User talk:Dave1185/Archive 3

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

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

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 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) 02:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome Back!

Btw, you never did respond about the Pakistani aircrafts thing you posted on my page. - BilCat (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Three kids and a bossy missus are a handful whenever a man steps out from his castle, let alone spending a two week vacation with them somewhere down in New Zealand. Anyhoo... by Pakistani aircraft(Milborne is going to get you for using plural again on aircraft!), did you meant the Il-78 tanker that the PakAF got recently? If so, the joke was on them news editor and readers, why do need you an air-refilling aircraft when they are already in the middle of the sky? That would be a sight, imagine huge made-in-russia but pak-manned mechanical contraptions flapping their wings for dear life just to get their air refilled... strange how some egoistic publications and their like minded staff behave when it comes to such article. Goes to prove that much more proof reading and copyediting is required before they set it out for the whole world to see (and laugh at their grammar/vocabulary...), eh? --Dave 1185 08:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha! Well, it does explaine while the users from certain sub-continent have such trouble writing in Commonwealth/American Standard English here on WP. I was surpried the got got the plural of "aircraft" correct though! - BilCat (talk) 08:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Buff/BUFF

Dave, I've reverted your move of Buff, and opened a discussion at Talk:Buff#Recent page move. To be honest, I don't understand your reasoning at all. I reverted it because I think [[Buff] is the clear title for the DAB page, and meant no disrespect by it. If I agree with your reasoning, or if the consesnus is with you, I'll move the page back to BUFF (disambiguation) myself, just to show there are no hard feelings. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Btw, an admin has moved it back to Buff. - BilCat (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Shame (what shame~?)

What shame that the shame-meister got blocked, has evaded said block, and been blocked again. Shame on him for his shameful behavior! (I'm just trying to see if this "shame" stuff works in reverse.) ;) - BilCat (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got hounds [[1]] - got any foxes? - BilCat (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
We've both posted on his page, but Nick is either in his sleep period, or otherwise unavailable. I've also posted at WP:AIR, so we'll see what happens. - BilCat (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • No worries, it will turn out fine. Just as the shamer became the shamee, eh? Kinda reminds me of what my wife says... "Whatever you give a woman, she will make it greater. If you give her sperm, she'll give you a baby. If you give her a house, she'll give you a home. If you give her groceries, she'll make you a meal. If you give her a smile, she'll give you her heart. She multiplies and enlarges what is given to her. So, if you give her any crap, be ready to receive a ton of shit." Oh well, it's back to hell hole for me now... can't let the A380 stay AOG too long or my boss is going to kill me. Turnaround time is the keyword these days. --Dave ♪♫1185♪♫ 05:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Good advice. Enjoy your whale-sitting!. - BilCat (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Shaming Pillar

Re: your edit at Shaming Pillar, anyone can remove a PROD tag, even the article creator. Additionally, once the tag has been removed, it cannot be readded, it can only be sent to AfD. The whole point of PROD is to bypass AfD for what would be uncontroversial deletions. Thanks! (X! · talk)  · @584  ·  13:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I beg to differ... especially when it is deleted by a BLOCKED editor using a sock to do so. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 13:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Dave, you requested speedy deletion, not AfD. The admin who turned it down suggested you take it to AfD, but you didn't, you chose prod, the prod was contested (as users have a right to do) and I've now listed it at AfD. --Dweller (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dave1185. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scania N113.
Message added 19:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NW (Talk) 19:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar/San Roque

I have amended the wording slightly of the sentence describing San Roque, please alter your vote accordingly if you do not agree with the revised edition. It won't be altered again, but on reflection there is no evidence for the word majority. --Gibnews (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The ranking of the size of navies

Dave Concerning you edit of the ranking of the Indian Navy. If any one gives you any flak, most navies are ranked in size by the number of "ocean" going warships they have. When the USN was arguing in the past for a 600 ship navy they all ready had 600 warships if you counted those in mothballs, landing craft, inshore craft, small patrol craft, etc. Everyone in the world knew -- ie as least everyone -- knew what the true count is. By the standard of some of having any ship under a nations navies control, China has a larger navy than the US does -- ie in tonnage the USN with its carriers the US can probably beat all nations "combined" in tonnage. And ranking India's navy as sixth is actually probably being very generous, even though that user will probably not agree. <GRIN> --Jackehammond (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I know, why then would I have reverted the anon IP's nationalistic/egoistic edit? It's a bleeding obvious phenomenon on articles relating to the Indian sub-continent and Bill is aware of that as much as you and I do... but we do what we can to maintain impartiality. *grin* --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 07:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Dave the last paragraph of the history section of the Indian Navy. Basically a small naval landing force got beat. A long way from a "naval" victory. The history of India today is getting about as bad as the US history was for years, about the War of 1812 -- ie you would have thought that after defeating Napoleon, that the US defeated the UK and the UK begged for mercy from the Americans. According to that history there were not major battle till the Battle of New Orleans which took place after that war ended. Maybe 100 years from now, India will take another critical look at their history like the US eventually did - ie warts and all. <GRIN> --Jackehammond (talk) 10:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 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) 03:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hopeful death of the Death crusier vandal

After the IPs latest "contribution" to the MD-11 page, I've siced an admin on him! Some people are just tpo stupid to know when to give up. - BilCat (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Would that governments prone to legislate everything follow that rule! That fact that they don't is a good sign that it really doesn't work. Vandals don't vandalize here because we tell them not to - they do it because it's easy to do, it brings them attention, and there are no real consequences to such behavior. Take away those things, and the random vandalism will dry up. The deliberate harmful kind (like this IP) will still be around, but those 3 things would make it harder to do it consistently. - BilCat (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Spike (missile) edit on range and comparable systems

Dave Someone just made an edit on the Spike bumping its maximum range from 8km to 25km. It is not vandalism in my opinion. The member made the edit based on the Spike NLOS version, which Israel developed for pin-point strikes in urban areas (eg Gaza) without having to take out the whole building or the buildings next door. While they call it a Spike version it really isn't. I would love to know how they get the 25km range. Most long range FOG-M systems require a massive high speed boost-at-launch and then coast, or a small turbine engine like a cruise missile. But it is a dispute I will let you two hash out. Also, as to comparable systems to the Spike. The Russian 9M123 Khrizantema uses laser beam riding or radio command if the weather or battlefield conditions require it. The SRAW uses a modified inertial guidance system similar to a ballistic missile. Check the guidance system of the Spike. Really the only comparable system to the Spike was the one Hughes Aircraft Missile Division developed for the US Army's AAWS-M program which lost out to the Texas Instrument candidate with the Javelin. But if those two systems are comparable then the HOT, MILAN and TOW are too!??!! I edit them out leaving the only two systems which are comparable. The French and Germans were developing a super heavy system like the Spike NLOS to protect submarines against anti-sub helicopters, but I do not have information as to whether it became operational. Btw, before Hughes Missiles got bought by Raytheon, I (and others) use to love to ask them if Rafael had paid them any royalties on their research and design concept for AAWS-M. No sense of humor. Absolutely no sense of humor what so ever at all. If you really want to get them stired up, ask them if they think the new Chinese Red Arrow 6 and South African INGWElooks an awful lot like the older Israeli MAPTAS and the MAPTAS looks an awful lot like a laser beam riding TOW 2 missile. Just asking. Just asking. <GRIN> --Jackehammond (talk) 07:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Brimstone and Tornado

Actually, my mistake! If you view [2] you will see near the bottom of the page, a Tornado carrying twelve Brimstone under the fuselage. Either the GR4 has four, or five, fuselage hardpoints rather than three as in the GR1, or an adapter has been developed for the two outer fuselage hardpoints, which I did not know about. As I mentioned previously, there are two fuel tanks and one unidentified missile on the inner wing hardpoints and jammers/chaff dispensers on the outer wing hardpoints. The absolute maximum load is 24 Brimstone, 12 is more likely. HLGallon (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"High Low System" article title on my Talk page

Dave If you have a chance look over on my Talk page at the "High low system" section. Wilson and I need a neutral party to put their 2 cents in. --Jackehammond (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Arabic-speaking Christians

Why are you taking sides? And do you suppose this is vandalism while the actions of the other party is not?! --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ[talk] 19:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of the 3RR rule and I will not break it within 24 hours. But again, do NOT take sides! The issues has been discussed ad nauseum on the talk page, and it is clear that Egyptian Christians are NOT Arabs! So please only mind your own business and don't mingle into things you know little about. And again, please do not take side! --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ[talk] 19:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't normally do this but it would seem to everyone that clearly, you were indeed edit-warring on the aforementioned page, and the right thing to do was to go to the discussion page of the article to voice out your opinion instead of coming to mine and rant. I don't appreciate that and I most certainly won't tolerate such nonsense if you do not bother to read the Caution notes of my talk page before posting. Lastly, removal of page content without any consensus is VANDALISM. Take heed. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 19:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
There IS INDEED consensus on the talk page on the part of many users that there is no place for Egypt in that article. Why don't you spend your time reading the talk page (to which I have contributed ad nauseum, by the way!) instead of wasting my time and yours on useless battles? Maybe YOU should take heed! --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ[talk] 19:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Before you jump to conclusion again... take a look at the edit history of previously mentioned page and see what reason was provided in the Edit Summary by the Anonymous IP editor (which might be you, I don't know but I'll AGF~!), notice that there was none. Also, you might want to read up on Help:Edit summary first before simply labelling things as garbage... it's tantamount to a personal attack if you rub someone the wrong way. That said, I'm not offended by your choice of words, I personally have no vested interest in the article page and I'm not taking any sides (in case you were wondering), so I would appreciate if you would AGF too on that issue before jumping to conclusions again, it's not cool (like I've said before). Indeed, I was reverting the article page simply because the anonymous IP editor did not provide an explanation in the Edit Summary box when doing a wholesale removal of content, which in my opinion was no different from vandalism. This goes on record so get this, and I'll reiterate again... I am not taking sides, just doing my part protecting Wikipedia from vandals. Regards. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 20:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism: Hand grenade

Reference added to someone's sexual gender.--Jackehammond (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

  • No worries Jack, the silly vandalism has been self-reverted by the vandal, probably due to us not giving him a heck. Regards. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 17:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of the admin section on my user page

I have already read point 22 of WP:OWB and removed the section about my thoughts on RFA. -- Merlion  444  10:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Civility and Personal Attacks Issues at Talk:Arab_Christians_and_Arabic-speaking_Christians

