User talk:Dhaluza

Hello Dhaluza! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for signing up. Here are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Best of luck. Have fun! --ElectricEye (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Resolving ambiguity (example:Welcome) Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

It is possible to over-edit an article, you know. I think you should now leave it alone before you overdo it again. Thanks for your mostly helpful contributions. JMcC 18:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say "Most people would consider "butchery" to be judgemental". And they would be quite right. Explaining how engines are used in gliding is central. This information should not be restricted to the article on motor gliders. Yes, this article is over 32kb, as are most featured articles. It passed the Featured Article Candidate process and was reviewed by several senior users. It is, in my opinion, not in any need of drastic revisions, especially on the day it is the featured article. It is normal practice to discuss major changes before making them. I have reverted your edit and would be grateful if you would leave it well alone. JMcC 19:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping things stable for a while. Let's talk when things are not so frantic. Your edits throughout the gliding articles have been much appreciated. JMcC 19:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just was having a quick look before going to bed. The new photo certainly shows ridge soaring, though the layout now looks odd. Ideally the photos have to alternate left and right, which they no longer do. I have no idea when the point is reached when there are too many photos. However I hope while I am sleeping everything will get sorted. Thanks for your help today. See commnet on TMG talk page. 00:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally I fly an ASW27 out of Lasham Airfield and in the Alps. Trained by Derek Piggott among others. I instruct regularly. How about you? JMcC 00:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I do not envisage Gliding getting much bigger, so what ever we decide it is not critical. Furthermore we are probably only discussing a few sentences. After some calm deliberation after the busy 23 Nov, what I would like to say in the Gliding article is that to avoid land out, some gliders have engines. I think the downsides have to be mentioned: weight, cost and higher decision height. For completeness, there is also the downside about the degree of satisfaction that arises if difficult flights are done with an engine available, because the sport of gliding is what the article is about. On reflection, I think we can omit the role of TMGs in training for field landings. See what you think about the change. You were right. JMcC 18:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the Bald Eagle Mountain article - it was on my list of things to do. I plan to add a lot of material to it in the near future, describing the communities, streams, and highways on and very near the mountain, describing it from one end to the other (I need to measure it on a map, but 60 miles total length seems too short to me). Just for future reference, if one category is a subcategory of another, then only the subcategories (not the parents) should be listed (so "Mountains of Pennsylvania" is in "Geography of Pennsylvania" and only the former is appropriate, not both). Also highway categories are only for highway articles, not valleys or mountains. I will look at the other articles as I get a chance. Take care, Ruhrfisch 16:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry to be slow in getting back to you. First off thanks for all your contribtuions, especially the amazing aerial photos (assume they are taken from gliders). If I may make a suggestion, please try to put more information in the description of the photo on its page and not just in the captions in the articles where the photos are used (actually the cations would be good as descriptions on the photo pages). That way if someone finds the photo by itself, they know more about what it is too. As for Bald Eagle Mountain, I was going to start at one end (probably the eastern end in Lycoming County as that is where it truly starts) and just describe each road and creek that crosses / cuts the mountain. The boroughs and cities will be in there to help locate each item. To me it seems more logical to end the desription at Tyrone and continue to Brush Mountain, which will one day not be a red link. There are already nine places mentioned / linked in the article (Tyrone, Williamsport, Julian, Unionville, State College, Milesburg, Mill Hall, Lock Haven, and Jersey Shore) so it does not seem inappropriate to me to add others (the end of the mountain is much closer to Muncy and Montgomery than Williamsport, for example). I will see what I can do and you are of course free to edit it ;-). By the way, do you know there are two Bald Eagle Creeks? There is a much smaller one in Blair County that enters the Little Juniata River at Tyrone. I am not sure it even has an article yet, but I like creeks and can make a stub for it. Thanks again for all your contributions and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch 17:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Congrats on the DYK for Tussey Mountain. I have been busy with a getting White Deer Hole Creek to featured article status, but will still work on Bald Eagle Mountain. Take care, Ruhrfisch 18:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dhaluza—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 01:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! While reviewing the assessment change log for WikiProject Airports, I noticed that you created the article Ridge Soaring Gliderport. You contribution to improving Wikipedia's collection of airport articles is greatly appreciated. If at all interested, I'd like to extend an invitation to join the project. You can join by simply adding your name to the list of participants. If not interested, please disregard this message. Thanks! thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 21:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tussey Mountain, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! No, the article Flight Instructor redirects to Flight instructor. Did you mean to create the more specific category, Category:Certified Flight Instructors, per Certified Flight Instructor? --RobertG ♬ talk 13:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We had an edit collision. Its kinda funny because we both were thinking very similar things at the same time.

