User:Vegaswikian/2006-12 Archive

Cities and towns in ItalyEdit

I have just come across an abandoned renaming nomination on Category:Cities in Italy. You seem to have completely misinterpreted the outcome of the debate at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_9#Category:Cities_and_towns_in_Italy, which was a unanimous decision to merge the cities in Italy and towns in Italy categories into Category:Cities and towns in Italy, as you speedy deleted it instead! Could I ask you to review this and carry out the merge now? Honbicot 04:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC-4)

I agree with Honbicot and just noticed this myself. There were three votes for "Rename and merge", and yet you listed the result as "Speedy delete". Could you please take another look? Thanks. --Elonka 05:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Ick, looks like a lot of manual work. I'm willing to help with that, via AWB... Which part should I start on, so as not to conflict with what you're doing? --Elonka 06:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Done with Cities. :) I noticed that in the new Category:Cities and towns in Italy, there are now several "paired" subcategories, like "Cities in Abruzzo" and "Towns in Abruzzo". Do those need to be merged too, or is that a separate issue? --Elonka 07:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the "umbrella nom", it seems to me that that's already been covered in the original version, which included A categorization scheme like Category:Cities and towns in Sicily, where towns/cities of all sizes are together should probably be adopted. If you agree, I'll fire up AWB and start on the work. --Elonka 16:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure either. I've gone ahead and added a question on the talk page of the user who proposed the merge in the first place, User_talk:AKeen, to see what s/he thinks. --Elonka 18:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I've moved this thread (and some other related messages) to Category_talk:Cities and towns in Italy, so we have one central location to figure this out. :) --Elonka 01:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Can you e-mail me off Wiki? MojaveNC 06:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

:Category:Women of Pakistan on deletion reviewEdit

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Women of Pakistan. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. In case you're wondering, the CFD you closed is here. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject GamblingEdit

Hi Vegaswikian, I thought you might like to consider participating in this project. Regards, Accurizer 21:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for your note, and I appreciate this is the case. But as Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name demonstrates, such moves are highly controversial and likely to be reverted in the absence of prior consensus. Fishhead64 05:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

List of casinosEdit

Hi, just thought I'd let you know that the anon user who you've been reverting on List of casinos (about changing the name of the Republic of Macedonia) is indef-banned User:Mywayyy and can be rolled back without regards to the 3RR if necessary. See User:FPaS/Mywayyy for background. Fut.Perf. 05:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

DL ShuttleEdit

Hi Vegaswikian - thanks for helping out with the Delta Shuttle page. The history section as I wrote it still could use some help with awkwardness. Anyway, do you plan to move the history section of US Airways Shuttle in the same way? Trevormartin227 17:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Freeway/motorway/whatever categoryEdit

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 16:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

limited access roadEdit

Please do not revert unless you have a reliable source that states unequivocally that the New York parkways were the first limited access roads. --SPUI (T - C) 20:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact tag you just added to freewayEdit

Actually, the source for that was in the section for freeways and expressways in the United States which SPUI recently moved to Types of road. Specifically, in 1939, California added Section 23.5 to its Streets and Highways Code, which in its original form read: "'Freeway' means a highway in respect to which the owners of abutting lands have no right or easement of access to or from their abutting lands or in respect to which such owners have only limited or restricted right or easement of access." The second paragraph of Section 23.5 about controlled-access highways was added a few years later. When I have the time I'll go look for the original Chapter Laws in the Statutes of California; I looked this up before at the law library but neglected to write down the volume and chapter numbers. --Coolcaesar 10:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Limited-access road (reply)Edit

I'm sorry that I am so late in replying (and therefore responding at your Talk as well as my Talk). I was not able to assist you, as SPUI had his chat friends block my account for reporting his repeated vandalism at WP:ANI, the usual place for reporting vandalism. Actually, I didn't notice (I was watching a movie), until I was blocked from updating the Cfd daily rollovers later that night.

I see that the page is protected, and you should be able to edit in peace. I'm afraid that I'm rather busy at the moment, as I have a couple of briefs due at the Court of Appeals. But at my earlier edits, you'll find a reasonable set of references that SPUI kept reverting, also conforming to WP:LAYOUT. The history really shouldn't be in the leading section, and the lede shouldn't have any references, as they belong in the body.

--William Allen Simpson 18:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Nevada State Historic PlacesEdit

Right now, I am sorely, sorely tempted to propose this template for deletion. It is probably one of the worst redlink farms I've seen in a while. Even if it was filled with blue link, the template is so big as to be practically useless, and farlonger than many articles it is added to (it is almost twice the lenght of Sedan (nuclear test)!). Maybe replacing it with a list linked from See also sections would be more useful, wiht eventually a category being created? Even if it was all blue links, I'd strongly advocate at the very least splitting it up somehow (by counties?). Circeus 22:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime, User:SPUI nominated it for deletion. As a template it remains useless, especially in its current state, which I why I'd recommend a list, which can still be used as a reference to create other articles, and has the advantage that it can be categorized and linked to more easily. Looks to me like List of Registered Historic Places in Nevada could use your input to, notably tocheck the identical places are linked correctly: U.S. Mint (Carson City, Nevada) seems to be the same as Carson City Mint. Circeus 22:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Imperial Palace Las VegasEdit

Hey Vegaswikian, here's something you can sink your teeth into, I found a conflict for the exact year that the Imperial Palace opened, See my discussion in Talk:Imperial Palace Hotel and Casino. Misterrick 03:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Windows categoriesEdit

Hey, thanks for working through the Microsoft Windows category to split it up better... it's been a long time coming. I'd originally gotten everything together into that category in the first place, and I'd already split off some of the articles into Microsoft APIs, so you could say it's a personal interest of mine. :-)