The users User:Lanternix and User:Miss-simworld continue to have issues with civility and no personal attacks. There is also need of dispute resolution. They dispute a clear case of original research. It appears intervention is necessary to protect the article and maintain its neutrality. I welcome advice on how to proceed regarding this issue. --Qvxz9173 (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Also, the user Lanternix has recently made a suspicious edit where he talks about himself in the 3rd person (as if he is the other user Miss-simworld).[3]. Could it be possible that he is using sockpuppets in a way to avoid detection when a checkuser is done? Should I notify the checkuser who handled the Lanternix case? --Qvxz9173 (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Didn't expect to see you there...

heh. I just got onto Wikipedia, saw the new messages thing, then realised I wasn't logged in. Seriously though, that IP should probably be permablocked because I know those who do good work log in. What do you think? (Note to self: Talk to one of the head teachers about it...) SS✞(Kay) 00:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Well, don't worry too much as I'm keeping an eye on it. But the thing is, if you are going to talk to your teacher about this, please tell them to contact Wikipedia and discuss upon the course of action that they would want to take. (PS: Study hard, yeah?) --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 08:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, if I talk to them, it'll be as a rep of Wikipedia, by the guidelines of WP:ABUSE, I guess. I'll do what I did for my previous school's IP- get the sys admin onto a feed of the contribs, and put their contact details on the IP's talk page. Just so the OTRS team don't have even more work. Beyond that, I think they can track to the specific user, but that's a little overkill I reckon at this stage. (re PS: I try to... keep getting distracted.) SS✞(Kay) 08:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

AMI move

I've been considering this for a long time, but its time has now come: See Talk:Aeronautica Militare#Move proposal. - BilCat (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And Talk:Marina Militare#Move proposal, just to be fair! - BilCat (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

DGAF

Wasn't planning on saying any more, I've said my piece. Time to work on content.

BTW you might like to refer Richard Keatinge to Comment #60, particularly the one about ignoring praise. One of my character flaws is not giving a shit if someone doesn't like me, one of my character pluses is that I'm not looking for praise. Some let praise and laudits go to their head and influence their opinion. Justin talk 08:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I know, that's why I urge you to keep a level head. There's no one-man-army here on Wikipedia, and if they want to be then we might as well let them be, there eventually will come a time when they will fight each other over something ridiculously minuscule. I'm not crazy and I am most certainly not predicting things but that's just my experience and observation talking here. Cheers~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 08:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
No worries, I appreciate a trout slap now and again. I've just added a suggestion to switch back to the focus on content and agree to disagree. Whilst I can see merit in the opposing argument, it seems that others refuse to see the merit in mine. Part of the problem as I see it, is the arguments are more finely balanced than some contributors are prepared to ackowledge. Justin talk 08:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Follow me to join the secret cabal!

Plip!

  • Justin, if you think what you've stated is indeed a finely balanced one and they still want to argue against it. My advice is to take it WP:DR, or WP:RFC to be exact. That way, they'd get drown by their own ignorance/stubbornness when they find that many of those un-involved third-party volunteer editors swamping them with rational thoughts and proper logic. But, you have to be sure to state your point(s) clearly and in a neutral tone first. Otherwise, no fun. Regards. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 09:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:CPUSH, one of the places where wikipedia's dispute resolution falls over. Civility is so ingrained as a mantra that when a CPUSH editor drives a productive editor nuts and into making a rash statement, the presumption is the productive editor is the problem. Just an observation. Thanks for the trout, delicious with an almond coating and fried in butter. Justin talk 09:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 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) 22:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: Sock

Hi there. The second user (with the User:User) in the title, was a banned editor who posted on the first user's talk page (with identical name) and both users comments referred to the same "I". It was clearly the same person, the first account circumventing the block of the second. I was not aware that an SPI was always necessary when the socking/meatpuppeting was certain. If I was incorrect, I do apologise, however I believe the block should still stand. Regards, SGGH ping! 20:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Dave, thank you for the explanation. –SJ+ 06:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk page archives

I just wanted to let you know that I moved Talk:Dave1185/Archive 1 and Talk:Dave1185/Archive 2 to User talk:Dave1185/Archive 1 and User talk:Dave1185/Archive 2, respectively, because they were misplaced in article space. I hope you don't mind. Cheers, -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Hehe... Why would I mind~? I mean, I didn't realised my mistake until you corrected this for me, thanks~! :) --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 01:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

YoungGunz

That boy is a peach. Harassment, outing, and legal threat, all in one shot. That's what you call the "fast track" program for getting indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Yup, nothing beats a village idiot holding up a neon sign that says "Shoot me, shoot me~!", not even the Insurance company can provide that kind of assurance, if you ask me. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 09:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The only thing I might change, instead of the amusing but somewhat prosaic "You're blocked" is to instead say, "YOU'RE BUSTED!" As per Cheech and Chong, et al. (There's also a Johnny Cash song, "I'm Busted", but different context.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • And in reference to your comment above, I'm also reminded of something else. So they occasionally have these meet-and-greet events for wikipedians who have some inexplicable desire to socialize, ja? If vandals like YG get together, it would be like a scene from that Woody Allen film, Love and Death: a "Village Idiots Convention". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • It's both a blessing and a curse. So there are various things you could have: Trump going "You're fired!", or an umpire going "You're outta here!", or maybe Darwin going "Hey! You! Out of the gene pool!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Brilliant~! Now the lil'ones are gonna drive both me & the Missus nuts with so much free-to-view cartoons available on YouTube. Thanks, by the way. :) --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 13:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A note

This was somewhat excessive. Materialscientist (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

misc.

Thanks for the tip. I'm not seeing it, but I'm assuming it will make itself known at some point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

  • It's the weekend, you'll never know when he'll strike. BTW, are you still "feeding" at Refdesk? *grin* --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 04:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • "Feeding" as in "feeding trolls"? Well, I dunno - I've been yelled at a lot recently, so I'm trying (again) to keep it mostly-serious, AGF, and all that bloody sort of rot. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversial command decisions, World War II

Hello Dave, wondering what your take on the Singapore section in Controversial command decisions, World War II is? I placed a comment on user Communicat's page regarding the western front section. Basically, I contend the article is half finished because it identifies controversies, but only seems to discuss one side of them. I also stated the article could use a look at the "other side" of the controversies. Anyway, although I am passingly familiar with Japanese operations in 1941, I thought you would be a good person to provide a critical eye for the Singapore write-up if you would care to do so. Thanks and Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments. I think the article could do all right with a format that a) identifies the controversy, b) presents arguments from the various sides, and c) presents an analysis that is dispassionate and which brings out pertinent information that purely national views often disregard. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Folks, Sadly this would make a great article if 1> It stayed away from those military decision with a lot of politics and 2> They would view those decisions from a neutral POV. Subjects that should be covered in an article with this title would be A> Churchill decision to send the two battleships to Singapore, B> The commander of Singapores decision not to fortify the northern part of the island when his chief of engineer requested it, C> MacArthur's refusal to allow the launching of bombing raids after Pearl Harbor was attacked, D> MacArthur's refusal to scrap the new plan that replaced Plan Orange after he lost his air force, E> General King's decision to surrender Bataan in defiance of MacArthur's orders, F> Japan's decision when Guadalcanal was invaded not to send battleships from Truk for night bombardment of the airfield, G> the blowing of that bridge in Burma in 1942 that stranded over half the Allied army on the wrong side of the river, H> the Dutch decision not to destroy the oil fields and refineries earlier, I> the Dutch decision not to use the 90 magnetic mines they were sent to block the straits on both side of Java, J> the Japanese decision to mount the massive carrier raid on the Indian Ocean instead of using all those carriers on the operation that resulted in the Battle of the Coral Sea, K> the Japanese decision not to use their massive submarine fleet on operations off the US West coast, L> the Japanese decision to stop any more use of their submarine aircraft to attack the US West coast, M> the British decision to retake Burma, instead of just the north part of Burma for communications with China. The list could go on all the way to "Z". And both sides of the debate could be presented. BUT as long at the rule on POV was strictly enforced and rank politics was kept out of it. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 06:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I make mistake (edit war and talk page message)

I am back! Sorry about poor behaviors, which am realizes were mistakes. I try to make good edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Stay away

  1. I don't wish to explain this to you if you are not proficient in English.
  2. Focus on the content/topic, not on the other editors.
  3. Stay far far away from my talk page, you're not welcome here.

Read my reply on your own talk page and if you continue to hound me here, I will take you to ANI again, period. Take heed. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 09:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Dave1185. I wanted to drop a note and say thanks for the post that you made on Baseball Bugs talk page that lead to the "observations on Wikipedia behavior" by Antandrus. I have Bugs page on my watchlist because of the wry & fun humor that often happens there. A's observations are well thought out and I have seen almost all the points that are made more than once in my time here at WikiP. I doubt that I would have stumbled upon this page if you hadn't been using it to illustrate the situation that Bugs was a part of. Thanks again and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 19:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:RAF Ascension crest.jpg

Resolved
 – Due to vandalism by 2 different IPs, the page was restored to original version by me (Reverted & Ignored!)
⚠
⚠
 Thanks for uploading File:RAF Ascension crest.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Of interest

Resolved
 – Read WP:DGAF...

This may be of interest to you as you have been involved in the counseling of the user in question. -OberRanks (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page.

