User talk:Ingolfson/Archive2008A

Volapük

Hi Ingolfson. I found your name via another Inclusionist from the m:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians and thought that you might agree that this proposal: m:Proposals for closing projects/Radical cleanup of Volapük Wikipedia, with its delete-all-stubs policy, is not the best for the Volapük Wikipedia. In case you agree, you could help us fight it with your vote. Thanks in advance! --Smeira 22:30, 5 jan 2008.

Auckland Central

hey...I found you through the Auckland CBD page, and I was wondering, can you take a couple of minutes on the Auckland Central (NZ electorate) article and write a paragraph about the social makeup and characteristics of the place? That would be mighty useful and greatly appreciated. Cheers. Rocklaw (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rocklaw, I will consider it, though I am not a born-and-bred Aucklander - however, I was away (or otherwise busy) during much of December/January and I'm still trying to catch up with my own watchlist backlog and other associated Wikitasks, so it doesn't look like I'd get around to working on new stuff like that soon. Maybe you could ask at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board to find others to help? Ingolfson (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

On Esfahan

Dear Ingolson, I am dumbfounded to see that you have felt necessary to comment on my continuing editing on Wikipedia. With all due respect, what I do on Wikipedia is entirely my own business. Please note that by this remark I do not wish to be disrespectful towards you, but to demonstrate the intrusive behaviour of some Wikipedians which ultimately led to my departure (or semi-departure) from Wikipedia. Before going into the subject matter of your message, for good order I should like to point out that my recent edits have all been minor, if you consider the fact that I had planned to write biographies for all major and minor figures of the Constitutional Revolution of Iran (1904-1911) — I was about to type my well-researched biography of Ali-Akbar Dehkhoda (at present the worst biographical entry of Wikipedia is his, considering that he was a man of letters) when I suddenly decided that I no longer felt at home in Wikipedia; my Wikipedia entry on Bibi Khatoon Astarabadi has remained incomplete and sketchy while only last week I finally received some details that I had asked for from professor Afsaneh Najmabadi, the only scholar in the world who knows both the character and the social conditions of Bibi Khatoon in minute detail. This was just a side project of mine, as I am not an historian, but a professional scientist. My long-term plan was to rewrite a host of entries on subjects related to theoretical condensed-matter physics. Some examples may be clarifying: the explanations of superconductivity and the BCS theory on Wikipedia are essentially incorrect — the extant Wikipedia explanations consist of platitudes that are widely parroted in "popular" books and are sufficiently inaccurate to warrant failing of a student of physics if this student wrote such inaccurate accounts in his/her exam papers (you cannot imagine the height of my frustration to see such utter nonsense being paraded as knowledge in Wikipedia). The host of accounts on the Hubbard model, strongly-correlated systems, Fermi-liquid theory, ..., Fermi surface, etc. contain fundamental errors and misconceptions. I had originally planned to rectify all these shortcomings, but that was not to be. I do not wish to be disrespectful, but I am utterly frustrated by the school-teacherly attitude of fellow Wikipedians. Never during my active time in Wikipedia have I received a message of a scholarly nature from a fellow Wikipedian; only messages on "rules" ("source of photograph missing!", and the like). This is a terrible commentary on our contemporary culture, as we no longer seem capable of engaging in discussions on matters that really matter, only on issues which are utterly petty and irrelevant.

Now as for my link to flickr, I would have been sympathetic with your point of view if the problem that you mentioned were endemic to Esfahan. You have chosen to throw a rule book into my face, while to my best judgement application of the rules to which you refer is utterly meaningless as regards in particular Esfahan. I genuinely wonder what might be the reason that might have inspired you to write a long message to me on the merits of not linking to flickr — I am simply astonished and feel unable to comprehend you in the slightest (that is, not on the level that really matters); with all due respect, your reasoning seems perfectly to exemplify the peculiar attitude of those about whom I bitterly complain in the text on my home page. May I therefore request you to be kind enough and leave me and Esfahan alone? It is not really relevant, but I trace my ancestry to the entire region surrounding Esfahan, and Shiraz, so that I have some strong emotional bond with the place; my judgement of the specific flickr photographs of the place has its root in my sense of the place through my genes, as it were. Thank you, and please forgive me if I may appear immodest to you; I have always rebelled against placing soulless rules above people (and that is why I sincerely believe that the UK, where common sense reigns supreme, is the best place in the entire world to live in). --BF 10:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Your answer tells me a lot about you. You think that rules do not matter when YOU consider them wrong, and you think that a friendly comment (in which I try to explain why the rules have a reason) is attacking you ("be kind enough and leave ME and Esfahan alone?"). Emphasis mine. You also wonder why I would spent the time on writing the comment in the first place (it is because you accused me of behaving like a robot), and then turn around and write a much LONGER whinge where you head off into superconductivity, how the UK is a great country and whatnot, while also telling me about how your own researcher's mind cannot stand being dragged down from its lofty heights from where, if it was only allowed, it would fix all of Wikipedia's problems. How pretentious. Ingolfson (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: I may not care highly enough about removing the link again right now, unless more such links creep in again like they did in the past (because as far as I can tell, they ARE good photos). But Esfahan (i.e. the article) will NOT be 'left alone'. Wikipedia is not your project, as you so clearly point out. Ingolfson (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

