User talk:The Founders Intent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello The Founders Intent, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Signature icon.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! Fnlayson 19:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill 16:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome, and German translating

Have _we_ got work for you! ;) Seriously, nice to have you here. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scouting/Todo#Germany and see if you want to tackle any of those. YiS, Chris 08:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Do I have to access the German site?--The Founders Intent 12:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
You didn't tell what I was suppose to do with the articles.--The Founders Intent 23:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear, like Randy says below, if you see something on that list that interests you, click on the German Wikilink and bring it over into an English article. Up to you! :) Chris 01:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Saw your post on the portal page for Scouting. We actually don't get many requests for translation, but it does come in handy sometimes. I see you're new to wiki, so just find an article that interests you and help improve. Just ask if you have questions. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I just put my name in as someone willing to work on translations, that's all.--The Founders Intent 02:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

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

Delivered by grafikbot 15:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polyview

..is mostly an image viewing program but it also allows image creation and manipulation. I mostly use it to browse image folders but it's also gppd for importing screencaps, fixing them & exporting as JPG files. I think it's at www.polybytes.com and is, IIRC, totally free. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 19:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Amsoil

Who are the editors?

Why don't you people sign your posts? Scared we might find out who you are? I can tell that the anti-Amsoilers are writing most of this stuff. At least cite your allegations with sources.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 00:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


That's quite a chip on your shoulder - and an extraordinarily aggressive posture to take over a bland Wiki entry. You have removed factual references to the testing regimes of specific manufacturers and have generally slanted this article towards an advertorial for a commercial product.

Between this non-neutral editing and your full frontal assault on the character of those who are attempting to contribute I will strongly suggest that you have a non-neutral point of view. As a previous editor has pointed out this should read no differently than the entrys for Royal Purple, Castrol, Pennzoil or any of the other independent oil marketing companies out there.

3RR Three Revert Rule Warning:

Quoted from Wikipedia: Three-revert rule:

   An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.

   Editors who violate the three-revert rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours, or longer in the case of a repeated or aggravated violation. Many administrators use escalating block lengths for users with prior violations, and tend to consider other factors, like edit warring on multiple pages or incivility, when assigning a block.

You have made over 10 Reverts in the last hour on the entry for Amsoil. This is fair notice of the wiki policy. 18:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


How many reverts have you made?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 20:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


A change, be it the addition of content or the correction of typo's is not a reversion. This is an example of you simply wiping out a number of contributions 'en masse':


"7 March 2008 The Founders Intent (5,065 bytes) (Reverted (NINE) edits ... to last version by The Founders Intent)"


Your inability to work from a neutral point of view and desire for complete editorial control is not in the best interest of this particular Wiki entry. 21:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I made entries and referenced them. You deleted them because you didn't agree; you call that mature? You accused me of writing a press release, when all I was doing was trying to improve the poorly written section that was there before me. You made other changes simultaneously so you could accuse me of wiping out "en masse", didn't you? How childish. If you wanted to work this out you would have kept that section separated, and had a discussion on the Talk page. Get youself a real account and stop bother people who are trying to make improvements. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 16:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article Help

Roger, as a matter of fact, I could use some help in getting started. I haven't been able to figure out how to create a new article. I see some templates available but can figure out how to use them. I could use a tutor. Thanks.--The Founders Intent 17:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No problems. This place is a nightmare at first :))
Anyhow, there are two ways to create a page (article). These example will create two sandbox pages for you to experiment with in your user space.
The first way is to search on exactly the article name you want, in this case "The Founders Intent/Sandbox 1". You'll get a message back saying that that article can't be found but asking if you want to create it. Then just click on the red text and an edit window will appear. You type into that and save. You have now created your first article page.
The second way is to create a link to a future article by typing [[The Founders Intent/Sandbox 2]] on your user page or wherever. When you press the show preview button, the article name will appear in the preview window in red. Click on it and you'll get an edit window. Type text into it and save. You now have a second sandbox page.
You apply exactly the same principles for creating articles in main space (ie the encyclopedia itself).
You can arrange to delete these sandbox pages at any time by typing {{db-author}} into them and saving. these will alert the administrators that you'd like them deleted.
--ROGER DAVIES TALK 19:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed the obvious as usual.  ;)--The Founders Intent 19:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And so did I! I see you've already created Sandbox pages (blush) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 19:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, do you want to have a go at [[WP:MHA07|Tag & Assess 2007]]? I'll give you as much input as you need at first and you'll accumulate some awards for your user page :))) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 21:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I haven't even written an article yet. I started one on Master of Engineering Management, but haven't gotten far with it yet. Don't know if I'm qualified to assess articles yet.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 22:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just been looking at it. Not too bad at all for a first attempt. Don't forget you need to supply reliable sources for anything that might be questioned, i.e. the content needs to be verifiable. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 23:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, trust me.  ;)--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 23:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, now in trust mode :) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 08:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Box

