Contents

User talk:TomStar81/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

---

I'm glad that you've decided to register, and I'm honored that you put me on your user page. Don't hesitate to drop a note on my talk page if you need anything. I'll try to assist in any way that I can. Here are just a few handy links:

• How to edit a page
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• village pump

You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. Theres also a button for a sig with timestamp above the edit window. (Ofcourse, I'm probably the last person that should be giving advice on remebering to sign things, seeing as how I keep forgetting myself)

Anyways, welcome! --Aqua 03:37, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Archives
Master Archive Page

Liked your article --- thanks for posting it! Fg2 01:27, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Fantastic work on the article! Great job! - Ta bu shi da yu 21:30, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

There's a standard template and instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. However, I usually prefer to simply replace with a stub that sets context and does all the other basics, then let others build on the clean base if they're so inclined. I did Zeratul that way just now. Stan 02:44, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It looks like some uninformed anon came in to mess up stuff and then disappear again (some call it... "trolling"). I don't see any reason not to just revert all the anon's changes back to the way you want it. In general, we've been moving toward a policy of not having separate articles for elements of fiction that don't have sufficient material to support more than a two-sentence article - we have a lot of stubs that have nowhere to go, they would be perfectly happy to be embedded in a longer article. But if the separate article are already a page or more in length, include picture, etc, then merging several of those into a single article is not helpful to the reader. Stan 04:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• If I'm uninformed, maybe I should never have wikified pages, categorized the pages, or did any improvements to them so that they are findable? 132.205.45.148 19:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Note that these are Stan Sheb's words, not mine. Also note that everyone is uninformed about something, and I have not questioned any of your edits to any article, nor did I erase the additional information you provided on the Cosmic Era ship class pages. My concern was over the merging of these articles because they can stand alone.

• I'm definitely inclined to think of it as trolling that our anonymous friend at IP 132.205.45.148 reported a bunch of Gundam SEED vessel images as copyright problems, but ignored all the UC Gundam vessel images that came from the exact same source. Redxiv 21:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • LOL. Now he's claiming that the images are animation cels. Which Gundam SEED doesn't even use. Redxiv 05:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If there is no edit link: use the url http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:TEMPLATE_NAME

However, some templates are protected due to their high visibility. --Aqua 15:41, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

I'd love to help, but could you help point me to the articles/pictures in question and where you got them? --Aqua 07:26, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Hmmm, the situation seems to have gotten more complicated since last time. First of all, this anon doesn't seem to quite get the concept of fair use, or just really likes to err on the side of caution. Either way, fair use would apply in the situations were the pictures were taken from screenshots of the series, as they are in fact describing them. However, I'm not sure that all the pictures can simply be categorized under fair use. While they faq appears unchanged, I noticed on the news page that they've started adding "line art". The faq mentions cutouts("Many of our mecha cutouts took hours to create...") which are fine as far as fair use is concerned, but the lineart(which clearly has an artist from what the site says) would be a derived work. While they can't claim copyright on it, I also don't think you can claim fair use as it applies to the origional work. The best thing would probably be to ask for permission from them for the use of the images, including the line art(if you used them, although it's hard to tell which is what, they look pretty similar to the screenshots). --Aqua 01:55, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• You're right, and it seems that most of the line art in question would be from Mark064, who is part of the staff. It'd probably be fine as is. The website doesn't seem to have a problem with it. As far as preventing this stuff, that line could help if the subject of the line art was brought up, but an email would probably be the most effective defense against this sort of thing. It's your call, but I wouldn't be too worried about it. --Aqua 03:39, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Good evening. Thanks for your help with the VfD but your studies should must come first. Wikipedia can be an addiction if you are not careful. Don't worry about cleaning up all the redirects and all. One of the great advantages of a wiki is that no one person must do anything. If you can't get to it, I will. If I can't, someone else eventually will (as long as the task itself is noted somewhere).

As far as actually closing the discussion threads, I'm going to offer some advice that I know I already regret. You see, we are desperately short on help closing discussions. We need every hand we can get to keep up. Even so, I'm going to suggest that you might want to stick with closing only the ones where the decision is an obvious "keep" until you make admin. Closing the discussion but not actually being able to carry out the delete just means that some other admin must re-check all your work before deleting the article. It doesn't really save him/her any effort.

