User talk:Shanes/2007-Jan-1 to 2007-Dec-31

Click here to leave Shanes a new message.

This is an archived version of the Shanes Talk Page. Use the box above to leave a new message. Don't edit this page, please.

---

• Sometimes I respond on your talk page, sometimes here.

---

WW ONE CASUALTIES

It was raining in NY today so I decided to do a major revision of World War I casualties. The numbers are backed up with solid sources.--Woogie10w 21:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Great! I'll keep an eye on it to help avoiding unsourced changes from creeping in. Shanes 05:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Weather forecasting

Dear Shanes:

I am doing some research on the early history of weather forecasting and reporting. A question often asked is "Why are weather bulletins composed in all-caps, with ellipses for commas?" Your explanation was clear, concise and direct. You said:

"Written weather forecasts use an idiosyncratic punctuation style, employing heavy use of three-dot ellipses (e.g.: "light rain...strengthening through the night"). It takes the place of a comma and is derived from legacy computer systems (some of which are still active), which did not include a comma in their character sets."

As you may know, the Wikipedia article has been quoted in many locations (some with attribution, some without), but no one else that I have located has detailed information regarding those early weather bulletins and the equipment used to transmit them.

Can you point me to a primary source? I would be interested in learning more about the equipment used to disseminate weather forecasts and advisories in the early days, where they were used, and what people and organizations used them. I will be extremely grateful for any leads.

Best Regards, Jim Easter someareboojums [AT-sign] gmail.com jre[AT-sign] someareboojums.org http://www.someareboojums.org/blog Jimbobboy 17:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have requested a primary source for that section in the article by adding a "citation needed" comment. I'm afraid I don't know much about this subject, but hopefully some of the editors of that article will provide a source. If you have further comments or questions about the content of the Weather forecasting article, I suggest asking on that article's talk page, Talk:Weather forecasting. Shanes 20:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

WW ONE CASUALTIES

IS IT OK IF WE ADD ANOTHER COLUMN WITH THE NR OF TROOPS THAT SERVED? THE SOURCE IS * Tucker, Spencer C. The European Powers in the First World War: An Encyclopedia, Garland Publishing, New York, 1996.(p. 172) --Woogie10w 17:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Tags

Just read User:Shanes/Why_tags_are_evil. I couldn't agree more about the three tags you single out for attention. Cheers, CiaranG 13:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! The recent excellent introduction of the sprotected2-template has made my GWB-example rather outdated, though. I should probably make changes to reflect that. But I'm extremely happy to see such a change for the better in a time when it's getting harder and harder to find articles that actually follow the style manual and don't start off with some framed irrelevant obtrusive meassage meant for editors and not readers. Shanes 09:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You could simply replace GWB with GW. ;). CiaranG 10:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I was the one protecting that very article some days ago, and I clearly remember adding the sprotected2-template and not that big box. Oh, well... I'm not in the mood to fight over that one right now. Shanes 10:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Collateral damage

Hello. You recently indef-blocked "Samsguy", but seemed to have left the IP box tagged, effectively blocking all 218.186.8.12 indefiniely. As this is a dynamic IP, there was collateral damage (see user talk:Advanced ). I've lifted the autoblock, and left the user block on Samsguy. In general, ESPECIALLY when indefblocking, it pays to UNCHECK the "IP also" block unless we are absolutely certain that it is either a open proxy or a static IP. See Wikipedia:Autoblock. Thanks, and keep up the good work vandal fighting! -- Avi 16:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There are of course no way for me to know what IP-address a user is editing from, so these things happen. And IP-autoblocks all expire after 24 hours, don't they? So, I don't believe indefblocking or not makes any difference. Shanes 18:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:No-sleep-Shanes.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:No-sleep-Shanes.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MECU≈talk 00:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted it myself. I can still look it up anyway, if I should ever want to. Shanes 10:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

wiki page

If you wouldn't mind, would you rate my page? (not edit for me, just rate it)

Thanks--'•Tbone55•^{(Talk) (Contribs) (UBX) (autographbook)} 04:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think I'm the right person to do that. But for what it's worth, I think it looks great. Much slicker and better looking than my own crappy user page. That's for sure ;-). Shanes 04:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Rants to policies

Hi,

I think that you should reformat User:Shanes/Why tags are evil#The vandalism protection tags (or at least the idea) into some sort of proposal to reformat multiple distracting protection tags to less distracting corner icons; for example, redirecting {{sprotected}} to {{sprotected2}} (well, probably move the later to the former, for this case). The corner icons work beautifully, are much less distracting, and clicking them will follow you to a page explaining what the lock is for.

