User talk:Fabartus

RETIRED WIKIPEDIA Consciencious Objector  This user is no longer actually active on Wikipedia as of July-December 2009.

Incivility

Please do not use swear words on wikipedia, or harass other users [1]. DrKiernan (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

While Wikipedia isn't censored, do try to be more civil or you'll just end up blocked again. John Reaves 16:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry mate, until you lot figure out allowing a revert of a time consuming thoughtful and pertinent edit is far more hostile than a bit of verbal punctuation, I'll continue blocking myself as I've been these last eight months. I do get annoyed when narrow focused editors miss the obvious though. Sometimes I need to scratch the obviousity itch—and I get bit anew by such as he. // FrankB 17:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not taking sides. If you have a problem with a user in the future, report it, don't spend your time thinking up snarky comments. John Reaves 17:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Just saw that lovely edit summary. 31 hour block. John Reaves 17:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:1632 series books

I have nominated Category:1632 series books (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for merging into Category:1632 series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:1632 series images pages

I have nominated Category:1632 series images pages (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for merging into Category:1632 series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

R_to_section template usage and history

Hello Fabartus, what is your understanding of the proper usage of {{R to section}}? (I see that you originated it.) I have assumed that it was intended for those redirects that specifically target a section of their target article (and thus have a "#" in the redirect target link). That interpretation seems supported by the redirect's current documentation and it's majority usage (97% meeting this criteria) but it is occasionally being used to tag redirects, such as Around the World Submerged, where (for various reason) it isn't desirable to specifically target a section, even though the topic of the redirect is a minor part of the target article. I ask because I was seeking a means of identifying those redirects that are sensitive to editors changing section titles in the target article. -- ToE^T 00:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

David Haydn-Jones listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect David Haydn-Jones. Since you had some involvement with the David Haydn-Jones redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). ToE^T 15:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey again. Just a coincidence here, as I ran into this while fixing redirects pointing to nonextant sections. As noted at the RfD, a redlink is better than a redirect to a dab page with no entry. The info you added to the dab page back in January was reverted two hours later. I certainly wouldn't object to you stubbing out David Haydn-Jones if you wish. -- ToE^T 15:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Sisterheader

A tag has been placed on Template:Sisterheader requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. RL0919 (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:R from talkpage

Template:R from talkpage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Cenarium (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference Requests

Please do not remove legitimate fact tags with (condescending) instructions to the person that placed it there to "study some history". If it's so obvious, you should be able to supply a reference yourself. If you can't, or can't be bothered, then leave the tag where it is. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• The article text in question is an historical overview, dude. Fact requested is nonsense in any informed geo-political context. Territories are always strategic or finance related, or simply not bothered with, period. Ask any ignored and impoverished nation sans resources or locations about their neglect from and by first world nations. Q.E.D. — 'that' fact tagging was ridiculous. I'll condescend to any one acting idiotic with unnecessary taggings, thankyou very much. but ... Merry Christmas anyways. // FrankB 16:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is your opinion, "dude", but the sentence in question is making a claim that the territories were held "for commercial and strategic reasons rather than for settlement". That is a claim which someone has challenged. There are only two proper responses per Wikipedia's policies: (1) remove the unreferenced claim or (2) insert a reference showing it's not original research. If you are too clever for the idiots who contribute to Wikipedia, I suggest you find something else to occupy your time with, "dude". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I know of no U.K. government organized hegira to "Colonies" for the sake of relocation per se, EVER. Penal colonies, sure. Private indentured servitude (debt borrowing) for passage to settlements, certainly, but under private (corporate) sponsership, not governmental policy—and not after WW-I decimated the population of the home islands, forsooth! Providing a Cite to disprove a hypothetical occurrence that would never occur to anyone else (being so far removed from fact to be fictional) is hardly a reasonable request.

Being men of the world, Brits are practical and always had a commercial motivation ala mercantilism. Occasionally those spun off strategic colonies militarily motivated colonies, since location, location, and location are still the three most important factors in real estate, or fortresses as it were. Do bear in mind that prior to ca 1960, coaling stations were still important assets to national navigation business interests. As coal fired ships became rare in lock step with sinkings in world war II (forced by the u-boat war... tech changed in commercial shipping way ahead of the later updates by railways from steam to diesel (later in the 1950s), many ports were made irrelevant. So were colonies, especially strategic colonies as it were. Cite for me where have you ever heard of tens of thousands of British being "settled" in the last 100 years? Debt colonization and economics based settlements, sure—the English did all that in the century(ies) before, but not in the time period in question.

• The only WP policy which counts, btw is WP:IAR. As an editor herein since 2004, that request offends me as it junks up a publication unnecessarily in and for a matter which will add anything to the article, so my option to remove such errant nonsense... duty really. // FrankB 17:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Interwiki links table

Template:Interwiki links table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 08:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Endorsed as author

You'd have to put {{db-author}} on it yourself, I think. Happy new one to you as well. :-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Transcontinental Railroad article introduction

Hello. I think you have misunderstood the purpose of the introduction for this article which is only meant to succinctly define what constitutes the definition of a generic transcontinental railroad -- i.e. a railroad which completely crosses any recognized continental land mass that connects one ocean to another by rail. The entire first paragraph of the intro that you had replaced it with, however, concerned itself only the First Transcontinental Railroad (originally called the "Pacific Railroad" which became know as the Overland Route) opened in 1869 which connected the United States' existing eastern railroad network at Council Bluffs, IA/Omaha, NE and San Francisco, a subject about which I have also written two published books. While discussed as part of the US subsection of the "Americas" section of the instant Transcontinental Railroad article, this subject is introduced and covered in great detail in two other separate Wikipedia articles. This intro also duplicates detailed information which is already contained later on in the main article itself. The second paragraph you added, while thoughtful and well written, appears to be largely a short essay made up of POV opinions which are made without providing any references that support them.