As promised, I hate saying that. We really need help closing out those discussions. And I did help close out discussions before I was nominated. It's just that the mechanics of the process work against us when the decision is "delete". I do look forward to your help in the time that you can spare and particularly look forward to your help if/when you decide to shoot for adminship. Good luck. Rossami (talk) 23:18, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Those battleships were already categorized as, e.g.

• Category:New Mexico class battleships,
• Category:World War I American battleships, and
• Category:World War II American battleships.

Isn't putting them in Category:United States Navy battleships a little redundant? —wwoods 06:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Aloha Tom, looked over your contributions to the Iowa-class article regarding decommissioning. Yes, those look pretty accurate for the most part. It reminded me that we have about 15,000 of the 16" projectiles in storage -- I'll add that to the article when I get a moment. Thanks for your contributions.

Ben M. Schorr Volunteer Crewmember, USS Missouri (BB-63) ---B- 06:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation of "wet forward" the iceman 23:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You asked about CE ships and UC ships. I'm afraid I've forgotten what pictures you're referring to. (I tag a lot of images. That's most of what I do on Wikipedia.) Could you link to some of the pictures you're referring to? Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 00:24, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Did somebody forget to log in? -- Chris 73 Talk 03:09, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

I just saw an anonymous user editing your pages, and thought that looked like a more experienced user, hence I asked. BTW, you have two pages now, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Missouri fires a missile and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Missouri missles.PNG. I think the latter one is redundant. Let me know if you want that deleted. -- Chris 73 Talk 03:46, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Deleted the latter one. There wouldn't be enough words in the English vocabulary to express my gratitude for it - hey, that's the nicest "ThankYou" I have gotten in a long time :) Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 03:53, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

I love M*A*S*H :-) great image, and so apt for the way I'm leaving. Anyway, thanks for your kind words. Take care mate! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:42, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

... merged with old versions --Chris 73 Talk 15:17, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed that you've been uploading a number of files that are photos as a PNG file instead of a JPEG file. That is actually an incorrect thing to do. PNG is designed to handle things like icons and simple graphics, not photos. Putting up PNGs of photos (like the images in the tables for USS Mississippi (CGN-40) and USS Texas (CGN-39)) means that large file sizes are unnecessarily generated. Putting up those pictures as JPEGs would save a great deal of download time for those on dialup connections. David Newton 21:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just got a high-res version, and the image is public domain. Please support the high-res version. --brian0918™ 17:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my nomination for administrator. —wwoods 05:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reason it was up for such a short time was because the FAC page had already been created...

Okay thanks. Good luck with your FAC. — RJH 22:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I've added Radar/FC/EW/Other equipment information to the article, along with two citations and worked on some of the replicate links. I voted support on the FAC. --Durin 1 July 2005 15:56 (UTC)
• Also, you might want to integrate this data [1]. It would also be nice if you could find the complement figures for the three different periods of commission, as they definitely changed over time. A cursory dig on my part found nothing, but there may be information out there. --Durin 1 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)

• Missouri was clearly a super dreadnought. The Battleship article explains this definition to a degree. There is some room for interpretation of the meaning "super dreadnought". It can also be interpreted that Iowa class, Yamato class, Bismark class, and others laid down post-treaty were not super dreadnoughts, but a new breed beyond that; for some, this is "fast battleship". But the "super dreadnought" term is generically used. Also, please keep in mind that while Yamato/Musashi were the largest battleships to see service, they were not superior to the Iowas. Large guns, yes, but the 16" rifles on the Iowas could match them. The Iowas were longer and faster as well. Also, Iowa's armor design, scheme, and steel were superior to that of Yamato. I've changed the "historic dreadnought" entry on the article to "historic super dreadnought". --Durin 3 July 2005 21:13 (UTC)
• Just noticed; the Missouri article is missing information on armor and aircraft. --Durin 3 July 2005 21:13 (UTC)
• Well done on the FA status, Tom. You did more than I did - I've been buried in work and didn't really hold up my end of the deal. :-) Thanks for all your efforts; I'll make sure that the word gets around to the other crewmembers on board. ---B- 22:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Why should the references pertain only to the Missouri? Any book with pertinent information used in the article can be added, even if it only deals briefly with the Missouri in the context of the larger theatre. Regardless, excellent work on the article. --Scimitar 7 July 2005 13:17 (UTC)

Hello Tom ...

