User talk:Vectro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Razing Darkness

Its a vanity for a non-notable music project, and a brand new article, so that biased me against it. Honestly, it should go, but I guess speedy delete wasn't the way to go, having actually read the criteria. Cornell Rockey 03:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William S. Laughlin

I've marked William S. Laughlin for deletion, but since you had made an edit to that article earlier, I thought you might have some information on why he is notable. If you do, feel free to add it. Cheers, --Vectro 03:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No objections at all - I was just stub-sorting - thanks Saga City 03:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad

You're right about my botched revert attempt - thanks for helping out. Best, The Hungry Hun 22:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dove Foundation

Hello Vectro. Your comment referring to my "unqualified statements" is ill-informed. I am the founder of The Dove Foundation. As such, I'm frustrated at seeing 15 years of hard work dissed by mischaracterizations from "experts" who post information without proper fact-checking. If, as you say, "Wikipedia welcomes meaningful contributions from a Neutral Point of View," then I'd like to keep the information balanced and accurate by making contributions from a neutral and informed point of view. I'm available to discuss this further. I'm always ready to discuss/debate my position, and would appreciate you not redirecting my submissions unless you can substantiate their inaccuracy. Regards, --Dick@Dove 16:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I also used google

For long word strings don't put them in "speech marks" - sometimes it does work to find the exact string but due to the length of the string it can usually find the page in question without them as googles preview listing bolds the words that have been searched for. Click here to see an example. Sometimes the first string doesn't work but eventually one will. –– Lid^(Talk) 16:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VA-42

Please see Lid's page. VA-42 data should be public domain, there is no copywrite on the data as it comes from an agncy of the US Gobverment, The Navy Historical Center.

Please refer to the following web site, which includes the Library of Congress info...no copywrite:

http://www.history.navy.mil/avh-vol1/prelim.pdf Bondo 20:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VA-65

Same with this as VA-42...could you, I can't figuure out how to, replace the data that was previously on the VA-65 entry??Bondo 20:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VT-10 , VT-86

Thanks for your help! I have also started a coupe of pages from US Governemnt web sites, on these two training sqwuadrons...oddly, they are also missing. The info was taken directly from offical USN sites. Can you investigate these???Bondo 01:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, Lid is attempting to delete saying he saw the info on globalsecurity...who apparently put the Navy stuff on their site:

They were taken directly from VT-10 and VT-86's offical US Navy web site..now if globalsecurity is taking their stuff from them, and copywriting, it is wrong. I think that before you delete, you should try to tarck down the original info source.The link is as follows: https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/tw6/vt10/history.asp https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/tw6/vt86/history.asp Bondo 19:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it me, or are there some seriously over excited people about this stuff? One guy called me lazy...may be, if its in the rules, its in the rules. I will be perfectly frank, this kind of stuff turns peoople off. i was telling a friend that uses Wiki and he thought they [the deleters] were over the edge...if the info is pubklic domain, no matter how it gets there, it should be allowed. Unless wiki re-writes its "consititution". Your thoughts?Bondo 19:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I agree with your last comments on my talk page. Even if its reuse, it is start, and maybe soemone with more time can expand. Beats having soemone search and not find anything...and if they don't want to take the time to learn how to post, then we still have missing entries. I think you are the most levelheaded one (administrator) out there...once again, thanks for your help!Bondo 20:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

They SHOULD make you an administrator. Of course, then you'd be one of "them"...read my latest post to VA-65 about JOPA.Bondo 20:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I just wrote this to Lid, feelign that these two entries should be relisted...take a look at the links, you will see they are public domain. Thanks again-

Lid, I feel that you have to revisit these two articles....once again, globalsecurity has violated copy write by taking a public domain site/info and saying it was there info. I invite you to look at the two web site below, read where it says "Official US Navy Web Site"...perhaps you shoudl have Wiki contact globalsecurity?

The links are as follows: https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/tw6/vt10/history.asp https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/tw6/vt86/history.asp Bondo 00:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC) Bondo 00:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there- There are two articles the VT-10 and VT-86 that i would like to have searchable...right now, the person that built the Vermont Road series of entries has everything going to those...most people who will be searching these two squadrons, will search by VT-10, and VT-86....can we do a disambiguition page for these so that whoever searches will at least get a choice of where they go...? if so, how do i construct one?Bondo 18:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved your comment

I've moved the comment that you posted at Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/Brainstorming to Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Brainstorming. As always, thanks for your contributions now and in the future. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crucifer (disambiguation)