That being the case, I have thus restored the longstanding introductory paragraph of the article which was developed by consensus of the group of editors that have been the major contributors to this article over the years and have added to this an edited down version of non POV material from your second paragraph. If you wish to propose making major alterations to the longstanding introduction (or other sections) of this mature article, please first take them the entry's talk page for discussion before making wholesale changes that massively alter both its existing substace and character. Thank you. Centpacrr (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Ah Well... Not so sure "POV" applies so well. 'Tis generic Conventional Wisdom among RR hobbyists, vice my POV. I'll grant you I didn't substantiate it with cites... I was more focused on prose flow, I fear.

• I see what you did with the "focus point" I made about infrastructre—Good work that!
• Made another tweak here to clarify. Plain Jane "Railroad" is ambiguous. Be Well || FrankB 21:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• I tweaked the intro to indicate that a transcontinental road can also be over the tracks of a single carrier as well such as with Via Rail in Canada. Centpacrr (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

THAT strikes me as obvious... the norm being buried by a wording terseness twas more worrisome. // FrankB 23:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the Via Rail ref I made in the intro which was my bad. Also while there may not currently be any transcontinental railroads that run over trackage owned entirely by a single railroad, I don't know that this has never been the case. As this article refers mostly to the history of such lines lines going back as far as the mid 19th century, however, it seems to me then that the possibility that such a situation likely existed for one or more such roads at some point in time and therefore needs to be accounted for in the definition. Centpacrr (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for {{FixBunching}}

FixBunching is the auxiliary template which I use the most often. Just a random thank you for creating it. --78.34.249.140 (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tlxw

Template:Tlxw has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. The Evil IP address (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Merger of Conference committee into Committee

I noticed that Conference seemed to have some content sections after its references section and a stub template. When I went to fix this I found the references section and stub template were actually in another article, which was transcluded.

Reading the talk page, it seems you attempted to "merge" the smaller article into the larger one. But transclusion is not the proper way to do that, because of the weirdness that ensues e.g. two references sections and inappropriate maintenance templates, dablinks etc. You can fix this to some extent with <noinclude> but really, only articles designed to be transcluded (almost always in the Template namespace) should be transcluded into article space. The proper way to do mergers is using the procedure at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. I've done this, adding the appropriate templates, and if you have any comments you can add them at Talk:Committee#Propose merge-in of Conference committee. Hairy Dude (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:UtComns

Template:UtComns has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. RL0919 (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Sisterproject

Template:Sisterproject has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. RL0919 (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Category talk:Pharmacy/fragile

Category talk:Pharmacy/fragile, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Category talk:Pharmacy/fragile and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Category talk:Pharmacy/fragile during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. RL0919 (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Sisterwikis

Template:Sisterwikis has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. RL0919 (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:See also W2

Template:See also W2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. The Evil IP address (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:LTACS

Template:LTACS has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. The Evil IP address (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:NAMCON

Template:NAMCON has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. The Evil IP address (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cite Sm

Template:Cite Sm has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Left60

Template:Left60 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:NWBL

Template:NWBL has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ibull2

Template:Ibull2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ibull

Template:Ibull has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Usage div

Template:Usage div has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Demon

Template:Demon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ctempsection

Template:Ctempsection has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Right35

Template:Right35 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:I

Template:I has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cms-catlist

Template:Cms-catlist has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Catlist

Template:Catlist has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Charmed episode

Template:Charmed episode has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wpd-catlist-up

Template:Wpd-catlist-up has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cat see also commons

Template:Cat see also commons has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wdy

Template:Wdy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Bullseealso

Template:Bullseealso has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Also starring

Template:Also starring has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Redirect template warning

Template:Redirect template warning has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:MainBold

Template:MainBold has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wiktionarytmp

Template:Wiktionarytmp has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:!:

Template:!: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:GEon

Template:GEon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:••

Template:•• has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Top2

Template:Top2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lau

Template:Lau has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:OTHERSITE

Template:OTHERSITE has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Left66

Template:Left66 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wpd

Template:Wpd has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:NestTextColors

Template:NestTextColors has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Interwikicat-grp

A tag has been placed on Template:Interwikicat-grp requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:TIMESTAMP

Template:TIMESTAMP has been nominated for merging with Template:Currentdate. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 270° 6' 0" NET 18:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Template list

Template:Template list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Axem Titanium (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

re: This TFD discussion

• • Comment--When used correctly, list templates like this have lots of uses. But since User:Axem Titanium seems hell bent on deleting all sorts of tools developed and used on this project, I suppose someone ought to point out that someone's fast typing abilities don't spread to those of us with "linebacker sized fingers" and typing aids aren't exactly space wasteful... Basically why bother if it requires handicapping another? Makes for a hostile work environment. See my talk page for an astonishing example of how someone can misconstrue such 'busywork' with a valuable contribution... or why I no longer give hundreds of hours a month to this encyclopedia. Too many nuts like him. Strikes me as exactly the sort of elitist academic we have in the current administration messing things up because they don't know jackshit about anything but theory... experience and pragmatic practices are too far beyond them. // FrankB 14:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Came here from the TFD - just watch the NPA policy, alright? I know your're not exactly happy, and I wouldn't be, either. Airplaneman ✈ 15:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the concerns... but TFD and all the xFD's burn my ass in that a few busybodies can undo man-hours, even man-months of work and mistake it for "THE GREATER GOOD"... The WP Project... Really, REALLY, really needs 'a ten 'DELETE' votes to delete quorum' or leave things alone unless it's obvious trash. Which should easily get ten votes in any case--since if more votes were needed, more people would likely patrol and participate in said forums... strengthening the institutional consistencies... Too Often have I seen small CABALs develop that dominate such for a time.

 • Hadn't ever heard template space was taking up too many resources (BRIAN AND TIM IN FACT explicitly STATED THE OPPOSITE back when we changed template documentation for the better— and they altered the expansion cap limit), yet that kind of fuzz for brains make work costs gobs of time and makes the place hostile...

 • Even should I return these days to make big edits, sometimes half of what I try now no longer works without frustrating effort. Someone wants to patrol and subst some templates to imagine they are aiding the effort, fine... subst... but why make a working tool unavailable?