TheClerksWell (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm only doing my part upholding a principle of mine. You, on the other hand, should just ignore them and be on your merry way. In the end, its your edit that counts as it is our duty as Wikipedians, because anything and everything else is secondary when compared to any constructive edit. In short: "Do more, talk less". Cheers~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 04:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Trout

I gratefully accept the trout-slapping award. It's not just for me, though, it's for my Mom and Dad, my first infant school teacher who set me on the road to randomly blocking admins, my Sunday school teacher when I was nine, the homeless person I saw on the street who inspired me on that cold night in February [pause to wipe away tears]. The whole crew deserve this award as I couldn't have done it without them [more tears]...I'd like to say [becomes incoherent and is led away from the stage by Billy Crystal ]. I did remember to remove the autoblock as well, though. Cheers, Tonywalton Talk 07:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification

As an user who commented at this discussion, you may wish to weigh in on Grundle2600's topic ban modification request. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer reviewing Vietnam Airlines

Hello Dave1185, could you please just pop into the artilce Vietnam Airlines for a moment or two and give it a quick look to see if there are any flaws and anything I could improve on? A major edit for the article is coming up, but, before I post it, I'd like to know any mistakes beforehands, so I could fix it right away on the copy that I have on my computer at the moment. Also, could you please tell some of your friends to give it a look, too? Cheers, hope we can collaborate in the future :) Sp33dyphil 05:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your effort, I was about to paste a major edit from Microsoft Words onto Wikipedia when all of a sudden, you gave it a thorough fix, whcih is good for the article, not for me (I have to make changes to what I have written on Microsoft Words then). How come when I looked up for differences between your copy and mine, some paragraphs appeared yellow and green even though there weren't any clear changes? Thanks a lot Sp33dyphil 22:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Those seemingly invisible changes (yellow=old version, green=new version) are actually the removal of numerous odd double/extraneous spacings which I have omitted due to the fact that many people have a bad habit of creating double spacings when typing out their edits (possibly a result of their old habit of using typewriters, carbon papers and all in the 1980s & 1990s, yours sincerely was also guilty of that last time!). Although, it is not readily detectable when being rendered by Wiki server, it creates a lot of unnecessary empty spaces which are devoid of content and should be avoided in order to lessen the load of Wiki servers, thus speeding up the loading of pages. Cheers and regards. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 02:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

A Wiki Fanatic on a Crusade

Dear Dave, could you check out the discussion on the User talk:ROG5728 page at the bottom. A lot of people have tried the polite way, but to no avail. He may be right technically, but just the way that it is gone about. A lot of the users are just common knowledge. Also, I have added a user and reference for the AR-15/M-16 assault rifle. Where there were about three dozen users listed before he deleted the whole user section -- including the USA -- there is now just one user flag listed: Afghanistan. Just couldn't help myself. <GRIN> JACK --Jackehammond (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Dave, Ignore the above. While he is right, the person is playing a very old game on WP that has caused a lot of hurt feelings and drove off some good editors. But technically he is right. Also, you will discover something: By his standards there are no armies using the AR-15. So no matter the citation you give (ie with the exception of the US Army Special Ops and USAF Air Commandos and Air Police who bought them with their private slush funds in the early 1960s, no nation's armies ever used the AR-15 - ie what they used was the M16, which was the US Army's name for the AR-15) by the letter, but not the spirit of proof he is right. But it is a bad game he is playing. He is trolling for articles just hunting for user flags that he can do a mass deletion on. Many times on just a simple technicality that should be explained. After he done a mass deletion of user flags on the AT4 article (none of the flags had been added by myself btw) I went through my references and was able to reinstate most of them with references. But I have decided to not follow him like the guys who follow the horses and elephants down Main Street with a push broom and barrel when the circus comes to town. Maybe he will get bored and have a change of heart and move on to something else, like writing articles or improving articles. A while back I posted to him that great article on WP Behavior that you made me aware of and more recently the good WP article Don't be a fanatic that Wilson told me about. But I don't think he read either one. I just hope he doesn't run off some good editor that WP needs by this hardcore behavior till he tires of it. JACK--Jackehammond (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Dave For what ever reason, Nick-D methink approves of what he is doing -- ie they gave him what is called a "roller over" flag recently. So maybe it is "I" who are over reacting. Eventually, it will sort its self out. But thanks for the reply. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Dave Naaa, I don't let things like this get to me. I just thought I could reason with him to tone it back a little. But it is just a difference in styles. Maybe there is a need for the hard editors and the soft editors? When I spot a flag in the user areas I have doubts about, I put a citation needed and a note maybe on that persons talk page and move on. Roger goes for the Calvinist stake a fagots approach of the rules are the rules are the rules. <GRIN> From what I have seen on his contributes though, he really knows a lot about small arms. I just think -- my opinion only -- that it is more important to write and edit articles than going around looking for user flags that don't have references or citations. Also, when Roger raids the user sections or articles for lack of references I find myself re-looking at those articles and then working on an article that I thought I was done with! Also, I am now looking at the 76mm OtoBreda information I have. It is one complex story!!!! First thing was the page title. Ain't no one in the naval world who knows what a "Otobreda 76 mm" naval cannon is. So I went and done a bunch of redirect pages by the common names it is known "OTO-Melara 76/62mm Compact mount" and "OTO-Melara 76mm Compacto". Also, going to check the Italian WP page on the subject. Maybe they know something more. Getting the story about the Super Rapido straight will be harder than the original 76/62 Compact. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Dave You did not warn me that the Otobreda 76 mm article was just a translation of an Italian WP article. Jeez! Those articles take a day-and-forever to first get in some order before you start rebuilding. First think is to replace "gun" with "cannon". Google translation doesn't catch that little item. After I get some meat on the article, I will see if Wilson will help with the editing. Btw, what has happened to Wilson. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I wasn't aware of that detail until you just inform me~! I took a quick glance through then decided that it was no much of an introduction, description, specification, operational history and also in urgent need of more help in the references department... that's why I contacted you. *grin* As for Wilson, me thinks he is still hanging around, somewhere. *lol* Cheers~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 16:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Dave The following is what I am asking the powers that be at WP Commons. Wonder if it will fly. Probably not. Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This probably won't fly, but here goes: To wit, Back in the 1980s I attended defence conventions where they also had a display hall of the verious weapons, equipment, etc. Sometimes they did not have the photos or brochures available for various reasons. But their would be wall display, or something like that. Well, I had a professional camera with a detachable flash (for weddings to prevent redeye) and a flat macro-lenses and I would just take a photo of the brochure, painting or drawing I wanted. Jane's Information Group (ie the largest publisher or defence magazines) did the same thing. I have a whole box full of slides I took at those defence shows. Now my question: Can I donate those images to WP Commons. Of even though they had the illustration in plain sight it is still covered by copyright??????--Jackehammond (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Hey Jack, I'm afraid you will have to look for the "copyright mafia boss" → MilborneOne (talk · contribs) ← for help regarding such matters as he has a better grasp of it than I do, plus he can advise on the most appropriate things to do for you. And if all else fail, buzz me again and I'll see what I can do. Hope that helps, cheers~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 10:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 2010 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) 21:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

... if I write You here... may I ask your help? Could You pelase check out my last Macchi C.200 contributs in "native" english? I tried to translate them in the most correct way, but... (I am looking for references about the Italian training planes and Dardo, buy so far I have not find nothing... ) --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Good job adding those references, I've helped you made the necessary format change and fixes on article, thanks again! Please take your time to help find those references for Otobreda 76 mm and DARDO, they are our priorities now because of the severe lack of references that are needed for citing the specification and operational aspects. Cheers and ciao~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 04:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks to You... I can understand that there are not references... there are so few books abouth that! I visited two book seller and I look for them in the biggest Italian booshop on line about military, but I did not find anything... So I cant promise you nothing... if I find something...

Have a good day! gian piero

  • Same to You.... please if You have time check my last contribut about Macchi C.200, I dont feel confident in my style....

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ads for company at external links for Shaped charge page

Dave I guess this is a judgment call. But someone has added four external links at Shaped charge which looks like the pages from the company sales book. One page or a links in the article to the pages when the different civilian uses of shape charges are being discussed, but the person moved all the external links down and put the four from that firm at the top. Again, as I said it is judgment call that is beyond my pay grade. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Not a bad idea to have it there but I've made some minor adjustments and moved them down the list to avoid any misunderstanding. Cheers~! (P.S.: BTW, you don't happen to have any references for the DARDO and Otobreda 76 mm articles, would you?) --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 09:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Dave I will look at it to night. I have some very good information and details till the 1990s then lacking. At that time Breda with other companies were developing guided rounds for their 76mm mounts. Have to dig to find the results. I will work on the article tonight (ten hours from this message posting). And thanks for looking over that one article. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Dave I fiddled with that Otobreda 76mm cannon article for while and then decided to just tow it in for an overhaul like the Euromissile HOT page. The way it is I would be going back and forth and would have over 500 entries on the history of that article. You can find it at this sandbox Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

  • You too? Hahaha... I tried editing it before and gave up after a while... the page layout and format is in one heck of a big mess... really didn't know where to begin from, but I'm glad you're taking the approach of working at it from your garage now. ;P Cheers and regards~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 18:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Laugh of the month

See this diff. Any clue what this is actually about? - BilCat (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Oh my eyes~! *grin* Seriously, just forget about it, probably some deluded youth from mainland China spreading old school communist propaganda again. Not an uncommon phenomenon in their internet forums these days, that much I can tell. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 11:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not worried about it at all, I was just wondering where it might of come from. Thanks for your comments on the source. - BilCat (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Bill, wait up! On second/closer examination, it looks more like the words of a disgruntled Japanese communist or ultra-nationalist (perhaps from Okinawa) as some of the words are of the Japanese Kanji characters, not found in any Chinese text (in the traditional or simplified form). --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 16:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, the "text" (hehe) does seem to talk about Japan quite a bit. But I "ruled that out" since there was no mention of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, the Bataan Death March, the Rape of Nanking, or other Japanese war crimes and attrocities. ;) - BilCat (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Believe me Bill, we got it all wrong. If it was a guy from mainland China, he would definitely have made a big hoohaa about what you've just mentioned. Look at it from another point, those are taboo subjects in Japan and most of these Japanese ultra-nationalist (especially those from Okinawa or Tokyo region) will deny the fact, even in death. Anyway, it was good laugh while it lasted. *grin* --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 17:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ronald2010

Thanks for leaving the useful information ! Ronald2010 (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Being an idiot

Yes, I misclicked and reset another user's block from indefinite to 2 days, realised I'd done it, so went to re-block them indefinitely ... but clicked on my name rather than theirs. It's easy to do - 2nd time I've done this - well that's my excuse :) Black Kite (t) (c) 14:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I noticed that too but was wondering how did that happened? Let's be on our merry way again, shall we? Cheers~! *grin* --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 14:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: User:218.186.8.233

Hi Dave, I don't know if blocking will do any good right now, since the user will probably end up with a new IP the next time s/he logs on. I'll keep an eye on it though, in case there is a new rash of vandalism/harassment. Sometimes it's best just to let them tire themselves out. :-) ... discospinster talk 16:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, I've purged the history to remove it of the personal information that was posted. If you notice anything else like that, let me know and I will take care of it. ... discospinster talk 17:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks again, the guy is a loose cannon... I mean, if he goes on at this rate, posting all these harassing/malicious messages about another person, I might have to report to the legal authority about it. And then he'll be in big trouble but that's what I'm pre-empting here now. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 18:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

'Massimo' family article - request for advice

Dear Dave, I noticed your 'conflict of interest' warning on Fabritius's talk page. If I may, I would like to ask for your advice, as a far less experienced editor than yourself.