Yours: A GPS receiver calculates its position by measuring the distance between itself and three or more GPS satellites. Measuring the time delay between transmission and reception of the GPS radio signal gives the distance to each satellite, since the signal travels at a known speed. The radio signal also carries information about the satellite orbit so the receiver can compute the position of the satellite. After determining position and distance between at least three satellites, the receiver computes its current location using a variation of triangulation, using distances instead of angles, known as trilateration.

Mine: A GPS receiver calculates its position by measuring the distance between itself and three or more GPS satellites. The distance to each satellite is determined by measuring the time delay between when the satellite sends a specific radio signal and when it's received. Since the radio signal is a form of electromagnetic radiation, it aways travels at the speed of light, which means the delay is proportional to the distance between that satellite and the receiver. The receiver also calculates the exact positions of the constantly moving satellites using additional information in the signal. After determining the position and distance to at least three satellites, the receiver can determine its current location using trilateration.^[1]

I'll try to combine them, but please feel free to edit it and comment directly to me. - Davandron | Talk 05:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I actually did a revert against yours; sorry about that. You had some great ideas in how to make the intro simpler. I think most of your thoughts made it through. I left out the triangulation because if someone clicks on trilateration the first thing that article does is explain it compared to triangulation. I also left in the "speed of light" thing in hopes that it explains why its a known speed (and helps someone learn a little more science).

I hope you approach of the result. I think I'm going to take an edit break and let the group catch-up to my numerous edits. - Davandron | Talk 05:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "Clinton Shale" on the old Geological Survey maps the same as the present Juniata Shale? I wanted to add something about the iron ore deposits on Tussey Mountain, once of some economic importance. Choess 23:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was wrong. The "Clinton Group", as it's now called, and the "Juniata Formation" are different; on the old maps, the Juniata is shown as the middle (red) part of the "Medina Sandstone". I'll poke around in JSTOR a bit before writing this up; there's a whole article there on iron ore deposits that will take quite some time to digest. Choess 06:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw you message, I had just listed the page for deletion because it is still under development--as the page itself said-- and not yet notable. If I had not happened to see it immediately, someone else would have seen it tonight and done the same.

But when I heard from you, I went and actually tried the software. Not a bad idea, nice simple layout, pity about all the ads, but that affects lots of us. But I found some major problems with it:

1. finds nothing if you don't remove the "ISBN"
2. if two entered at a time, with comma as specified, gives application error
3. each individual one entered gave a separate page & link, but people want to have them together without pasting

It is not yet ready for an article. It was probably not a great idea to announce it quite yet, even if Google does similarly. It might be some day, and when it is, get some people to use it first and write a review or two, even on the web, and then just write a new one--if you don't have two outside sources with information on it, it will certainly be deleted--not my idea, just what always happens. Check any other articles you've written--if they don't have 2 external refs, not just their home page and a single outside ref, they will almost certainly get deleted.

As for where to classify it: Endnote and RefWorks also will search some databases, and probably a few of the others PBS programs do as well, but they are still not bibliographic databases.They are just good personal bibliographic software, and if we have some more good free ones from independent developers like yourself, so much the better. (And of course I will take another look at the other one & move it if appropriate)

If by any chance you can get it to work in the next day or two, post me a message and I will try it again. You have the right to ask for a full AfD discussion, but I suggest you do not, and even mark it for a speedy delete yourself, which always looks good later. I won't speedy it. In the meantime, I will leave your link where I put it. If you can get it to work, I'll leave it.

I suggest very highly that you remove the link on Wikisource and on WP:Citing before others do; it looks better if you do it first. Especially on WP:Citing--only the very best tested tools are appropriate there--go slowly before you add anything to the WP: pages.

You have been doing very good work since you started here, but it is of course difficult to be cold-blooded about one's own stuff. I have the same problem. (wink) Best wishes, here and with your gliding. DGG 05:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will test again, tho probably not tonight DGG 23:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did finally test it today, and it did work. I also found the developer's blog, & I see what is intended. I also checked the isbndb,com, which is a much richer product with much better displays and wider functionality, besides just generating the bibliography in simple form from the ISBN. Ottobib does not even include the edition number most of the time, but it does at least work. I consider isbdn a simple personal bibliographic manager, I am dubious about both of them as databases, and I've been looking for places.

For an article, it really doesn't have to matter if it works or not, just that it has been reviewed in external sources, and that there be some indication of widespread use. For the lists, it has to meet the inclusion criteria for the list, which in these cases depends on both use and functionality, but does not require citations.

There are several other products around of this sort, and i looked around for a few hours but couldn't find a good place . I am going to add a section to personal B. S. , called I think, simple bibliography makers. ( a phrase from the otto blog. And then add not just the link but a 1 short para description--can you find the old one & condense it appropriately saying what it does and doesn't do? One thing I must check with the developed--ISBNs are about to change from 10 digits to 13 over the next 12 months, and everyone is rewriting their system to deal with this. I will put in or move one or two more of the simpler ones, and if I do it that way, it will stick. Sound OK? DGG 07:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

How about a section titled Bibliographic Metasearch, I think this is more descriptive and also more inclusive. I think ISBNdb.com, Delicious Library, OttoBib, and mybibpro would fit there.