I want to add a Crew_Members page to the site
as I am in contact with a group of 200 or so former members of Enterprise's
Engineering and Reactor Department.
I have some experience editing on Wikicities ...
but none here on Wikipedia and would appreciate some guidance in setting it up
effieciently ... making use of Categories, ect, that would be consitent with how
business is done here.
So any help/advice would be appreciated.
Perhaps there are some examples of how others may have done this?
Thanks. -ts- 20:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Got you message just now. Before I reply I need to warn you that I'm not particularly knowlageable on wikipedia's policies, so take the following suggestions/information with a grain of salt. This is one of those hard to navigate sections of wikipedia, as listing individual crew members bumps up against some of the policies here. Listing individual crew members who serve or have served aboard Enterprise would be a long and daunting task, but you may have better luck reorganizing a crew member page into groups, like having an article about enterprises engineering department and explaining what they do, then listing members of that group. Pages like the 101st Airborne Division make use of this, and consequently have members listed under smaller group headings. If you really want to maintain a crew page for Enterprise here you can try taking the matter up with User:Raul654, he's a good man and will listen to both sides of the argument before suggesting something. Evilpheonix's point arises from past prescident, where lists of people who were involved with or particpated in events considered important wound up on Wikipedia: Votes for Deletion, and could not garner the nesicary support to remain on the site. Aside from these suggestions I'm not sure what else can be done. TomStar81 23:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes Tom ... this was the idea ... I already have nearly 500 members from the Reactor and Engineering Dept who served from the 60's up to the present, who would love to share their knowledge.
My intention was to do just what you suggest ... only using the existing Enterprise page to link to the Rx and Eng department where we could then contribute from our own experiences.
However ... I can't do that in one day! The pages went onto the To Delete list within an hour of being started!
If people want to look at pictures, and read facts ... fine. I thought it might be a good thing to understand that these ships were nothing without the crews who ran them.
I have no ideas of listing everyone who ever served onboard ... but i have 500 names of those who did indeed do so.
Too bad this isn't still the times of ships of wood and men of steel, eh? ;) And it is unfortuate ... as Wikipedia has such a great number of pages on all of these ships. I find myself spending hours going through them ... checking out those served aboard.
Well ... sorry to have bothered everyone here.
I'll take it somewhere a little more friendly ... where people are interested in the folks who actually powered these vessels.
I don't have the time nor the inclination to play politics.
Thanks for your help and suggestions though ... it is appreciated. -ts- 00:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Although this attempt seems to have failed I encourage you not give up. If enough people rally behind an idea than it can become a reality. I encourage you not to abondon wikipedia altogather, and if you need help in the future I will be here. Tell the crewmwbers you I said hi and that I tried. Until we meet again...Goodby, Farewell, and Amen. TomStar81 00:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks mate. ;) No big deal I guess. It isn't like we don't have a place of our own where we all hang out ...
check out http://www.mooj.com/rxdept.htm if you get a chance.
But beware! As the disclaimer says ... we were a wild, depraved bunch who worked hard and played just as hard! My stories begin on page 7 or 8 i beleive. I'm *Steamer* in those pages.
We've had a blast getting back together ... found shipmates from more than 30 years ago ... and some of us are even getting back together soon ... and smaller reunions all the time. Quite a trip. ;)
Not to worry ... had i known the resistance i was going to meet here ... i would have gone about it on a different way ... and will if this falls through. I'll get the pages prepared ahead of time and install them in one fell swoop. ;)
hey ... stay in touch ... i'd love to hear of your adventures/interests in ships and the sea anytime.
you can reach me at ts04@earthlink.net ... my spam filter may block your first message ... but i'll see that and add you to my address book and after that you will get thru. ok?
I love ships ... and being at sea. still dream about it all the time ... 35 years later. ;)
Cheers mate. -ts- 00:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response, I've been on vacation.