And finally - you have Wikipedia all wrong, which may be why you hate it - Wikipedia is NOT a research platform. It is a platform for the COLLECTING and SUMMARIZING of other people's works. We are not scholars. We are librarians. As simple and as prosaic as that. Scholars need independence, and personal points of view, or they'd be pretty crappy. A neutral (or as close as we can get) collector of research cannot have the same kind of independence. Ingolfson (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. The reference to "robot" had bearing on the fact that earlier one of my links had been removed and further enquiry showed that the editor in charge had not even attempted to check the link before removing it; in response to my protest, s/he responded that "oh well, previously similar links had been directed to internet sites selling, for instance, viagra." When requesting this editor to restore my edit, s/he rudely declined my very polite request and told me that if I found the link sufficiently important surely I would consider it worthwhile to type the address again (I am absolutely not exaggerating). The mere fact that seeing the name "flickr" might have prompted you to remove the link, suggested to me that you might not have cared to check the particular link (and hence the word "robot"). I apologise for the offence that I have caused. As for what my message tells about me, you are perfectly entitled to draw whatever conclusion that you wish about my character from my text and I have no objection if you have reason to believe that I were pretentious. As for "leave me and Esfahan alone", for a period extending over six months thrice I received messages that a particular photograph of a living person, uploaded by me, was to be removed and thrice I responded that this particular photograph had been expressedly given to me by the person with the full knowledge that it would be uploaded to Wikipedia; thrice I gave the editors in charge the e-mail address of the person in question for verifying my statement. The photograph was finally removed, thus effectively accusing me that I must have been untruthful in my statements (this is specifically surprising because the earlier two times the editors themselves had removed the elimination tags on the photograph at issue, suggesting that they must have been satisfied with my statements). When you tell me of your "friendly comment", you remind me of my previous experience: when I told the last of the latter three editors that in the event of removing the photograph I would leave Wikipedia, s/he also came with a "friendly comment" instructing me of the merits of his plan to remove the above-mentioned photograph (that it was all because of "keeping Wikipedia free"). "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." To my best judgement, there was nothing wrong with that photograph and I was not infringing any rules, whether Wikipedia rules or copy-right rules elsewhere; I had given the source, the contact address, etc. I have never claimed that I stood above rules, but rules should be applied judiciously, otherwise we end up with vigilantism. As for wondering why you would spend your time to explain to me about the merits of not linking to flickr, I cannot look into your heart and am prepared to accept that I may have been incorrect in my judgement. I can only tell that the previous editor also wrote to me a long message on the merits of removing the above-mentioned photograph (as though I were ignorant of rules concerning copyrights). I know, incidentally, what Wikipedia is about and am in no need of instruction (what is wrong with you folks, who seem unable to resist the urge of preaching others about what they must know?). --BF 12:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

ps) I never claimed that I would correct all errors in Wikipedia; I explicitly gave the names of the entries that I would improve. You would oblige me if you gave the Wikipedia entry on, for instance, the BCS theory to an expert and asked her or him to mark it as an essay. If you were to ask me (and I have taught advanced course on the subject matter), I would give it 1 out of 10, and that for the effort. Now you may consider my statement as pretentious, but I am here talking about an objective fact — the BCS theory is already half a century old (this should also convince you that I was not talking about a cutting-edge issue in science or a research material) and given the fact that now-a-days school children regularly consult Wikipedia, you will realise that what I wrote was not out of any personal sense of knowing better, but out of a sense of responsibility towards many young souls whose fresh minds will be contaminated by the nonsense in the present Wikipedia entry on BCS. I raised this issue with the previous editor, but he chose to find a photograph more important than I correcting, amongst other things, the entry on the BCS theory. He told me that he saw it as his duty to "keep Wikipedia free". This, I believe, is vigilantism, pure and simple. --BF 13:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on one thing - the fact that Wikipedia, a non-commercial project, needs to spend so much time making sure that it does not violate copyright, is a comment on our society, where corporate copyright is king. But Wikipedia CANNOT afford to be constantly involved in lawsuits, whether from companies protecting their products or from individuals who claim we are libelling them or putting up photos of them without permission. Wikipedia NEEDS to be agressive in preventing copyright violations, because that is one of the few defenses we have in a court of law (showing that we are serious about it). We cannot simply trust people about copyright ("I've been told its okay to put it on Wikipedia"), we need to follow the rules, which amongst other things, explain how to handle images to which you don't hold the copyright. Platitudes like "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" are, in my mind, ridiculous in this context - Wikipedia is a voluntary project that you can very well do without (use google or a paper encyclopedia instead if you hate it) - so don't tell me anything we do here has to lead you to "Hell". "Keeping Wikipedia free" is important and is NOT vigilantism, if for no other reason because vigilantism is behaviour OUTSIDE the rules.

