article's body. in GAs and FAs, it would usually garner a harsh look and scrutiny. in this case, the article has info regarding heads of state, significant movies, and use in literature and art, and supports the notability of the building due to the breadth of areas influenced. to be fair, i have been a significant contributor to the article dating to the improvement effort last year. again, thanks for your comments! they influenced me to reflect on my stance on the subject. LurkingInChicago 22:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Please could you review two articles on Canadian Escorts

On Thursday I found what I considered a confusing stub article on HMCS Kootenay, and I have spent today turning it into two more useful articles. Please could you have a look at them, comment on them, and grade them.

Please note that a destroyer escort is not exactly the same thing as an escort destroyer (DDE).--Toddy1 17:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

No good deed goes unpunished

Thanks for your efforts with Michael Pocock.

I'd like to keep him on board as a contributor but I'm concerned that may not work. He may just end up taking his ball and going elsewhere. His snapping at you after your attempt to help was not an auspicious sign.

WPSPAM's spam removal is normally unobtrusive but it sure wasn't today. Personally, I just try to stick with the really awful spam (Viagra, etc.) myself and leave the gray area links for someone else to puzzle out. We have over 3 million external links and there are probably several hundred thousand bad ones to choose from.

I've restored about 90 deleted links that were not added by Mr. Pocock using his Michael Pocock account. However I've spent way too much time on this affair and have to move on for now.

Again, thanks for your diplomatic efforts. --A. B. ^(talk) 23:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kyriakos 11:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 12:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

FAC Question

Hi, on the FAC page for Defense of the Ancients you stated: "Oppose, because none of the references are to reliable sources. It may be that nothing resembling a reliable source has ever commented on this very minor piece of gaming culture, in which case [...] it should never become an FA". WP:RS says that "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Techtree.com is India's largest technology web site, and has a large section of the site devoted to game reviews. Computer Gaming World is a real-life walking, talking publication. Normal newspapers cover the tournaments DotA is in[3]. My question is what more do you need? David Fuchs^(talk) 12:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Growth of the Line-of-Battle Ship

I have put the following graph on the Ship of the line and Battleship pages. Please could have a look at this, and if you feel appropriate tidy up what I have done. I am not really sure whether the best thing to do is to have the graph as a thumbnail or to show it full size.

In the long term I will make more of these graphs on size growth and cost growth.--Toddy1 19:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Displacement Growth of RN 1st Class Battleships 1630-1950

I have extended the previous graph to the end of the 1940s. The trend for sailing ships was 3.66% compound growth per decade. The trend for steam ships was 30% compound growth per decade. Note that the first rate steam 2-deckers and 3-deckers lay on the steam trend line not the sail trend line.--Toddy1 11:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Lange-Lerner-Taylor Theorem

I made some additions to your article, and I was wondering if you would be willing to give me any feedback. I moved it to Lange Model. Thanks so much! --EMB330 20:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

DYK three in one

Thanks, I work hard on my articles :) Nice to know people enjoy seeing them in DYK. IvoShandor 08:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Chevrons

Pre-Dreadnaught

Conway's (p.222) states that Schleswig-Holstein was bombed by the RAF and sunk on 18 December 1944 while being refitted at Deutsche Werke. But also states that it was decommissioned on 25th January 1945 and broken up in situ. Its a bit vague as its not clear just how sunk it was . It says that Schesien was mined off Usedom Island on 3rd March 1945 and scuttled off Swinemund two days later.Nigel Ish 14:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Watseka (YT-387) follow-up

Hi. You participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Watseka (YT-387) which has now closed as "keep". I think it's worth having a more general discussion as to the notability of small noncombatant auxiliaries such as harbour tugs and I have raised this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force#Follow-up. I'm inviting all the AfD participants, both pro and con, to join in with their thoughts on the topic. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Old friends

Could you watch the edits of this new user[4], I suspect it is the re-incarnation of an editor you blocked last week. Thanks Giano (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Barrage

Thanks for your comments on my Talk page - happy to consider joining the Military Science task force but I fear it might imply a level of commitment I would fail to deliver on. I also don't claim much real expertise, nor a comprehensive library to compensate. On the other hand from the sample of articles I've looked at, I agree there is much to be done - there's a lot of vague, amateurish and unsubstantiated material out there, and probably too many pages rather than too few. {Military tactics]], {Infantry tactics]] and Air burst are cases in point, but I can't see myself having time to do the major fixing (and research) required (though I may have a go at Air burst, now I've improved my artillery library). Cyclopaedic (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Readership Stats

I noticed on your user page this comment: "last time I looked at the stats, 164,000 people a day were reading it." How did you figure that out? Is there a tool or something that shows readership rates? Thanks. KnightLago 19:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. KnightLago 20:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award

Vasa (ship) at FAC

Since you've shown interest or made some contributions to Vasa (ship), I'd like to notify you that it has been nominated as an FAC. Your insights and comments would be much appreciated there.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Panzerschiffe, Linienschiffe, Schlachtschiffe

You stated that Schlachtschiffe is "an unambiguous word meaning battleship (specifically, dreadnought)"

Erich Gröner's German Warships 1815-1945, Volume I uses the following terms: (I only have an English edition):

armoured ram (Panzerfahrzeug?) - Prinz Adalbert (1865)
armoured monitor (Panzerfahrzeug Monitor?) - Arminus ((1864)
armoured frigate (Panzerfregatten) - various ships up to the Kaiser class of 1874
armoured corvette (Panzerkorvette) - Hansa (1872)
armoured ship (Panzerschiffe) - Preussen class of 1873 to Kaiser Friedrich III class of 1896
ship of the line (Linienschiffe) - Wittelsback class of 1900 to Bayern class of 1915
battleship (Schlachtschiffe) - Schnarnhorst class of 1936 onwards

However in the chapter headings it uses armoured vessels for 1864-84 (i.e. up to Oldenburg (1884), coastal battleships for the Siegfried and Odin class, battleships for Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm (1891) onwards.--Toddy1 (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Reply on TomStar81's talk page

Replied and apologized: [5]. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]