Tere are already articles Federated search (the library term), Search aggregator. and Metasearch engine. Looking at them Ottobib does not meet the definitions. The other two don't either ,but they do meet the specifications for personal bibliographic manager, OS is a one-trick-pony, that makes a simple plain text bibliography out of a string of ISBNs & gives them a url, having conducted a trivial search to find the descriptions. Nothing more. I'll do as planned yesterday, but thanks for calling my attention to the 3 articles, which need much improvement. I've begun. Lets continue to work together, but on something else. DGG 05:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I hasn't carefully look at Delicious Library yet. it seems an ingenious combination of widgets. It will probaably derive its importance from the number of users. There is also a Social bookmark article, and it could use some elaboration. Again, what you have is a clean simple widget. There are undoubtedly hooks for extendable fuctionality--but you are a software engineer and know about what's needed better than I. There's a purpose for simple widgets. As for the existing articles I mentioned, they need combination and rationalization. so we've found 2 useful projects. User:DGG 19:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article is rather long. I think the Competing Claims section could be cut down to one paragraph; the Ohio-N.Carolina Dispute could be reduced to two sentences in Trivia; the very long Orville quote someone just added is nice, but not needed; other cuts can probably be made. It seemed to me that an "encyclopedic" article about the WB should include the basic stats about the gliders, crucial as they are. DonFB 16:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear why you see the glider table as redundant. Very little of its actual content is included in the text. I want it to give readers a quick overview of the evolution of the gliders without cluttering each subsection with all those numbers. DonFB 02:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to including the table in the Glider article also, if that's desired. I believe the table serves the WB article very well as a brief graphical summary of the most famous portion of the Wrights' work. I favor it precisely because it gives specifics at a glance, keeping the text relatively clean. I agree with your view that the article is a biography, not a technical piece. Nevertheless, by its very nature, the article should include a certain amount of relevant quantitative information. DonFB 20:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed in your edit that you changed the orbital information to say that 6 are visible from anywhere on the planet instead of 4. Can you cite this? I couldn't verify that with the citations nearby the remark. - Davandron | Talk 15:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 January, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peter Masak, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Savidan 05:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see LSA talk page. Paul Beardsell 03:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you probably know, there are several references for this work, including some MIT course notes on the web - but I don't like to reference from WP until I clear with the authors. What's your position? Bob aka Linuxlad 19:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Dhaluza, I'm not quite sure what you're referring to, but by all means drop on by on GTalk or IRC and we can chat about it. :) --Brad Beattie (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created this template as a prototype for discussion. Please discuss on Template_talk:Nutshell#Template:Nutshell2Dhaluza 04:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after waiting a day or so, nobody else seems to care enough to comment. Though the long dialog is probably too intimidating to invite any input. Do you really think it's an actual problem having it on the template space, or just a potential one? I have applied it on a page that was a good candidate for it's usage. The bullets remove the need to connect the two items with 'but' which is a word that reads kind of like a speed bump. Dhaluza 02:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I think that creating a proposed template reformat as a separate entity in the template namespace is a component of a problem. It might not seem like a big deal on its own, but does when it's one of hundreds of needless forks (which we'd have if these were permitted to multiply). Is there a particular reason why moving it to your user space would be a problem? You've indicated that you intend for it to serve strictly as an example of proposed changes to {{nutshell}} (not as a separate template), so I don't see what the disadvantage would be.

2. There are instances in which a bulleted list might be appropriate, but there also are instances in which it wouldn't be. The current template is compatible with either style. —David Levy 03:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you answered your question. Although I thought it would be possible to migrate to the bulleted list and depreciate the free-form template, on further investigation I've found some cases where it may not work. I've also run into page owners who won't allow a single word to be changed in the nutshell as well. So this will be a slow go. The Nutshell2 is a serious edit, not an experiment. As you correctly point out, it can be done with code, but the formatted template is easier, and less intimidating to non-coders.Dhaluza 03:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had a thought, what if we merge the two templates so of there is more than one param, it generates a bulleted list.Dhaluza 14:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you made {{template notes}}, but you forgot to put a </noinclude> at the end of the usage notes! This caused a problem when it was transcluded onto {{nutshell}}, and in turn when that was transcluded onto guideline pages. I did fix it (diff), but just thought that I'd mention it; I assume that you meant to put the closing tag in there... but I may be wrong. Gracenotes^T § 04:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't really have been that big of a mistake, methinks. The only result was that a </noinclude> was visible on the pages where {{nutshell}} was transcluded... nothing much. Template work is fun, though; thanks for helping out. Gracenotes^T § 04:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 January, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Yaw string, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Yomangani^talk 10:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated OttoBib.com, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OttoBib.com and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 16:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I went back to the version before you added the non-breaking space but could not create the problem you describe at any screen width. For me, the section header wraps from one line to two lines and finally to three lines as the window width is shrunk. The first break occurs at the dash between "consensus" and "building", the second at the space. In all cases, the section header remains on-line with the top of the diagram right up until the header can't even fit a single word - at which point, the section header jumps to the bottom of the diagram, leaving white space next to the diagram. I could not create a scenario where the section header split above and below the image simultaneously.

