User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archive2007-01

Bad form

AfD makes it clear that "Consider adding a tag such as {{cleanup}} or {{disputed}} instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content." The article in question has no useful content; in fact, one of the sources you just added calls the whole project a "fake." In the future, please do not personalize your objection to an article's AfD, as it is certainly bad form to do so. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial vessel template

Hello. As you may know, there are a variety of infobox templates used for ocean liners; at least one of which is ill-suited to passenger vessels. As a consequence of a discussion I had with User:Ebyabe at User_talk:Ebyabe#RMS_Queen_Mary, Ebyabe has generously agreed to create a template for passenger vessels. It appears at Template:Infobox Commercial Ship. Its creator needs assistance with the fields for the template. For example, it will need a tonnage field, but would not need a displacement field. Should beam be moulded breadth, or extreme beam? Should length be pp, or oa? Given your interest and expertise in this area, would you be willing to particpate in the project? If so, go to Template talk:Infobox Commercial Ship and weigh in. It may be that different templates are needed for passenger ships (gt), freighters (dwt, net), containerships (TEU) and that one size will not fit all. Thanks for your interest. Kablammo 21:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

for archiving maru's quotes <3

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rec.sport.pro-wrestling & related edit-warring

Apologies for coming close to violating WP:3RR. I have reported DXRAW for his actions on the AfD discussion page, as well as for removing fair-use review tags and removing warnings from his talk page. I think he also needs to be counseled/warned by an admin for his insistence on using what he believes is my real name. The Mob Rules 08:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farahnaz Pahlavi AfD

Hi, thanks for the feedback regarding my posts. What Wikipedia policy or guideline says that my responses have to be two or three sentences? While I am open to the possibility of such a thing being true, I hardly see why I should have to compromise my arguments by restricting their length. Am I the only one you have given this request to? Hardly seems fair, considering that the length of my responses is often related to addressing Agha Nader's also lengthy posts. If I do not try to respond to every one of his arguments, it might seem that I am backing down or avoiding a topic, which I think would be detrimental to the development of ideas in the discussion. Again, thanks, and I hope you can explain to me why my elaborate argumentative style is not appropriate for Wikipedia. The Behnam 17:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WRLP Tower

Your comment of "leave masts alone" is a bit brief. This one is small; smaller than the building I work in. The only thing I can see that makes it worthy is the claim it's the tallest structure in New Hampshire. I'm willing to leave it alone for that reason; but have added a fact tag. Akihabara 05:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Un-Named Carnival Ship

Hi there, Since you've just removed a {{prod}} tag from Un-Named Carnival Ship, I thought out of courtesy I'd let you know that I've decided to take the article to AfD: you may wish to make your points of view known at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Un-Named Carnival Ship.

Cheers, _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 17:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-prodding is against procedure

Hi, you re-prodded MasterCraft after I had just de-prodded the article. That is a violation of WP:PROD - if a proposed deletion is contested in any manner, it must be taken to WP:AFD rather than simply re-prod'ding it.

Your claim that it's not notable is somewhat silly, they're one of the top boat manufacturers in the world in terms of volume of boats produced.

The article clearly needs help, but neither PROD nor AFD are substitutes for cleanup tags or working on improving articles yourself. Please do not delete things rather than clean them up and improve them. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 04:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry; I was unaware it had been proposed for deletion earlier. I will make sure to be more careful in the future. However, notability hasn't been established even though it had been tagged as requiring that for six months... causing me to assume it wasn't notable. However, as said, I will make sure to be more careful in the future, both in regards to earlier proposed deletions and actual notability. Promise. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 08:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tabulation of data on Embraer E-Jets

Hey Thanks =)

No problem i was just looking around and noticed it needed doing!

Reedy Boy 17:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BRS article

Sorry about that - I never saw your comment there at all when I started my entry. I think we were editing the page at the same time!

Ahunt 12:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(sic)

Hello there. This aversion to (sic) is new to me - adding it isn't considered making a change to quoted material, which seems to be your objection - the whole point of its existence is to be placed in quoted material, to demonstrate that something which is "wrong" is correctly copied. Can you point me to something that says "don't use (sic) in wikipedia" (and if it does, it's stupid, IMHO!) - DavidWBrooks 23:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exponent (Math)

You de-prodded this earlier. Wouldn't you say this was already covered by Exponentiation, and the (math) version is more of a lesson in how? RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 00:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Block of User:213.42.21.81 should be renewed

Hm... the one edit is obvious vandalism, the other one I have no idea. I'll add it to the list of things to check a few times daily, and if we see more of the same, will consider re-blocking. Luna Santin 23:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 20:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes Nitt

I didn't block The Bryce, and that's not why I blocked Agnes. Why should I unblock her? Adam Bishop 14:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked Agnes. I suppose my block was a little over-the-top...hopefully she will not be a nuisance this time. Adam Bishop 20:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Will "Single user login" work for Meta and Commons?

Will "Single user login" work for Meta and Commons? Also, while I have the same user name on all wikis that I work on (including Wikia which already has single user login for all Wikia.com wikis except MemoryAlpha), I figure many users have different user names for each server. What should I tell them? Will (Talk - contribs) 01:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to archive this page

Can I suggest that you look into archiving your talk page? It is one of the longest user talk pages around. Personally, I use User:GeorgeMoney's Auto-Archive system. It has a flaw in that it either archives your entire talk page or nothing at all. However, unlike User:Werdnabot, it requires no bots. Will (Talk - contribs) 01:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just manually archive, but it had been six months. Fixed. Georgewilliamherbert 01:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ISRO-SCRE-1-Spacecraft-1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ISRO-SCRE-1-Spacecraft-1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry

I sincerely apologize for bending the rules here. I just got a little frustrated at what happened. Thank you for taking the time at least to settle this matter, I'll be sure to avoid the user RunedChozo in the future. - ZakuSage 02:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

I have filed the previous discussions and some new evidence as a new CheckUser request as discussed here. Asterion^talk 03:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reports now need to be pre-approved. This is why it is not showing up yet. In the instructions it says you have to save it over the old one but both versions will still be available to search. Off to bed now. Cheers, Asterion^talk 04:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were right. I forgot to "advertise" the new CU as an outstanding request. I took care of it this morning and it has been completed with an outcome of "Likely". Regards, Asterion^talk 22:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh!

Thanks for the fix on Hog Island (California)! Agent 86 20:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll thank you to enforce the rules even-handedly

You conveniently ignore the fact that Giano deleted my comments here and Irpen deleted my comments here. Where were you to defend my rights then? Or do you only defend Giano's rights? --Ideogram 22:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen reverting my edits

Please examine this. Note that Irpen has not attempted to discuss this matter in any way, he is simply revert-warring. --Ideogram 18:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this. I'm not going to continue a pointless edit war, but I expect something to be done. --Ideogram 18:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I expected the right to make changes unilaterally. I object to his reversion of my edits without attempting to discuss. --Ideogram 19:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

icons used in topology graphics

I love them, and have seen similar ones used in other documentation. Could you tell me where you got them or which application they might belong to? Thanks! --Mespinola 18:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which graphic are you referring to? Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert 21:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! This one: 2nodeHAcluster.png --Mespinola 18:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barred Owl

Thanks for politely insulting me regarding the Barred Owl article, but I noticed it had been vandalized for some time, and when I reverted it someone else did at the same time. But thank you for assuming that I would vandalize an article rather than actually checking to see what I had attempted to do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.196.101.169 (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]