Regarding your complaints about factual inaccuracies of some articles: FIX them. Don't complain about them. Either say "I'm done with Wikipedia!" and stick with it, or get yourself some textbooks, scientific papers, news articles, whatever, and rewrite the articles. If your changes aren't mainstream science yet, you will have to produce a couple sentences like "unlike most scientists, some [reference 1], [reference 2], consider that this theory ignores A, B and C and should be discarded in favour of the XYZ theory, which however, is still considered very sceptically by many scientists." In sum, put up or shut up - you are wasting your time telling me about it, when you could be fixing it. Ingolfson (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Bouncer (doorman)

Good job. I'd imagine this article will pass GA with ease. The only section I'm uncertain about is the list of names. Although I'm already positive that most of those people are or were indeed bouncers at some point in their lives, I know this won't be enough for the administrators. I'm going to see if maybe I can find some references for that list. As far as taking things personally goes, I've got no problem with the review process. I do have a problem with the AfD process, though. Okay, I'm going to see what I can do about references for those names. Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 00:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That's done. Couldn't find a reliable reference for Glenn Ross, though. Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 01:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I was never a fan of the name list anyway - I have previously weeded it out quite strongly, though I admit I only went as far as checking whether the main article notes them having been buncers. That kicked out most already... Ingolfson (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for cites for California's lack of training, but having no luck. I'm gonna try and find something regarding bouncers carrying weapons. I know this is true, I was offered an extendable baton by my company whilst in the profession, but it'll need a cite. Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 02:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the weapon stuff was hard to find. The one ref was all I found at the time. But hey, I just found a reference for it in the Vin Diesel ref you dragged up! That's cool. Ingolfson (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hah, sweet. What's left? Anything particularly irking you? Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 02:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The history stuff could be globalised to get rid of the irritating tag, but I think that can be taken care of for the FA review, not now. We do have the odd 'fact' tag left, though. Ingolfson (talk) 02:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it seems that the remaining "citations needed" are about what we discussed before. Ingolfson (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That's them. I'd like to get rid of that tag as well, but it's not one of the worse ones at least. A global reference would be difficult to find, I would think. Most authors limit themselves to specific areas simply because the variations in training, procedure, tactics, licencising, etc vary so greatly. Representing all countries would be good for adding to the bulk of the article, but that will take time and some serious reference digging. Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 02:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That goddamned banner was an automatic fail. We should just remove the bloody thing. Whoever put it up can come and explain how they expect this article to detail the history of bouncing from a "worldwide perspective". Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 01:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've renominated the article. Without the tag, of course. Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 01:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ports articles

		The Port of Mainz, and other places
		I notice you created the Port of Mainz article, and I thought you may be interested to know there is a WikiProject working to improve articles about port-related topics, be they in Europe, New Zealand or anywhere else that takes your interest. Your help would be greatly appreciated on similar articles (such as the ports of Tauranga and Auckland), so please consider joining WikiProject Ports. Regards, Euryalus (talk) 10:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries. If you ever change your mind you know where we are. Also, if you're of a mind to expand a ports article and need access to techncial data beyond what's already online or elsewhere, let me know and I'll have a hunt around. And speaking as a former Kiwi, nice work on NZ articles. Euryalus (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Auril

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Auril, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Auril. Deb (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Port of Mainz

On 17 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Port of Mainz, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, someone else had already nominated it. In future if you want to nominate one of your articles it is best to check if someone has already nominated it. If so you can add your hook as an alternative underneath the original nomination – most editors will use a hook from the creating editor rather than someone else's. Also DYK is changed roughly every six hours in order to get as many articles on as possible, which would explain how you missed it. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 16:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Geothermal power in New Zealand

On 28 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Geothermal power in New Zealand, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your renaming of navy ship lists

Hi Ingolfson. Can I ask you what your rationale is for renaming some of the major navy lists, and why you did not first raise the issue on the relevant talk pages? The name you chose for the Canadian navy, List of ships Canadian Navy ships, seems a little strange. Also you haven't finished the job, but you have left hundreds of links that now need redirection, for example. --Geronimo20 (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Geronimo. The change regarding the Canadian ships was simply sloppy - fixed now (why didn't anyone fix it in the meantime?). As for why didn't I ask - how was I to ask at dozens of pages? Finally, for the redirect issue, just have a look at what the text says nowadays when you move a page:

"Please check whether this move has created any double redirects, and fix the most serious ones. For this purpose, you can use the following text:

1. REDIRECT List of Canadian Navy ships

A bot will fix the rest within a couple of days."