I'm thinking the categories should have the word Microsoft at the beginning of the ones that aren't themselves complete product names, e.g. "Microsoft Windows components", or perhaps even "Components of Microsoft Windows"? "Windows" in and of itself is ambiguous; it could theoretically refer to parts of a window... and while you and I certainly know better, we need to think in terms of the worldwide audience. Category:Windows XP etc. is fine because it's a trademarked name and is therefore not ambiguous. Anyways, something to mull over with your work. Thanks again. -/- Warren 22:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for categorising, due to the long-winded title, you may have overlooked something with the move of Architecture of the Windows NT operating system line out of Category:Microsoft Windows into Category:Windows NT, please can you assign it the additional categories Category:Windows 2000, Category:Windows XP, Category:Windows 2003, Category:Windows Vista.

--Widefox 23:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added more articles to your new Vista category. Thanks! Cwolfsheep 01:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


Alrighty, if that's the case, I'll stop editing them. I didn't notice that before, as I rarely edit airport/airline articles. Also, people around here in the Vancouver area almost always consider the airport to be in Richmond (not Vancouver). Thanks for bringing that to my attention. -→Buchanan-Hermit/?! 07:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a proposal for the change at Talk:Airline destinations, stating the reasons why I think it makes more sense for it to say "Vancouver/Richmond." -→Buchanan-Hermit/?! 07:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's more than location. It's also about economic impact. The airport's economic impact is most evident (besides Vancouver itself) for Richmond. -→Buchanan-Hermit/?! 08:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I rolled back all my edits for "Vancouver/Richmond," but if you catch an edit I missed during the mass rollback -- by all means... -→Buchanan-Hermit/?! 08:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:CFDS removalsEdit

When I delisted several highway related categories from WP:CFDS here it was without prejudice for them being relisted, as I but in the edit summaries like this one. At least one [1] of the ctegories was not properly tagged as well. Often when categories brought for speedy renaming get contested and delisted, the nominator does not want them relisted (as their intentions were to just fix a minor error, which apparently isn't so minor anymore). I have no personal opinion on these categories, and will not be participating in further debates on them, my only related interest is in keeping WP:CFDS a speedy process for when it applies. — xaosflux Talk 13:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


Could you remove the speedy delete template you've put on this article ? I've expanded it considerably. After removal of the template, I want to move it to Kurhaus (Scheveningen). JoJan 20:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


They're supposed to be capitalized since they are "California State Routes" (for example), not "California state routes". That renaming is definitely controversial. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighouse Elementary SchoolEdit

In regards to the following comment you made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighouse Elementary School:

  • Delete. Maybe the template needs to be modified or deleted also. Vegaswikian 00:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

To ensure it isn't missed in the shuffle, I will copy here the same comment I left for you on the AfD page:

  • Comment: What would you modify the template to get it to do? Note that this template is used by nearly 1000 articles, so I'm curious to see what your recommendation would be once it is deleted as you suggest. --Stephane Charette 01:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

(Cycling) domestiqueEdit

Hello, can you clarify your position on Talk:Cycling domestique at Wknight94's talk page? It reads like you were calling for the creation of the same article (cycling domestique) I wanted to have moved to domestique as the most common use of the term. The other uses you offered don't seem to be very common, according to a quick Google search. Thanks. ~ trialsanderrors 18:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for moving Cone (solid)Edit

Hi Vegaswikian, thanks for moving Cone (solid) to Cone (geometry)! --Swift 17:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi, just wondering about the recent merging of the SKYCITY Auckland and other SKYCITY properties. How was it decided to merge instead of expanding the individual articles? Also, why has SKYCITY Adelaide remained as a seperate stub? I am quite happy to expand the individual casino articles (having created some of them) if there is some sort of minimum length necessary to be individualised. ta --Scottbeck 18:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Water EatonEdit

Please see my response to your comment. -- Roleplayer 23:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz discussionEdit

Please join the new discussion at: "Paid to edit" dialogue -- MyWikiBiz 05:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Salisbury MallEdit

I didn't start this article, but I think I probably made the last edit on it before it was deleted. It was obviously very short, but it was flagged as a stub, and I think eventually someone would have tried to expand it. Could you please restore it? TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


what's with nominating every windsor building for deletion? Raccoon FoxTalkStalk 22:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:State route naming conventions pollEdit

I looked over the page and the talk page. If you believe that you are still two short, then yes I would be willing. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Want your OpinionEdit

Vegaswikian... I'm looking for your opinion. I just had a bit of a revert fest with on the US Airways article. Do you think I went overboard? —Cliffb 04:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks -- I don't like having to continually revert, but well, sometimes you have no choice... Any comments on the fleet chart ideas? —Cliffb 05:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Leaders of cities..." categoriesEdit

I noticed that you had been changing these categories to "Mayors of places...". I was wondering: Are you going to have a bot go around and delete these out, or was somebody going to manually delete them? Also, was this the result of a CfR? Thanks. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 21:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

T-Bones Chophouse and LoungeEdit

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Madchester 23:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Beto O'Rourke ArticleEdit

Hi, I saw you edited a catagory on the Beto O'Rourke article. Just curious, are you from El Paso, Texas? Somnabot 06:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply on queryEdit

re: You voted under 'Votes in support of Principle II' but your comments seem to say that you support 'Principle I'. Am I misreading your comments or did you really intend to support 'Principle I'? Principle I has the state name first. Vegaswikian 23:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Maybe I could have phrased things better... that was a long read... so was in a hurry. I've been all over the place between five sister projects doing interwiki connections, and ran into a code bug that's killed my progress.
       If I had it right, the common name starts the article title, so requires the parenthetical disambig [assuming there are collisions], and also assuming one does not use additional articles like '... of ...'.
       I'd favor that, but it's hair-splitting versus '... (Massachusetts)'. A one char difference in length.
  • All due respect to all the participants, but this kind of debate only goes on because someone won't compromise, so I'm not going to get too excited by someone being emotional and acting out over nits. Redirects handle how many ever permutations one can envision... End story, time to edit somewhere else.
  • If I have the logic wrong, let me know, ASAP, and I'll fix my vote, but II seems to comply best with NAMCON conventions overall, and putting the object early in the title makes the best sense for searching readers.