I fully agree that the large box with text is very distracting and unnecessary. This is especially true when non-user Wikipedia users read the articles, which probably constitutes the majority of Wikipedia readers. They probably don't care that they can't edit the article, nor would they, and of most concern—they may confuse the tag with the article content.

Thanks! +mwtoews 04:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Yes, the rant has become rather outdated with regard to the protection templates. The excelent {{sprotected2}} template wasn't around when I wrote it last April, and my George W. Bush example has also become less valid as that article is now usually tagged with the icon only. It's really a good thing, as it means things have improved. Yes, I'm quite certain that non-editors constitute a majority of readers. I'm guessing something like 99%, if not more. And the, in comparison, extremely few people who want to edit a protected page, should be perfectly capable of figuring out that the editing is restricted without that big ugly box being there just for them. I think this applies to many other templates as well. It's easy to see that, say, an article without wiki-links needs to be wikified. I don't understand why we need to scream out about it to millions of readers who don't even know what "wikifying" means. I believe we're confusing a lot of people with all those big "fix-me" tags that are now on top of thousands of articles. The stub-tag is just about the only big "fix me" tag I like. Because the article is then so incomplete that we can stand to bug people reading the stub about some help in expanding it. And the stub-tag is put discretely at the bottom. I like that about it, too. (Tags like {{disputed}} with friends are of course fine, since they are about understanding bias and other flaws that aren't obvious, but important for the reader to know about).

But, yeah, I should update the rant and/or write it in a less angry tone and more along a policy or guideline suggestion, or something, that might get wider support or at least attention. Shanes 05:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Lodge aka Stephen Lodge (referee)

Hi Shanes. Thank you so much for your help - it's simple when you know how! I have made a note of the source on the Stephen Lodge redirect page, so that I can apply it to other articles in future. Thanks once again. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 12:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Anja Pärson

Hello Shanes,

Thanks for reverting the article from its vandalised title... beat me to it by a few seconds! :P

Stele 03:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Eritrean Airlines

Thank you for fixing my edit. I just realized that my edit actually did the opposite of what I intended. Thank you again! --Merhawie 20:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I've made the same mistake many times myself. Shanes 20:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotect

Yes, I am aware that the semi-protect does not actually protect the page and that the warning is purely cosmetic, but I have noticed on some pages that its presence has been enough to deter vandalism from unregistered IP users. --Ozgod 01:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the protection-tag is not a warning and shouldn't be used as such. And it isn't cosmetic at all, it's rather ugly. And when the page isn't even protected it's just plain lying. Shanes 01:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism

Thank you for taking care of the vandalism on my talk page. Someone must have it out for me because this is like the third time in a week that someone has vandalized my talk page. Could I request that both my user page and talk page be protected for a while until this all dies down? If so, please let me know. Thank you. Jdlowery 01:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Shanes 02:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

I was just about to remove the "Steve Irwin" comment when I found that you had already done so. Thank you so much - the manta ray is vastly differently (neither "better" nor "worse") from it's cousin the stingray which facilitated Irwin's death. Thank you again!