(Emphasis added)

I do enough hand-changes on Wikipedia and Commons (of the type which are too complex or don't have dedicated bots yet) to spend my time on this when it will be done by a machine soon enough anyway.

Hope the above explains my actions better. Cheers. Ingolfson (talk) 04:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done a few more fixes, as well as changed a few more. Got a better understanding of the double-redirect issue now. I assumed that it was a purely internal issue, did not really appreciate the fact that it meant clicking multiple times. If you see any more important double redirects that I've left behind, please fix or tell me, but apart from that, bot changes are a good thing! Ingolfson (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I appreciate the naming of naval lists is inconsistent, and it is good you are trying to fix that. But at the moment, any particular naming style you choose is open to debate, since as far as I can tell the wikipedia naming conventions don't cover naval lists. It might be an idea to hold fire a bit before renaming more naval lists, since I have raised the issue of naming conventions here and here. Cheers --Geronimo20 (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There is now a new guideline for naming naval articles when the country or navy is part of the article title. It might be an idea to leave it for a few days to make sure it is stable. Then it would be great if you resume your project tidying up inconsistencies. I apologize for being such a pain in the butt! --Geronimo20 (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have preferred the naming convention to be the other way around, but I will agree with it for the sake of Wikipedia-internal consistenccy. Cheers. Ingolfson (talk) 07:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's unfortunate. Would you like me to flip the ones you've already done, and you can do fresh ones if you want. --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe its better for you to do it than people jumping on me for changing it AGAIN! But I'll put in some more work with the oddly named ones if any remain. Ingolfson (talk) 08:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

So I've flipped them apart from "List of Canadian Navy ships" and "List of Algerian ships", which won't flip.--Geronimo20 (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we will have to get an admin for that. I could ask one I know, but I think there's request boards for that too. Ingolfson (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Auckland railway network

Yes, I could probably do something for the Auckland railway network, although I can't guarantee that it will be quick. Any preferences as to the appearance? Same as the ferry map, or maybe more like my Wellington rail map or Wellington trolleybus map? Any suggestions as to whether it should show planned and/or proposed routes? -- Vardion (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the ferry map looks best, but that may be only because the ferries could get away with having their routes shown in nice sweeping curves ;-) The trolleybus map is good too, the rail map looks a bit "thin" I feel. Yes, I would very much appreciate the future proposals (even one's like the tunnel) being shown. Maps of the existing route be found much easier in any case. Ingolfson (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Future proposals - lets show them all in a different colour with proposals which are not reasonably certain yet (admittedly - most) shown dashed. Onehunga Branch line is probably the only one which is certain. Oh, and please show the proposed line to the international airport continuing on from Onehunga, and the proposal to cross the harbour from Britomart with light rail on a new crossing tunnel/bridge (possibly best to show it near the Western Reclamation and then up the North Shore City busway as future light rail.

As you can see, I am quite willing to 'help' by suggesting all sorts of things for you to do or change ;-) Hope you don't mind! Ingolfson (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've experimented a bit and I came up with this. There are probably improvements that could be made, but hopefully it's a start. The map is a bit big, and I'm not sure about readability once it's shrunk down. I'm not even sure about whether I should have labeled the stations, actually. The map I've uploaded is what seemed to work best out of the various things I tried, though. (Oh, and I forgot to answer your question about what program I use — GIMP, mostly, although I'm sure there are other editors which would work just as well.) -- Vardion (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That map is awesome. Like the 'professional' quality. Like that you used the same colours as on the station infobox. Definitely keep the station names on! Some suggestions as to how we could maybe improve it (what do you think of them, worth a test?):

1. Extend the North Shore link suggestion just a little further, maybe up to at least the level of Takapuna (with the line following the busway/motorway).
2. Correct "Gleneden" to "Glen Eden"
3. Cut off the lower part below Papakura, with an arrow and a "To Pukekohe" instead.
4. Cut off the northern part of the map above Waitakere (keep enough above of it - to maybe just above Rangitoto - to keep map looking as users would expect) and replace with a "Planned extension of services along existing track to Huapai, Waimauku and Helensville"