When this page was protected, admin Nick D asked Fabritius and myself to start a discussion regarding the disputed last paragraph of the article. As I indicated in the note I left on Nick D's talk page (see this post), and a subsequent note I left on the 'Massimo' article talk page (see this post), I am happy to lay out the arguments and discuss the differences with Fabritius in a calm, fact-based and non-personal way.

By way of background, while the page was blocked for repeated 'edit warring' over the last paragraph, I would like to point out that I have never actually added any content to the article that wasn't already there for years before I first edited. I have only reversed the new 'vanity' edits by made by 'Fabritius' in Jan 2010 (and subsequently) and added authoritative, original online sources to back up the original paragraph. The paragraph in dispute has remained essentially unchanged since 2006 (see the edit by 'CARAVAGGISTI' on 28/09/06 in this version, para at bottom), until Dec 2009 (see the edit by LeilaniLad on 2/12/09 in this version, para at bottom), apart from 'non-structural' changes (such as a person passing away and being replaced by their heir). Between Sept 2006 and Jan 2010 many editors have altered content on the page, but the paragraph in dispute remained essentially the same.

I am not trying to push my own content or views, I am simply trying to revert the article to the state it was in before my first edit, after a sustained and repeated attempt by an editor with a clear conflict of interest (Fabritius has admitted that he is a member of the family and writing about himself - see conflict of interest link below), from changing the article to focus on himself, without providing the source back-up required.

I also saw The DJ's advice to Fabritius about familiarising himself with and following the dispute resolution process, and trying to achieve consensus (see this post). I agree with this and your advice to Fabritius, and have begun to lay out my arguments in a researched, sourced and referenced way - easy even for someone unfamiliar with the topic to understand - on the 'Massimo' talk page. For example, I have answered Fabritius's key argument - that only he is entitled to the Princely title and the other members of the family are not - with a detailed response, with multiple references and links to an original and universally-recognised source. Fabritius presented his key arguments in the following posts: his request for an edit to the protected page (see this post), and his second request for an edit (see this post). In response, I have replied with a comprehensive answer (see this post for full details of my research) which I believe comprehensively supports my argument.

I am genuinely trying to have a civilised discussion, based on scholarship and facts, but I am not getting a reasonable response on the other side. Instead of Fabritius providing me with his counter arguments and trying to reach a solution, I am the subject of insults - being called a 'liar' (see this post), 'ridiculous' (see this post), and 'biased' (see this post). I am genuinely trying to work according the the Wiki guidelines on dispute resolution, yet I am finding it hard to have a reasoned exchange.

I fear Fabritius's clear conflict of interest (see this post on 'Fabritius's conflict of interest' for details) is making him unable to make clear, concise arguments based on real research and sources/references. Fabritius has been very active since the article was protected, repeatedly trying to appeal to Nick D directly on his talk page to just revert the edit (see these posts), yet since I have posted my detailed response to his questions well over 24hrs ago, he has been silent. As the 'conflict of interest' link above explains, I am a neutral editor, am categorically not a member of the Massimo family (despite Fabritius's strong insinuations) and do not have a conflict of interest. Given Fabritius has a clear conflict of interest, by his own admission, should he be allowed to edit this page at all?

Despite this obvious issue, I would welcome a debate with Fabritius in order to find a solution. I would also particularly welcome comments from other Wikipedia editors on the points I have made and the sources I have used to prove that my reversal of the last paragraph in the article to its original form is correct.

My concern is that 5 days is not enough time for this discussion to take place, and I am convinced that if/as soon as the protection is lifted, Fabritius will simply start reversing the current edit again, having ignored the detailed arguments put forward on the talk page.

I am minded to ask that the protection on the article to be extended back to 'indefinite' (as Nick D originally protected it - see this link), in order to allow enough time for a proper discussion, ideally with Fabritius, but perhaps more importantly with other editors, so that a reasoned consensus may be reached.

I would very much welcome your thoughts and advice on my talk page, or at least a message that you have responded on this page.

Kind regards, Historybuff1930 (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

  • TBH, you need to have a heart-to-heart talk with him as you two are from the same family (obviously!), thus both of you has got a potential conflict of interest issue with the Massimo article. Sincerely, you maybe right on Wikipedia side but his stand (when viewed from the real world point of view) is also right, the difference is in the viewpoints/opinions you two are having, it's bleeding obvious he needs your help to work this out with you for a common consensus or compromise. Note that if you fail to do so, it has real consequences in the real world for your affiliation with him and the potential repercussion might be something that can be avoided here and now if you act positively. That said, you have a choice to break or make, the ball is in your court now. Cheers and regards~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 09:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite curious

Dave, could you take a look at these contributions? I spotted the user on the US customs pages, and his edits seem a bit off to me. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Archive top

I know you mean well, but it is not necessary (and not necessarily a good idea) to wrap threads with "archive top" [5] just because they are resolved. This wrapping is meant to be used when people are continuing a conversation which should not be continued. It isn't just to wrap up a conversation that has reached its natural end. Thanks, –xenotalk 11:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

  • My bad... didn't noticed that until you inform me of it, will tweaked it for the next edit. Thanks and regards. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 12:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Massimo above

Dear Dave,

Thanks for your post, much appreciated. I must make one point very clearly though - I am really not a member of this family. I have no idea what the issues are in this family that would make Fabritius want to accuse me of being his cousin, but it is simply not true. From a personal standpoint, coming from a close family myself, I cannot imagine resolving an 'issue' like this (despite not being able to imagine having an 'issue' like this in the first place), over the web. I have no way of reaching out to this editor other than over this forum. In any case, I would appreciate your advice on how to resolve this without the above conclusion, as it just isn't true. I genuinely believe the only reason I have been accused of being from the same family is because Fabritius realises he shouldn't be editing, and wanted to 'tar me with the same brush'. After all, I have never added any content to this page, just defended its integrity.

I have presented my research (see this post for full details of my research) which I believe comprehensively supports my argument, yet have received no response. It is a matter of scholarship, not some family dispute.

Would you mind giving me your advice on this basis - i.e. that I am not a conflicted editor in the way that you have assumed? It would be much appreciated as I really can't do anything with the advice you have given above.

Kind regards, Historybuff1930 (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

  • As I've mentionedt to you before, you really need to talk to him and tell him to put aside the differences in order to work together towards a common consensus/ground or compromise. Please read → Wikipedia:Dispute resolution ← for more details. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 12:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Massimo article

Dave, you never responded (I edited my talk page on 4/20). I'm not an expert wikipedia user, I posted today on the Massimo discussion page. Please have a look and notify me of a response. I'm glad to see that finally a human being is reading and processing what has been written, and not only writing about rules. Brilliant!

Yes, Historybuff's conflict of interest is obvious for many reasons, even because he's always trying to cloud the issue instead of discussing.

He's even biased. Here's the proof: he cites sources then deletes them if they go against his conjectures, like here [6]. Yes, he deleted a source he referenced 2 months before and according to him it was genuine in the Colonna article but at the same time unreliable in the Massimo one (see same diff as before - left part). Here's how he argued after realizing the mistake he made (same diff as above): Dear Nick. Again I do not intend to respond to what is written above on this page. However, However 'Fabritius' does make a valid point. In my edit to the 'Colonna family' article this morning I overlooked the fact that the reference source in question ('Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà Italiana. Rome: Archivio di Stato and Collegio Araldico') which is not available online and is not 100% reliable, was still there, so I have now removed it from the article. Thank you to 'Fabritius' for pointing out my oversight. The 'Colonna family' article still needs some work on the links and sources which I will complete in due course. - Ridiculous!

His contributions to the articles on roman princely families is adding 'whose heir is' and some unreliable titles and sources like for Borghese, Colonna, Orsini. That's his scientific contribution to the net!

But he did worse, regarding the Colonna article he arbitrarily deleted historically correct informations here [7].

Cheers. - Fabritius (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Actually, I have read through but I decided against replying until you have somewhat calmed down. Also, here's a few things I want you to do: -
  1. Please stop all your smart-alec remarks of other editors unless you want to get BLOCKED for being POINTY (also per no personal attack although they are quite fringy as you had made the remarks when you were feeling frustrated);
  2. Talk to Historybuff1930 (talk · contribs) as if you were talking to an acquaintance and discuss it objectively to resolve your differences;
  3. Find a common ground which both of you can agree on in order to work towards a common consensus (which is part of the process of dispute resolution).

Follow the steps I've mentioned and I think you should be able to calm down and work in a collaborative effort with other Wikipedians here. For your information, when I first started off on Wikipedia it was the same like what you had gone through but I changed my attitude and outlook after reading through the guidelines and policies. It wasn't easy but I've gotten used to it by now and I'm sure you can do it too. Cheers and ciao~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 14:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

@ Dave1185 @ Fabritius

Dave - thank you for your remarks above. It has been difficult for me to just keep calm during these repeated personal attacks, when all I am doing is stating what my research is yielding. But let me, in the spirit of discussion, answer both Fabritius's 'charges' above, calmly:

Re: 'Libro D'Oro source': Why is what I wrote above 'ridiculous'? It was a completely honest owning up to an oversight. When the 'Massimo' article was originally edited by you (Fabritius), you added the 'Libro D'Oro' as a source and I incorporated it into the source list, even in early edits of the 'Massimo' page. When I did some research and spoke with offline colleagues about the source, I was told my a number of people that the modern 'Libro D'Oro' is a privately-funded publication, which is no longer officially recognised and is no longer 100% accurate, due to the inclusion of a number of fake titled families. I therefore removed it as a source in my next edit of the "Massimo' article when I found this out and, subsequent to your pointing out it was still in the 'Orsini' and 'Colonna' articles, duly removed it as I have forgotten to do so. Nothing ridiculous, just honest.

Re: the 'arbitrary' deletion of historically correct information in the Colonna article. That may be your opinion, but the passage clearly states that: 'In 1728, the family added the name Barberini to its name'. I deleted this because the modern main branches of the Colonna family (which this passage is about) does not include the name Barberini to my knowledge. If the family added the name back in 1728 and then removed it since then I guess the phrase is technically correct, albeit misleading, but it was not an 'arbitrary' deletion.