Jamie DiFlorio Little Rock, Arkansas USA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.46.242.77 (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Why unprotect

Hi, why did you feel it necessary to unprotect David A. Yeagley when you knew what would happen (nearly immediately, in this case)? I hope you'll reverse this, as it's an ongoing problem! Thanks, Badagnani 00:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never unprotected that page. Shanes 00:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I missed your response at first because you responded on your own talk page rather than mine. Do you have an alter ego? If not, then you did unprotect David A. Yeagley. The edit summary, which a WP editor named "Shanes" left, even says so. Badagnani 05:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it can be rather confusing with who responds where. I usually respond here to keep the conversation in one place. But somethimes I don't. So it's very confusing. About the unprotection of that page: I really didn't do it. Here is the protection log for that page. The latest protection of that page expired two days ago. What I did was simply to remove the tag, and that's what my edit summary says as well ("rm tag"). It doesn't say that I unprotected it. The tags don't protect anything. Now, about the page and its need for semi-protection, It doesn't really look like it needs it at the moment. But I've added the page to my watchlist and if I see that any vandalism/disruption returns in high volumes, I'll semi-protect it again myself. Shanes 06:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You must be joking! Have you looked at the edit history? Badagnani 06:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not joking, and have in general no idea what you're talking about. I really didn't unprotect that page if that's what you're still refering to. Shanes 15:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

WW1 Casualties-Need your help

I made an edit to WW1 casualties for Belgium and got a strange message about an archived discussion, how can this be fixed?--Woogie10w 13:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, been away. I can't find that message you got anywhere. If it's still unresolved, let me know. And if you can be more specific in what this is about, that would be great. Shanes 15:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

RFC/discussion of article World War II

Hello, Shanes. As a prominent contributor to World War II, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:World War II, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- —Krellis (Talk) 18:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I might look at it later. I've been busy/away the last couple of days. Shanes 14:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"Why Tags are Evil" and icons

See the talk page of that essay for something about small icons that I proposed to the village pump.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 04:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've responded on the village pump. Nice work with the icons. Shanes 14:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Image:Pikachu.png a while ago

Have you seen what you did to that picture? For more than a month that picture was a parody of Pikachu, drastically damaging the article. Now, how could you have possible done that by mistake? The IP reverted the vandalism, and then you came along and restored it to the vandalized form. Explain how that was a mistake. 声援 -- The Hybrid 05:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't really mess around with pictures that much. I didn't realize that there were two different files. Let's just drop it. 声援 -- The Hybrid 13:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

He's at it again..

[1] LazyLaces 16:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The last edits from that IP looks fine to me. Shanes 05:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

message

(copied from Tuvalu by gadfium)

Shanes,

Sir, I am a 42 year old comparative politics teacher in the Jacksonville, Florida region and I am new on this site. While my knowledge is vast, my knowledge on how to work this here site is limited. Please explain, by editing this section, how to cite sources.

...Norway... Eh? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.157.29.52 (talk • contribs).

Looks to be settled now. Shanes 05:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for deletion.

Hi, Shanes, I am officially leaving Wikipedia for good. I request that my user account, user page, and talk page be deleted because I do not want them to stay here taking up space. Please get back with me as soon as possible becasue I will be signing off for the last time very soon. Thank you. Jdlowery 04:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Responded on his talk. Just delete-tag your userpage if you want it gone. Shanes 05:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged the page, please delete it for me. Please do not delete the talk page. Thank you. Jdlowery 22:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Can you delete my user page and talk page. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Page in need of cleanup

Bombing of Naples in World War II page is in dire need of an expert to clean it up--Woogie10w 01:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Some kids had made some prank edits the last two days. I reverted them. Can still do with an expert, though. Shanes 06:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of Mother Teresa article -- can it be semi-protected?

Hello Shanes. Thank you for reverting the vandalism of the Mother Teresa article. I've noticed that the article is vandalismed very frequently. My first thought is that it should be semi-protected. What is your thoughts? If so, what is the best way to do so? Please share your thoughts. Thanks you. Majoreditor 13:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There's great value in having an article editable for everyone so semi-protection is seen a somewhat exceptional measure to be used only when vandalism happens so frequently that it's really damaging to the article and wikipedia. The Mother Teresa article is currently being vandalised once a day on average, and when it is it's usually being reverted within a minute, so the article is very rarely in a damaged state (compared to many other articles i watch). I personally protect articles either when it's being vandalised several (3-4) times a day over a few days or if it seems like repeated but infrequent vandalism goes on uncorrected for a long time (nobody else is watching it). So in my opinion we should keep it open for now. But the article is on my watchlist and if the vandalism increases I'll protect it myself. That's my general opinion. To your question about how to proceed, normally requests for page protections are made on Wikipedia:Request for page protection. Feel free to request semi-protection there whenever you think a page should be protected. Or ask there now. Maybe the people handling the requests there are less stubborn about it than me ;-). Shanes 14:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