No problem, I'll lighten it. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 00:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was easier just to use the same format as all other degree boxes, so it's fixed now. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 00:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm working on an article for it.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 01:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Hacker-Pschorr.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Hacker-Pschorr.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 01:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cat talk

What qualifies as a notable local unit?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 20:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I moved this to WP:SCOUT's talk page, it's a better place for it and will get more talk going. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sex for Sam

This is unsourced as well.--E tac (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Then maybe you should edit the other article too.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 13:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bell 533

Ever get over to Fort Eustis at all? --Born2flie (talk) 07:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Everyday.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 03:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could see if AATD has any pics of the 533 we could use on Wikipedia, or if you could take some pictures (or have some pictures) you'd be willing to release under GFDL for the article? A lot to ask a stranger, I know, don't feel obligated in any way. I just saw your location and thought I'd ask. Thanks. --Born2flie (talk) 08:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Who are you?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 13:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, a lot of ways to take that question. I'll simply point out that somewhere I recall reading a more descriptive location for you (HR,VA) and gubbermint in relation to your occupation on your user page or somewhere else on Wikipedia where our paths have crossed. Putting two and two together, I figured maybe you got over to Fort Useless every once in a while. I attended AIT there in a former life, and the bus used to pass by the AATD building with the display of the Bell 533 out front.
If you mean your question in another manner, please elaborate on the question. --Born2flie (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
No thanks for the reply. You want a pic of that old thing? That was so last century. BTW, mums the word.  ;)--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 00:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wingweb vs. Vector site

A conversation that shares the same information found on Talk:AH-64 Apache. --Born2flie (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

MrG's (Greg Goebel's) site: http://www.vectorsite.net --Born2flie (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AeroEngineer2008 - Yes I'm of tired of that user deleting my link

I just want to provide a tool for Engineers to size and design rotors using a first order analysis. I make no money on the program. It free for anyone. Any suggestions?

I suppose you could make that clear on the linked page, copyright free and no charge. I don't know, I just work here.  ;)--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 23:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Work where? Wikipediaville? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AeroEngineer2008 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah.  ;)--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 01:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peculiar?

Not sure what you mean here. If commenting on admin failure is vandalism, we're all in trouble. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 00:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was peculiar that the admin would claim that you are vandalizing, given you are regular there.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 00:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It is bizarre to paste a VW template when what is being claimed is a breach of WP:CIVIL- but then I get used to admins just losing the plot- see WP:ANI re User:MatthewHoffman, for example. its dispiriting when you don't get the support when you need it. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 02:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] November 2007

Thank you for experimenting with the page Talk:Feminism on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Your request is completed. See last email on how to do it correctly. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You da man!! BTW, what last email?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 00:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The one that pointed you here: User:Rlevse/Tools#User_committed_identity. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I figured it out.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 00:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks on the helicopter article

I've been meaning to diversify out of some of my more specific interests (intelligence and special operations) in MILHIST, and it's good to know that something helped. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, which talk page did you want me to look at? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Not a talk page, it's the Attack Helicopter article, Modern Attack Helicopter section. I discuss it on the associated Talk page.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 14:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Air bag deletion

If you wish to make a page move that can't be performed using the "move" tab, make a request at WP:RM. Thanks. --Closedmouth (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Air bag

Regarding this edit: Excuse me for messing with your article. I'll make sure I never interfere with one of your articles again.