Those two last changes would change the map format to a more screen-friendly shape as well as allow a large view. Probably not enough to read un-enlargened, but at least it could be on one single screen for most users, if tweaked correctly. Ingolfson (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup about GIMP. Awesome - free software for a free encyclopedia, its the New World Order ;-) Gotta try it soon, even if its going to eat up even more of my time, I already know! Ingolfson (talk) 07:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give those suggestions a go — I'll probably be able to get to it some time tomorrow. I'll let you know when I've uploaded it. -- Vardion (talk) 07:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've found time today. A new version is uploaded (same file name) which hopefully implements your suggestions. -- Vardion (talk) 08:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Would you like to have rollback? It's more efficient for some anti-vandalism purposes than the javascript tools such as Twinkle.-gadfium 07:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Tools? Dear gadfium, I am not even using the undo function, let alone Java tools ;-) I read through the description of it, and as far as I can see, the only advantage is that it undoes multiple edits quickly, and more effectively than "undo" which apparently undoes only the last edit. Admittedly, I don't see the difference in ease - I still have to go to history, check the pre-and-post-vandal versions to see what he changed (can't fire from the hip too quickly!) so once I did that, all I need is two clicks anway - click on older version, click on save. What ain't I getting here? Ingolfson (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If you use the "diff" feature to see changes to an article, and only one editor has made changes, and those are obviously bad, then it's a single click. Undo is only a click/add comment/save, but the page has to be fetched from the server and sent back to it again, which can be an annoying lag.-gadfium 08:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyway - thanks for offering, I think for now I'll stick with my usual course. I don't watchlist as many articles as you do (though they ARE creeping up again!), nor do mine seem so vandalism-prone (I mostly stay clear of schools ;-) so I am fine as it is for now. Cheers! Ingolfson (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic PS: If I had known how many bloody Auckland suburbs the corresponding category has, then I might not have started my new template ;-) Ingolfson (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Onehunga

Hi, It might have slipped your notice, but your last addition to Onehunga means there are now two mentions that the completion of the NIMT railway caused a decline in coastal passenger services. The first (your edit) is probably in the better location, but removing the second requires some thought as it is in a compound sentence with another reason for the decline of the port (and I am edited out for the night!). dramatic (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Lets do it tommorrow ;-) Ingolfson (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Auckland Zoo

I'm thankful for your contributions to this page... I am planning a full reference day (when I get time) for the mentioned page... However, the majority of my (extremely) numerous additions to this page have been taken from one (very reliable) source... I am also a student of Engineering and if you are ever in Auckland or, in fact, live here, I'd love to give you a tour of the zoo citing its history and to have a discussion of the engineering principals, processes and composition of the materials (and how they have changed over time, i.e. the 86 year history of the zoo) if your are interested...

Kind regards,

ZoofanNZ (talk) 07:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I was actually working on the Onehunga article, and seeing that I had the reference all fixed up for that article, I thought I'd check if I could 'reuse' it, so to speak. Cheers and happy editing. Ingolfson (talk) 07:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

GA nom for Bouncer (doorman)

Noble Story admits that he judged the article too hastily. Have to say I wasn't expecting such honesty, so I'll give him props for swallowing his pride. Doesn't happen often around here. So now what? We could renom again, but I think we're probably coming off as really sore losers at GA noms. Ha!

I think I'm going to try to deal with a couple of cite tags first, unless you feel otherwise. Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 15:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should there be any problem with renomination? It's not as if there were any glaring holes, we were failed twice on technicalities. If you are wanting to do some more fixes before renominating, we can wait a little, though. Ingolfson (talk) 04:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I've already added a couple more refs, one removing another cite tag. I see you've been at it as well. I'm having difficulty finding anything about bouncers not being allowed to use force at all, though. I worked at a bar where we weren't allowed to use force unless the customer was attacking another person. If they didn't leave, but were not being physically threatening, we had to call the police to come and escort them away. But I've never worked at, nor have I ever heard of a venue that expressly prohibits it's security personnel from using force under any circumstances. Wanna keep looking or just take that sentence out? Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 02:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Let's renominate and see what happens. Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 00:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Somebody will fail us on a technicality? No, wait, we had that already! ;-) Ingolfson (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Third time's the charm, as they say. I'm submitting it now. Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 01:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Only had to change the GA fail tag on the article itself. Noble Story didn't remove the nomination listing from GA review. I'm guessing he's probably new to all of this. Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 02:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Colonial Ammunition Company

On 24 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Colonial Ammunition Company, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:ForeverWar Marvano Cover I.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:ForeverWar Marvano Cover I.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:ForeverWar Marvano Panel I.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:ForeverWar Marvano Panel I.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Forever War Images

Technically, the images weren't removed, just hidden. However, Wikipedia does have a policy about links to non-english sites. Since the code to an image is nothing more than a link, the image should fall under that policy. Why have an image that doesn't properly illustrate the text? ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 08:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It took all of a few hours for a bot to mark them as "to be deleted". Apart from the fact that the "links to non-english sites" policy is not an absolute rule against such links either, I also explained to you why the images linked to are of clear use even to someone who speaks absolutely no German - because they represent the art of the graphic novel. The English translation of the art does not look any different except in the text boxes (and if we follow the rule that fair use images should be of substantially smaller scale, it would be hard to read the panels in any language anyway). Apart from that - get the English version of the comics and scan the corresponding pages, and I am happy. But please do not reduce an article due to a technical reason - after all, this is not a case of copyright or misrepresentation. Ingolfson (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Electrical energy in New Zealand