New question posed at User talk:Shanes/Why tags are evil

Jerry 16:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll comment on it there. Shanes 16:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Chinese Casulaties

There is a guy posting material in Chinese, is that allowed?--Woogie10w 14:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Take a look the posting is in Chinese--Woogie10w 14:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks for fixing the page, I have no problem with changing the numbers if this guy can produce a verifiable source. The rules on Wiki are NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Well I did some of my own research on Chinese losses and came up with losses of 30-40 million. If The guy has genuine Chinese data I want to see it in English.--Woogie10w 16:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

25 million additional WW2 dead

The guy has added 25 million to the WW2 casualties total. His source is the Chinese Communist –Peoples Daily- What do you think?--Woogie10w 18:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that the Chinese losses exceeded the Soviet casualties is news to me... I'm skeptical. But that the communist party actually reports these high numbers is notable and deserves mentioning. I think I would have liked to have that high number mentioned in the footnotes, but to use numbers from more independent historians in the table. But since the actual Chinese losses is such an uncertain number, with so many things playing in, I really don't know what to put there myself. But I think the numbers with sources that you listed before looked much more reasonable. But how to solve this? Hmmm... Maybe a compromise could be to list intervals for the Chinese numbers in the table? It would emphasize stronger that the numbers are highly uncertain and disputed (which is true) and at the same time draw the readers attention to the footnote where the reader can see who reports what and by that make up his own mind. That's sort of the Wikipedia way. Shanes 20:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I may understand your way of thinking,just cuz,nowaday China is communist,so no reliable data would be used.That's a little illogical.And for the first chinese source I have add here[2],It is a paper from the journal of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.I tried to find the corresponding english translation,but I failed.So I had to use the people's daily number.And for the World War II casualties of China,I have to admit it is really difficult to find out the accurate number,because there's no census for China at that time,all the figures should be based on the estimation.And why the number are somehow exaggerative for you,I may give the my opinion.The war between China and Japan lasted longer than anyother countries.If we didn't take account the conflict before 1937,you will find we fought for 8 years all in the heartland of China the most population density in the world.And at that time,the millitary strength between China and Japan were disproportional,China got almost no mechanized weapon such as Tank and Fighter.We fought on foot and rifle against japanese Gun and bombers.The chinese civilians got no protection in the fallen territories.The japanese troops carried out Three Alls Policy which aim the chinese peasants to deprive them from food and house.I wish the foreign scholars take more serious study before they released the socalled death tolls.--Ksyrie 22:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please make further discussions on Talk:World War II casualties. Shanes 22:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Google did a translation of the Chinese, I posted it to the talk page WW2 casualties--Woogie10w 02:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I just made a posting to ww2 talk page, must get back to work--Woogie10w 11:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Official Chinese sources confirm that the figure of 35 million includes dead as well as wounded. The WW 2 Casualties page does not include statistics of wounded ,only war dead[3][4][5]

There is agreement that the China number should be 20 million. The revert war has ended--Woogie10w 12:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Great! I've unprotected the page. Shanes 12:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

David A. Yeagley

Hello, how are you? You may wish to reconsider your removal of the anon protect on David A. Yeagley, as a quick look at that article will show. The vandals are very persistent and apparently monitor the page, just waiting for the block to end. This has happened at least 3-4 times already. Thank you, Badagnani 20:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... I have never removed the protection from that page. Please stop claiming that. A tag doesn't protect anytning. I thought I had explained this. The page has been open and unprotected since March 19. The tag I removed was simply claiming a protection that wasn't there. But I've now semiprotected the page again. If you want to have a tag there as well, feel free to add it. I recommend {{sprotected2}}. But please understand that whatever tag is put on a page doesn't protect it from editing. Shanes 20:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry!