Hope that helps. Best regards // FrankB 23:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Official Seal SortingEdit

Wow did you do all those by hand? Thanks for that! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean about the edit summary box. Doesn't your browser have an autofill feature? I find myself using that a lot! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Las Vegas MonorailEdit

Sorry my mistake wrong page I fixed Betacommand 19:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

LV strip / resolutionEdit


Hmm, strange one, I'm currently using 1280x1024, and have experienced the problem on both IE6, IE7 and Netscape 7 & 8. The edits to the LV Strip page were made with IE7. Reducing the size of the window removes the problem (obviously). johnwalton (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate where you're coming from, but, if the image code is clumped together at the beginning of the page (or after a title) the page renders fine in all browsers. It's not a huge issue really. johnwalton (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Creating sub categories for cleanupEdit

Since it was your idea, I figured I'd run this by you. Check this out when you get a chance. Thanks. --Kbdank71 21:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you created 2006-10 and 11. You really might want to check out the link above again (and the discussion on my talk page), I'm fairly certain this idea has hit the skids. Apparently by substing the templates, it breaks the bots, and without substing it, the monthly thing doesn't work. --Kbdank71 20:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Mesa Air Group/Mesa AirlinesEdit

I noticed you had a hand in the creation/editing of these pages. I'm doing some research and finding magazine and newspaper articles to fill in the history of this airline and its subsidiaries. So I don't know if I can just go right in and start editing or if I should edit in consultation with you.

Also re the Mesa Airlines and Mesa Air Group - I wanted to get your opinion since you moved the history from Mesa Airlines to Mesa Air Group a few months ago - I learned in my research that Mesa Air Group didn't exist until 1995, so I was wondering if I should put the history prior to 1995 on the Mesa Airlines page? or just all in the Air Group page and leave the individual subsidiaries to their own page or even several subsidiaries on a page called subsidiares of Mesa Air Group. Thanx Skysailor 01:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much for your help and for looking over the MAG page. I wasn't sure if I was supposed to answer on my talk page or post on yours, so I posted on yours. I'm slowly making progress on the MAG page, and trying to figure out how to layout the remaining info as well as figuring out how to put in my references, I have some info about MesaMax which is Mesa's indigenous Frequent Flyer program for the non-codeshare flights. I saw the preferred layout on the airline wikiproject page - I guess I will reformat the Mesa Air Group page to that format and then after that page is done as close as I can get it I guess I will start redoing the component airlines and former airlines. Do you know if I should do each defunct airline on its own page? It seems like a waste actually I don't think I have enough info to write much more than a stub on the defunct ones. Do you have any comments on what I've done so far?Thanx Skysailor 01:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

CAT:CSD hint removalEdit

I noticed you removed from my suggestion message with the following edit summary:

admins patrolling new pages does not reduce this backlog and this is a task any editor can do. Admins only reviewing this page leaves them more time to focus on the problems reducing the backlog

You are right, it doesn't reduce the backlog but it helps prevent it from growing. New page patrollers whom are not admins increase the backlog, new page patrollers which are admins stop most of the backlog from growing in the first place, which I consider to be more effective than dealing with the backlog already created by non-admins. What do you think? (I have re-added the message)--Andeh 16:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I am specifically only talking about Articles for speedy deletion, and of course admins don't have to do it, but I have noticed very few admins do new page patrolling and I have spoken with other admins agreeing with me on that. An admin new page patrolling would stop the source of the backlog, instead of reducing the current backlog. If only several admins did this at all time, the backlog would always be small. And not doing new page patrolling assumes non-admins catch all these articles.
I added that notice simply to try and get more admins new page patrolling as very few ever actually do it.--Andeh 19:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, your an admin yourself, you gotta be more bold! :) Admins don't need a second opinion do they? As long as you know WP:CSD well, then there shouldn't be a problem.--Andeh 19:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, deleting articles on the same minute they are created is a bit 'sudden'. If you left an explanation on the authors talk page straight after giving a reason then I don't think it would be too much of a big deal. But you'd have to learn all the article creation templates (unless you want to leave a custom message every time), and leave the message, all of which take that bit more time for every article you come across. Definitely need some tools to make the process easier.
I do understand why your not too happy speedying articles in confidence, because if admins decisions are questioned they are expected to know everything everytime!--Andeh 19:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Tunnel ratsEdit

Please don't revert without explanation unless removing vandalism or other obviously destructive edits. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Boot Hill (disambiguation) formatEdit

I reverted your edit on Boot Hill (disambiguation). The base name should be first; see WP:MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic. Cheers! -- JHunterJ 12:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The Children of Men(film)Edit

On 02-Oct, you added a {{rfd}} tag to The Children of Men(film). However, you never listed this redirect at WP:RFD. If you still wish to nominate this redirect for deletion, please complete your nomination. The instructions are listed at WP:RFD. If you don't list it within a reasonable time, I'll assume you don't wish to proceed and remove the tag. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 17:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Pardon. I misread the edit summaries. -- JLaTondre 22:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Fleet Table- US AirwaysEdit

The fleet tables look better the way I laid them out. The majority of airline tables have this table. I am changing it once again.