No worries - just added the reference. It's from an Archives New Zealand assessment about whether to keep documents from Wellington City on the State Hydro-Electric Department. --Lholden (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

busway

Do what you think is best. The photos are already on Commons. I don't know how to link them. Nankai (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Aussie government images

Hi Ingolfson. You seem pretty clued on copyright issues and commons. Dou know what the story is with an image like this? It seems to me Aussie rules are more relaxed than Kiwi ones. Can government images like the these be downloaded to commons? --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Geronimo, my knowledge is rather restricted to NZ, where I depend mainly on the this factsheet. You'd be better off asking on Australian boards on Wikipedia and/or looking through the Australian copyrights used on Commons. Ingolfson (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Disappearing gun

Hello. I am not sure if it really matters but the two pictures are of different gun emplacements but at the same site. The most recent picture that I added if you look closely you will notice it has a roof on it. Cheers. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I wondered, but shame, I didn't follow up on that thought. Might still make sense to keep both, with slightly changed descriptions. Ingolfson (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I was only trying to save article space but if another editor feels that both should be there thats okay with me. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ship naming conventions

There is current disagreement with the ship naming conventions, in the direction you advocated. If you are interested, the link is here. There is also a lot of discussion here (search on "naming convention"). Personally I don't care which way, so long as there is a clear consensus. --Geronimo20 (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Isfahan

Because the categories and province articles all read as Isfahan Province. You can't have one name convention for the province and another for the town when they are supposed to be the same name. Britannica often has the wrong spelling for places anyway, I've seen countless exmaples of this. However I believe it should be Esfahān Province and Esfahān which is correct ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Your first senctences are not correct. The provinces after all, can be a) wrongly spelled too, b) what makes you think that for historical reasons the names could not diverge. In summary, please provide references. I have one for Esfahan - what do you base your change on? What do you base your claim that Britannica is wrong on? And if you feel it should be Esfahān, why move it to Isfahan??? Ingolfson (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm violating wikipedia?. What a joke!. Try examining my contributions to wikipedia. All it is a indiffference over a naming not some gross crime ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You are changing contested things without providing references. And we are both guilty of a tug of war before trying to resolve this by discussion. Ingolfson (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If you examine my latest edits I fully agree with you that this spelling is correct. Remember I only moved it originally to copy the other -I didn't even check to see if it was wrong. Isafahan Province was wrong -please notice I've now moved this accordingly as I 100% agree with you!!. I'm not looking for criticism now after what I've done today!! Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets take a step back, if we can agree on that, and forget any animosity which we created between ourselves in all of 3 minutes! I feel that "Esfahān" is likely correct. But I have no references. Since you insisted on changing it, it would be good if you could provide them. all according to Wikipedia policies, and to prevent future strife over the same thing. For all we know, somebody else may otherwise come along tomorrow, and start over. Ingolfson (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I would think Eşfahān would be correct. There seems to be a following with the accents on some of the others. Please note I have added infoboxes/map locators and organized half of the cities in Iran today and am not some vandal! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I told you that I would like to tone done the accusations. I never called you a vandal - heck, if we both were around contributing productively since the day Wikipedia started, we could still have disagreements on procedure and individual edits! All I said was that by moving something (without providing a reference) which I had just returned to its original place (WITH a reference) you didn't follow the ideal course (which would have been to discuss the issue with me and provide refs). I in turn should probably have waited with a move in the first place too, but then I didn't know that you were still online. Can we now get back to the matter of CLARIFYING that "Esfahān" is correct? As you point out below, this isn't limited to one article. All the more reason to base this on more than our personal opinions. Cheers Ingolfson (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Isfahan and that naming convention should be changed to Esfahan. It is best to categorize without accents but it should be Category:Esfahan Province rather than Category:Isfahan I think ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Right OK I'm glad we cleared that but I made the original change to Isfahan based on the other naming conventions. I noticed articles like [[Isfahani style (Iranian architecture)] etc etc where the "I" spelling seemed more common than E but it looks as if it was wrong. I think they should ALL be moved to the E spelling for consistency which is all I want. Note I would think Eşfahān with the accent also on the s would be completely correct. I think the categories and related articles should be changed to the E spelling tomorrow ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Mm its a tricky one. Google hits show twice as many with Isfahan. Ouch. I really arent' concerned which way you want to do it, perhaps some wider consensus might be best ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Did the same research - Okay, Britannica prefers Esfahan. Google has "Esfahān" and "Esfahan" at about the same rank if you combine both numbers, but Isfahan gets more hits. Of course, Google is not the arbiter of what is correct. Ironically, the split between the names persists even if you restrict yourself to Iranian websites - Isfahan is still somewhat ahead! So I guess there may not be a correct name in the Englisch-speaking world. As I don't read Persian, I couldn't check whether they prefer the E or the I. But go ahead, I may have to be happy with "Esfahān"... even if we can't fully nail it down. Ingolfson (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Little error