Just in case some administrator comes along and decides to do the move you're requesting, could you actually mention somewhere which page needs to be moved on top of Air bag? --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of implying ownership, it was you who conducted a drive-by without contacting the requester. Is that beneath you or something? We wouldn't be here if you had shown minimal courtesy.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 03:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, there's always Wikipedia:Requested moves. Or, you could have made some sort of request on the talk page of the article, or mentioned something in the speedy delete reason. Actually, I'll tell you what: Just go ahead to WP:AN/I and tell everyone that I screwed up a speedy delete request and a page move. Or find a good off-Wiki attack site and gripe there. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Guys, calm down, there are proper channels this can go through, you don't have to bite each other's heads off. --Closedmouth (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I made a simple request and it apparent didn't sit right with Elkman, so he just decided that hitting the undo button would do the trick.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 03:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You said you wanted it deleted for a page move. Am I supposed to move something on top of it, like Airbag or Airbag (album) or Hot-air balloon? Actually, tell you what: I won't do anything more with this article, since I'm apparently too stupid to be able to figure it out, and since I don't have minimal courtesy, and since it's beneath me to figure out how to ask someone a question. I'm done with Air bag or anything else to deal with it. But I will ask other admins how to do this since I'm apparently too stupid to figure out how to do a simple page move. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I'll take care of the move. Well your buddy already decided that you were right and put it all back as it was. Just forget it, leave the other article to be moved wrong, people can stay stupid for all I care. I give up.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 03:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I deleted Air bag. That fulfilled your request. What the hell else am I supposed to do? --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Nothing, that's all I ever wanted. Thanks.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 13:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not an admin, so I don't delete pages. And just FYI, you're being incredibly incivil about this. You might want to tone down your correspondence with other users, it can get you into trouble. --Closedmouth (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, but you don't know all the details.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 13:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I will be away from the keyboard for the next half hour so I can finish up a project that has to be done tonight. Since I'm still unable to figure this out, please make a complaint about my behavior at WP:AN/I. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

TFI, when I need a page moved to an existing page, and that page has to be deleted, I use the {{db-move}} template. For example, by placing {{db-move|airbag}} on the air bag page, I let the admin know which page I want to be moved. THe admin can then investigat the move, and make sure it is an non-controversial move. Some admins will just delete the page, while other will make the move themselves too. I use {{db-move}} on a semi-regular basis, and did one just last week. Very rarely has an admin denied my request. From what I gather of the conversation above, that is what Elk was asking for. If I'm mistaken, sorry. I'm just trying to help out a fellow editor, but you're welcome to value the advice at what it cost you to get it! Happy editing. - BillCJ (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] US Air Force Apache helicopter

You asked for a source to prove that the USAF has Apache helicopters - the USAF have not operated the Apache! If you are refering to the template I have added to AH-64 Apache - that has nothing to do with who operated the aircraft but the sequence of numbers in which H-64 appears. In 1962 when the numbering system was re-started at H-1 for all three services they decided to carry on the older sequence as well. As part of the Aviation Project we are adding templates instead of hard coded lists used previously. The use of the term USAF is just the name of the template, it does not appear on the page as USAF but as United States military helicopter designations post-1941. MilborneOne (talk) 12:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhhhhhh, okay gotcha. My sincere apologies.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 14:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Asperger's / Autistic pride / Neurodiversity

You wrote at Talk:Asperger syndrome: "Furthermore, since when is "autistic pride" a member or entity expert in treatment or diagnosis? Is this like gay pride? First amendment speech I respect their voice, but are we giving them a status of authority in the realm of science?" --
"Authority" yes, but not necessarily "scientific" authority. More like "social" and legal authority, I guess.
The Autistic pride / Neurodiversity movement (broadly speaking) takes the position that Aspies are just "different" from the majority (like left-handed people or gay/lesbian people), and that it's not appropriate for the majority to tell them that they need to be "treated".
I see on your user page that you "really really like a lot of red pepper". Do people have the right to tell you, "That's kind of odd of you. You should be treated for that."?
You might make a personal decision that you want to be treated for that (maybe it's aggravating an ulcer or something), but if you're content with the situation, who can tell you that you "should" be treated anyway? Thus my original post to Talk:Asperger syndrome on whether we want to say "should" in the article. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If too much red pepper becomes an official medical diagnosis, I guess maybe someone could tell me it should be treated. But that does not obligate me to get treatment. Actually I was quite surprised that something like autistic pride exists. Live and learn.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 17:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Returning