Fort HoodEdit

> moved Fort Hood, Texas to Fort Hood: The article is about the fort. The CDP overlaps the fort and is of no
> significance about the name. It is a better name when listed in categories as it is much less confusing and accurate

Hi! I have two concerns here. The first concern is that when the next census-bot updates the census-related data, it will create a new article named, of course, "Fort Hood, Texas". For this reason, I think it would be best for this article to have the original name. If other bases have other CDP names, then that is another matter.

My second concern is that there is a considerable difference between the CDP and the legal boundaries of Fort Hood; the CDP apparently only covers the main cantonment ("the CDP has a total area of 38.8 km² (15.0 mi²)"), while the legal boundaries enclose an area the size of a small county (it takes about 20 or so minutes to drive east-west, and also 20 or so minutes to drive north-south, which is oonsiderably more than 15 square miles). I changed the wording of the initial paragraph to indicate that the CDP only covers the main cantonment.

--Scott McNay 04:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The first concern should be addressed by the bot. It needs to be upgraded to deal with this real case. Your second concern actually supports the rename. Since the base is larger then the CDP it should be the main article. Maybe the solution here is to not combine the CDP with the fort? I'm begining to like that idea. Since they are two differnt places why not have two articles? Vegaswikian 05:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
No, one is a subset of the other; there should be one article. There is too little CDP data for a full article, I think. I already have concerns about the bot-created text; if editors have changed and rearranged the bot-created text, how is the bot supposed to recognize it and know what to change when the new census data comes out? I think they should have used a template for that, so that all the bot would have to do is find the template and rewrite it.
Is there a standard naming convention for cities? If "Fort Hood" is closer to the standard than "Fort Hood, Texas", then that is how it should be left, and the bot should check for the shortened name if the longer does not exist. I don't know how it would handle the case of multiple cities with the same name, though. --Scott McNay 04:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there is a standard for 'city' names in the US. Basically it is 'place name', 'state'. With exceptions. You are right in that editors are modifying the bot created data. They are not aware of the possible problems this might cause. Part of the problem with the bot is that it treated a CDP as a city for the article name. Personally I don't think we should be worring about the bot. In the future, it will need to get smarter. So the solution is what is best for the encylopedia today. If two articles are right then that's the best way to go, the overhead is small. The question is, is that the best solution? I know that it is an option, but I don't know if it is the best one. For the Fort Hood article I'm convinced that the primary focus of the article is the base so that should be the name. The CDP is secondary. I guess there will be other cases where this will not be the case.
From a category point of view, I would like to see Fort Hood listed in the military categories and a Fort Hood, Texas on the place (cities) articles. Vegaswikian 05:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, the CDP is no more than an administrative decision on the part of the Census Bureau, and should be treated that way. In any event, it's a bit late to divvy them up again. I see your point, but it seems to me like an artificial distinction to have them divided. --Scott McNay 01:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

HERO Propaganda on Go! articlesEdit

Hi, I'd like to get your opinion on what has been happening with some of the Mesa/go! related articles, as I've seen you working around a lot of the airline-related articles. Recently a couple of users (Mokulele and an anonymous IP, possibly the same person?) have started adding rather long excerpts from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin's article on the bankruptcy judge's decision on Hawaiian's injunction request against Mesa. I'm wondering if they are a bit long for a fair-use excerpt and might be treading into copyright violation territory. I also wonder how appropriate it is to have them on the articles of the executives George Murnane III and Jonathan G. Ornstein. Personally, I'd be inclined to try and keep the details of all of the controversy surrounding go! (Hawaiian Air lawsuit, HERO, etc.) onto the go! article itself, or even have a separate article for it, with perhaps a brief mention as appropriate on individual executives articles. -- Hawaiian717 15:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, your cleanup of go! (airline) looks great (it looks like you may still be tweaking as I write this--it looks good so far). I like how you condensed the lawsuit info into the general History section, leaving just the essential facts. I think part of the problem is that any time there's some sort event that occurs over a long time, there is a tendency to want to go in and add the latest bit whenever something happens, leading to a play-by-play timeline rather than the essential bits appropriate for an encyclopedia article. And then of course there are the POV problems. I don't think HERO having its own article is warranted, though it may be worth noting, similar to how the similar group formed at Atlantic Coast Airlines when Mesa tried to take over them is noted. -- Hawaiian717 19:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ta for the moveEdit

I am going to assume you support my proposal to move Expanded earth theory because you went ahead and did it! I'm slowly adding to it and S. Warren Carey's articles so check it out if you are so inclined. Fred.e 22:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Airport InfoboxEdit

I notice you'd added stubs for some of the airports in Nevada approximately a week ago. While it is very greatly appreciated, I noticed that most of them do not have airport infoboxes. I'm sure you're undoubtedly aware of where you can find the template, but just in case, you can find it here. I've listed them under "Airports needing infoboxes", so there's no need to add them if you don't feel so inclined. Thanks! :) thadius856talk 20:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Page moveEdit

Since you participated in the last survey, just a couple months ago, you may be interested to know there is yet another proposal to move Los Angeles, California. Jonathunder 05:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

My thanks and compliments for being so level-headed and up-to-date on that discussion; what with all the billions of opinions flying and all. —ScouterSig 15:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to freewayEdit