Kind regards, Historybuff1930 (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

@Dave: ok. I'll try my best though you writing Ignore all rules on your talk page. Hey, I thought humour (among other) was admitted on the internet! But I see your point. I agree not to be pointy if someone starts discussing. I'll transfer this to the Massimo discussion page just for the sake of keeping the discussion in one place. Thanks for your help and understanding. Please do keep an eye on the discussion page. Ciao, Fabrizio - Fabritius (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Using rollbacks on one's own talk page

Dave, I think we were involved in a discussion recently regarding using rollbacks on one's own talk page to perform cleanups. Do you remember where the guideline that allows this is? I've got an admin accusing me of misusing rollbacks by reverting a warning I issued to myself! I'd like to use the guideline in taking action against the admin, if it's necessary. Thanks.- BilCat (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Bill, try looking at Wikipedia:Rollback feature & Wikipedia:User pages, it think it does allow you to do that but why is that Admin harping on you for? (Bill, I'd suggest that you just ignore him (per messed-up sense of priorities!), because AFAIK you are entitled to use the Rollback feature even if it is on your own user page.) --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 18:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I think I was involved in a edit war with on of his/her friends or something, on the James Garner page. Quite stange! Anyway, I remember an ANI or something a couple of months back in which an editor (I thought it was you) was being harassed for using rollbacks to remove comments from their own talk page. It took a while, but someone did find a guideline that allowed it. - BilCat (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Found it! See this diff at WQA, and it was you being harassed there. The guideline is at "When to use rollback":
"Rollback should be used only for reverts that are self-explanatory – such as removing obvious vandalism; to revert content in your own user space [emphasis mine]; or to revert edits by banned users who are not allowed to edit." - BilCat (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for input

Dave - many thanks for your comments and advice. I was just wondering whether you had had the time to see my response to your comment (see this post in response to your comment) on the 'Massimo' talk page. If you could take a look I would be most grateful. I would very much appreciate your help in keeping this discussion constructive and 'on the talk' page as I am hoping it will remain. If you could post something to that effect I think it would be really helpful in preventing the resumption of any sort of edit warring - i.e. any editing or reversal of edits on the article itself before we reach a consensus on the talk page. Many thanks and kind regards, Historybuff1930 (talk)

  • Not necessary for me to add in my 2 cents now on "Massimo" as I think that Fab is currently reading through what I had provided him on his talk page. Per WP:IRS and WP:VERIFY, I am behind you in view of the sources provided by you but there is a chance that Fab might offer a better source to counter that, since he lives in Rome and he is nearer to the actual source should he be able to find it to back his claims. Which is why I kept my silence... I'd rather that you two gentlemen work things out amongst yourself. That said, I will still intervene if either of you escalates, which is highly unlikely given the current atmosphere. In short, relax... I got your back. Cheers and regards~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 16:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • You are welcome! Don't be afraid to ask another editor for a third party opinion when an edit here irks you, we are humans after all and are not spared from feeling indifferently towards the action/edit/statement of others at times. Cheers and regards~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 06:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks Dave. Appreciate the advice. I have posted a long, non personal and detailed piece of research on the 'Massimo' talk page (see this post), which took me a while to put together. No success as yet with asking for 3rd party opinion, although I think there is plenty enough material on the talk page now for someone to opine on, particularly on (1) the main source I have used (the original 'Almanach de Gotha', which anyone with any familiarity with heraldry will recognise as the top reference source on the subject and very accurate) and (2) the verifiability of sources point that I keep raising (which is a generic point applicable to all Wiki articles). Thanks again, Historybuff1930 (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Aw shucks! I was hoping you'd do it! I may be able to get to it later today, and that may give him enough time to use the extra rope! - BilCat (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Salve Dave!

Please excuse me for not having responded earlier. I've been terribly busy and out of town for some days. Now I'm back. I just posted a response to Historybuff's arguments which I think and hope it will settle the issue. Thank you for all the advices. DGAF and agree-dis-agree were pertaining!

Please note I didn't revert the page although incorrect. I asked HB to remove one source (Theroff's Gotha [8]) which was already declared to be unreliable [9]. I'm pretty sure I proved that the sources I was referencing are correct and authoritative. Let's see how this will evolve. Ciao. Fabrizio - Fabritius (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, you asked...

Follow me to join the secret cabal!

Plip!

But no worries, that was a really borderline user. {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 05:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Ah... minnow, yummy when nicely baked with some butter, garlic and onion added... lightly seasoned with some salt and pepper to taste. *grin* Having a late lunch over here now! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 05:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
You made me hungry... :( (well, good thing too, because my brother just called me for dinner... :P) {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 06:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • And if only that Rock boy had openly apologise to you for his stupidity, I might not have reacted that way. Anyway, we'll let it pass and be back to our merry way, right? Bon appetit~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 06:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Those who play with fire

You once said to me that Those who play with fire will get burn by it eventually, sadly no, that isn't the case, they get away with it.. Regards, Justin talk 16:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, who said it was about winning? Those that do think that way, well they think they've won in that they're getting what they wanted. I would imagine the Champagne is on ice as we speak. In a supposedly collaborative project how can there be winners? And as they're probably following me here as well, they're getting away with stalking as well. Seems the way to "win" is to hound people into leaving and arbcom will do fuck all about it. No, strike that, arbcom can be manipulated into backing them. I'm learning not to give a fuck but only because I've lost any respect for wikipedia, its institutions or have any pleasure in editing anymore. I would hope that isn't what you meant. Adieu. Justin talk 18:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Massimo

@ Dave1185. I hope all is well with you. I have posted another extensive piece of research on the 'Massimo' talk page (see my latest post), and have made a polite request to Fabritius to engage with me in the same way as I am engaging with him. One of the key things I wanted to get across was that each time I post, I am presenting fully-sourced, verifiable, detailed, non-personal arguments, which take a considerable amount of time to put together. Yet given the amount of time I have invested, I am beginning to feel as if, no matter how clearly I lay out my arguments, and no matter how exhaustive my explanations, I am not getting anything like the same in return. Fabritus is replying with phases such as "Regarding the Massimo article I disagree with all you wrote" or "I proved what I said with references but you didn't prove anything" - I really don't know what to say to statements like that given the constructive and thorough way I have approached this. These, amongst others, are very sweeping statements which even an impartial observer can see are not correct. All I ask is that I get the same sort of detailed, non-personal response back. My point about verifiable sources is just being ignored and it just feels one sided in terms of effort. Please see this for what it is - a polite appeal to Fabritius and an attempt to quell any 'heat' on his side. I honestly want to have a proper debate and a civilised discussion, which is something I genuinely look forward to. Your help, as ever, is much appreciated. Kind regards, Historybuff1930 (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

The April 2010 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) 19:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Indonesian Aerospace

Ugh! Hopefull we can find someone to translate Indonesian Aerospace into standard English, and remove the adverts. - BilCat (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Agreed, though my understanding of Bahasa isn't that good... I'm not sure if I'm up to mark to this but I'll rope in a few Indonesia "experts" to help out. Also, I've tagged the article page, seems that a lot of issue are abound. Cheers~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 15:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ciao again Dave

Hi Dave, maybe this time you should insert the calm tag in Edwards321 answer in the Massimo discussion page. Honestly, by looking at his replies, I don't think he's an unbiased editor. He's too much aggressive to have a neutral point of view. The discussion is really poor, with no arguments pertaining to the issue. His only intention seems trying to catch me red-handed. Could you please have a peek at the discussion? Ciao. Fabrizio.--Fabritius (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

  • FYI, I've sub-sectioned all the responses so that it is easier for all of us to follow the discussion(s). Fab, try to work calmly with us, I know this is something of a family honour for you hence I would really appreciate if you could work with a Neutral point of view attitude when editing, regardless of what other people might say. If you have done your utmost, then I don't see any need for me or any Admin to intervene. Agreed? --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 15:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Fabritius - it seems that unless an editor agrees with what you say (but repeatedly do not provide proof for), then they are 'biased' - now it is Edward321's turn to suffer these personal attacks, as I already have. Why on earth would two totally independent editors both be 'biased'? I urge you, politely, to please refrain from this type of behaviour as it is unhelpful. Thanks in advance and kind regards, Historybuff1930 (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Dave, it's not about family honour, it's about truth. I'm getting bored by useless discussions about COI, calm tags, conjectures and so on by people which are clearly ignoring the only official sources for italian titles:

1. The heraldic laws (by Royal decrees - verifiable and referenced).

2. The italian College of Arms, Consulta Araldica (by Royal decree - verifiable and referenced).

3. The official directory: Libro d'Oro (by Royal decree - verifiable and referenced).


When Historybuff1930 or Edward321 ignore these original sources arguing with third parties opinions (which are not verifiable and might be incorrect), with false statistics as he did, I think I can use appropriately the term bias without meaning to offend them.

The heraldic law was regulating titles and these have never been abolished like they falsely pretend. Libro d'oro is still used nowadays when someone listed therein wants to add the predicate to his surname (verifiable and referenced).

By their logic we should discard all wikipedia's articles (many also in italian) I referenced. There was no word of comment about these articles.

Cheers, --Fabritius (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Baiting? No!

User talk:Atama#Can I beg a favour, please? I asked for a block as a favour as I'm having problems with nightmares again right now. Have you seen what someone has added to it? Floating over my request is text in white, ROFLMAO!. Can you see how it was done? Justin talk 16:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Just, get out of the house and go swim a bit, catch a movie or do something fun (or something you've been wanting to do!) under the sun, methinks you've been thinking too much! That hidden text was added long before you had left a message there (see the page's edit history if you don't believe me!), hence I don't see any baiting involved with you. Cheers~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 17:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Taking a break mate, not in the best frame of mind right now but it is nothing to do with wikipedia at all. Trying to sort myself out but it ain't easy. Justin talk 17:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I've saw that ROFLMAO! before, its part of a template User:Hi878/Right_Secret_Page.pmt7ar (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Bored?

See Talk:Royal Canadian Navy#Canada's Navy! - BilCat (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Wow~! At the rate things are going, they'll definitely need a Royal stapler to staple the nonsensical discussion shut. ;) --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 21:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Please help with moderating the "Singapore English", "Singapore" and "culture of Singapore" wiki

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Resolved
 – Please discuss this over at the appropriate talk page, I don't wish to be disturbed because I'm still in a holiday mood. \(^_^)/

Hi Dave, I would appreciate if you can help moderate the following Wikis.

1. User "Node_ue" on the "Singapore English" wiki seems to assert that Yoong did not write that " Pro Singlish Singaporeans feel that Singlish can help establish a national identity" (see dicussion). I have responded to him before on the discussion page and don't see any need to respond to him again. He obviously has a problem with simple comprehension and I don't see a need dwell on that further.

He also asserts that the section on "Notable Singaporeans" should not be there, citing that there are no Notable Koreans in the "Korean Language" wiki as an example. However, a wiki on "Korean language" vis a vis "Singapore English" is obviously different. One is about a language (korean) worldwide, another is about English in Singapore. Hence, writing about notable Singaporeans related to the English language field would not be out of place in that wiki.