After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh? You been gone for a day.  ;) Admit it, you're because I told you your cubicle needed cleaning up and we weren't gonna just do your work for ya. Welcome back!--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 22:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AAPG

Hi FI! I reverted your comment at Scientific opinion on climate change. Please not that the new statement moved the AAPG from rather sceptic to non-committal. Nowhere does the article state that it supports the consensus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A wee observation

Hi,

Regards the following comment, "This article should be about things that help people with AS or family members who live with someone diagnosed with AS", this is not the actual goal of wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia designed to convey information about its topics, as can also be seen in its five pillars. In other words, Wikipedia is not a how-to manual, and this includes providing advice about how to live with or deal with any topic (though the sister project, wikiHow, does this exact thing). Wikipedia is meant to be informative rather than useful, and has a medical disclaimer to avoid people seeking medical advice which may not be appropriate. As such, integrating proscriptive advice into an article is possible, but must be done with care.

Thanks, WLU (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You have a point, however it is unlikely that any expert in the field would use Wiki as a source on the subject. But ordinary people will. So I really don't need a lecture on writing, but I appreciate the offer. I also didn't say it should be a how-to article; that's not the only way to read my comment. You might want to have a talk with the folks getting wrapped around the axle on whether patience should or should not be required to take medication. Sounds like a POV issue, and not just stating the facts and nothing buy the facts.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 20:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Note that that particular sentence has been re-written. My intent wasn't to criticize your writing or intent, just to point out that wikipedia has a specific purpose. WLU (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Fine, my point is that there was a long drawn out discussion about a point that should have been dropped the minute too much doubt became obvious. Articles should contain what is well known and accepted by the expert community or proven by test. Take care.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 20:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military history coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Woody (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Wikiproject Earth

Hello i proposed Wikiproject Earth and you so rudely and immaturely put " Uninterested Wikipedians (add Your Name Here) so i ask to not do it again out of common decency. Because the is not needed and plainly just ruse if you dont like a proposal make a comment on it. Your approach was very immature. Thank you. IwilledituTalk :)Contributions 23:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC) I thought it was better than saying something negative. Sorry you took it that way.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 02:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Herrenhauser Brewery

A tag has been placed on Herrenhauser Brewery requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ukexpat (talk) 13:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Better source request for Image:OPM_logo1.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:OPM_logo1.gif. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talkpage. Thank you. MECU≈talk 01:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

Regarding this request, I should note that you already have the rollback privilege. Nihiltres{t.l} 19:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, it wasn't visible on an edit I wanted to rollback. Him, there must be a reason.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 17:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confused

Sorry, I might have misunderstood who you where referring to here. Are you refering to my comment or the one by Sirwells?
— Apis (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yours, the quotes traditionally indicate the opposite or different meaning than the term's usually definition.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 20:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, good, then I didn't misunderstand. Thanks.
— Apis (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion Protocol

I don't believe you understand the Third Opinion procedure. From the process page: When providing a third opinion, please remove the listing from this page and mention in the summary which dispute you have removed and how many remain. If this is done before responding, other volunteers are less likely to duplicate your effort. If the article has a {{3O}} tag, also remember to remove it from the article page. I provided a third opinion in the manner requested by the process (neutral, observant, etc). The correct procedure is to then remove the tag from the article and to remove the entry from the process page. If you feel more attention is necessary, please use the other dispute resolution options at your disposal, such as Request for Comment, to get more attention from the full community. Third opinion is a way to bring in a new, unbiased voice when two editors are in a dispute. Once that has happened, there is no need to keep the article tagged any further. I hope that helps in explaining the process better for you. If you have any further concerns, feel free to write me again. ju66l3r (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Airbag

-- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm sorry if my tone was a little harsh on the Airbag discussion page. However, I do feel that you are "out on your own" with your particular point of view, and that seems to be supported by other editors here on your talk page also disagreeing with you, and also suggesting you may have an issue with WP:OWN.