I believe that you must have an account and upload at the commons. But it's not like signing up is that hard. Uploading at wikipedia has stayed the same as it always was. One of the reasons probably being that the commons doesn't accept fair use images.

Also, I couldn't help but read through the conversation you had with -ts-. I can imagine that he would encouter some resistance in what he's trying to do. If I may offer some advice... Depending what kind of contact he has with them, perhaps he could do formal interviews with each of them, so that they may "share their knowledge". If he can get audio, place it in Commons. If he can only do transcripts, I believe that would go in wikisource. Instead of putting everything they say on the wikipedia page, just summerize the information into an "encyclopedic" style article, interwiki linking to relevant references, and providing links to the full interview audio/transcript in the names on the crew/dept. roster section of the page.

I think that this would offer the best protection against the info being removed from wikipedia. It also gives those that just want of brief overview a summarized version of the info, while allowing people to also find, and keeping record of, everthing that each member said in their own words.

Keep up the good work. --Aqua 22:31, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the BRAC statement on the top of the Submarine Base New London page should be removed. The list still has to be approved by the president and congress. I updated the details on the proceedings, but this is still technically subject to change (although Bush has said he will agree to whatever the commission recommends, congress may be another story). Your thoughts on this? Kafziel 20:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

My reason is nothng more sinister than this: It's complete chaos down there. While the amount of damage and deaths will be high, we don't know yet. It's better to wait a bit longer until we get some hard data before making changes like that. I might be OK with something like, "While Hurricane Katrina will likely rank as high or higher than Andrew in terms of destruction and death, only time will reveal the exact extent." No, I don' want to wait years, just a little longer until some things can get sorted out. Right now they are more worried about rescuing people, getting food and water to everyone and keeping the streets safe than what is the dollar damage and deaths. It was the same with Andrew. We didn't know for a while what the numbers were and in the meantime rumors of thousands of deaths were floated around as well (when it turned out that only a small number of people actually died, thankfully). Anyway, that's my deal and I'm not the only one that's reverted that. See Golbez for example. Have a good one and don't be so mean next time, I'm not some nut. Bye. Gator1 12:21, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:USS Pennsylvania moving into Lingayen Gulf.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Listed under Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 16. Thunderbrand 02:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I've put this article up for deletion. Firstly, Rita isn't going to be the only Category Five storm anytime soon to threaten the United States. Secondly, Gilbert never made US landfall. -- NSLE | Talk 03:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

It could be possible to just post those sentences into the article (Hurricane Rita) itself. And no, Hurricane Gilbert never made US landfall - it made landfall in Jamaica and Mexico. -- NSLE | Talk 03:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps they were reverted because of Gilbert? I don't know. Still, Rita won't necessarily make Cat 5 landfall, so perhaps the reverts were due to Wikipedia not being a crystal ball. -- NSLE | Talk 03:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

For one, I didn't make the reverts, so above were just speculative guesses. It's fine by me if you reinsert the text, as long as it doesn't mention Gilbert. -- NSLE | Talk 03:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds okay. I don't see anythign wrong with it, at least. -- NSLE | Talk 03:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Minor side note, but I didn't want to create a new section: Thanks for the welcome, but I'm used to Wiki markup, don't worry. I play NationStates and am the 6th registered user of the NS Wiki, so you coul say I've got experience ;) -- NSLE | Talk 03:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

As I saw you were a little bit upset on that fisheye matter, I took the liberty to try to correct the distortion in the B2 picture. I've added the modified version on the FPC subpage. Glaurung 09:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the update to the USS Missouri (BB-63) blurb; the help is quite appreciated :-) Kirill Lokshin 04:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Tom,

Just to let you know (in case you hadn't noticed) that I've moved the Pic of the Day for the USS Pennsylvania up to November 8. Thanks for your help with writing the caption - I've used it as is. I hope that's OK and the 11th November wasn't a special day with respect to the battleship in question. -- Solipsist 16:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thats fine. Originally, I had selected November 11 because it is Veterans Day in the United States, not because of anything related to Pennsylvania. I'm glad to here that you will keep the original text. Thanks for the heads up. TomStar81 23:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I wondered whether that was the connection, though in the current pattern the Friday would normally be a reused POTD. But, as luck would have it, one of the older Featured Pictures due up this week is Image:NormandyLST.jpeg which is also rather appropriate for the 11th. -- Solipsist 18:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi TomStar81,

As requested, the content of the article was : "Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 was announced some time ago to subscribers of the Command & Conquer newsletter. No details are known at this time.".