I might have overwritten your edits to McDonald's by mistake.

krallja 01:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I checked and you didn't. ;-). Shanes 01:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I double-checked too -- looks like I somehow managed to get my edit in right after yours was posted. Phew! krallja 01:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

user Bluefoster

Hi - Any idea what user:Bluefoster and seemingly related users user:Redfoster and user:20em89.01 are up to? Clearly not newbies, but I can't exactly tell what they're trying to do. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. No, I don't know what they're up to. I don't really remember interacting with any of them, but I see I've left one of the accounts a message on talk some days ago, and that other has taken my (crappy) userpage with barnstars and all and made it his. Not really kosher, but it's not a big deal. Probably just kid(s) fooling around. But claiming to be an admin when he's not is not good, but I don't really think anyone will be fooled by that and I'm reluctant to make a big deal over it. Shanes 19:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, maybe I'll have a chat with one of them. This edit is what caught my eye, and it looks definitely un-kosher. Thanks for taking a look. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources

The source is a VA Tech student who doesn't want to be identified. A good friend of mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.156.205 (talk • contribs)

Answered on anon's talk. Shanes 12:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Bongo (antelope) Vandalism

I wnat to thank you so much for helping out by un-doing the vandalism going on at the Bongo (antelope) page. Thanks so much for your help. Yours, Black Stripe 22:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. But thank you for the heads up. I appreciate it. Shanes 22:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ho chi Minh

You deleted a very interestingly Quote contributed to Ho Chi Minh. I even referenced it. I have restored the quote. I understand the site gets a lot of vandals and mistakes happen, but please be more careful in th future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mantion (talk • contribs) 07:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

The most important quotes of Ho Chi Minh deserves a place in the article, but then preferably in a context in the article prose, not as one of many quotes listed in its own "Quotes" section. We have Wikiquote to keep listings like that. Shanes 07:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a very important quote in that it shows the long time hatred of the Chinese and why they choose French control over Chinese. Mantion 00:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Shanes, FAC Update

I saw your comment in the FAC page for Shen Kuo, and I have addressed your concerns (about Bi Sheng and movable type printing, and then some). Feel free to come back and provide more in the ways of commenting/objecting/supporting the article. Thank you.--PericlesofAthens 19:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Eyrian RfA

Hi, you opposed Eyrian's RfA because the user had no set an email address. They have since done so. Just letting you know in case that affects your opinion... WjBscribe 18:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Good, though he should have known the importance of being reachable by mail. But I'll go neutral his RfA then. Shanes 07:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent trolling by IP

Hi there. You recently blocked an IP, 86.25.50.102 (talk · contribs). The user's IP is consistent with those used by socks of Elspeth Monro (talk · contribs). However, her page and talkpage have been deleted as a temporary wikipedian back in April and again today by you (since the edits by the IP looked like trolling). [6] However, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Elspeth Monro still exists with numerous puppets listed. Should the userpage/talk page of the puppet master be undeleted? Or at least a puppetmaster tag reappended. Or is this feeding the troll? I seem to recall some discussion on ANI about mis-deletion of the pages of socks/puppeteers (after they were tagged as temporary wikipedians) back in April. Cheers, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 03:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit I didn't follow that discussion on ANI. But I don't think it's worth spending time tagging and maintaining various troll's userpages, nor do I think it's the smartest thing to do. They are trolls and crave attention. Giving them titles as "Puppet masters" or whatnot is just pleasing them. So I don't see the need to keep userpages just to have their puppet-master "barnstar" and their own categories on it. But if actually doing this, keeping the pages, is the prefered procedure for reasons I'm not aware of, then by all means, I can undelete the talk page I deleted. Just let me know. Shanes 03:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with you. This one seems to enjoy the attention. Heck, the IP even added the Puppetmaster tag back to the master's userpage! I've stopped tagging habitual socks as well for the same reason (troll feeding). Carry on! Cheers, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 04:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

WW 2 Casualties

I wonder if the IP address of the kid who likes chocolate milk is also used by a registered user.--Woogie10w 16:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but even if it is I only blocked editing for not logged in users, and only for 32 hours for now. Registered editors should still be able to edit. Shanes 18:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well done

Well done blocking User:64.215.82.94. He made fun of me and other users that warned him. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 23:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

In case you missed it...