2. On the "Culture of Singapore article", user "Jpatokal" has been trolling. Hence, I deleted his comments on the discussion as they were pretty useless and I did not want too give the troll any attention. There were spelling and grammatical errors in the wiki, he was right about that. It was a work in progress, I edited it while it was rather late hence I was quite sleepy but I had intended to go back to finish it some time later. However, "Jpatokal" has gone on to insult and troll.

And "Node_ue" left a message on my talk page saying I insulted "Jpatokal", when it was the opposite. I have a feeling they are friends.

3. On the "Singapore" wiki, "Jpatokal" once again deleted the pictures of "Fish and chips" and "Chicken cutlet" from the list of pictures of everyday Singaporean food without discussion. His reason was "those pictures are not taken in Singapore", which is rediculously funny.

Even if a picture is not taken in Singapore, surely it can be placed there? The satay, hainanese chicken rice and durian pictures are also not taken in Singapore. But they all serve the purpose of providing reasonable representation of everyday Singaporean food and the diversity of Singaporean cuisine.

PS: What is even more hilarious is that neither "Node_ue" or "Jpatokal" are Singaporeans yet somehow "Node_ue" (whom I suspect has never set foot in Singapore) feels qualified to write about Singlish (from what he read from books) and "Jpatokal" feels qualified to write about the culture of Singapore. Ironically, as both of them commented about poor spelling, grammar in the "Culture of Singapore" article, they themselves where typing in broken Englishes. The article was not 100% error free (quite sleepy while editing it) but it was far from readable by any standards. It was a work in progress and that is what edits are for.

I am not going to respond to either of them as they are obviously out elicit a response from me, doing so would play into their hands. Please help sort this out if you are free. I will be quite busy for a while these days. Thanks and sorry for the rough start we got off to.

Cenwin88lee (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dave1185,
Cenwin88lee has been engaged in destructive editing at several articles. Please see the following diffs:
Also, he has engaged in repeated personal attacks at Talk:Culture of Singapore, where he is calling User:Jpatokal a troll, and then repeatedly blanking the talkpage:
Also, he continues to remove the {{fact}} tags I have added at Singapore English for no apparent reason except that he believes it is "his" article, although I have repeatedly referred him to WP:OWN.
In addition, he seems to be a fan of deleting large sections of well-sourced content from articles. On the other hand, he also seems to have a penchant for adding large sections of poorly-spelled, completely unsourced material that appears to be OR and often POV, although I have tried several times to educate him about Wikipedia policies. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

In conclusions

TBH, I would rather the lot of you go talk it out at the article page than to carry on with such petty argument on another person's discussion page when he goes on vacation. And now that I'm back, I trust that you lot would have cool down somewhat and be back on each merry way(s)? Over and out~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 13:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Welcome back!

Dave, I hope you had a good holiday. If you're ready to jump in with both feet, take a look at the later discussions as Talk:Lockheed U-2‎! - BilCat (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Nah... I'll pass on the offer for now since I'm still very much in a merry mood coming back from Shanghai 3 days ago. :) --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 16:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 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) 20:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for input/advice

Hey!!?? What happened to the trout? That wuz my supper! :)

Dave, could you take a look at the discussion on Talk:Firefly (TV series)#Mandarin? I don't know if you can be of any help, but perhaps you know where to point us. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it if you haven't seen of the show. Though if you like quirky science fiction, it's worth trying to rent or buy the series on DVD/BRD. - BilCat (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

New Creation Church

Wow, what a mess! (My comment is directed to the article, not the church!) It looks like the Joseph Prince section is more than ready to go back to its own article, as he seems to be dominating the church's talkpage at the moment. The rationale for Joseph Prince (on his talk page) to the churches page was flimsy anyway, and didn't involve many editors. As such, I've added a splt-section tag. I look for the "he's very connected to the church, so his info should stay here" argument to crop up, but I'll call in some big guns if needed! Hopefully this new "Pending changes" trial will be successful, because the BLPs certainl need it! - BilCat (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI re: unprotected talk page

[15]. Let me know if you'd prefer to leave it open. –xenotalk 14:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Honestly, I have no idea what to make of it but if it helps to free you guys from having to watch it constantly, I have no objections whatsoever, so long as my primary talk page is SPP-ed from the likes of such silly vandalism edits. Anyway, its the school holidays now all over the world and I'm well aware of the existence of such horse gnats so I'm not the least disturbed by them (per WP:RBI). Thoughts? --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 17:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Originally I thought that you should have a place for non-autoconfirmed users to contact you but it looks like there is too much disruption. –xenotalk 17:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Amazing how people ignore human nature, and are then surprised by it! - BilCat (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • They obviously think that WP:OWB was for noobs but I gather its more for the clueless and Mr Softy type who won't take it seriously. Well, that's life for you. Toodles~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 18:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Lurking

Resolved
 – Yapping away now at the article talk page, aren't we?

Dave, I'm heading out for a bit, so could you watch my talk page for me, at least while you're online? Thanks - BilCat (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Curious Malke exchange

The more I look at your last note here, the more I think you were perhaps not making a pun. I just wanted to stop by and assure you that I was not accusing you of stalking me. As I explained there, when I said, "If you mean something else, I'm not following you", I meant "following" in the sense of "understanding". Of course, if you were joking, I've now made it even worse than I did there, but regional language differences being what they are, I don't want to assume. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Dave. :) I appreciate your input here, which seems like good advice. If you don't object, I'd like to move your note to her talk page. Since the mentorship relationship is kind of a dialogue between two, I think things would go more smoothly for Malke and me if that is at least nominally a somewhat private area. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I appreciate it. :) And, as I said, it looks like good advice. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Watchers

54? I thought that was a lot, then I checked mine - I've got 144! - BilCat (talk) 09:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow! He's really popular! :) Well, as they should say, "With fiends like these, who needs enemas!" - BilCat (talk) 09:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oui~! Whacha' doing here? Aren't you slatted to sit for your University's entrance exam today? *grin* --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 09:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Wow, that's gone up a tad since I last checked. But there is an advantage to it: The more eyes, the more protection against marauders. Even established users who often disagree with each other will also often "watch out" for each other and revert attacks by idiots. So being watched is not such a bad thing at all. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  • That I have to agree whole-heartedly because I've seen these "nice folks" reverted vandalism edits here (on more than one occasion after arguing/discussing with me elsewhere). --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 09:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Chinese characters and transliteration

Dave, could you check this edit, which changed the Chinese caracters and the transliteration? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I figured you'd know which was correct. That sort of thing is beyond my relm of knowledge. Greek was hard enough, and it uses a left-to-right alphabet! (And I don't remeber much of it!)) - BilCat (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)



The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) 		Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank

Articles

Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content

Members

June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members

Editorial

LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Having a little fun

Care to participate? Feel free! - BilCat (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Is that a "no", or a "Oh no!"? - BilCat (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Prince

Joseph Prince has been restored! Take a look if you will. I moved the whole "Sa;ary" section with it, as it is primarialy about him, but some of the info could be moved to or summarised in the church article. - BilCat (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

misc

I thought that B767-500‎ guy had been indef'd already a year ago. I guess not. But I guess he's working on it. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Nah... Indeed he was blocked, but it wasn't an indef, for the same exact contentious behaviour I've warned him against during his tenure here on Wikipedia, which also resulted in his disruptive & tendentious editing patterns, primarily on the page of US Airways. *sigh* Some people just never learn... --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 11:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, he is definitely working on it! His edits regarding the status of Delta's CDG hub are getting to the point of being tenditious and disruptive. See this revert by another user, and his talk page comments here. - BilCat (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Being one of the handful of editors reverting his edits (re CDG hub), I have no doubts he'll try to put it back again. Also, he's got another tenditious edit, insisting to put LGA "as a hub" for US Airways even though most flights out of LGA are actually operated by US Airways Express. Sb617 (Talk) 12:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Facepalm ' That editor is a Thai (originally, I thought he was an Italian) and we can't really blame him for his broken English... but what actually irritates me time and again is the fact that he won't learn from his mistakes, be it in his many ineffective attempts of trying to communicate in English, or his skewed and hence narrow view of things around the world (especially those not intimately related to his native country of Thailand). IMO, its just a matter of time he'll get blocked again, hopefully indef this time round (per WP:OWB#3). Time for us to move on, guys... he's as good as wasted. (NB: This entire episode has been about a contentious individual Thai (specifically speaking → User:B767-500 ←) and is not to be construed in such a way as to say that other Thai editors here on WP are not good contributors or even as a good world citizen/netizen.) --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 13:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
He's not a fluent Italian or Thai speaker? Has he ever considered working to improve his native language's wiki, assuming he's even fluent in that one, and that there is a WP for it? As an aside, there are some very industrious Vetnamese speakers who are slowly expanding that WP's aircraft articles, and doing what appears to me as a non-Vietnames speaker, a very good job, from a layout standpoint anyway. The Vietnam WP is now over a 100,000 articles, which is much, much more than the Thai language site, btw. - BilCat (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Check six

Got a POV user who's been offline for while that's back. I've reverted him twice here, but I doubt he'll let up until he disappears again. Care to take a look? :) - BilCat (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I saw that... am waiting for the bozo's 3RR sentencing right now, assuming that he dares to do it again. Summer vacation for kids again? I would think so. They never learn, do they? Oh well... --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 03:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Lokheed Martian produces the new F-22 variant for "designed for outer space exploration and domination". I think their plant is in Utopia Planitia, near the cite where NCC-1701-D will be built in a few hudred years. And thanks for the spot-check on the Marines article. - BilCat (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to say hi

Hello, Dave1185, hope you are doing good, I have a page on my watch list which you edited [16]. So naturally I took a look and was impressed with your work. Thank you nice job. Your work brought me to your userspace and eventually I found this. That page and others are the other half of why I just wanted to say hi, thank you and I admire your philosophy, I do wish I would practice it more frequently :-) . Mlpearc powwow 18:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback (B767-500)

Hello, Dave1185. You have new messages at B767-500's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Learjet

You might be interested in watching the Learjet article, per this diff, and the article on the actual aircraft type (which I don't know). I can understand if you'd rather not, though. - BilCat (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Quite frankly, I don't know why this "Honkie" (our term for all things Hong Kong) is so obsessed with this bit... I'm three-quarter Cantonese and I don't even see the need to address their problem so why should this Honkie come over to mess up Singapore-related articles? Bill, I'll give it a miss... but I suppose he has his own hidden agenda, correct if I'm wrong. Best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 00:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Anyway, it doesn't belong on a company page no matter what aircraft type is involved. Now if the Lear corporate office building had crashed while taking off, that would be a little different! ;) - BilCat (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa

Hello. Please can you explain this edit. What evidence do you have that the user has abused multiple accounts? Thanks. --Deskana (talk) 10:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The Blablaaa1 account looks more like an impersonator than it does a doppelganger (and actually, that's what it was blocked for). I've removed the sockpuppet template from Blablaaa's user page. Thanks. --Deskana (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I think User:Blablaaa claimed Blablaaa1 as a doppleganger account. Perhaps this bears further scrutiny. Jehochman Talk 13:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
He did. I wonder whether it has something to do with a language barrier. For instance, when I hear "doppelganger" outside of a Wikipedia context, it makes me thing of strange little creatures from RPGs that steal your form and pretend to be you. On Wikipedia, we'd call that an impersonator, not a doppelganger. Perhaps he was thinking of the same thing. Either way, checkuser indicated pretty clearly that Blablaaa1 is not him. Incidentally, neither is Blablaaa0. --Deskana (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. This is a perfectly understandable error in retrospect. Several of us thought Blablaaa was a sock of a banned user, when in fact he was not. Jehochman Talk 13:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Same here but we obviously need a checkuser to help us, so I'm glad that Desk showed up and cleared up the smoke although I must say that I'm not the only one being smoked here. Ever wonder what summer vacation means for kids? --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 14:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Unluckily for them, I'm also on summer vacation! ;-) --Deskana (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Email

Sent you one. sonia♫ 04:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay then. Thanks anyway :P sonia♫ 05:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
sonia♫ 06:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

OWB

Hey, I just noticed your amusing edit on the talk page to WP:OWB -- thanks! I just love the King James ... it's the aesthetic splendor of that language, that flows regally from the page. It's unmatched. Regarding my essay, well, I had no idea when I started writing it that I would probably get more personal satisfaction from that set of scurrilous observations than just about anything else I've written on Wikipedia. But then it's fun to generalize and I love reading aphorists. (It always amuses me when they piss someone off; look at Anonymous44's thread on that page; I never did find out which one poked him.) Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

  • IMO, what you've written is nothing less than being a neutral third party's observation of the myriad of user behavioural patterns here on Wikipedia, very accurately summarised~! Note that I have quoted OWB to a few Admins above... guess you're not surprised how it fits their obliviousness to OWB sometimes but I guess we're all human beings, and human beings do make mistakes. Just hope they learn and become wiser through that learning process. Cheers~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 02:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

KF-X

Dave, could you look at this deletion, the second one in a day or so, to the Korea Aerospace Industries KF-X page? Seems a bit odd. Thanks - BilCat (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Btw, better call the exterminator! - BilCat (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

BITE

You were correct in what you said but you did kind of bite. Though some newbies may be delicious, a trout is much tastier. Slàinte mhòr agad. Justin talk 01:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Yikes, that's one mean trout you've got there, you'd better be alert when you go wee wee, it'll bite your **** off if you aren't looking out for it. =P (P.S.:Welcome back~!) --Dave ♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™ 01:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Forget to sign in again?

Tsk, tsk, was this you again? ;) - BilCat (talk) 09:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but as you should know my style by now, I couldn't resist a chance to tweak you! - BilCat (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I know you need to be prepared to face The Flying Forehead. Good luck. - BilCat (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

French flag in user section of Spike

Dave Before you yell "Heresy!" and have a heart attack, read the note first. The French flag will probably come down in a month and then go back up in a month. This is going to be a battle royal between the lobbyist for the French defence industry and the French Army. I am betting on the French defence industry. But the French Army says they need a modern fire and forget top attack antitank missile and the Javelin is to expensive so it is the Spike which a lot of other European nations have adopted is Option #2. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Hello Inspector Clouseau~! Actually, I've knew about it and was wondering when you would be popping by to do just that (and boy has it been a long wait~!) because seriously, my French sucks... other than uttering a couple of "bonjour", "merci", "oui", "moi" and "ménage à trois" (← this I did not do~!). But frankly, I trust you with this one as I've known that you seem to be on very good terms with the French... so just fire away, you have my support here. --Dave ♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™ 12:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

per request :P

Sonia has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

sonia♫ 20:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL

I meant to type uw-npov, but missed the uw- bit... Kayau Voting IS evil 01:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  • No harm done but next time when you're not sure, please let other editors with the proper tool handle it instead of you manually typing it out. Over and out. --Dave ♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™ 02:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)



The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) 		Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced;
Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections

Articles

Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content

Members

July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy

Editorial

Opportunities for new military history articles

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Look carefully... this is one of those time when a picture can tell a thousand word!
Hello, Dave1185. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
  • Proverbs 26:11 - seems quite appropriate. - BilCat (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed, but might you be referring to the KJV as am I? As usual, AOG now... shop boss is keeping me busy tonight. --Dave ♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™ 17:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but the verse is about the same in NKJV, NIV, and NASB too, in case someone is more familar with those. - BilCat (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dave1185. You have new messages at Od Mishehu's talk page.
Message added 11:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

F-16

Wow, talk about self-destruction! No attempt to even pretend to be civil. The funny thing is, I supported the title using LM instead of GD, as did several other users. It could have gone either way, yet it's all a sign of bias! Strange! - BilCat (talk) 09:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that happened after I began my sleep period. I'm done assuming good faith with this person. He can be civil when he wants to, as exhibited by his other edits in the past few days on that IP. He just chose not to on the F-16 for whatever reason, and that's enough for me to move on. - BilCat (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)



The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) 		Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election

Articles

A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound

Members

Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants

Editorial

In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations

To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Query

Is there a reason that this inquiry on Milb1's talk page seems familiar to me? Not to mention a bit of an odd question. - BilCat (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Munch!

Cassandra 73 has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

I needed a laugh to cheer me up! Cassandra 73 talk 17:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dave1185. You have new messages at Courcelles's talk page.
Message added 08:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User:Raj Kumar Gupta basti

I see you tagged User:Raj Kumar Gupta basti with {{db-banned}}. However, as far as I can see the user was not banned at the time of the creation of the page. {{db-banned}} does not apply retrospectively: i.e. a page can't be deleted because the editor who created it has subsequently been banned or blocked. On this occasion I have deleted the page anyway as spam, but I thought it might be helpful to warn you for the future. Using the wrong speedy deletion reason can often lead to a page not getting deleted when it would have been with a different reason given. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies talk 21:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI

...float like a butterfly, sting like a bee...
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

FYI. –xenotalk 14:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"Unprotected" talk page

An editor has commented at WP:RFPP that your "unprotected" talkpage is, in fact, protected. I've discussed this with the protecting admin and understand the reasons for this.

Could I suggest that you copy the advice given on the page to here, and remove the link? That way IPs and non-autoconfirmed editors should know how to communicate with you, and won't be confused by a protected unprotected page ;-) I'd imagine the methods of communication suggested should deter bad-faith editors, but if not it will at least bring them to the attention of admins...

Cheers, TFOWR 14:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ping

You've got mail. - BilCat (talk) 06:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It is said that Muhammad Ali, so conviced of his own greatness, once retorted to a flight attendent when asked to put on his seat belt, "Superman don't need no seatbelt." Her quick response: "Superman don't need no airplane either!" - BilCat (talk) 06:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert on my talk page. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 15:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Russian to my dictionary

Dave, do you have any idea wht this is supposed to mean? I guess he means some kind of comparison, but I'm really not sure! We have a SImple English WP, so maybe it's time for an "Internations" English WP, so people can comparate aircrafts. ;) - BilCat (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Oh blind me, its pretty obvious that most IP editor has no idea what and where there mines is wandering to, eh? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 04:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

And loose the wiki-hounds of edit-war

I assume you've seen this threat to "help my victims"? Some people just don't know when to quit. I've issued a stern warning in response to that, but I doubt it will have the intended effect. Oh well, looks like I'm off of the football subjects again. Sheesh! - BilCat (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Closing old discussions

I'm not really clear about the usefulness of adding closed tags to old discussions as here, especially if the discussion is not very contentious or controversial. It;s not something parcticed in gereral for non-controversail conversations. Just asking. - BilCat (talk) 08:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Bill, I try to strike a balance when I go around discussion pages to place such tags, especially when any particular thread begin to show signs of pointing in the direction of C/C. Anyway, its best to nip it in the bud before it gets out of control later (per WP:Drama & WP:Forum), more so considering that some of these editors are not that mature in their choice of words or train of thoughts. Hope this help clear things up for us. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 09:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I understand, but still don't think it's necessary in those cases. However, it's not worth making an issue of it. I wont wikilawyer about it! - BilCat (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for ther clean-up. Btw, I thought "It looks like a doc" was funny. I'm getting the impression from this version of their homepage that English might not be his mother tongue, which might explain some of the inability to understand some things. Oh well, he might return again if I keep writing , so I'll shut up now. - BilCat (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Adding the close discussion templates does not seem needed in most cases. But then users will come by and reply in a talk section that is 1-2 years old too. Given that, it is not a bad idea.. -fnlayson (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I've been on WP to know that if something is a good idea, seems logical, or makes sense, then there's probably a guidelien against it already! Better check. - BilCat (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Shooo... leave me alone, I got a secret rendezvous with the flying forehead in about 5 minutes time. Best and out. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I borrowed a play from your book here. Thanks Dave. :) -fnlayson (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
In the case of forum-type discussions, that's probably a valid use of the template, IMO. - BilCat (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Mail alert

- BilCat (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

I hope you don't take some of the things I say to heart. I apologise for speaking a bit harshly but I mean well. And I have been here truly longer than you have, in fact longer even than User talk:Huaiwei. I hate to say certain things because I came to Wikipedia merely to edit, and lots of edit wars in the past (not involving myself; nevertheless...) pissed me off no-end, to put crudely. I can never tell if a Singaporean is young, old, mature or otherwise and I do have some things that I have to do concurrently. Whatever it is I sincerely apologise.

You may think I am talking you down but I do hope Singaporeans hold themselves up as a beacon in Wikipedia. In the past, some Singaporeans get into meaningless edit wars using edit summaries. I don't want to count seniority but one event in particular, constant edit warring between Huaiwei and a Hong Kong user named Instantnood, made me reflect quite deeply on whether I should edit under a registered username ever again. I choose to be as nondescript as possible. I registered two years ago and as you can see, I hardly get any messages.

Whatever it is, please don't take this to heart. I do apologise. Let's get to the business of editing. If we both are civil this kind of things won't happen again, but like what I say, my patience is a bit short owing to past experience, and I especially dislike seeing people use Wikipedia as a platform to put down another user. Of course I don't mean you, merely experience has shaped my expectations.