For example, why delete useful formatting templates like {ibull} (nothing else does the exact job), and even {**}... piffle! What is more offensive... strong language or someone deleting your hours of work, that then cost you more time in the future over and over when the tool is missing??? Both are rejections, but harsh words don't cost someone over and over. Still, thanks. Take care, I can see limiting my time here is still a good idea... just like this! Be well. // FrankB 15:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

'Indian freedom struggle'/1857/template

The relevant discussion has been moved to Template_talk:Anglo-Indian_Wars#.27Indian_freedom_struggle.27

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 21:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Kanesville to Council Bluffs

The summary of Kanesville's importance to the overland trails in the 19th century belongs more under the history section as opposed to the introductory, general overview of the city or it needs to be compared with the evolution of the Lincoln Highway and the present-day equivalents of Interstates 80 and 29. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iowaryan (talk • contribs) 07:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

A user page appears in a category

Hello Fabartus: Your user page [[User:Fabartus/temp7]] may be in violation of WP:USERNOCAT. The Category that it appears in, Category:Periods with timeline in infobox, appears to be a maintenance category, so it seems reasonable to allow user pages to appear in the category while development of a page is proceeding. Your user page in question does not seem to be in active development. Do you think you should comment out or otherwise deactivate the code that is putting this page into a category? Thanks for your consideration. --Fartherred (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

PS Waverley

Hi, I liked your tidying up of the lead, though I hope you won't mind my restoring the original wording in the sentence, "Since 2003, Waverley has been listed in the British National Register ..." because it is correct she has been listed in every year since 2003. The alternative, "In 2003, Waverley was listed in the British National Register ..." implies she was listed for only 1 year in 2003. I just wanted to explain why I made the change. 85.94.184.115 (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Old Lincoln Highway

Hi Fabartus - while your dab-link at Lincoln Highway seems like a good idea, there is no article Old Lincoln Highway. Argyriou (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I spoke too soon. Sorry. Argyriou (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Works that way... Now help fill in the blanks. Searches such as ["old lincoln highway"+Council Bluffs, Iowa] in google root them out, with a map pretty well. // FrankB 21:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Your comment about my edits

Thanks for your comment. If you really paid close attention (which you should have had the time for, since you didn't mind spending it on writing me a fairly long message), and if you knew how AWB worked, you'd see that the primary changes suggested by AWB (and implemented by me) were typos, and the rest (whitespaces, etc.) was a result of genfixes automatically applied. Although I wouldn't waste time/resources on doing genfixes alone, there's a merit in fixing typos, which is exactly what was done there. cherkash (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Pound (mass)

Please do not change the content of articles so it addresses a different topic than the title of the article indicates, as you did here. This is particularly inappropriate when an article on the topic that you want to write about already exists (Pound-force). Jc3s5h (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. That article is the biggest pile of horseshit I've seen here since I first edited in Oct of 2004. Pound is a weight -- a FUNDAMENTAL UNIT in the English customary measurement system and therefore a natural force unit--by Newtonian physics. "Pound-mass" is a newfangled derived unit which I can't even validate as being defined by any competent authority... from SI no less. AND THAT WITH FOUR ENGINEERING DEGREES... Further, The talk pages have repeated professionals telling liberal arts air heads they're wrong. THEY ARE. I've never been embarrassed for Wikipedia before as much as I am after view both of those articles... and then the the crowning achievement... that redirect of pound (weight) to Pound (mass) which is CLEARLY WRONG... The mind boggles how many have been confused by the stupid arguments on those two talk pages. CIRCULAR CIRCULAR CIRCULAR. The SI gram was DEFINED as a fundamental unit, with a definition deliberately chosen to make the best approximation of the gram (weight) then extant in Europe. THAT gram relates to the pound weight. You folks are clueless. And Yes, they are all measures of quantity, just the force use is new--from the seventeenth century. But few seem to realize that gram was a weight. I'm sincerely embarrassed for Wikipedia. // FrankB 01:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Dacia

Hi, I saw that you collaborated on articles related to Dacia and thought this could be of interest: WikiProject Dacia is looking for supporters, editors and collaborators for creating and better organizing information in articles related to Dacia and the history of Daco-Getae. If interested, PLEASE provide your support on the proposal page. Thanks!!--Codrinb (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Fabartus! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Fabartus! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tlxm

Template:Tlxm has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Evil IP address (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tlw

Template:Tlw has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Evil IP address (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Washington and Jefferson College

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Washington and Jefferson College, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tavix |  Talk  00:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ring of Fire (anthology)-cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Ring of Fire (anthology)-cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Geology

HI seem to have stumbled upon a couple of your requests Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Natural_sciences#Geologic_time_periods so I've added some comment, hope that's helpful.EdwardLane (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks but no Thanks. Not trying to be offensive here, but initial reaction was your response is not even close to the mark -- a rather "young-studentish" response--doing the least amount possible hoping like hell the scoring will get a pass! Since that is unlikely—and I thank you for the courtesy of posting my talk page—let me elaborate:

What my request was trying to convey was the need for an tutorial/survey reference article covering material more than sufficient for a book length work with stylistically consistent annoted static maps showing significant global and regional detail, preferably with inferred best-guesses as to the era's Lat and Long overlaying static shots of continental landscapes (sometimes including and identifying knowable locii) over time, preferably across regular time intervals. As an example, the maps in the Pennsylvanian era would show where the terrain that gave the great bituminous coal fields of the Appalachians ridge and valley system.

Sorry, but the dynamic Maps you suggest in the linked GIF sequence map flys by so rapidly no one could possibly have a useful thought about how various systems and the biota would interact at any one time—much less how those both related in that then to the likely climate and weather about a given locii. Frankly it progresses so fast as to be absolutely useless and a waste of time and space—save as an introduction to elementary kids to the concept of continental drift. I'm after rather more meat and potatoes and less Madison Avenue hype!