Thanks for the note, and I have no problems with what you said, except WP:OWN. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 11:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the actual article, airbags are primarily an automotive component, and whilst they may also be reaching other applications, such as motorcycles and aviation, the primary focus of the article naming and wording convention should remain from an automotive point of view (in accordance with Wiki guidelines).

For your specific concern on the name of the article, again, following the primary, or majority use (motor vehicles), along with nomenclature from the item in most common use - one word, and supported by the OED, academic text books, and unanimous naming from all motor vehicle manufacturers (from what I can gather, and these are not "trade names"), then "airbag" should be used in preference to "air bag". However, it is still reasonable to use "air bag" when used for specific names such as the helicopter application. Lets keep harmony, and not make enemies, kind regards -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 10:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: AfD resolution

I've closed the nomination as Keep, per the WP:SNOW policy. You may like to check the AFD. macytalk 21:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The article's AFD is now closed, but it may be opened again, in case that the article meets the AfD standards. macytalk 22:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red cunt hair

I noticed your recent changes to this article: are you quite sure that it is so specific, for its professional and localised use, as edited by you...? I don't know about it myself, but prima facie both aspects would seem very unlikely to be so specific, to me... Nortonius (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the reference, and changed the definition accordingly. No where are engineers or engineering mentioned. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 16:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
That's fine - I just think there ought to be a lot of "wriggle room" with a concept like "RCH". I like the idea of a "RCH", so I'll be using that unit myself, but I'm not an engineer or a carpenter, and I've never been to New England! Nor, I think, does any of that apply to the article's creator. I think before tying something down so tightly, it might be better to do some more research on it, and loosen it up a little first. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok. No offence, but it looks like you're busy elsewhere now, so, in the meantime I'm going to revert the article to reflect its creator's intention. If you want to do some more research on it, to clarify its full usage, great! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of scientists...

User:Raul654 full protected many pages on the topic because he disliked dealing with a banned user who continually created sockpuppets to mess with the articles. It was discussed, and a consensus appeared to emerge that this was a disproportionate response. Several editors suggested semi-protection instead, so I move them down from full protection. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Raul654 and indefinite full protection of 10 global warming related pages.

I can't explain why you can't edit it though. It's set on semi-protect, and you're hardly a new user. Cool Hand Luke 17:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe refresh? You might have the full protected version cached. Cool Hand Luke 17:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vis a vis American Revolutionary War article...

I don't care. I've about had it to here with my tolerance of people who are in essence, talkers, who do not contribute substantially to the editing and writing of articles, and whose sole purpose is wikilawyering the rest of us, who DO write substantial articles, to death. Whats really dispiriting is that not that some people have gotten a little bit mean, but that people are defending and protecting someone whose sole purpose is to wreck other peoples contributions because they presume, wrongly, that the other editor is working in "good faith". SiberioS (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Is that what you think I'm doing, protecting him? I'm just trying to get the right thing done without going ballistic. If I want help from an admin, how will it look if I've cussed someone out first? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 02:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, considering, I, and no on else, has "cussed him out" I don't see much of a problem. In fact, the consistent accusation of some sort of nefarious pro-American bias has come totally from Lord Cornwallis, and he has consistently exhorted us to recognize Wikipedia policies he blithely ignores when it suits him. "Good faith" is not merely what you type out on a talk page, but your actions. He invalidated that when he unilaterally tagged the page,and has met a pretty clear opposition, nigh I say consensus, saying that his tag and claim are inappropriate and yet he continually exhorts us to respect his dictatorship of one.
While some have pointed out that "consensus" is not merely a voting procedure or a show of numbers, it is also clear that consensus is not a cover for what is merely a fringe and unsupported view. You cannot hold up an article merely because one editor breaks with consensus. And thats exactly what is going on here; one editor, who has spilt more bytes talking about the article than editing it or writing anything about a related subject. SiberioS (talk) 06:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm well aware of that. I don't know Lord C nor have I dealt with him before, so my approach was in that regard. I know he's Canadian, so I tried to point out to him that American still applies even using his logic. It was unsuccessful, so that's when I came to the conclusion that a third opinion or other method of ending the dispute was needed. Action was taken by others and the tag was removed. Regards. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 11:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)