With the non-breaking space, however, the section header breaks first and only at the dash. This causes that jump to the bottom to occur much sooner. On my screen, it happens right about when the window width passes below 8.5 inches. Since I often want to have two windows open side by side, that leaves me with a lot of wasted white space on the screen.

The other problem I have with non-breaking spaces is that they are much harder to read for people who follow discussions through the diff function. That's not so much a problem for a single use on a fairly stable page (such as the edit you made) but it's a pet peeve of mine when users overuse them on Talk pages and such. Rossami (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, my tests were done on Internet Explorer. I see the same pattern of wrapping in FireFox. To the best of my knowledge, all my settings are "standard" - that is, unchanged from the defaults that the packages come with. Are you perhaps using a different browser or have some non-standard settings that could be affecting the word-wrap behavior? Rossami (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to test something but will have to do it from my home computer. Can I get back to you tomorrow? Rossami (talk)

Okay. I've managed to replicate the problem you described in FireFox. That's really obnoxious. I wish they hadn't done that in the new browser.
I still would rather do without the non-breaking space just because I do so much of my reading via the diff function. But I won't argue if you change it back. If you do, you probably should fix the hyphen at the same time... Rossami (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll see I made some comments which may perhaps guide discussion. DGG 05:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been waiting for a while for a place to use my arguments about changing web rules, so thanks. Im glad someone found two universities--I hadnt checked. DGG 00:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted Night Gyr's blanking of SNS because you hadn't blanked it and I believe that SNS is a subset of GNSS. Could you stop by SNS's discussion and post your thoughts? Thanks - Davandron | Talk 15:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just responded to your talk page comment at Wikipedia talk:No original research from a few days ago. :) -/- Warren 06:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dhaluza,

Sorry to hear that the vandalism edits to Bald Eagle are discouraging you. First, be sure to know that your contributions to reverting the vandalism are really appreciated; I hope you do add it back to your watchlist, for all of the readers who come across the article will surely be glad of the work you had done to keep the information there.

As for why your request to have it protected was declined, I hope I can shed some light on it. Semi-protection of articles is only used as a last resort when there is so much vandalism that the content of the article is constantly detrimented. When articles are vandalised dozens of times in one day, that is when semi-protection is a good option. Taking a look at the history of a semi-protected page such as The Simpsons might give you a better impression of what constitutes vandalism that warrents semi-protection. However, whenever possible, pages should remained unprotected; there are many contributions that anonymous IP editors have to give that they are unable to give if the page is semi-protected.

Taking a look at the history of Bald Eagle, there has been a lot of vandalism, but not a huge amount. I know it seems like an arbitrary difference, but whenever possible, it's good to leave a page unprotected. A page can stay unprotected because of editors like you don't get discouraged by the vandalism, and I hope you keep up your work. And if the vandalism gets worse, definitly put it up to be protected again. Feel free to drop me a line if you have any questions. -- Natalya 01:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is tough, when the vandalism gets in the way of the actualy content of the article. Having been paying attention to the history of Bald Eagle, I've just semi-protected it, because the vandalism was getting out of hand. That seems to be the difference, though. According to Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy, "Semi-protection should be considered if it is the only reasonable option left to deal with vandalism on a page or to stop a banned or blocked user from editing it." Previously, although the page was being vandalized, it was being reverted and the information was being kept. Now, however, it is getting past that point, and semi-protection appears appropriate. It is a tough line to draw, and surely varies from admin to admin, but overall the goal of semi-protection is carried by all administrators protecting/refusing to protect pages.

As for your thoughts on the usage of semi-protection, that is a larger issue. If you decide to pursue it, it should be brought up at Wikipedia_talk:Semi-protection_policy. Semi-protection is rarely meant to act as a long-term method for fighting vandalism, so that would require a large amount of policy change which many editors may be averse to. Regardless, good luck with your work at Bald Eagle; I hope you and your fellow editors are able to parse out the good information from the bad. -- Natalya 16:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent addition about pronouns, you might find it simpler to direct people toward the Manual of Style's main page, which has two sections on the topic, than to the guide.Circeus 15:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion. Actually, Bill Clark wasn't a newcomer in any of the usual senses of that term. He said that this was his second time around as an editor, and he had been contributing for some months this second go-round.