Basically, I was hoping for some thing with lots of snap shots that were geographically accurate and justifiable with and by reference to the rock record everywhere, so far as its currently known. Where were the oceans then and how do they relate to terrains now? How did those line up with magnetic domains? What parts of which continents were tropical, sub-tropical, or polar? Moreover, how do climatologists view the radiance impulses hitting the earth and the overall temperatures of the time both regionally and globally. How did the terrains then steer weather, or see increased changeability because blocking ridgelines elsewhere steered weather into such and such a basin? Is this or that mountain range building, diminished or yet to be? Where were the bogs laying down the coal beds, and so on and so on. RELATIONAL DATA keyed by time passage. GEO surveys should be able to begin framing Earth History in such snapshots both regionally, and globally. I was requesting a survey article more or less painting those kinds of pictures that are generally agreed upon, and perhaps one which skillfully illuminates when and where such consensus is lacking and why there is a dispute about such and such an era.

Thanks for the thought. Best regards, // FrankB 18:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Frank,

I wasn't meaning to be flippant, and I don't claim any really in depth knowledge on that subject. However the gif can presumably be broken down into its constituent frames (I don't have the tech on this machine to do it, but I'm pretty certain it's possible, perhaps asking the person who uploaded it initially it might be possible to get higher definition maps) - and each of those images could perhaps be used as a starting point, to do an article called something like 'timeline of plate tectonics and continental drift' stepping through from pangea to the current state (and perhaps even a projected next step). Then one could put sections 'carboniferous','triassic' etc with the relevant map and put subsections on current nations eg 'UK' under a warm clear shallow sea in the tropics (limestone deposition), biota = crinoids and bivalves (and anything else), deviation from current magentic north = x degrees clockwise (or whatever), with the south wales coal field being swamp with biota = trees etc. Or perhaps it would be better split up into regions of known deposits - and then say 'covering what currently comprises particular countries X,Y and Z' which would be good but would make it difficult to track movements - perhaps in a table so you could sort it by 'peatbogs' and see how that changed, or by 'coutry' so you could see how each coutry moved around over time. Think one would also need to include latitude and longtidue data, and it gets quite complex.

In my opinion Articles on wikipedia don't tend to start as much more than a thumbnail sketch of the idea - but if someone else can see where the article is going they can then flesh out some of the detail, and given a year or two you may end up with the article you want. At least that's how I understand it. I've 'started' maybe 5 articles - and 1 (1911 Sarez earthquake) was immediately picked up by someone else who fleshed it out to a level I didn't even realise information was out there for.

I'm sorry if my attempt to provide some resource as a starting point didn't come close to the mark - finding 'meat' can be difficult on wikipedia - it is still being written - so complete blanks or broad 'madison avenue' frameworks for some less well covered subjects is all one can find. It seems to me that the answer might then be to suggest you could 'be bold' and start the article as it sounds like you have a better picture of the events than me. But I might give it a go when I next get an urge to start a framework of an article.

EdwardLane (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Fix bunching

Template:Fix bunching has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lth

Template:Lth has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiBookscat

Template:WikiBookscat has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Evil IP address (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Commons template

Template:Commons template has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Evil IP address (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Utility templates used in categories

Category:Utility templates used in categories, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Evil IP address (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Interwiki utility templates

Category:Interwiki utility templates, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Evil IP address (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Heroes in Hell

A page you have edited has been involved in the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Mechanism. If you wish to take part please click here. Some of the editors working on it have been accused of being sock puppets including myself, information on that can be found here. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice and encouragement

I have wanted for some time to thank you for the encouraging words about the dispute over Heroes in Hell and associated actions, but was afraid to because I am concerned that anything I say may be considered canvassing. I am not canvassing you, let me make that clear. However, I find this whole matter ironic since I had called out Wikipedia as the single reference source for settling disputes over historical and my6thical characters and places for Lawyers in Hell writers and those engaged in writing for future volumes. Your mention of IAR was comforting, but I would think at this point nearly everyone who was trying to expand the HIH presence on WP has been scared off by people with that intention: people like me are rightly concerned that their work will be unilaterally deleted or they will be charged with some sort of connivance. The chilling effect of blocking people is indisputable. This reminds me of McCarthyism, which shows how old I am: guilty until proven innocent. Much time has been wasted defending specious accusations from an oligarchic group. And yet, I am leaving WP as the reference source for the HIH series, at least for the time being, because when WP is good, it is very good. Since they are deciding whether to block me, and will probably do that, I thought I would thank you while I have the chance. Janet Morris Guarddog2 (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Kokoda Track campaign

Hello FrankB. As you may have seen I have reverted your additions to the Kokoda Track campaign article. As I stated in the edit summary this material probably shouldn't be added to the lead (please see WP:LEAD). Much of it would however be appropriate if you could work it into the body of the article, for instance in the 'Background' section. If you would like to discuss this I would be more than happy to do so. A couple of final points, the article currently uses consistent short citation and date formats so when you come to edit the article again please be mindful to use these formats. For instance the short citations use Author, Date and Page number (i.e. Clown 2011, p. 1.), likewise the date format used is Day, Month and Year, for instance 1 July 1942. A few of your previous additions used different formats. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Do realize your all too casual reversion canceled nearly ten hours of careful wording, rewording, rephrase, repositioning, ... in other words the HARD part of composing lucid text and so forth from someone who is half blind. However for the most part, in essence I agree, and after pursuing the rest of the article again... which admittedly, I should have stopped and done far sooner. (I call this sort of happenstance "Stealth Edits" for the way they ambush my time! One gripe or shortcoming turns into a major effort! Unfortunately my unconscious driven need is to get the edit right and clean before closing, so you won't see me making half a dozen small edits like you did since I went to bed... it's a rare thing if I edit a page section more than one [tightly focused] edit. Hence my saves represent a lot of effort, innumerable refreshes and a lot of polishing before the only save. Kapish. Lots of time!)
  
  However that said, WP:IAR trumps LEAD when there is insufficient context in said articles leads, this is after all a teaching project, and LEADS MUST NEEDS BE FORMULATED TO CAPTURE ONE'S ATTENTION AND INTEREST A PERSON IN READING MORE. Conversely, imho LEADs written to be technically excellent and terse in appearance to others familiar with the subject matter professionally and academically are to be avoided at all costs. Aiming the lead at a 7th-9th grader, not people familiar with the overall body of knowledge, seems to be just about right. Moreover, imho, LEADs need to provide context, and doubly so in historical articles. Boilerplate formulations and following some ideal style flow arrangement frankly suck and fail the mission. Don't put people to sleep! I'm seeing a lot of those in SWPA articles. Someone or group has gutted the glue context right out of their Leads.
  