Please read WP:USSH. Since the context is clear, the link should be to State Route 15 (Ohio). Thank you. --NE2 20:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Four words after that link is a link to Delaware, Ohio; the context is clear. --NE2 20:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Mine is also with how it reads. Since the context is clear in this case, there is no need to add the extra Ohio.
By the way, do you have any citations for the fact that freeways in Ohio are different from freeways elsewhere? If not, I might just remove that entire section as original research. --NE2 20:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks about Erwin HouseEdit

Glad you caught this one! Usually I do create disambig pages for these sorts of cases, but didn't realize it needed one. Good on you. :) -Ebyabe 12:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: Shanghai University CleanupEdit

I've been keeping my eye on this page. Some obviously non-native English speaker has been adding extensively to this page since it was started. It's pretty rough, and he/she keeps adding poorly formed content, but I've been at least trying to clean the English as it goes (I don't know anything about the subject itself)... --nathanbeach 14:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Categorization duplicationEdit

Hi, I notice you've been removing categories from bridge articles. There is a long standing consensus that articles with eponymous categories should be put in both the eponymous category and any other categories where the topic belongs. This will mean that Suspension bridge will be in Category:Suspension bridges (piped with a space to the top of the list) and also put in Category:Bridges. The duplication created by also putting articles in their eponymous categories is specifically mentioned as an exception at Wikipedia:Categorization. I'm reverting most of the changes you made. If you have any questions about this, please contact me on my talk page. -- Samuel Wantman 16:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I gave you the wrong link. I should have said "The duplication created by also putting articles in their eponymous categories is specifically mentioned as an exception at Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories." Perhaps it should also be mentioned specifically at Wikipedia:Categorization. -- Samuel Wantman

The whole point of categories is to make it easy to browse through Wikipedia. In the case of Category:bridges, the sub-categories contain articles about specifice bridges and the articles are about the types of bridges. It is useful to have them both in the category. It is also useful to have the eponymous article about each type in the category for each type. So the duplication is helpful. -- Samuel Wantman 18:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

York-Adams Area CouncilEdit

Why did you delete the page? It wasn't listed for deletion ... I was trying to move it to Camp Tuckahoe.

--evrik 03:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It was supposed to have its history merged with Camp Tuckahoe, York-Adams Area Council, Boy Scouts of America and then moved to Camp Tuckahoe. TimBentley (talk) 04:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Pittsburgh shopping mall category helpEdit

I noticed you had made changes to some Pittsburgh area shopping mall pages. I noticed a problem with the Pgh shopping mall category. At the bottom of every mall tagged in the Pgh Shopping Mall category is the list of all the malls in the area. One mall, however, listed in the Pittsburgh Central is not in Pittsburgh. In fact, it is in Seattle - University District. I'm not a Wiki wizard and have no clue how to delete it. Any help?? You can scope it out by going to the Ross Park Mall page and looking at the yellow box at the bottom. Thanks!!

Bobbo 17:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

MCE/VIS serviceEdit

It's EAS-subsidized service - you've got to pull up the EAS dockets available at The contract for those two cities, along with ELY, was recently awarded to Air Midwest. FCYTravis 21:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been our longstanding policy that we don't list domestic direct flights - only non-stop service. There is no non-stop service on WN from LAS-DAL. Has our policy changed? The projected start dates are in the docket. FCYTravis 00:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
If we start listing direct Southwest flights, we might as well just list every WN destination at every city. There won't be much point in a destination list. I don't think we should list any domestic direct destination. Just non-stops. FCYTravis 00:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Why would DAL get a free pass? Why would we confuse readers by showing their direct flights and not the others? What's the hurry? Just list 'em as non-stop when they become non-stop a few years down the road. FCYTravis 00:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


This notice is to inform you that there is a new discussion open on the Yogurt/Yoghurt debate. Please visit Talk:Yogurt#Requested move revisited and consider participating. Thank you. —Mets501 (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hospital Emergency Codes.Edit

Thanks. The suggested merging was the next step, but I hadn't got around to it. Or to chasing up more usage and citing. Duggy 1138 08:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clean-up, etc, as well.
Duggy 1138 09:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)



Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.

Thanks!Eli Falk 10:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wendy Whoppers breast implants citeEdit

You stuck a "cite" tag onto "with the aid of large breast implants" in that article. Now for most biographies, I agree, that the fact that someone has had breast implants could be a controversial or even defamatory issue that should requires detailed reliable citation. However for Wendy Whoppers that's a bit like needing a citation for the sky being blue. :-) Even if they weren't her main claim to fame, more to the point, you will notice that the very next paragraph is dedicated to historical and technical details about the breast implants, and it is cited from two different sources. I propose that those citations should more than suffice for that one as well. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


Hi, Vegaswikian. Thanks for the good-faith changes to the Mohegan article. Unfortunately, this page has a copyright violation box on it. (It's my fault that the copyvio box was below the fold and hard to see. I've moved it to the top of the page, now.)

Save yourself possible wasted effort by not making any more changes to that page, but please come back when it's resolved (or, if you're ambitious, follow instructions in the box on how to write a new article to replace the current one.) If interested, see the Talk:Mohegan page for more information about the alleged copyright violation. Mathglot 22:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Mohegan SunEdit

Regarding the "See also"s in this article, "Put here, in a bulleted list, other articles in the Wikipedia that are related to this one." Mohegan is linked in the History section (Mohegan Tribe -> Mohegan) and I think it's sufficiently notable to include the See also section. And Mohegan Sun is a casino listed in List of casinos, so I think it's a natural fit to include that one too.