If you wish to delete this after this, by all means do. Once again, I hope you understand I'm not trying to make things difficult for you and apologies once more. DORC (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Obviously, you've no idea that seniority count towards nothing here on Wikipedia, please stop with your “倚老卖老” mentality of pulling seniority/rank because I don't buy that. Also, you've no idea who's been keeping the Singapore article page cleared of vandals and POV-pusher (including WP:Civil POV pushing) all this while in your absence, eh? None other than yours sincerely here. If you had check it again, you'd noticed that I've gotten it semi-protected against editing by newly registered users as well as IP editors (most of them make no attempt to hide their intention and they don't usually provide an edit summary either... so do you see the similarity between you and them now?) due to their persistent introduction of patent nonsense and silly vandalism edits. Do us all a favor here by sticking to the simple courtesy act of providing a short and concise explanation/summary of your actions, such as... re = replied, rvv = revert vandalism, amd = amended, rmv PN = remove patent nonsense, el at... is that really too much to ask of you? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 01:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Dave, should we tell him what dork means in English, or let him figure it out from the DAB page? (A hint: I don't use vulgarity, so that one is not what I meant, and a definition I've never heard before.) - BilCat (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Time to disengage?

Seems like we ought to let him have the last word, since he hasn't started listening yet. Anyway, this is bit like a new engineer who shows up at your WhaleJet hangar, and proceeds to tell you and the pilots what's wrong with Whale's turboprops! Or worse, the R-4300s! :) - BilCat (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Happens all the time, reminds me of a particular hotshot pilot (can't reveal his country of origin, sorry!) who did just that and was promptly shot down by his mentor, who told him and I quote: "Shut up and listen, simulation means no shit to us if you haven't even logged 2,500 hours in actual flight time!". To begin with, the newbie wasn't even ex-air force (but his mentor and SLAME were! *ahem*), let alone trying to get that magical number of 1,000 hours of actual flight time. And there you go! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 22:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Submarine working group

Dear editor:
Would you like a chance to collaborate with other editors on a working group dedicated to submarines? Based on your contributions to submarine-related articles, we have determined that you probably have a interest in submarines. If you would like to join our working group, visit WP:ONAU. MessageDeliveryBot (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of ONAU at 07:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC).

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)



The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) 		Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals

Articles

A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles

Members

Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)

Editorial

In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Exterminated!

Wikiminix has determined that your talk page was shamefully infested, and the infestation has been dealt with. Enjoy the peace, at least while it lasts! - BilCat (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Hmmm... seems that heaps happened while I was busy with real life issues, what a shame I wasn't around to witness it! Thanks for the watchful eye and best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 05:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
No problem - that's what friends are for, to watch out for each other. You've helped me enough when I've needed it. Besides, everything on WP is recorded - you can relive it at anytme :O) - BilCat (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for trash pick-up

I'm heading to bed now - I hope! If you're on line for a while longer, can you remove any comments from a user whose name begins with "X". I'm moving on - the user has serious ownership and copyvio issues, but the subject isn't worth my wasting any more time on. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It's oK now, I hope - I'm starting to calm down. I realize I sometimes treat users who edit on aircraft articles the same way! I'll hhjav eto work on that. Anyway, if people are dumb enough to edit war with my, I'm dumb enough to let them! - BilCat (talk) 09:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The only la,e edit wars are the ones you (generic) aren't involved in! Anyway, You've Got mail! - BilCat (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject North Korea (2nd nomination)

Just a note - if you want to leave messages for the people who wanted the page deleted in the original discussion, you should leave messages for the people who wanted it kept as well (WP:CANVASS). Hut 8.5 11:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Actually, I'm well aware of that but I was getting to that part when I noticed a series of copyvios by the BLOCKED user which needs to be addressed first, hence the unintentional stop in between. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Count me in on the "it may be a good idea, but delete because of very bad faith by the creator" caucus. VictorianMutant(Talk) 14:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
This comment wasn't intended to imply any bad faith on your part, and I apologise if it did. I thought you might be genuinely unaware of the guideline's existence. Hut 8.5 15:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Apologies accepted. Next time, phrase it as a question instead of making it appear as if it was a statement, you could easily be misunderstood by others if you aren't careful with your choice of words, you know that? What say we get back right now to our serious business of editing, huh? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 15:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

A380 incident

The new Qantas Flight 32 article may be of interest to you. Btw, it's been AFDed, so feel free to comment as you see fit.

Nearly 4 years ago, I wrote these comments. Then, as now, I don't want to see anyone injured to make my precition come true. At least this incident was without injuries or fatalities. - BilCat (talk) 06:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Seriously, are groundings by other airlines likely? If you can comment. - BilCat (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • PING~! You've got mail~! Very unlikely, since it is affecting only Qantas as it was a company issued directive to ground all their own A380 until further notice. The Airbus family of airframe is quite sound, it's the engine itself that has ran into a wee bit of problem during the airplane's ascent to cruising altitude but there's absolutely no way of knowing until the guys from RR run their checks through the engine/nacelle much like CSI folks does. No speculations from hereon, shall we? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 08:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I wans't asking for specualtions, just wondering if there were any repercussions to you whales that had been made public yet. Thanks for the mail. - BilCat (talk) 09:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • You know me, that speculation thing was aimed at talk page stalkers reading this. On the other hand, you are a welcomed guest and talk page watcher to boot. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 10:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I didnt consider it to be personal attack as theres nothing specific to yourself. Anyway no attack was intended, but to ease things i will rephrase the comments and make them more readable and neutral. However, I'd caution against placing uw on user pages without enough cause and/or waiting for a reply. It can itself be regarded as an attack, hence can backfire in some situations --Advanstra (talk) 12:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Seriously, mate... I don't think you get the point, three separate editors have expressed the same opinion on your talk page about your remarks (plus, I had cautioned you against making further personal remarks in a separate section for you just so you could understand this) and yet you still have the audacity to say this crap to me. Consider the next baiting/trollish comment you made anywhere on WP an enough cause for me to bring you to ANI, take heed because I won't be nice to you from hereon. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Your ex link at the PzF 44

Dave don't put on your war paint, but someone for no reason deleted your translated ex link on the PzF 44 page. I reverted it. I think it was someone just bored and wanted to see what it was like to delete something. Btw, ole reliable Wilson, came through big time on that M1918 240 mm Howitzer page I had to research and start a stub because I caused a red link on another artillery page. I had hunted and hunted for a photo I could post, but had no luck. Wilson, found a rare US government photo that could be used. Don't know how he does it, but he can always find a photo when no one else can. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 04:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Lame indeed

Uh, ouch? I probably should have discussed this with you before undoing, but may you please link the discussion you're referring to? I just don't think this header is necessary, as it adds extra clutter to an already template-crowded talk page. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 06:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

  • No offence taken but you should really check the article page's edit history for that someone's comment (something about "...in 4 years time"), my tagging of that template on the talk page was just to head off the chap's smart alec comment. Oftentimes, these guys are the one who give us the problem on most of them popular aircraft articles, one good example would be Talk:Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor... click and read it through, that should give you an idea how many of these nincomputs wasted our time. Best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 06:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I really don't see the necessity of having a redundant header either, the "4 years" comment notwithstanding. Btw, did you finally get a break from the Whale fixing? Looks like you've probably been very busy the last few days! - BilCat (talk) 08:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

A serial vandal at work at the Chainsaw page

Dear Dave, I have reverted this vandalism two times and this college kid it seems keeps reverting it back to his vandalism. First time I ever saw a vandal revert his own vandalism. But maybe sodomy does have something to do with Chainsaws. <GRIN> Jack Jackehammond (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Dave Thanks, JackJackehammond (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Garage door opener ex links commercial spam city!

Dave I don't know if is a problem to worry about or not, but I found a good reference for the garage door opener that made them popular at last and went over to Garage door opener page to write it up and post the reference. Then I checked the ex links. Everyone and his mother who is selling garage doors are posting ex links to their companies. I removed SIX ex links. And I checked the history and it is an on going problem for the last couple of years. And yes, there is a notice in ex links edit not to post anymore links. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 08:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

QF32 write-off

You might be interested in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Qantas_Flight_32&curid=29469097&diff=398756907&oldid=398754123 this talk thread, especially the user making the incorrect claim based on a misreading of a blog. The user's name and style seem very familiar to me, but the name's only been in use for 10 days. Interesting. - BilCat (talk) 05:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Bill, no prize for guessing why he showed up on my radar screen early in his WP career, reeking of someone we know. In any case, good luck to him when a checkuser comes along and tag him. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 09:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

QF32 article

I noticed the edit you did on the QF32 article, I'm wonder who this (''<!-- non-breaking space to keep AWB drones from altering the space before the navbox-->'') is directed at? Bidgee (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Part of the package which I've copied and paste from another article page, you may remove it if you think it is not relevant. Best.--Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Message for you at Azerbaijan has Spike

Dave You will find of interest Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

re

你可以参考Wikipedia:IP block exemption请求权限。我不是英文版管理员，难以帮忙--Shizhao (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Name Change

I simply got fed up with the schoolboy attitude of a lot of editors and the lack of any action from admins who were sniggering just as much. If you're ever in Glasgow give the Wee Curry House a try. Justin talk 08:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Figured as much... as for Wee Curry House, my friend told me about it while she was holidaying there from her work in Germany. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 09:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
BTW have you seen this guy, User:N2e. All he does is add {{cn}} tags to articles, then if no one responds he goes back and deletes elements of articles. The stuff he tags is usually well known and uncontroversial. You ask him what he hopes to achieve and he responds by templating you about good faith and lectures about WP:Burden. I find it irritating that he makes work for other editors but is never prepared to do the donkey work himself. You ask him about that he accuses you of bad faith. I can't make my mind up whether its a sophisticated form of trolling, or just someone misguided who has a bee in his bonnet about a remark Jimbo made. Do you have 5 minutes to take a look and tell me whether its just me? Wee Curry Monster talk 09:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, a quick check just told me that he is indeed the sticky one... think you might have to bring this thorny issue up to a very experienced SysOp → User:Antandrus ← for advice, I think he'll be able to point you in the right direction. Another thing, I dunno why (could it be to due my sensitivity to them by now) but I smell a dirty sock here, the behavioral pattern seems to suggest a WP:Single-purpose account. Alrighty, you'd better run along now and ask Antandrus for help before he goes to sleep or something. Best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 09:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Dave1185/Archive_3"