You may want to note that as per VFD, the article will get deleted again unless there's some concrete announcement that the game is in production. - Mailer Diablo 08:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Use sources to prove so, to better your chances to avoid deletion again. Simsville stays because it has at least some form of 'hard documentation'. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 08:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

One would think so, but without a web page for the ship, there doesn't seem like an online home for the info. User:Husnock likely has a way to find out, I'll leave a note for him. Stan 00:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Raul has already chosen the article for that date. See my comment from Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article/Omnipotence paradox discussion:

Raul654 stated that he had started thinking about on what day to feature Christmas back in August. Initially, he thought about doing it on Black Friday, but, "after a few weeks of mulling it over", decided that December 24th/25th is the only choice for which nobody would see the article on the main page and complain about it not being on the "more logical" date of December 25th. I agree with his rationale, support his decision, and consider this "discussion" closed.

-- BRIAN0918  21:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

That's because I've altered the table format that they're based on and I'm in the middle of fixing the tables. Unfortunately I had to go to bed in the middle of doing it and so the job was left uncompleted. The Nimitz-class ships are one of the major tasks left open.

The reason I altered the table format is that the new table format has the same functionality, but it is much more elegant from a code point of view and it is also a lot easier to understand how to use. I'll fix the articles today. David Newton 10:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW I've fixed USS Nimitz now and I'm moving on to the other ships in the class. Then it's on to all the tankers and ammunition ships and destroyers that also use the new markup. David Newton 10:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:GoldenSpikev3.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Congratulations, and thank-you for nominating it. Raven4x4x 07:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi TomStar81. I was wondering if you would take another look at the Geisha picture that was nominated for Featured Image status; two edits of the image were uploaded and some comments were left that may address your reasons for opposing. The photographer uploaded a crop of the original that I think really improves the photo and reduces the client's prominence in the image. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