Also, while I didn't add them, I think the external links you deleted add significantly to the article too. The Mohegan Tribe is a key part of the casino's existence and style, and while the link is undoubtably in the Mohegan article, I believe it's logical to have it here as an official, very related website. And the Wolf 104.7 radio station external link is mentioned in the introduction paragraph and infobox as signature attractions in the facility. While the link is at the WMOS article, it seems reasonable to include it here as well. Balsa10 11:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Black lawyersEdit

On your change of cat for Black Lawyers (from "Lawyers" to "American Lawyers") I would make the same point I would make when someone suggested a rename to "African American lawyers" - viz., a number of the people on the list (Fidelis Oditah, Dancia Penn) are not American. We must resist systematic bias... Legis 10:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I follow you entirely. This category has been the subject of an ideological tug of war since it was created. Personally, I am in favour of deleting the category now. I would never have created it if I had known what a can of worms I was opening at the time. Legis 10:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

New Cork voteEdit

There is a new move request and survey regarding Cork. This time it is proposed to move Cork to Cork (city) in order to move Cork (disambiguation) to Cork. You are being informed since you voted in the last Cork survey. See Talk:Cork. --Serge 07:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Black lawyersEdit

I don't understand this edit. CFD says that you should not remove articles from a cat while it is under discussion. Based on the fact that the argument is being made in the CFD discussion that "black" is not the same as "Afican American" it seems wrong to remove articles from the category that are not African Americans. After all, if the category is deleted, and someone comes along the next day and recreates such a category, with "African American lawyers", "Afro-Trinidadian lawyers", "Black British lawyers" and "African lawyers" as subcats, someone will come along and speedy the cat as "recreation of deleted material". By removing everything that doesn't fit the definition of "African American", aren't you short-circuiting the discussion? Guettarda 15:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


Since barristers (and solicitors) are both types of lawyers (both Category:Barristers and Category:Solicitors are subcats of Category:Lawyers by type, I don't know if there's a problem. Also, with regards to Ellis Clarke, since barristers and solicitors ceased to exist in the 1980s, I don't know if he should really be in Category:Barristers. Guettarda 19:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Editor review/Ling.NutEdit


I have been a heavy-duty contributor to Wikipedia talk:Schools (some would say far too much.) I would be honored to hear the opinions, pro and con, whether we agree or not, of anyone who has participated in this discussion, about my Wikipedia:Editor review/Ling.Nut. In fact, con opinions are almost more welcome than pro (though pro certainly make me feel better), 'cause I am very interested in evolving in ways that will help Wikipedia.

Thanks --Ling.Nut 04:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

A Descriptive HeaderEdit

I'm just here to suggest that Category:Red links for speedy deletion be renamed to Category:Broken redirects for speedy deletion, since The weather in London is a redlink, whereas broken redirects (like Wooran) are quite different. I was going to do it myself but thought it might be nice to see what you thought first. -- Steel 15:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I definitely think the cat is a good idea. Anyway, I'll change everything to the new name later. -- Steel 13:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


  The Original Barnstar
For your hard work and dedication to improving Wikipedia, I, Sharkface217, hereby award you this Original Barnstar. Good job! Sharkface217 18:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

John WhiteleggEdit

Can you please elaborate why you deleted the category:transportation from the entry John Whitelegg, thanks -- Mario J Alves 18:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The Tunnel RatsEdit

Hey there, I was searching around the net and stumbled upon an outdated wiki link to the Tunnel Rats, it appears you were the admin who deleted the article. I'd like to request it be reinstated. I am currently researching underground culture in Sydney and these guys are one of the biggest urbex crews in the country with over 2,000 members (which for a niche group is pretty large). Furthermore, I was wondering whether there was any contact information on the page so I can get in touch with them? But yeah, to cut to the point, it wasn't even an article created by them, but by an apparent fan from what I can see on the 'tunnel rat' history page (which had a link to 'the tunnel rats' in disambig). Thanks. 06:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, just realised, it's further worth noting the third largest Australian urbex group is still listed, Cave Clan, yet the main group was deleted. From my reading TR have had numerous news paper and TV media articles, interviews, et cetera and are pretty much -the- spokesman organisation for going places one normally doesn't. 06:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Whilst I understand your reasoning, I'm inclined to disagree that the organisation is not-notable. Anything that has made news is a worthy article. Given that secondary and tertiary groups of identical basis are listed would indicate that the primary source of a fringe sport like urban exploration, that is linked to by many other urbex oriented groups and pages on Wiki, would be kind of redundant. Furthermore the deletion of this article has caused many broken links ON wikipedia. Thus, as the group is notable, as the group consists of two thousand plus members, as the group has the primary web presense as far as tunnel exploration goes per google, as the group has made news and media appearances promoting a fringe element sport which is avidly followed by many university students and others and as it has caused a disruption to research and the Wikipedia projects links to the article, I'd like to request it be reinstated. I'm desperate to get my hands on the information in it also. As an aside, I've thought of making an account, but I don't contribute often enough, I primarily use wiki as a source for my research work though. But don't contribute as much as I should. :( 09:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The deletion of the tunnelrats on wiki is of great dismay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freak1982 (talkcontribs)

Requesting comments on link in Evergreen articleEdit

As a previous contributor to the article on Evergreen International Aviation, could I request your input on the talk page on whether it should contain a link to the corresponding SourceWatch article? With thanks, --Neoconned 12:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The Alumni thingEdit

While I think your tweek of the alumni thing (consistent with the other opinions on the talk page) makes sense in that it would be more rational, we need this proposal to get accepted by a decent fraction of the more inclusive editors as well. In order to do that, I think a broad alumni inclusion criterion would make sense. 05:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the laughEdit

Nice edit history -- I can just see it now, the old US Airways management: "you mean the planes don't come with passengers built in?" —Cliffb 06:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Class projectEdit