Hi there. Sorry for the error, and thanks for notifying me. I'll try to be more careful in future. Good day!  S3000  ☎ 12:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Greetings

Hi Ingolfson. As you could probably tell from my IP address, I've editted a few things on Wikipedia now and then. Sometimes correctly, sometimes not. But I figure our recent swapping of opinions about that Public Transport stuff was quite effective, so I have decided to create an account should I wish to edit anything in the future. WRT my previous edits, do you know if there is a way that I can make my IP address now be shown as my username instead? I tried looking through the rules & guidelines and such, but boy, there is a lot there. Gokiwigo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokiwigo (talk • contribs) 20:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gokiwigo - welcome on Wikipedia. Nice to have you consider contributing more in the future! I fear there may not be any option of having your old contributions counted against your name. I have not heard of the option. Also, the only technical way in which this would work would be by redirecting from the IP address to your newer name, which is somewhat problematic in terms of privacy (your user name is a lot more anonymous than an IP which people can trace back much easier - you may not feel any concern about it, but like anywhere on the web, the less private information the bettter it is usually).

Anyway, great to have you here. You'll see that there is always more to do than you'll have time for ;-) If you have any questions, just ask away here. BTW, if you add four tildes at the end of your post on any talk page (like this without the quotation marks: "~~~~") then these will automatically convert themselves into a username link / timestamp. This is the usual way of signing TALK page posts here on Wikipedia. Cheers and happy editing. Ingolfson (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Bouncer article

Hey, great job with all of that. Being a former bouncer myself, I found the new studies section an interesting read. To be honest, Wikipedia has been low on my list of priorities at the moment. I'm looking for a new house and have other issues that need tending. I'm not gonna be doing much more than brief edits, so I'd suggest running for the nom again and seeing how we go, eh? Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 12:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Traffic congestion

Hi there. Regarding the message you let me. First, I did not create the entry for Brazil, I just fixed the translation, it was very poorly written/translated. I will improve it in the near future with proper references. About the picture, check the history, I just copied it from another article, and it was 250px, I realized it was to big, so I REDUCED it to 200px, I did not increased it as you assumed, but you are right I should have left it just as thumb, as you did. Cheers. Mariordo (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry for mixing that up partly. Ingolfson (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

When Gravity Fails

The entire article consists of two paragraphs - Setting and Plot synopsis. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to add more. Also, the plot summary is relatively short - the rest of the article is description of the setting and the main character, all which is relevant for the whole series. Ingolfson (talk) 06:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but can you please add some information on reviews. At present the article severely lacks references, some more references should be given. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I am watchlisting and actively improving (when I can) 300+ articles. I can't fix all faults of Wikipedia. This article may lack some stuff, but its not a bad, misleading or uninteresting article, so right now its not high on my list. If this bugs you, why not search out some reviews on your own? Ingolfson (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Links

I see the comment now by the ed. who removed them. This is in my view a serious matter and I will discuss it further elsewhere. But as a practical matter, just rewrite the article from the redirect if necessary. Add more content then. Possibly discuss other weapons there also. DGG (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sulaco

Thanks for the work - that is a real good imporvement and I've changed my suggestion to keep.

I looked around for more sources and found:

• In the Belly of the Mechanical Beast: Technological Environments in the Alien Films - I haveb't read it (although I can probably get it electronically) but it strikes me this might be a significant study.
• “I’m a Stranger Here Myself”: Forced Individuation in Alien Resurrection - the specific "colours" in the design.
• Alien Woman: The Making of Lt. Ellen Ripley page 123 (go via Google books then preview and search in the page or scroll down) describes the Sulaco as being turned into a holy shrine and Ripley being framed like the incorrupt.
• On Film (page 70, Google Books) is explicit about the similarity between the Nostromo and Sulaco, in their role in the larger motherhood aspect of Ripley's character (more so in Aliens as she is xplicitly protecting a child) and there are a lot of references on that (although most should probably go in the Ripley article).

So those last three show the significance of the Sulaco and its design are thought to be very specific making a large contribution to broader themes that are touched on across the film series.

On a sidenote it seems clear that things turned up here have aspects that can be transferred to other articles to help with their real-world context: Nostromo needs similar attention to Sulaco and there is a huge amount of material on Ripley (I thought I had added this already but apparently not - I must have jotted them down... somewhere and will try and dig it out). (Emperor (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC))

Yeah that all came from a quick search in Google Scholar.