  Admittedly I haven't looked in on LEAD in six months or so, but I doubt it's gotten any clearer. The problem is always one of editorial judgment and therefore of the editors focus and prioritization. "Which items elaborated on below need be exposed contextually to paint a synopsis before beginning said detailed sections?", he must constantly ask. Yours failed. You got an 'F' grade ... or no FrankB, to be blunt. <g> 0r perhaps even <BSEG>
  
  This 'article lead' got that grade before my edit, and now again after and so is again deficient there. Nebulous vanilla phrases used as links like 'part of the Pacific War...' are so bland as sterile as to cause a reader impotence, much less interest them. —That this lead does not interject the unknown conflict in a story arch of related battles/articles/terms the reader may have heard of is a damning failure to my thinking—especially when said battle is little known and not all that famous. In this case, the overall mission "PROTECT AUSTRALIA FROM INVASION", wasn't even mentioned, much less highlighted as it must be. How in the hell can you look yourself in the mirror and tell yourself you are a competent editor when the lead is missing PURPOSE and fails to convey such with limiting factors (THE ALLIES WERE LOOSING)!?
  
  Furthermore imho, the use of the term 'Campaign' as Page Title in this context is misleading, though it may have some technical relevance to a bona-fide military historian, but my understanding and recollection from other sources was the battle was more or less continuously joined with forces in constant enough contact so that all were in peril at the front at virtually all times... that's a running battle, not a campaign of separable battles. For example, I a history buff, wouldn't have been able to give it's name until I followed links from the arch of battles I did know, and see why it was linked in the campaign templates—though I knew of the struggle decades ago and more importantly, of its desperate yucky nature which wasn't mentioned. I'd also recollected a few other related things so went to check same, since Manchester came off my bookcases, not a library. You Dig. Failing to mention certain better known associations in the lead spurred me to intervene, so then I went to a known reliable and well regarded source. Otherwise it's deficiencies wouldn't have urged me to make the first change, much less spend most of yesterday evening until 3:00 am trying to find points in fine type and peering blurrily at both that, and an equally blurry screen. I REALLY DON'T SEE ANYTHING WELL at all. I just turned 57 and the focal length my eyes work well at— has become vexingly narrow. I have to wear this concoction of bifocals with flip down reading glasses to work at printed materials AND a computer screen, and flipping the damn things down or up all the time is annoying, at best (to really bite my tonge and restrain myself from using a more appropriate adult term!) <g>

• • There are reasons I don't wikiedit much these days. Among them are things like people that revert instead of jumping in and fixing things.
  • Another is people that WP:OWN — if you think cite style is an important thing, modify it. If you can't morph such to your picky inclinations, then you shouldn't be editing. I gave the reference, the quotes the pages. What the fuck more matters? STYLE... PahLEASE! FACTS matter, presentation needs be oriented to understanding and clarity. Changing (after first learning your preferred) Style of cites so a footnotes table looks like an academics wet dream... not the least interested. Ditto striving on just on page for FA or other judged ratings. CONTENT, expansion. Comprehension. Clarity. Sorry Bub, but wrt to style, imho you have too much time on your hands, and I have too low an opinion of academics for that to happen before the second coming.
  • Another is severely limited time and too many things on too many todo lists. The sun's out this morning, and I have a shed to build. I've seven tons of gravel to spread out and pack down before that. First I have to fix the tractor engine now that the rain has gone. I may be able to use the snow plow to ease the shovel work. So it'll likely be days before I can get back to integrate it, assuming my fat ass doesn't end up dead from said manual labors.
  • You have the material, the cites, jump up and cut and paste. Notebook.exe works well for that if you want to move things about. I quoted Manchester, or clearly indicated when he was quoting. The descriptive stuff about the overall context and the horrors of that episode jungle warfare need made plain. My phraseology is usually pretty sound.
  • I wasn't gonna leave all that in the lead, but needed to seal the edit and sleep. I'm glad you volunteered for the rewrite with your revert. That's my STYLE, and I pretty much stay with it.

Fare well, live long and prosper, // FrankB 16:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

So I guess discussion is out? To be clear I never said the current lead was sufficient, just that adding a large portion of cited prose to it, including block quotes, was not the way to fix it. If you would like to retrieve what you feel you lost by my revert use the article history, that is what it is there for. Work the context you want to provide into the article, and do it in a manner that is consistent with the style conventions currently used (to respect other editor's hours of work), those are my points in a nutshell. Your WP:SOFIXIT argument is just a way to avoid taking responsibility for your own edits. Anotherclown (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well that may well be. But I consider 'ANY REVERT' an abrogation of responisibility as I tried to make plain above. Talk about creating hostile work environments. NO jack, YOU BROKE IT, so you use the History and fix what you will. If (and this is a far less likely if now) I get some time, then I may look in on it again. BUT DON'T YOU DARE HINT THAT I OWE ANOTHER F**KING SECOND on that insert—you threw away the ten hours, instead of discussing it at the proper time, so NOW you want to talk... As they say, you bought it; and the well deserved contempt and hostility. Now fix it. Or not. I got to go live a life. Maybe you ought to do the same instead of hovering over your watchlist. // FrankB 03:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Weapons Races