On the page ORCA Aircraft you placed a number of awesome images, but they do not have a source. I am loath to tag such images with {{nosource}} templetes, so I was wondering if you could add your source. Thanks in advance. TomStar81 00:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, they are in game screen captures, I/someone else had taken these from the game movies between missions (the images have been sitting in my drive since the games were out so I cant exactly recall). I do not know how can I cite sources :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 01:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!!! TestPilot 04:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Any Time. TomStar81 04:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice pic! Very. Really make article better! Thank you! TestPilot 00:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to keep an eye on it; the situation seems under control at the moment. Alternately, I could comment on the actual issue on the talk page, if you'd like—but that will mean you'll need to find another admin to do policy patrol there ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 17:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You said it is quiet on vestern front, on Kirill talkpage. That is because Mateo got banned. Unfortunately, he got banned only for 24 hours. So, come back in 24 hours ;) And look at last edit(current). The guy, an admin removed wikilinks to kg and pd. What was the reason of delinking pounds and killograms, but leaving linked cm | feet | m | ft/s | m/s | yards | tons | lbf/in² | kPa and etc wikilinked at that article??? I would love to rv that, but I could not revert couse 3 revert rule, and that edit are not an obvious vandalism, but more like sofisticated one. And one more reason, I want to save my rv edits for tomorrow war. Happy New Year!!! TestPilot 01:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you please teake a look at "tightening" edit of Bbpen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iowa_class_battleship&diff=34139212&oldid=34125351 I truly hate that edit. If you take a look at other edits of that user, you could notice, that he love to tighten articles. My opinion article was way better before. If you even partly agree with that, I could try to revert and apply changes made after that edit. Thank you in adv for your comment. TestPilot 01:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. As you say. Thankx! TestPilot 02:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Factual error? The current article state "In addition to the 33 knot speed another feature of the design was to be the Mark II 16inch(406mm)/50caliber gun. ... However, this gun was rejected in favor of the new Mark VII 16inch(406mm)/50caliber gun because of its lighter weight." At some point of the time article stated - "The Mark VII gun was adopted since the planned Mark II, built for South Dakota and Lexington classes, would not fit the barbettes." But Mark II gun built for South Dakota had 45 caliber. Could you look into that? TestPilot 21:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanx! TestPilot 02:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to fix, edit ar revert my edits of Iowa class article. Be bold:) English is a second language for me amd my grammar suck (as you must have noticed). The main idea of keeping that phrase around in the article for me was to give a newbie reader something to compare Iowas with. Good luck. TestPilot 07:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed your work within the various Gundam articles and have been quite impressed. I am contacting you because I the intentions of beginning a Gundam Wiki website based through the Wikicities that would serve a strictly Gundam-based resource center. In this way, the community might have an extensive Gundam encylopedic source made available that brings together massive amounts of information concerning the various Gundam universes. I have already begun an advertising campaign in order to gain support and contributions. If you are interested, please let me know.--SOCL 04:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Awesome! I have already submitted the request form through Wikicities, so now we simply have to wait and see whether they will grant the request. Working within Wikicities is exactly like working with Wikipedia, the only difference is that we'll be working on a specific topic (i.e. Gundam). In this way, we can write about the Gundam universes in a tense that makes it seem like history rather than having to say "Within the Japanese anime series of Mobile Suit Gundam..." A good example of this would be the Star Wars Wiki site in which the user have amassed information concerning the Star Wars universe into a historical encylopedia-style resource. I believe that the Gundam Wiki will more than likely be dominated by the Universal Century (that is also be specialty), but alternate universes will and are welcome. If you know anyone else who would want to join, let them know as well--we need everyone we can get! I'm hoping to get Mark Simmons to join up as well... Also, I'll admit here that I'm not very good at administrating, but feel VERY strongly about starting this project as a way to organize all the Gundam info spread throughout various resources and websites. Thoughts? Again, thanks, and I'll be in touch!--SOCL 04:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Would you be willing to be one of the administrators?--SOCL 14:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Do you by any chance know HTML? I have a very limited understanding of it, but already I am being bombarded by the process of beginning and holding together the Gundam Wiki (gundam.wikicities.com). I am very much out of my league... Whenever you get a chance, please conact me at: SOCL9580 at gmail dot com (not spelled out, of course) so that we can get the ball rolling. Thanks!--SOCL 19:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds good. No worries about the HTML, but it's becoming more and more obvious that we're going to have to recruit someone with the knowhow. I've contacted various Gundam fans, some of which have their own websites, but you are the only one who has so far replied... In any event, the site is up and, I'll admit, looks like crap. Wikicities seems to still be running slow from server problems it was having earlier today, so I'm having a hell of a time trying to edit just the Main Page. Go ahead and head on over when you get a chance (gundam.wikicities.com) and start editing away—we're going on the "boot straps" method here, having to pull ourselves up from nothing. Contact me via e-mail so we don't have to keep going through Wikipedia; sound good? Great to have you aboard!--SOCL 00:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Blue_Submarine_-6_Screenshot.PNG. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --OrphanBot 07:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I have made a stab at globalizing this article. Perhaps you might want to take a look over it when you can. You may not approve of my formatting changes I made at the same time; if so, just make what edits you see fit to them or any of the article. Thank you for acknowledging the {globalize} tag in good spirit. BillC 23:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Already noticed it ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 05:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello. In the interest of building a consensus, I would appreciate any input you would have regarding the request to move Cruiser (warship) back to Cruiser. Thank you, Kralizec! | talk 04:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support.  :-) --Kralizec! | talk 21:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, I think all of Tsavages criticisms have been corrected now. This is what has happened to the article. --Celestianpower ^háblame 21:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Soviet_Battlecruiser_Kirov.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 20:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed there was a spelling error on this template like message. I'd like to fix it. What template did you use? — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 02:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup, there is one. {{inuse}}. Enjoy! — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 03:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Well done on the new section. I hope it defuses the edit warring on an otherwise excellent article. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you may have seen that I had tried to make the original wording a bit less judgemental, but your section was the perfect solution. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you. Jason Palpatine 04:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:4-Stroke-Engine.gif, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Congratulations, and thank you for nominating it. Raven4x4x 08:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Michel_Ninorich.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 08:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do support your concept. You do have a good idea of putting all information about characters, units etc. in the faction article, but I have a few suggestions for the template. Firstly, I think that just having a template of redirects to one article isn't good. If we're gonna have one article (per faction), only having one link would be neccessary. And your idea can be built upon. Your template gave me an idea. Instead of just having one faction article with all information, we could have separate articles for some things. Let's say units and structures. If we use the StarCraft units and structures article as a model, we could have "GDI units and structures" and "Nod units and structures". The articles would cover units and structures throughout the series and could feature technology. Jareand 00:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Excellent! That's a great idea. Stopping Run! should be our first priority, and thats how to do it, you have my full support. Jareand 05:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'd like to add my gratitude, and it's an excellent idea. I'll merge some of those articles like Tacitus into the new, larger articles. Mrbowtie 12:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Also, The current template is only about the Tiberian Series, so there need to be similar Red Alert and Generals ones. Mrbowtie 12:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Excellent... The Fish 12:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Not meaning any insult, but you could do with some work on your SPAG. Mrbowtie 12:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Bravo Tomstar, I'm really impressed. Now there's all the info you need about Tiberian C&C organized in one template! Fantastic! Jareand 18:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved Greg Burdette into 'Nod Characters' because he works for the Brotherhood of Nod. It's true that they're not combat units, but neither are most of the other characters on those lists. Burdette (along with Mobius) clearly shows his alignment, so in my opinion he shouldn't be on a list of neutral characters. (oops, forgot to sign - Ironfrost 04:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC) )