Could you expand/clarify what you mean here? Is some other institution writing the article or what? JoshuaZ 06:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, and talking in all caps too. Interesting. JoshuaZ 06:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

America West AirlinesEdit

In changing the cat to defunct I merely followed the lead of the article and the entry on List of defunct airlines, as well as the fact that it is not listed in the List of airlines. All the rest of us must be wrong, imagine that. If you are sure - change the lists too. Ardfern 23:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi, you voted Strong oppose in the rename question. When you get a chance, can you take a look at the followup? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 02:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

AFD for Airline destinationsEdit

Someone nominated airline destinations for afd again. Thought you might be interested. DB (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

World War II crimesEdit

You placed {{unsigned|Cbrown1023}} beside a comment that I did not make on that page. I have removed this but please try to make sure that you are putting the right name next time. Thanks, Cbrown1023 20:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sands MacauEdit

Please don't revert what I added on the topic of Sands Macau WITHOUT ANY REASON. I got more info and will add more later on.Guia Hill 04:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Your explantion is not good enough! to add a tag of expand doesn't mean it is a GOOD reason to take it out. Guia Hill 04:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


I'd like to send you an email but your email isn't active. JoshuaZ 18:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Largest Hotel?Edit

Hi, just wondering about the {{fact}} tag and your edit summary in the "Largest" section of Hotel. The reference in the next sentence, which is from a Malaysian newspaper, has the name of the hotel, cites its 6,118 rooms, and says that it is featured in Ripley's Believe It or Not as the world's largest. Do you mean that there are some WP:RS issues with the source, or something else? Best, --MCB 06:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I missed your Talk page post since there was one immediately after in my watchlist. I didn't know that the MGM Grand had surpassed the First World. I'd personally accept a press release from a very well-known company (esp. a publicly-traded one, since that adds regulatory and compliance constraints), but I don't know if it technically meets WP:RS. But if MGM Grand added rooms to make it the largest, it should be all over the press, no? I knew they were building the additional Signature towers but I didn't know they were open yet. Your question of "what do we mean by largest? is a good one -- I guess traditionally it has been the number of rooms, but even then, do you count the whole complex together (giving MGM Grand the 6,852, which is what's in its infobox in the MGM Grand article)? At one point, the largest hotel in the article was the Ambassador City Jomtien in Thailand, which I wrote an article about, but it was apparently a complex of sorts and now has apparently been split up. It's a crazy business! Best, --MCB 06:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


This category has been created and deleted before and I have proposed it for deletion again. Almost all articles will fall into both this and Category:Law enforcement, so I see no need for the existence of both categories. -- Necrothesp 15:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

National Airlines (N7)Edit

Regarding your question about National's airline codes, according to Flight Simulator's AFCAD, the airline's codes were 'N7', 'ROK', and 'Red Rock'. I don't know if that was any help? However, I have also never heard of 'NAN' and 'Nation Air' according to the Web site you posted. Sox23 22:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Does Flight Sim show any calls for the previous two airlines?  Vegaswikian 22:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No, but downloaded aircraft from Web site have "RED ROCK" in the ATC Callsign infobox Sox23 23:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Masts for deletionEdit

Hello. As the closing admin, I'm notifying the most active contributors to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of North Carolina Tower Chapel Hill, which has now been closed, in case they want to take any action about it. Best, Sandstein 12:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Cat:Fine diningEdit

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fine dining, inspired by your opinion on CfD. Thx. - crz crztalk 16:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Cities and stylesEdit

I only sort of understand your recent comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/U.S. convention change (November 2006). Can you clarify? Part of the issue, it seems, turns on whether one sees the City, State as disambiguation or not. Or maybe I'm missing your point. You also made a similar point (I think) in an earlier response. I didn't really understand that, either, but didn't want to protract that discussion. I'm sure it's a simple idea, but I don't think I get it. --Ishu 20:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I can't say I'm on board, but I understand what you're trying to do.
I do think there's a case for a separate U.S. policy, and if you'll indulge me, I'd like to sketch it out for you.
  • As the 3rd largest country, the U.S. has many more places than most countries.
  • In EN:WP (the "native language" version of WP for the U.S.), the U.S. arguably has the most places and most potential places. (Only India could challenge this designation; though it has 3x more people, it has only 1/3 land mass.)
  • Place names have much greater redundancy than most other WP entities.
  • Place names utilize a system of disambiguation that is consistent and familiar to many people through the postal service, publications, and many other sources.
  • Comma-delimited disambiguation is common throughout the English-speaking world.
Something like this. I'd appreciate any feedback. thanks! --Ishu 21:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What's broken?Edit

I've agreed to let things cool off on the talk page so I'm not responding there. If you're asking what is functionally broken with the current guideline, that's a nonsensical question - how can any naming convention or guideline break something functionally? So, if that's the sense in which you're asking it, the question is rhetorical, and pointless.

To illustrate, let's assume the convention is something blatantly whacky: the name of the city written backwards, a dash, and then the zip code of city hall. So San Francisco would be at something like (making up zip code) OcsicnarF naS-94000. Say you were opposed to that convention/guideline, and I asked you what was broken about it? The point is, as absurd and crazy as that convention would be, there would still be nothing broken about it. It would work, particularly since San Francisco would redirect to OcsicnarF naS-94000, just as San Francisco currently redirects to San Francisco, California. And, just as the common name is clarified in the intro sentence now, it would be then. So, in the sense that putting San Francisco at OcsicnarF naS-94000 is "not broken", putting it at San Francisco, California is also not broken. So what? I hope you're not thinking that the fact that it's not "broken" in that sense is somehow a reason to not change it.