What he was proposing was rejected (politely) by every editor who looked at his ambitious plan (to add commercial links to hundreds of city sites). Despite a clear consensus against his plan, he continued to press the point, and now has given up. Interestingly, he says that the same thing happened to him the first time he tried contributing here! I am cautious and polite by nature, and will continue to be so!

You might be interested in reading this posting by him, before he blanked this page. Spamreporter1 01:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done. Message received. Spamreporter1 05:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think information on cable operators is useful. If you're interested, please see the proposal, perhaps too late, that I first left at User talk:Bill Clark and have since mirrored at User talk:A. B.#Lists of utilities. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support! I'd be happy to brainstorm with you on further changes.

--Kevin Murray 23:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im glad it made it through Afd. You will understand i didnt want to say too much for fear it might hurt. DGG 02:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Which ones? Other such systems? I continue to have a low level of tolerance for commercial spam. As for what I want to work on, I want to further develop the articles on the major library-related ones i know about, even if they are commercial. DGG 21:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for the new hypsometric equation article. And I have just a few small style notes which you may find useful in the future. First, one should not leave more than one empty space between formulas (wiki code is not html in which empty space does not matter). Second, one does not start a sentence with "Where". These are small things, but I though I'd let you know. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I added this template to WP:DELETE and WP:AFD. Dhaluza 01:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much! --Brad Beattie (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

It has been proposed that the following criteria be removed from this guideline: 1. The commercial organization is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications.3 2. The commercial organization's share price is used to calculate one or more of the major managed stock market indices.4 Note this is not the same as simply being listed on a stock market. Nor is it the same as being included in an index that comprises the entire market. The broader or the more specialized the index, the less notability it establishes for the company.

We are close to evaluating consensus, please join with us in the discussion. --Kevin Murray 04:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you added and deleted. But I tightened your work in the opening paragraphs a bit. There was a touch of redundancy. I also reordered the list of examples to keep commerical and non commercial together, but kept your placement of organizations first. I hope that this is OK.

Congratualtions on being BOLD!

Kevin

--Kevin Murray 01:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem, overall it is an improvement. Thanks. Dhaluza 01:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. I put the items in strict alphabetical order, because religious orgs came up last, and I didn't want to create the appearance of bias. 01:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I like what we create together better than why I do alone. Good collaboration. Thanks! Kevin --Kevin Murray 23:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to you for your attention to simplifying convoluted text in our policies and guidelines, while making bets efforts to preserve the original meaning. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message on this, but I was surprised to get it. The bit I added on thin aerofoil theory is adequately referenced in the weblink I provided - at least I'd thought so :-) Bob aka Linuxlad 20:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have some problems with your suggestion that I cite individul equations :-

1) the detailed text of the article I reference is strictly copyright, (but the underlying science can't be)

2} It should be sufficient to quote physical principles and general derivation - this is an undergraduate engineering topic and shoud be developed at that level.

Bob aka Linuxlad 23:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. JMcC 20:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for working to expand Aerodynamics. But since the article is already flagged for a lack of references, please help by adding refs for your content, as well as any existing content you may be able to help with. Dhaluza 22:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has reverting unexplained deletions by anonymous's been considered expanding content? Thanks but no thanks!WolfKeeper 22:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake, it appeared you added it, but I guess you were just restoring it. Dhaluza 22:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed a merger of Notability Congregations to Notability Organizations and companies about a week ago, but haven't promoted it mcuh since so much is going on at Notability. How do you feel about that? My goal is to see the special conditions trimmed down, and after that Congregations is virtually redundant. Right now I could use some help keeping the merge tag posted as I'm heading toward 3RR.

Thanks.