Hello Fabartus, I just wanted to let you know that I took a look at your recently created article Weapons Races-- However, I noticed there are some holes that may need filling: the article currently does not contain any references. As a new article, the most important thing is to find reliable references for all existing information. It's nice to see you editing!Jipinghe (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• That's bullshit Jipinghe. You need to recheck your assumptions. The most important thing is present accurate information. (You do realize I was adding articles here before we could add references and footnotes? PahLease!) Having references for something one can find mentions of is not always feasible for any television episode and certainly even rarer for documentary productions. Like a high school textbook, these have an editor, a research staff, and are EDUCATIONAL--SAME AS US--but we don't have editorial oversight, just busybodies who aren't using commonsense. You did notice this was a production of Discovery Networks, did you not? And it's a laugh to suggest you'll see scholarly commentary and analysis of a novel! I hope to hell you aren't one of those delusional pseudo-editors that pretend they are making a contribution by paper-hanging reference tagging. If you ever apply more than a 'fact' tag on a sentence or para, you aren't an editor and I've no respect for you. Impress me, and go fix such stuff, and stop wasting people's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankB 12:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• • re: Since then, I've expanded my job description to patrolling and reviewing new articles. At the moment, I am also involved with doing research on Wikipedia. I haven't been around Wikipedia for that long, so feel free to give me any comments or advice! Christ, it's worse than I thought. You're still wet behind the ears and have too little experience to have perspective. So here dear, take this fatherly advice--you're younger than both my sons: Study hard and get off line, if you must waste your learning period in life realize you are penalizing your future. Should you continue to fake helping, limit your patrolling to anti-vandalism, and if some factoid strikes you as needing verification, chase it down and add a cite. YOU certainly don't have time or experience to be leaving prodding messages on peoples talk pages. Until you're thirty/thirty-five or so and have some real world knowledge, you need to be 'concentrated on learning'. THAT PROCESS will by the way go on forever, but your adult career life is like a rocket ship. From the time we're 12 to well beyond forty, the ship will pick up speed in proportion direct to the effort you make to learn new things. Reviewing good articles is not a bad thing, but it should concentrate on a subject area, not bounce around like a whore visiting different beds moment to moment. Good luck. // FrankB 12:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please refrain from personal attacks. I'm doing standard new page patrol, and that includes maintenance tagging. If you don't want your article tagged, then create them with references. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 22:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC

WHAT PERSONAL ATTACK. YOU'RE AN ASS. I'm sharing that opinion in the hopes that you will smarten up. TRY ADDING CONTENT, first comes the prose and then the obfusticating cites. No other way to respect MY OWN TIME... the thing your careless activity disrespected. SO GROW UP, DO SOMETHING USEFUL. Hanging tags is NOT. Try clearing some... add cites. but stay out of the way of people adding to the project. My time is precious. BTW-cites on a television documentary series, like a novel, are pretty much a oxymoron... what are you gonna cite? // FrankB 22:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Clash of Wings (TV series), you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Battle of the Atlantic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Admin help request

{{admin help}}

Please move Back-story over the redirect Backstory per the stale talk section (and common usage). I'll tidy up the relatively few double redirects unless you care to do so. Change summary suggestion:

Move per discussion consensus on talk, the more common form is unhyphenated and is formed as one word sans any intervening space.

Thanks, at times like these I regret never trying for admin! Please post what you are doing, and want me to do here. Thanks. // FrankB 00:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you wanted admin help, so I modified your help tag… hope that's okay with you… Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that "back-story" is not a common form, and so the present article title is inappropriate. However, A Google search suggests that "back story" may be rather commoner then "backstory", in which case the title should be "Back story". Any comment on that suggestion? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Fine, I make an 'editorial decision' and you in effect override me despite the discussion on the talk going back to 2007! No wonder I rarely donate my time to this project anymore. EVERYONE PREFERS TO ARGUE. This 'Modern computerized society' dislikes two words when one will do, and has similarly thrown hyphenated constructs systematically out of the language over the last 30 years under the influence of computers. Think on that. I withdraw the request. I don't have the time to fix redirects after all. Why should I care whether search engines find our articles and use us as a resource. Note however, the consensus on that talk to use the spelling 'BACKSTORY' on the page itself. What does the MOS say about titles and page titles and spelling of terms in such a case as that? Not so simple as googling for statistically unrelieable pseudo-stats now is it kid? Sheese! // FrankB 15:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You know better

You have been blocked 1 month for harassment. –MuZemike 20:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Please see Talk:List_of_Honorverse_characters#Maintenance_tags. Debresser (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Debresser, but it looks like someone is acting as thought police...

• Trying to figure out how a discussion on the users talk page constitutes harassment... pretty sure my last two posts were actually pretty friendly, so someone is really having trouble reading.
  
  (On re-reading ANI posts, I see he thinks I aimed Nazi at him. A close read by a fair third party will reveal I was talking about policy... and the attitude of deletionists and anyone that wants to tell others what constitutes acceptable article topics. Since AFD allows list articles on all sorts of things, and there are loads of pages here about contemporary fiction, the deletionists have apparently lost the content war. I'm merely pointing out there is a disconnect between that decision, and such obnoxious self-mutilating tagging. I'd like reality to be observed, hence my pointed embedded comments. Since he mistook my thrust with the censorship-nazi link, I apologize for not being plainer... that was why I used Nazi... I tried. And no, I don't buy into political correctness. I prefer speaking frankly.)
  
  • So far as I can see we exchanged views... then I dropped it on my end, even conceding something about quality on visiting a related page, returning to make that point. Didn't know how that was even controversial... apparently honestly held opinions aren't tolerated anymore.
    • REALLY HATE IN YOUR FACE TAGS... haven't changed that since 2004. Well, 2005. I'm not sure we had them in 2004, it was 2005 iirc when people started going zany with them.
      • Thanks for the discussion, and courtesy Debresser. If I weren't blocked had thought to put together an RFC on this overall issue. Fiction and fact articles should not be held to the same standards. We either allow cultural coverage, or bann it completely. I include films, television, radio, and the whole shebang. We might make exception for daunting notability if you people insist on 'encyclopedic' topics, provided there is an award, say. So throw out everything that didn't win an award, and let people go to other sites. Used to be we cared and wanted them to come here to WP as a matter of choice. I still do. But I suspect the public will complain.
        • Since I mainly edit science, engineering, history, military articles, I figure one commentator there on WP:ANI is really foolish. Oh... is that evaluation now considered a personal attack? That evaluation is as foolish as the decision that I'm some kind of problem editor here. Gee, I use plain speaking and hurt someone's feeling 3-4 times in seven years of editing tens of thousands of pages? Great decision there MuZemike! Your intellect and sense of fairness must be legendary in your own mind. // FrankB 02:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Clash of Wings (TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Liberator