This edit. I reverted the one placed on my userpage, but figured that it would be good etiquette to ask before blanket rollback. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 05:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! But I'll just let the note stay there. My and Shanel's usernames are very similar, and as we're both admins here I see how people might confuse one for the other. I often mix up much less similar looking names myself, there are so many people with names here... ;-) Shanes 13:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

On the Hitler article.

You removed the changes I added, because it's not needed. Might I ask you, why not? TheBlazikenMaster 12:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's highly unlikely that anyone will look up exactly A. H., and so spending the top of the Adolf Hitler article to explain things to these people is not worth the distraction it imposes and the precious lead-space it steals from the 99.999% of the rest of the readers. I'll also argue that the A. H. should redirect to the AH dab-page where the Hitler article is among the listed articles. I'll make that change now. The other alternativ would be to make it redirect to Islamic calendar where we currently lead people typing A.H. to. But it too is listed on the AH dab-page. Shanes 15:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

AIV vandal

Thanks for making the block quick. I needed about 4 attempts to actually report him because TWINKLE can't post if AIV is blank! :-) Evilclown93 23:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sprotected2

Template:Sprotected2 currently isn't a redirect, and it's intended for long-term semi-protection. I'm just switching over the templates so that they're correct and then I'll probably move to have the page turned into an actual redirect, like Template:sprotected. I just think that if a template is going to be on a page for a while, it doesn't need to be one that redirects to an antiquated one. Hope that clarifies. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. That might make sense. As long as I can continue to just type the shorter name, I'm happy. Shanes 01:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

How to add pictures...

Hi, I'm new user User: Sophiakorichi and I would like to know how to add images to my articles.

Deletin of Betty Ford (teacher)

How stupid could I be? Thanks alot for fixing up this stupid mistake of mine. I didnt research the subject thoroughly enough (I am Australian, know nothing about American politics). I guess I should have realised there would already be an article on her, but it's pretty late here and... well, it doesnt matter. Thanks for fixing my mistake. Kind regards, Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 13:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Translation

Hi there Shanes. I noticed your name in a list of the people who can translate from Norwegian to English. So would it be alright if you translated one permission transcipt? I'm asking because there's a flickr user who currently owns a copyrighted photo (http://www.flickr.com/photos/eirikurke/279401478/) and judging by his profile, I don't think he speaks English. The photo is of The Game, which is currently a good article. An image would really improve the page, so if you have time to translate 'Example 2' on the transcript page, that would be great. Thanks! Spellcast 10:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Responded on User talk:Spellcast. Shanes 12:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Blatant vandilism

I'm sorry for the edits that were made to the George W. Bush article, my friend did it when I got up and went to the bathroom for a few minutes. Again, I apologize. GhostBoy66 19:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

World War II casualties

Please see the talk page on World War II casualties, thanks.--Ilya1166 13:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for the recent support, and I'll get around to setting up the e-mail to run through wiki... Look for me to be back with a new attempt in a few months! Hiberniantears 14:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

WW 2 casualties

A user is insisting on doing a sort of the ww2 casualties table that cannot be resorted to the original format. He insists that this is acceptable. What do you think about his change? Can we do a sort without including the Totals line?--Woogie10w 03:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)::Forget it, somebody fixed it--Woogie10w 21:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent death tag