Kevin --Kevin Murray 00:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, I decided not to participate in the discussion, because I'm actively involved in the main Noatblity page discussion. I think it's best if I stay out now, to avoid any appearance of WP:Canvassing. My suggestion to you is to take the issue off the table for now by withdrawing the proposal, since it seems to be getting contentious, and that is counterproductive. Also since the main Notability page is under active discussion, and the Orgs page just underwent a merger, it might be a good idea to let the dust settle a little. I'm generally in favor of merging the various guidelines because they are WP:CREEPy. But be patient. Wikipedia will hopefully be around for a long time, and we don't have to do everything right now. Dhaluza 01:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wise choice! --Kevin Murray 18:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a proposal to create an Aviation WikiProject, which would serve to clarify how all the aviation related projects relate, and help with interproject editing. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Proposal_Recap for how the projects hierarchy. Part of the reorganization proposes that WikiProject Gliding become a task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft (or perhaps the Aviation Project itself). For an idea of how task forces work, take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history. They have a number of task forces, listed here. As described by them, "task forces are informal groups of editors gathered for collaborative work on a particular topic within the field of military history; all project members are encouraged to participate in any that interest them." The benefit of such a system it that the sub-topics have all the resources of the overall project at their disposal. For instance, the Military history project banner, is placed on every military history page, and the related task forces are listed at the bottom of it. All miltary history related articles are thereby joined under one roof. If you have any ideas or comments, please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 20:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to confirm: the items under the scope of the gliding project refer to articles specifically related to gliding. The list seems to me to be a little too broad. For example, its written that airports fall under the scope of WikiProject Gliding, but I don't thing that that should be so. Airport articles are not considered to be part of the scope of WikiProject Aviation, even though airplanes need them to take-off and land. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's deliberately broad, and there is a lot of overlap not only within aviation, but also with other subjects like meteorology. But the overlap is limited to topics specifically related to gliding. Dhaluza 02:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You now need to finish the job by checking "what links here" to fix all the links to roll, pitch and yaw, which need to point where you moved this content. Dhaluza 19:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. What I did was to change a wrong redirection (roll, pitch and yaw was pointing to flight dynamics before) to the proper place (Tait-Bryan angles) --Juansempere 21:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article airmanship, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 15:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything at Wikipedia:Attribution that prevents an article from referencing only primary sources. Anyway, it is trivial to find a commercial map that shows the place (most location articles already have several such maps linked in the external links), so the "threat" is toothless. --NE2 21:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also look at WT:ATT and WT:N and check the edit histories to see what people are trying to include. Dhaluza 21:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking at notability, since that's not a policy, but attribution explicitly allows "descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge" from primary sources. --NE2 22:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've been participating (the straw poll was my suggestion, which I'm not sure if I should be proud or ashamed of). Your post is how I found Zax, and the PROD seemed pretty silly, on the verge of WP:POINT. Thanks--ragesoss 03:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The March 2007 issue of the Aviation 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. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add any significant new content. I only rearranged the subsections that were already there into alphabetical order. Any needed references to what little I added are in the links to the other Wikipedia articles that make most of what I added self-evident. Keraunos 12:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fuel fraction, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 23:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that we might be able to strike a compromise at WP:N on the multiple issue, with more explanation of when and how a single source would establish notability. I would like to see both sides move to the middle a bit to prevent a broadened edit war. --Kevin Murray 19:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. This message is going to all recent participants at WP:N pro con or otherwise.--Kevin Murray 23:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Radio acoustic sounding system, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 23:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just browsing your userpage and saw we had several things in common. Thought I'd drop in and say hello. Lsi john 19:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Duquesne Spy Ring article has we have been discussing on the Village Pump (policy) has been unfairly tagged for deletion -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duquesne Spy Ring. In advance, many thanks for your support! Ctatkinson 02:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cloud suck, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Smee 18:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wind gradient, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Majorly (talk | meet) 15:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On June 7, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Canadian Pacific Airlines Flight 402, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think you've done great work expanding out the wind gradient article and think it is wonderful someone else is helping out with these articles. Because of the merge conversation over the past six months, I posted a cry for help to the meteorology project page. Below is message and the one response so far. At least one other person does not consider there to be a difference between the two topics, but this is by no means a consensus. I plan on adding your information into the wind shear article...and will wait for several more new responses before another redirect is attempted, and it will be coordinated with you since you're actively editing the wind gradient article. Congratulations on the DYK, by the way. Thegreatdr 13:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have one author who reverted the merge between wind shear and wind gradient a few days ago, despite the fact that the two articles are about exactly the same effect and virtually everyone else who commented on the merge agreed with the idea over the past six months. I need some feedback here as to whether the single opposing author has a point or not. Thegreatdr 04:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wind shear is a much broader term in aviation than only to microbursts, the usage is similar to meteorology, the term is heavily used for changing winds in clear air as well as around convection. Wind gradient is almost never used in meteorology, while they may be interchangeable in some aviation circles, wind shear is still used there too (and predominately in my experience). A discussion of the aviation and societal/technological aspects along with the meteorological in the wind shear article makes sense. There is some good material in the wind gradient article, but it all pertains to the phenomenon of wind shear. Glancing at the references for the wind gradient article I even see wind shear in the titles, but not wind gradient! There is no entry in the Glossary of Meteorology (or probably any other professional glossary) for wind gradient; a Google Scholar search returns 22,500 returns for "wind shear" vs. 888 for "wind gradient".