Honorverse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cats-paw

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Template:Gallery-link listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Gallery-link. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Gallery-link redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). MGA73 (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Commons-gallery listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Commons-gallery. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Commons-gallery redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). MGA73 (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:TOC nest right

Template:TOC nest right has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Common cats listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Common cats. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Common cats redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). MGA73 (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Commoncats listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Commoncats. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Commoncats redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). MGA73 (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Commons cats listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Commons cats. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Commons cats redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). MGA73 (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Commonscats listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Commonscats. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Commonscats redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). MGA73 (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Commonscat-N listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Commonscat-N. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Commonscat-N redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). MGA73 (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Adt

Template:Adt has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of GSAR for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GSAR is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GSAR until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 16:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Template documentation

Category:Template documentation, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Books available as e-books

Category:Books available as e-books, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Robofish (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Boston Wiknic

	Great American Wiknic - Boston
	The Second Annual Great American Wiknic will be an opportunity for Wikipedians across the Greater Boston area to meet for an afternoon of Food, Fun, and Fellowship. Come hang out with other Wikimedians, learn more about upcoming activities, and just enjoy a day at the park!
	Saturday, June 23 1:00 PM – 5:00 PM Boston Common	Food Fun Fellowship
Please sign up here: Wikipedia:Meetup/Boston/Wiknic/2012!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Meetup/Boston at 14:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Interwiki links

A tag has been placed on Template:Interwiki links requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:S listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:S. Since you had some involvement with the Template:S redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Commons categories

Wikipedia:Commons categories, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Commons categories and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Commons categories during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Charles C. Stevenson Jr.

The article Charles C. Stevenson Jr. has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't meet the notability guideline for people. No sources beyond directories like IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes so doesn't have "significant coverage" either.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. James086^Talk 13:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Redirect from phrase

Template:Redirect from phrase has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Map and email

The creator of that map is User:Mathiasrex, I've left him a msg at Commons. You can get in touch with me through Wikipedia email if you'd like. I am no longer in Pittsburgh, but in Ansan, Korea :) Long way indeed :) Glad to hear from you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you still up to date on the 163x verse? Do you know what recent stories deal with Poland/PLC? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

My eyes have been failing me steadily since early last decade, and that as much as anything is why I spend most time offline these days. I'm working on updating the Trainz Wikibook (Surprised, I am I remembered how to make that link! 1st try even!), but that's very recent, and I've barely had time to clean up some stuff and start paginating it.

It's a sad story overall. Culture shock, old retirees met up with copyvio elitist mindset expecting dedication to the whole project, etc.; They couldn't understand why tutorials and screenshots were getting hammered and deleted so... basically abandoned it. I should be putting up a tutorial now for a demo to show how my group Yesterdayz Trainz will in part, write elementary Trainz training materials, as was requested/suggested over on the commons. In short things on Wiki's haven't improved. They're still a massive learning curve to mount and a culture (each unique but similar) to master as well.

Some of us (It's a new group, just formed on April 6th) were the original books authors back in 2008-2009 (Not me, I'd seen the simulator before, but it wasn't until I got disenchanted here in 2009, that I gave it a good look, and unlike web pages, the soft green, grey, brown glare-less back drops don't strain the eyes much or give headaches, unless I'm tweaking elevations... those numbers and some other metrics can be too small. Addictive being able to shape your own corner of the universe. Great family stuff though!).

Which by the way, is when I began withdrawing, (err, perhaps fled is better!) from online, including Baen's Bar and here. The eyes have multiple issues. Find my bio on Auran.com for a better pic.

On 163x, I'm more or less current, but likely a bit behind. I still grab the hardcovers, and let my Gazettes subscription lapse; Ironically, the one unfinished tale is Paula Goodletts piece set in Russia, because of a) how and when my subscription expired and b) I haven't yet grabbed it now that Boris and Natasha et. al. have arrived in hardcover. I need to check on that. I believe it's now out. The multi-person narrative of the whole is becoming hard to fathom. Too many viewpoints and too many characters telling them to be really fun to read.

Similar complaints for Honorverse seen in reviews on Amazon, but I think David Weber has pulled it off better in that mileau. Weber was transitioning a 11 book outline plus next generation outline sequel into a thirty-year time shift, maintaining the main character as first protagonist. It's my read, he's got his second wind and the transition and style have stabilized and begun building momentum and good quality, while Flint is still struggling to incorporate his stable of co-authors, and the whole suffers. They both have big, difficult tasks. The Irony is, Flint is the only co-author of note in Honorverse and was the guy that talked Weber into resetting his storyline to keep Honor Harrington alive!

Stay well Piotr! And if that crowd at the RFA rejects you (as after posting I see is more likely than not) perhaps they and this isn't worth your time either. Pretty vicious pack of piranha's I saw after posting my vote and seeing the Oppose crowds comments below. I do think you made a grave tactical error in confronting that first Dick so sarcastically. The crowd here is far too rooted in their privileged backgrounds and elitist university indoctrinations to even realize how thoroughly they don't think, don't understand, and have been played by their very educations. I got tired of contentions over minor prepositional phrases and not being able to tell people they were idiots from birth. More power to you if you want to put up with it. If and when I see something needing a fix, I tweak it, but day after day of hour after hour is not something I'm ever going to do again here. It's not worth the satisfaction, and the pay sucks. I've more valuable or at least enjoyable pursuits for my precious recreational discretionary time. The rest of humanity is nuts about diverting itself with actors and diva's and musicians, so I've decided to join the party in my own likes. // FrankB 04:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Honor Harrington edit

First, thank you for the effort you just put in the Honor Harrington article (and I do mean that sincerely); it badly needs to be edited to remove the in-universe.

Now, I happen to have put the tag that the article was in-universe, and it was later moved to the top and problems with the lede added by another editor. In fact, I do check that page whenever there are changes. The entire section from Early life up until In the news is completely in-universe, describing events in the book as if they were real. The rest, down until just before Honor in other media pays lip service to the fact that events occur in books, but continues to describe events in the books as if they were real events (which makes it in-universe). So it's not laziness, but the fact that the article is still heavily in-universe.