Why did you remove the disambig from Crucifer? Anchoress 08:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If you were looking at Crucifer, and wanted to be looking at something else, the only thing the disambiguation page would ever lead you to is Cruciferae. Hence the disambiguation page just throws another extra link between the vegetable-seeker and her goal. If and when we come up with another page for "Crucifer" (unlikely, unless someone starts a band with that name), then we can reinstate the disambiguation page. In the meantime, it should be deleted. Vectro 15:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The disambig page doesn't make it any shorter to find crucifer, and it's just your opinion that it needs to be deleted. Anchoress 20:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that the disambiguation page doesn't make it shorter to find Crucifer, but that's not the issue at hand. The disambiguation page does make it take longer to find Cruciferae. Nobody is going to type in "Crucifer (disambiguation)" directly, so the only way they will get there is from Crucifer. But if the only way to get there is from Crucifer, and the only place to go from there is Cruciferae, then why not just link Crucifer directly to Cruciferae and skip the disambiguation page? I do see, upon checking, that this issue does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but I do think the direct link from Crucifer to Cruciferae should stay — at least until we have another "Crucifer" topic. I don't much care if the disambiguation page is deleted or not, but it seems to me that an orphaned disambiguation page with a "(disambiguation)" title is not of much use. Alternatively, we could rename the disambiguation page to "Crucifer", and move "Crucifer" to "Crucifer (religion)". Cheers, Vectro 22:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, when I said crucifer, I was referring to cruciferae. Where I come from, the word 'crucifer' means a cruficerous vegetable, not the other term. I think when someone types 'cruficer' in the search field they should get to the disambig page, not to the Crucifer you want it to go to. That was the point of the disambig page. Anchoress 09:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. The way things were when I first looked at this made no sense, because Crucifer was about religion, not the disambiguation page. If you want to move Crucifer to Crucifer (religion) and make Crucifer a redirect to Crucifer (disambiguation), I'd be fine with that. If not, then the disambiguation page probably should go. Cheers, Vectro 15:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Why would that be better than the disambig page the way it was before you changed it? In your opinion? Anchoress 16:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, so there's three scenarios that I see proposed here:

Crucifer is an article about religion, Crucifer (religion) does not exist, Crucifer points to Crucifer (disambiguation), which in turn points to Cruciferae.
Crucifer is an article about religion, Crucifer (religion) does not exist, Crucifer points to Cruciferae.
Crucifer redirects to Crucifer (disambiguation), which in turn points to Crucifer (religion) and Cruciferae.

The first is strictly speaking worse than the second; #2 is better for vegetable addicts and no worse for religious fanatics. #3 is the same as #1 as far as vegetarians are concerned, and worse for Christians, but is more fair. Personally, I think either #2 or #3 are fine solutions, but #1 doesn't make much sense. Vectro 22:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I don't know what vegetarians have to do with it, but No. 3 seems to be the best to me. I've never renamed an article before, have you? Anchoress 00:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a bit of hyperbole. ;-) The change will require the intervention of an administrator, because of restrictions about overwriting pages. And before any change happns, we need concensus from editors of both Crucifer and Crucifer (disambiguation). I'd suggest creating a page in the Wikipedia namespace describing the change, marking all three pages with {{move}}, and then posting a notice on Talk:Crucifer, Talk:Crucifer (disambiguation) and Talk:Brassicaceae, so everyone can comment. If and when everyone agrees about the move (after, say, at least 3 days), you can post it on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Cheers, Vectro 02:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The DRVs are closed

Vectro,

I am an administrator at English Wikipedia -- I have closed the discussions within policy at my discretion, and they remain so. Navy feedback could take years, and it doesn't matter to some of the issues at hand. Even if the material is in the public domain, copying it verbatim is bad form, and would qualify for Wikisource, not Wikipedia. The articles should be rewritten from scratch using sources, including the disputed material, in an editor's own words. The matter is resolved. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, because our policy pages are freely-editable, the precise wording of our policies can change. Nevertheless, it is accepted common practice that a DRV may be cleared after five days, whether the result endorses deletion or results in an overturn. This particular DRV was cleared after five days, as was within my discretion. I do close many DRVs, and am reasonably well-versed in proper procedures. There is no formal method of appeal from DRV, but you are free to ask other admins to review the situation, and I am confident they will agree that I acted with my discretion.

No policy in Wikipedia suggests or endorses the notion that directly copy-and-pasting a complete article or large blocks of text from any source is good practice. If you find a page that suggests this, alert me, and I will revise it to clarify matters for you. Again, the easy solution here is for you (or anyone) to use the sources to compose an article in your own words. If you cannot or do not wish to do so, I might even try to do so, but the verbatim revisions will remain deleted. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion

Could you clarify whether your reversion was meant to remove the vandalism or to reinstate the Al-Manar report? Thanks, Tewfik^Talk 04:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you could revert to my last edit, as I was in the process of removing a claim which you reinstated (accidentally it would seem). Thanks, Tewfik^Talk 04:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to keep bothering you, but you reverted to the version from after you began reverting. I am suggesting that you revert all of your edits, since you reverted my edit with the vandalism. If you reinstate my edit, I will remove the vandalism. Thanks, and sorry about the timing

, Tewfik^Talk 04:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Happy editing, and good job on the Vandal-fighting, Tewfik^Talk 04:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changed test template

Sure its okay. I usually just use the test ones for convenience but verror is more appropriate. Gdo01 20:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Louise Harrison

I see that you have marked the article Louise Harrison for speedy deletion as you feel that it does not assert the importance of its subject. The person concerned has appeared in at least two notable British television series, and has an entry on the Internet Movie Database, although the information about them is limited. I have checked out the criteria for writing biography as you suggested and the article appears to meet the criteria, even if it is a little thin on the ground. What can I do to get it accepted, or shall I give up and choose a different subject? Please advise as I am relatively new to this.