You may not know it, but your now-ancient rant on tags has inspired a great deal of my activity since I've read it. Not that I've been able to change anything, but I can see that we are not alone in our feelings. Anyway, my most recent peeve (though not the worst one, probably) is the recent death tag. I've written something that doesn't actually constitute an essay, but I'd like you to look at it and make suggestions. I plan to insert a link to it into edit summaries where I remove the recent death tag. Look forward to your honest thoughts. Unschool 02:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Russell King

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Russell King, 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 explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. mms 16:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Pavarotti

Please leave some input in Template_talk:In_the_news#ITN_Criterion_.235_and_Luciano_Pavarotti Borisblue 14:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar Mockery

On May 7th of this year, at 14:37, the user page User:Dr Spam (MD) was created. Within a period of 48 hours, User:Dr Spam (MD) had placed approximately 55 barnstars on user pages and user talk pages. Many recipients doubted the sincerity of the sentiments behind these barnstars, in part because of the comments placed by Dr Spam on the barnstars. A sampling of the reasons that Dr. Spam offered for presenting barnstars to editors:

• Hi - I am putting this here in case there's trouble later. Please accept this tireless barnstar thing for all of your wiki-activity. Thanks. User:Dr Spam (MD) 16:08, 11 May 2007

• nice one! User:Dr Spam (MD) 16:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hi I am leaving you with this barnstar for you to reflect carefully on. I will provide the citation in a few days once you have had the opportunity to consider why I might think that you deserve it. Peace User:Dr Spam (MD) 16:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well done for all of your fantastic editing / writing: you are obviously a genius of our day, shining like the brightest barnstar against a dark barnnight in these new and difficult wiki-times. I therefore award you the surreal barnstar (I can't get the other barnstars to work properly - my apologies.) Please note that you have no right to remove the barnstar, for it is sacred. LEAVE WELL ALONE! Many thanks.

• awesome contribution to this web site! have a lovely barnstar thing User:Dr Spam (MD) 12:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• cool editing

• Awesome

• Cool.

• I am awarding you a surreal barnstar because you obviously deserve it! Keep up the good work - don't slacken off, it'll get harder before it gets easier!

• Hy my cat (the fat white one) is awarding you this barnstar of diligence because he doesn't eat fish either. He just likes to eat biscuits - or so he says. But how then does he get so fat????

Occasionally Dr. Spam's comments did appear sincere (if vague), but a review of the record indicates that sincere-appearing comments were generally generated during a massive cut-and-paste session. There were also many barnstars presented with no comments at all, and even more that User:Dr Spam (MD) presented without signing his name to indicate from whom the award was coming. And some barnstars, praising the editing skills of the recipient, were awarded to editors with one solitary edit to their name.

In response, once this pattern of apparent insincerity was established, a few experienced editors asked Dr. Spam to desist from barnstar spamming, in the belief that randomly awarding barnstars devalues the entire barnstar program. (Indeed, so random was the placement of barnstars, that some were even placed on wiki accounts that had not been active for over a year.) Dr. Spam has now stopped, presumably recognizing that his efforts were not appreciated by the majority of editors.

Most of the barnstars placed by Dr. Spam during his May campaign have been voluntarily removed by the editors on whose pages they were placed. You are receiving this notice because Dr. Spam's barnstar still remains on your page. If you feel that Dr. Spam's barnstar spamming was a form of mockery, you may choose to remove it yourself. But if the way this barnstar was "awarded" does not bother you, you are of course free to keep it on your page. After all, it is your page. This notification was simply for your information. HuskyHuskie 13:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

last change

Listen buddy, don't u ever threaten me again or I will sue you down to every penny for threatening me. You are breaking the Code of Conduct by threatening me. That is very rude and I will not take this anymore. I am sick of this and I did not change anything so stop accusing me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.197.175.99 (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiTrivia

The WikiTrivia proposal has been revived. Please take a look at meta:WikiTrivia. Thanks!

Equazcion • argue/improves • 17:33, 10/4/2007

AfD

Per you edits to World War II, please consider cmmenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axis plans for invasion of the United States during WWII. -- Jreferee t/c 06:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dnb logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dnb logo.gif. 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. BetacommandBot 14:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)