Also, I think that a lot of the stuff you just put into the lede does not really belong there. Description of the back-story shouldn't be there, it should be put into a description of the setting in the body of the article. The same on extensive comparisons to Forester's Hornblower books; comments such as what constitutes surprise or not is also better placed in a discussion of the influences of the books, not in the lede of the article.

At best, you could argue that the lead was no longer too long (but now I think you've removed the basis for that argument...), but you also removed the notice that the article is in-universe. Is it your contention that your additions to the lede have now removed the in-universe problem in the rest of the article? Magidin (talk) 05:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Tell you what sonny, YOU Keep your religious convictions off wikipedia, and any mild swearing this old sailor does won't affect you a bit. Further lots of folks don't like condescending elitists with this drivel you just wrote above, you don't like it, FIX IT, don't tag it or complain to someone else to do work PERHAPS ONLY YOU perceive as is needed. Clear? Your vision on these bits about culture are as far from mine as Manitcores binary suns are from one another. So now you know why I no longer bother trying to come here much. If you don't have the tiny literary comparison to Hornblower there, and you don't explain the milieu, then where's the basis to go out of in universe mode? You can't have it both ways.

Perhaps you just need to figure out that in these cultural pieces, IN-UNIVERSE is a good thing the lower down they get. Asking a casual visitor to wait for something comprehensible is stupid. Go change the standards, it'd be easier than trying to change the thought processes of someone doing their best to recap for other fans and those who never heard of it. My synopsis in the lead is right for the lay person. and that's all that was needed in the time I begrudge. Why break it because you've been brainwashed by some elitist academia mindset. Wholly inappropriate in these cultural pieces. WP:IAR when the need fits. When the guidelines get in the way, chuck them. I educated the visitor, that's my mission when I see stuff like this. The rest I agree needs in-universe fixups, but it ain't my article. I don't even check watchlists. See my banner. This discussion is why I stay scarce around here these days. Insane over reaching by a minority brow beating the whole. How many contributors has your overreaching driven away??? I wouldn't sleep too soundly thinking about THAT unpleasant reality. OWN IT, GROW FROM IT. Preach to someone else. // FrankB 05:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

My "religious convictions"? I don't have any. So, please take a breath or two. I don't mind swearing per se, but you did not engage in swearing, you engaged in unwarranted, unprovoked personal attacks; to which my reply, I think, rather mild.

I have no idea to what you refer, and have no time to look at diffs to figure out what you are misconstruing. I certainly never meant to give offense in article space, but firmly defend my right to opine when I suspect lack of follow up. In my universe such tags are ALWAYS an offense against the time I've invested in this project, and if used at all, need have expiration dates of no more than three months. So Clear?

... No, I don't object to there being (well-sourced, non-original-research) comparisons to Forester and Hornblower, but they don't belong in the lede, any more that a detailed character analysis would belong in the abstract of a paper.

S'cuse me but that's all Academic bullshit. I saw a need and fixed it. The perfect 'lead' in such an out-universe article is about 3,000 words, so stuff the MOS, it's too biased against cultural articles to bother laughing at, last I checked. I WRITE AND IMPROVE, PERIOD. DOT. You don't like way I improved it, fix it. Revert it. But stop nattering and ACTUALLY EDIT to IMPROVE THE PRODUCT, don't talk me to death! It's just something I knew something about like thousands of articles I've improved and the few I added. A moments 'weakness' in retrospect given this time waste.

As to using extensive in-universe, this is discouraged by the Manual of style for fiction, which states in part: Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference.

Asked and answered. IAR trumps MOS, always and forever since I got here. You want to dot the eyes and cross the tees, make the edit. THERE, not here.

... The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded. The section on "The problems with in-universe perspective" states: An in-universe perspective describes the narrative from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis. The threshold of what constitutes in-universe writing is making any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info. Many fan wikis and fan websites (see below) take this approach, but it should not be used for Wikipedia articles.

Boy you do gas on, don't you. Have you considered seeking professional help? Or can't you also comprehend 'IAR', meaning the perfect is the enemy of the good enough. I addressed the background for the stray reader in our universe's perspective. Fixing the whole is not my job or ambition. Take a look at the TOP of my talk page. Be grateful that I made ANY EDIT whatever. It's attitudes like yours and all the references to this and that will keep me from ever being a regular ever again. Got it yet? Or are you still a bit slow...?

... An in-universe perspective can be misleading, inviting unverifiable original research. Most importantly, in-universe perspective defies community consensus as to what we do not want Wikipedia to be or become." Now, I was trying to be both polite and quiet (doing it here instead of the talk page). Your overreaction speaks more about your mindset than mine, as do your uncalled for (and unwarranted) personal attacks. Rather than complain about my overreaching, perhaps you can spring for a mirror next time you decide to stick your head out into the sun? Bye. Magidin (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

In closing, the only thing I wrote that isn't readily verifiable in the works, is the Hornblower legacy. That's however well documented in early coverages and reviews, by the author himself, and so forth. OLD OLD news at this point, and no, I've no time to dig out cites or ever reply to you again. Fix it or leave it alone. CONTRIBUTE, don't preach about guidelines. I've never had ambitions to make admin, just to make things clear to others. I do that rather well. Most edits I've made stay the last until a bot comes along some weeks later. So I'm rather happy with what I've added. You clearly need to add some quality so you experience the same sense of fulfillment and can then, going forward, appreciate the difference. Yes, a thank you is in order. School is however out.

Best wishes, but I have faint hopes for you, FrankB 20:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and have some pierogi!

Pierogi Award

Thanks for your support of my RfA. It didn't succeed this time, but that's no reason not to have some nice pierogi. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)|} You're quite welcome... Bunch of idiots not using your diligence, skills, and dedication. You musta bin a Baaaad Baad Bad Boy. Yumm! Not quite the way me Mom or Aunties served them, but maybe I'll try it. (Tend to like the lightly sauted in butter, with or without cabbage or sauerkraut. NOW my mouth is watering!) Dammit, Piotr -- I was already hungry, now I'm hungrier! // FrankB 06:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for May 8 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Trainz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boolean (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for May 21 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cumberland, Maryland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Migration (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)