I have found my copy of Beautiful Monsters. It discusses the design of the ship in detail on page 61 (some of which is in the Colonial Marines Tech Manual (Syd Mead's original design being a large sphere with a smaller engine sphere behind which was rejected because Cameron wanted a more aggressive gun-like ship and it would do something odd/technical when filmed) with Cameron's sketches being the basis of the final design (although his design resemble an MiL-24 Hind and, oddly, the Republic Gunship from Attack of the Clones, just without the wings). On page 64 it say something which chimes with the Nostromo link "The tour through the sleeping Sulaco was a deliberate attempt to link with the previous film by echoing the camera's opening tour through the Nostromo". (Emperor (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC))

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Haldeman Omnibus Peace War.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Haldeman Omnibus Peace War.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Haldeman Prefered Edition.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Haldeman Prefered Edition.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Haldeman Robin Williams.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Haldeman Robin Williams.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Haldeman Starships Battling.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Haldeman Starships Battling.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Haldeman Marygay Potter.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Haldeman Marygay Potter.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Haldeman Avon Reprint.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Haldeman Avon Reprint.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Haldeman Weidenfeld Nicholson.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Haldeman Weidenfeld Nicholson.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Forever War Leatherbound.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Forever War Leatherbound.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Haldeman Gollancz Simple.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Haldeman Gollancz Simple.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Haldeman SFBC Edition.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Haldeman SFBC Edition.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Haldeman Audiobook Ver.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Haldeman Audiobook Ver.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Favorised/favored/favoured

Well, I was 100% sure that favo(u)rised was a British English word, and 99% sure that it wasn't a Kiwi English one either. Then I couldn't remember if they used 'u' or not, so left it un-ued. And yes, I'm aware of the irony in making up words in this post! :p Ged UK (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Royal New Zealand Air Force

Do you know what is the total number of fighter aircraft of the Royal New Zealand Air Force as of 2008? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I had thought that number was at a stable zero? Fighter arm disbanded, and all that? No clue, really, I am not an expert, just a Kiwi-centric heavy editor with the odd excursion into wikifying military articles. Ingolfson (talk) 09:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice words. I know there are always some people who try hard to make a good encyclopedia. But they are always a pitiful minority. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thälmann Battalion

Hello. Sorry if my edit went against your intended meaning, but the fact is I've never seen the word respectively used that way and I'm not at all clear what it does mean there. I've generally only seen it used when referring to two different items in a sentence, as in "the commanders of the Afrika Korps and the Eighth Army were respectively Rommel and Montgomery" - but the sentence in question isn't one of those. I haven't reverted your edit, but I wonder if you'd consider phrasing it a bit differently to make it clearer how Renn and Kahle relate to each other? Thanks. PhilipC (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.PhilipC (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List of ships (The Culture)‎

Thank you for removing my comments. I was just enthralled by the fact that someone has put so much effort in to such a ludicrously insignificant topic! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Your "Comments" were two words, repeated twice, unsigned and most importantly, offered no value on the talk page which is supposed to discuss improvements to the article. Really, I didn't even realise they were from a logged-in editor instead of the common hit-and-run type. Your further explanation here doesn't change my opinion of this. Wikipedia is not paper, and the effort that contributors put into subjects that you consider irrelevant or of minor importance is nothing you need to worry about or have to belittle. Ingolfson (talk) 09:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Moon Landing

Sorry but from timestamps it looked like you'd finished editing a couple of hours ago. I was sorry, for that I apologise. As for landings, I think that you are quite right. The majority of info in this article should go as it is not relevant to it. Such info was all removed some time ago on orbiters, earth orbiters and the like but it seems to have all crept back in again and the article scope has widened too much again. Should only contain info on moon landings, and attempted moon landings. Canterbury Tail talk 02:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

As visible from the timestamps, your revert occurred ~ 18 minutes after my last edit. I somewhat disagree with you on what should be in the article, because I feel that the "moon landing" article should also cover the programmes that directly led to it. In any case, the Apollo program list should be in there, AND in the apollo article (where there isn't any table) but I will finish it here first and then copy it to there too. Ingolfson (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

When I was discussing the timestamps I meant due to my time. The timestamps were several hours off my local time and sometime Wikipedia timestamping does funny things with regards to relative time. That and the fact you'd edited another article suggested to me (incorrectly obviously) that you'd finished with it. Again I apologise. Canterbury Tail talk 02:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I'll take maybe an hour or so to be done here. Ingolfson (talk) 02:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Also regarding this article, please see concerns raised at Talk:Moon_landing#Use_of_color. (sdsds - talk) 04:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Congestion pricing

Hi there, would you mind to participate and comment on the GAN posted on the Talk:Congestion pricing. I am the main contributing editor. -Mariordo (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)