Paul from Brum (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Louise Harrison

Hi Vectro. Many thanks for your advice regarding this article and for changing its status. Hopefully other users may be able to establish her notability. I will bear what you have said in mind, though, when I am writing future articles for Wikipedia.

Paul from Brum (talk)] 04:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Clarke (cartoonist)

I've removed the {{db-bio}} from Peter Clarke (cartoonist), since there are at least assertions of notability, so it's not absolutely clear that the article should be speedied (eg. "sold 1.3 million copies in three languages", "commissioned by the Zambian Government to paint an official portrait of President Kaunda", "exhibited in many modern art exhibitions in the UK and abroad"). If you feel these assertions are either fabricated or insufficient, feel free to {{prod}} or AFD the article. --Interiot 04:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Marine Military Academy; Natural birth control; Four Great Inventions of ancient China; Barrier contraception; John-Paul Langbroek; John-Paul Clarkin; Celibacy; Implant (medicine); Norman St John-Stevas, Baron St John of Fawsley; March for Life; Procreative beneficence; Rotary valve; Fetal protection; The Great Simoleon Caper; Teen pornography; Jay Cutler (bodybuilder); Russian Wikipedia; Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering; John-Paul Wilkins

Cleanup: Causeway Institute; Alex Rodriguez; Sonoma Academy
Merge: Full list of candidates in the United States presidential election, 2004; List of medical schools in the U.S.; Wristband
Add Sources: United Nation of Islam; Miscarriage; Chinese Orthodox Church
Wikify: Nameplate; Hsp90; Supermodel
Expand: List of seawatching locations by country; Suikoden; Canton McKinley High School

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 12:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Whoppers

You wrote that you might change your deletion opinion if I added my sourced claims to the article. I have done so. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diane E. Benson

Have done the rewrite - thought you'd like a heads-up. Vizjim 10:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar Thanks

Thanks so much for your Barnstar gift and kind words. It's always nice to see your efforts are noticed, much less appreciated. Thanks again, Satori Son 17:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, glad I could brighten your day a bit. AfD discussions have a tendency to become partisan and emotional, but I've noticed your postings are usually calm and well-supported, and I thought you deserved some acknowledgement for that. Cheers, Vectro 20:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] T.J.Cox

I didn't write the article on Cox, but I feel it should stay at least until the election is over. Other candidates who are running for congress have their own wiki page without the stigma of being marked for deletion.Mrsmart 03:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rugby World Cup

No problem. Thanks. Gdo01 01:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thx for the help

first time editing, and just feeling my way...thanks for the help.Davidegg 06:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA nom

Your GA nomination of Blood donation is on hold. See its talk page. Rlevse 01:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of idioms in the English language

List of idioms in the English language -

I just thought you may wish to contribute to the debate. WLD 14:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gō

You wrote: "Alternative spellings are not misspellings; romanization is a fuzzy business, whether we like it or not." Romanization is hardly a fuzzy business, especially in this case. I have been working with Japanese for almost three decades. I have degrees in linguistics and Japanese and have worked as a professional translator. I use the term "gō" almost everyday (making rice). "Go" or "gou" are not alternative spellings; they are misspellings. "Go" is slightly plausible in that some people have difficulty entering macrons and will just ignore it. "Gou" is really not possible no matter how you look at it. They both exist as redirects or disambiguation pages to assist in finding the real page. Bendono 00:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Trains Project

Hi, I am a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains Project.

I noticed that you recently re-directed one of our pages, without even stating your intentions or reasons on the Talk Page beforehand. The page that you re-directed was clearly marked as being part of the project, and you are not listed as a project member.

In future, if you find a page with a Project marker, then please could you at least place a message on the talk page, if you cannot contact someone linked to the project.

I note that you are a member of the Counter Vandalism Unit. Whilst this is not technically vandalism, it is not collaborative either. You really should know better. I shall be keeping a close watch on you from now on. ALECTRIC451 10:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where the top is

edit

It's at the other end. ☺ Uncle G 09:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Nuvaring.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Nuvaring.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 20:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 17:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Incorrect block of 202.188.133.114?

202.188.133.114 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

Hi, Vectro. I rechecked this IP address for you to see whether or not it is still vulnerable to being a possible proxy and it is. The evidence used to come to this conclusion is an nmap scan that found port 8080, a common proxy port, to be open. If this port can be closed on that IP, it can be rechecked and unblocked based on the lack of open ports. Until then, the block will remain in effect. Feel free to write me back if you have any further questions. Zsinj^Talk 02:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)