Thanks Tom for the warm welcome. I see that our paths have crossed before, on multiple topics (C&C, Duke Nukem, and probably one more). After looking over your page, I see you share many of the same interests as I do, and I have a feeling our paths will continue to cross in the future. If you ever need a hand with anything, feel free to contact me. Ghostalker

Done. (I've unprotected it in any case; December 25 is long past.) Kirill Lokshin 00:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey man,

You added the line "Occasionally, people unfamiliar with the work have been known to leave after this movement, assuming this to be the end of the oratorio (orig: symphony) when this is, as noted above, merely the conclusion of the second of the three parts."

Unless you can justify it with something more than, "I got up to leave," I'm probably going to get rid of it. See my comment on the talk page.

MusicMaker5376 06:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue I - March 2006
Project news An independent military history peer review has been created for the benefit of the project. A number of articles have already been reviewed, receiving significantly more feedback within the project than they did on the generic peer review page. The project's Collaboration of the Fortnight got off to a great start with Ferdinand Foch and is now focusing on the military history of Spain. Two new task forces—dealing with warfare during classical antiquity and the Middle Ages—have been created. An effort to build a catalogue of high-quality maps for use in military history articles is now underway. The newly-formed translation department is looking for volunteers to help with translating featured articles from other-language Wikipedias.	From the Coordinators Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Military history WikiProject's newsletter! We hope that this new format will help members—especially those who may be unable to keep up with some of the rapid developments that tend to occur—find new groups and programs within the project that they may wish to participate in. Please consider this inital issue to be a prototype; as always, any comments and suggestions are quite welcome, and will help us improve the newsletter in the coming months. Kirill Lokshin, Lead Coordinator
Current proposals Proposed guidelines for categories of military people are currently being discussed. A number of issues have already been resolved, but the proposed scheme is still in draft form and further input would be very welcome.

delivered by Loopy ^e 05:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I noticed that you uploaded Washington_Crossing_the_Delaware_II.jpg as seeming to be a better photo of [Washington_Crossing_the_Delaware.png. Actually it isn't - easy mistake to make, but if you compare the two there are quite a few differences in the painting itself. It's a photo of a 1999 copy of the painting; which I think therefore is copyrighted, because copying a painting by hand does require creativity, unlike making a photo of it. In any case, this version isn't currently used anywhere. I've listed it at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images; reply there if you have a reason it should be kept.