Wind gradient should be merged into wind shear, with pertinent information retained; and the wind shear article from a meteorological standpoint does scream for expansion. If the editor has a point, (s)he hasn't made the distinction between the two clear to me, (s)he simply has different material on the same thing (i.e. material that should be under the auspices of wind shear, the term that is, as far as I know, by far more heavily used and certainly is in at least some fields). Evolauxia 06:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to change wind shear related to tropical cyclones, severe weather, and the thermal wind to some "upper level" was incorrect. Wind shear within ANY layer leads to changes in severe weather and tropical cyclones, and the strongest wind shear within areas of severe weather development is actually in the low levels. The concept of thermal wind applies to any atmospheric level. Removed your "upper level" header and shifted sections back around because of this. Thegreatdr 20:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what you mean by low and upper level. I was taking "low-level" as in the case of Low level windshear alert system, but I can see the ambiguity. Your reorg addresses that, but lumping all low-level phenomena in the PBL does not distinguish between the surface friction layer, and the convective layer. Dhaluza 00:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The abiguity is the problem for Wikipedia/encyclopedia articles. It depends how you define low level. Meteorology would define it as generally under 10,000 feet ASL. Other applications and fields might have a more restrictive definition. Variations in the planetary boundary layer (what you might call a surface or friction layer) during the day and the heights of taller buildings add further confusion about the depth/height of the PBL above ground level and its boundary with the free atmosphere, which is what I'm interpreting as what you are calling the convective layer. Since wikipedia articles are not meant to contain ambiguity (if it can be avoided), I made the change in the article. Let me know if you see any other areas of ambiguity in the article which need to be removed. Thegreatdr 04:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! Please come to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC --David Shankbone 22:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwings For your efforts to improve and source article such as Southwest Airlines Flight 1455 I hereby award you these Wikiwings. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the crash infobox to the Eagle III crash page. I added that note late, and planned on addressing it today, if there wasn't a good reason not to do it. As to rating the article, I've never done one before. Objective evaluation has never been a strong suit of mine, so I have left that aspect alone.

Because you seem to have a talent for evaluating the notability of incidences, I have something I'd like you to help me with if you can. Alan (User:Akradecki) is on vacation this week until Friday, and I'd like to try to surprise him if I can.

Alan has asked he to put together an article on the partent compnay. Air Methods, and has added some sources [here] on on that page's talk page. As an employee, Alan won't write articles on his company due to COI issues, in line with Wiki policies. Though I can't start immediately, I do intend to get to it in the next couple of months.

Now to my request: On or around 11 December 2006, a helicopter with the EMS company Alan works for crashed. I found a copy of an AP report on a forum here. He originally had some info on his blog, but apparently the site he was using is no longer hosting his blog. I believe he knew the flight crew, tho to what degree, I don't know. If you could evaluate the notability of this incident, I would appreciate it very much. Assuming notability, if you have time to put together a page, I'd appreciate that too, but if not, just point nme in the right derections on sources, and I'll work on it. I'll probably use the Eagle III crash article as a guide, as it's easier for me to copy and modify than to write from scratch.

I am not asking you to do something so I don't have to do it myself! I definetely trust your judgment on Notability, and you've shown a talent for putting together good articles quickly. I'f you'd like to help on this one, fine, but if you aren't able to, that is OK too. - BillCJ 17:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I searched on the terms in that article, I only found variations of the same piece, and with only one AP item, WP:NOTNEWS would be a problem. When I varied the terms, I found these: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. And then I hit the mother-lode: [10]. So I'd say that there is more than enough secondary source material. The fact that this was picked up by both the AP and the LAT, with multiple stories and bylines in the latter, and follow-up coverage, should be enough to satisfy WP:N. There are some people who want to set an incredibly high bar for Notability who will never be satisfied, but overall I think we could generate a good WP article with all this. Dhaluza 23:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to go ahead and start a stub at 2006 Mercy Air 2 accident. Dhaluza 00:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. I'll look through the sources and see what I can add. Thanks again. - BillCJ 00:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! It looks great! Haven't seen any major or minor problems, but I'll try to copy-edit again tomorrow after a good night's sleep. I am sure Alan will be surprised, though given his relation the subject matter, I'm sure it will be sobering for him too. Again, thanks, and good job. - BillCJ 07:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See if you can integrate and cite some of the other different sources to expand the breadth of coverage. Dhaluza 11:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very interested in what process there is in the wikipedia that says that a web page is not a reliable source. Please reference that for me.

The particular web page I quoted seems to be fairly accessible and reasonable good, and is actually used to teach pilots about subsonic, transonic, and supersonic aerodynamics in a classroom situation. I do not believe that the reference does not support the text. Which part of the text do you believe is not supported?WolfKeeper 01:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS calls for editorial oversight, which simple web pages usually lack.

"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."