The only sense in which City, State is broken is in the same sense that BackwardsCityName-Zip would be broken: they contradict Wiki-wide article naming conventions and guidelines, particularly use the most common name; disambiguate only when necessary. That would be the only argument to use against the hypothetical BackwardsCityName-Zip guideline/convention, and it is the only argument to use against the City, State guideline/convention. --Serge 21:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Gambling userboxEdit

Hi Vegaswikian, I created code that can be added to your userpage to create a userbox if you wish, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Gambling/Userbox. I used a subpage instead of creating a template to keep away from the userbox debate. Regards, Accurizer 15:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Undelte Thurber Engineering Ltd.Edit

Hi, I would like to request that Thurber Engineering Ltd. be undeleted. I created the article because I found the founding members intriguing, and because it is one of the early engineering geology companies in British Columbia. The article was not "clearly written to promote a company", and I had barely started it when it was tagged and deleted. This article content is no different than the articles listed in "Category:Engineering companies". I do not work for the company, nor do I want to. Please revise the contributions of the article creator before deciding if they are creating SPAM and deleting their work. Thanks. +mwtoews 00:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for adding page and link! Postcard Cathy 04:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Entry to serviceEdit

Someone keeps editing Entry To Service to the form of Entry Into Service. Which one do you believe is correct?--Golich17 15:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: New London disambiguation pageEdit

Hi. You seem to be under the impression that the proposal to move "New London" to "New London (disambiguation)" so that "New London" can be redirected to "New London, Connecticut" is something related to how city articles are named. Can you clarify why you believe that is? There are many cases where the unqualified name redirects to the city article because of it is considered as a primary topic. This particular discussion is about whether or not the city in Connecticut is significant enough to merit this. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 15:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


  The Original Gladys Holiday Greeting
For your hard work, insighful opinions and overall contribution to Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow, I hereby award you this Thank You, along with my sincere hope that you have a wonderful holiday season.

james.lebinski 18:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:United Methodist bishops by U.S. StateEdit

Hi, I see that at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 12#Category:United_Methodist_bishops_by_U.S._State you recommended keeping the area categories, and deleting the state categories. I thought that it might be useful to point out that this would mean keeping 32 categories for 55 artcles, an average of less than 2 articles per category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you keep live CFD discusions on your watchlist, so I hope you'll forgive me for drawing the attention of all participants in the CFD to some counting I did on how many bishop-by-area categories we would end up with if all the possible categories were fully populated. My estimate (see my comment marked "some counting" is between 100 and 200 categories for 569 bishops, which seems to me to be a navigation nightmare. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi again, thanks for your latest reply, to which I replied on my talk. Since then, I have discovered another category created by PW which I think satisfies both our concerns, so I have reposted below my comment on it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think we have a solution: Category:United Methodist bishops by Jurisdiction, which PW created a week ago, with a very useful explanation of how it works. This divides UM bishops into five groups, which seems to be a very useful level of sub-division: much better the than the hundreds of cats which would have eventually been created in Category:United Methodist bishops by Episcopal Area. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New day transclude for WP:CFDEdit

Hi there ... for the past few months I've been doing the new day transclude at WP:CFD. This isn't a big deal, since midnight UTC happens around 4pm my time. However, as of tomorrow morning I'm leaving on a trip for a couple of weeks, expect to be back on the 30th. I'll probably still be around from time to time, they have the internet, even in Denver ... but I don't think I'll be able to do the new date thing again until I return. And I thought I'd let a few people know in advance, so people aren't waiting around for me to do it, or wondering why I stopped. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Austin HedgesEdit

if Austin Hedges is a notable leader of a notable movement, then how is he not notable for wikipedia? there are plenty of pages for documented leaders of underground movements.Straightxedge 00:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Austin HedgesEdit

Does it meet the standards? Austin has had important interviews in 2 films that have a "cult following" within the undergroud subculture of Straight Edge, so i would say so.Straightxedge 05:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on Wikipedia:AlumniEdit

Thank you for your comment on Wikipedia:Notable Alumni. I have posted a response. Since the item has been moved from the Village Pump, I thought I'd alert you to the continuing discussion. Thesmothete 16:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

ATA TemplateEdit

I believe the format is correct, and if it isn't, this template is alot easier to use. The way it is is fine.--Golich17 23:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did not know it would do that. But, I think we should add a space when an airline name cuts off to the next line using a 15' monitor, as that is the standard size. I am aware of course that that size isn't the only size, as I do have a 17' screen for my laptop im using currently, but since the most common size is 15', we should accomodate the standard needs.--Golich17 00:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, well I have been editing these changes to many of the same types of templates that I have created, as I have replaced many of the "Airlines of Country" templates with a similar version like the ATA template.--Golich17 00:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
It'd be more useful to talk about resolutions than monitor sizes. You can set your resolution manually to see what it might look like on a lower resolution monitor. --Matt 00:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
You guys think like Americans...yes, 15 inch may be the norm in the US (and I'd even argue that), but keep in mind lots of other places in the world are a good 5 to 10 years behind the US, and we have a world-wide readership. Akradecki 01:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Reason for blankingEdit

I am trying to move the House episode to take over this disambiguation page as the other two names have no article on them. They will be more noticed if they are on a page that has information on it. In other words, this extra page is unneeded.
Blindman shady 00:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Airlines structureEdit


There is currently a discussion at Talk:Singapore Airlines#Fleet Box on the structure of the article on Singapore Airlines. Since you wrote the first version of the WikiProject Airlines structure guide (diff) it would be interesting have your input in the discussion. --Oden 10:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)