Thanks, TSP 03:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like your opinion on an article I've put up for deletion, Command and Conquer origins, as you can see, well, the article speaks for itself. Jareand 17:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Great job with the Generals section! I'd award you another barnstar if I could. I can't wait for your Red Alert overhaul. Jareand 16:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The April 2006 issue of the project newsletter is now out. You may read this issue or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following the link. Thanks. Kirill Lokshin 19:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Great work with the generals articles, sorry I didn't respond sooner but I've been really bust, and I have a series of exams coming. Keep up the good work!Mrbowtie 07:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've corrected the spelling of your "About me" stuff. I assumed "meterology" meant meteorology, not metrology. the changed words are in bold. Here it is

I joined in September 2004, and I have picked up some of the tools of the trade, but I still have not mastered everything (yet...). Feel free to correct me if I screw something up, but please do so Nicely. I Live in El Paso, Texas, and am currently attending the University of Texas at El Paso. I am an avid computer gamer, and spend the rest of my time either watching T.V. or reading books. I not an expert in any particular field, but I am knowledge-able in a wide range of subjects including (but not limited to): Meteorology, Transportation, History, Military Sciences, Historical Interpretations of the American Constitution, the Legal Process, and cartoons, with a special eye on anime and Adult Swim, and the old Toonami. I have also been told that I can think outside the box, but I'm not sure how true that is. Recently, I have found that my schoolwork at the University of Texas at El Paso has been getting harder, so I have been spending somewhat less time here than I have in the past, I have been using this site more as a source and less as a recreational hobby. This has been especially true during May and December, when we college guys have our finals. Therefore, if you leave a message here during the school year or during finals week it may be a while before I get back to you. Anyway, if I can help with something, then I will definitely try, and if I can't, I may be able to at least point you in the general direction of assistance. Oh, and uh, one more thing: My spellingisatrocious, so if I made it, and it's misspelled, please fix it. You will be doing us all a favor ;-)

Mrbowtie 13:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Philadelphia (C&C) image sourced as a screenshot. Thanks for dropping by! You can leave messages on my talk page instead of my userpage if it's not too much trouble, thanks! Spelling errors you made: likelihood, meticulously.

Thanks again, The Fish 16:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The Criticism section was completely someones point of view. It is not a fact that Adult Swim cares more about comedy than anime, therefore it doesn't belong in an Encyclopedia article about Adult Swim. There is no way that section can be put back into the article. If you can somehow write it in a way that is factual and not POV, then we will discuss it. dposse 23:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

That's it? You're not gonna continue to argue with me and flame me like every other wikipedian? dposse 15:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Holy crap. You are a rare guy, Tom. I don't think i've seen such a logical person on the web, which is kinda sad. Thanks. dposse 19:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. I got three of the pics from PlanetCNC. I believe I got the TD box from CDAccess. Jareand 01:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I dunno where I got Image:Cactb.jpg from. I think I found it on Google a long time ago, but I went and looked and I couldn't find it again. I'm sure someone can replace it with a screenshot taken by someone who has the game. Thunderbrand 15:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up of Aplomado trying to delete the Generals page off of here. While I admit this isn't a gaming site, they do have relevance here. I'll be keeping an eye on the situation, try to make a backup of the page, and then go to the nearest church and pray that Aplomado dies in a horrible fire, or some kinda cancer/train-wreck/orbital-bombardment/etc. Ghostalker 21:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Would it be an amicable solution to simply combine all of the structures lists into one page and simply point out the basic differences between the structures/how they affect strategy of the player? I think this would solve most problems with a manual and better preserve the thrust of the "Structures of the *blank*" pages. Note: Ghostalker's kind of joke isn't liked very much on wikipedia. --Lakhim 23:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I concede that my side (Tomstar and Ghostalker) cannot get our way. Let's build consensus for a compromise. I personally like your idea. Jareand 00:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)