This is educational material teaching aerodynamics from an internationally recognised college. Having read through the material I find it credible and informative.WolfKeeper 02:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The all moving tailplane does not seem to be mentioned at the web site you cite. I don't doubt that what you added to mach tuck is true, but you need better references to support it. Dhaluza 02:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll down and read from 'Effect of Shock Wave Formation' where it describes Mach Tuck, and be sure to read the following 'trimming tail' section.WolfKeeper 02:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Brownout (aviation), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 15:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Brownout (aviation), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 18:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice plagiarism on the Kishacoquillas Valley page... straight off the that region's website. 19:4 Stevenmitchell 19:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific with your concern? Dhaluza 20:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you'd be interested in this one, but I thought I'd ask anyway. A user has asked about the possibility of creating an articel on the Lockheed 1960s bribery scandal. You can answer at Talk:Lockheed Corporation#Lockheed Scandal or my talk page. Thanks. - BillCJ 23:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The DYK Medal
		I hereby award you the Did You Know medal for your numerous excellent contributions to the Did You Know section on the main page. The medal is long overdue! Royalbroil 03:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a list of the top contributors to the Did You Know articles that you might be able to add yourself to: User:Anonymous Dissident/List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs. You might be close enough to the 25 DYKs to join the list, or I at least wanted you to be aware of the list. Royalbroil 03:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gurney flap, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Andrew c ^[talk] 00:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you did with John Deere tractor. It leaves the other article open to being written well. Thanks. IvoShandor 10:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sometimes re-purposing content is the best solution. Dhaluza 23:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While doing research for my new article on CAMTS, I came across a useful ref for your article. I dropped it in as an External Link, but you might want to take a look at it - it might make a good in-line ref. I also dropped CAMTS in as a See Also. If you have time, I'd appreciate it if you'd take a proof-read of the new article. Thanks! AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw your edit on my watchlist, and the article was very interesting, and an excellent link. Thanks! Dhaluza 23:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I'm not going to convince the airport fans that indisciminate (albeit factual) lists are inappropriate, hence I make a general question here. This comment i don't understand. Are you suggesting that we can write anything as long as it is factual? Ie, maybe I could write on Taronga Zoo that I went there today. It's factual - and I can verify it. But it is not notable, hence i won't write it. Merbabu 09:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at WP:N, it specifically excludes article content. So you are barking up the wrong tree. The airport is Notable. Your question on content relates to its relevance. Your visit to the zoo is not relevant to the zoo. But airline destinations are relevant to the airport, just as airport destinations are relevant to the airline. Don't dismiss the arguments of others who do not agree with you by assigning labels to devalue their input. Dhaluza 09:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - so your issue was that I was incorrectly using the word 'notability' and not 'relevance'. A game of semantics. If we are imposing suggestions on others arguing styles, let me suggest that you don't 'dismiss' my argument by stalling around semantics. Thus, when reading my posts, you could easily substitute the word 'relevance'. (although something tells me you probably already knew this). thanks. --Merbabu 12:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not semantics, "Notability" has a specific description on WP, and you were using it in a way that was inconsistent with the consensus at WP:N. I asked about this in my first reply here but you did not address this. Dhaluza 23:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worth noting that the wording of both that nutshell and the relevant elements of policy are under active discussion at the talk page. SamBC 12:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Commission on Accreditation of Medical Transport Systems, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 22:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carabinieri just dropped this on my page, and I wanted to drop a copy on yours as well, because of the first link in the DYK text...you deserve some of the credit. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eggers & Higgins , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dhaluza,

Wikipedia:Relevance requests your presence — see, "Call for editor participation" at the talk page. —WikiLen 17:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the article because it had been userfied at User:TravisTX/Workshop/List of schools in India. It might be a better idea to get in touch with TravisTX and help him work on it to get it in better shape. --Coredesat 02:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, although filing a DRV solely because I didn't indicate where the article had been userfied to would have just resulted in the DRV being speedily closed with the link given in the close reason. The closing admin not stating where an article has been userfied to in an AFD closing statement is not grounds for overturning the deletion. --Coredesat 04:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 33 Thomas Street, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--W.marsh 16:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On August 6, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Celebratory gunfire, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Well dangerous celebrating. This congratulary message isn't life threatening I hope. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking you to participate in an AFD, as that would be canvassing. I am asking that you take a look at the North American monetary union article and talk page, and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North American monetary union. The page was being assualted by a disruptive user on Friday, and it is this version that prompted the AFD. I have been trying to update and improve the arcticle, but his user is adding totally unsourced conspiricay theory info to the page. I had already reverted 3 times, so I just left it and went to bed. I wake up and find that a 16-year-old kid has filed and AFD, proabaly without even reading the talk page or page history. I honeslty think any reasonable editor who had read the history version and the talk page would not have filed an AFD here. I guess this is one more thing we need to add to our proposed guidelines. I do beleive this article is worth keeping, as I found it because I'm intersted in the topic. It's sad to see disruptive users cause such problems, but even more so to see an AFD screw up the whole process. Any suggestions on how to deal with this would be appreciated. - BillCJ 17:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your work has improved the article a lot. Let's now hope it'll survive the AFD. Digwuren 20:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Gadget transit, by Schutz (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Gadget transit is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Gadget transit, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 21:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Wannarexia, 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}}. Evil1987 22:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]