• Link to the 2006 (2nd half) Archives of this page
• Link to the 2007 (1st half) Archives of this page
• Link to the 2007 (2nd half) Archives of this page
• Link to the 2008 (1st half) Archives of this page
• Link to the 2008 (2nd half) Archives of this page
• Link to the 2009 (1st half) Archives of this page
• Link to the 2009 (2nd half) Archives of this page

Hi, I reverted your edit to the article on the Battle of Thermopylae ass it left the maps illegible. WP:Accessibility#Images states "When possible, do not force oversizing of images that override the default user preferences. Some users need to configure their systems to display large text; forced large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult". However the manual of style also states that

A picture may benefit from a size other than the default... Examples where adjusting the size may be appropriate include, but are not limited to, the following:... Images containing important detail (for example, a map, diagram, or chart may contain important text that would be unreadable at the default size)".

— own emphasis added

In this instance, forcing the image size was important. Each image needs to be assessed before the size is decided on. Please bear in mind how the detail of an image will be effected when changing how it is displayed. Happy editing, Nev1 (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they are that much more readable at 300px (which I use as my default), so people will still click on them. But I see no need to oppose your reversal of my change. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there,
Thought you might like to know the info about the Australian Government "perceptions" was already in the article just above where you put it! Whoops too late, it's been reverted by another editor already! ;)--220.101.28.25 (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Where are we at? 220.101.28.25 and you were both doing some work. I also did a major layout change (back to how it was months ago layout wise only and I am on the fence about it) but things are confused now. Can you let me know what you meant and meant not to do? Cptnono (talk) 10:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society/Archives/01/2010#In use/remodeling template

I noticed you had reverted one of my edits to the Sea Shepherd page as part of a larger edit, the section in question was referring to chartered flights out of Australia to search for SS vessels, this was originally tacked onto the end of the section discussing the Australian Governments call for restraint in the wake of the Ady Gil collision. Since the linked source doesn't even mention the Ady Gil collision (was no doubt written prior to the occurrence) I broke it out again and moved it up to just before the collision. I also took some speculative and unsourced wording out of that paragraph. Cheers Raitchison (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice dude. Some good stuff you are doing.Cptnono (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like it if you could weigh in on the article split of the SSCS article, I'm holding off touching anything else there until this is settled so that I don't have to duplicate it in the future and I don't put effort into something that people evidently don't want to have.--Terrillja _talk 03:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments noted, split again, hopefully this will be more acceptable. For the future, the better way to have handled the ops article would have been to redirect it and then comment it out instead of adding a comment as it was a "live" mainspace page, if someone stumbled across it they would have had no clue what was going on there.--Terrillja _talk 06:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. —David Levy 08:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised you feel the need to tell me. I rarely mark edits minor to start with, and sometimes it is just a mis-click, anyway. In turn, I do not believe they help much for someone who watchlists things, because he/she will check the edit anyway. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this edit on my watchlist. Upon checking your contribution history, I saw several other substantial edits labeled "minor."

As explained at Help:Minor edit, "if you accidentally mark an edit as minor when it was in fact a major edit, you should make a second edit, or dummy edit, noting in the dummy's edit summary that the previous edit was major."

Regarding your comment about watchlists, please also note that many users have the "Hide minor edits from the watchlist" option selected. This is one of the main reasons why it's important to not mislabel edits as "minor." —David Levy 22:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are still making WAY too much of this in my opinion, and the last reason you cite is exactly why a reasonable person checking edits would not flag the 'hide' - if it's that easy to for a vandal to evade detection, why bother? Well, enough of this. Ingolfson (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't realize, the first message in this thread is from a standard template used by the community for this purpose. You are not being singled out, scolded or punished. It's merely some helpful advice.

If you believe that the community should operate under different standards, you're welcome to propose such. Simply dismissing the community's concerns as unreasonable is not going to fix anything (even if you're correct). —David Levy 06:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk, talk talk - how much more time do we waste on this? I did not intentionally do what you warned me off from. Stop bothering already and edit an article. Cheers. Ingolfson (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one is claiming that you intentionally did anything inappropriate. I've merely provided the standard advice on how to prevent and correct such errors. —David Levy 06:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I didn't see the template there. Mech4bg (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite often, we seem to be editing the same articles. Naturally, I like what you are working on :) One way you could easily improve 'your' articles is by using infoboxes. Looking through the articles that you have created or have contributed to, the following infoboxes might be useful:

• Auckland City Hospital would use Template:Infobox hospital
• Grafton Bridge would use Template:Infobox bridge
• Myers Park, Auckland would use Template:Infobox Park
• Port of Mainz would use Template:Infobox Port
• Smith & Caughey's could use Template:Infobox company (not sure whether that's the most appropriate one - you could have a look whether there's one for department stores, say)

Regarding Waikaraka Cycleway, I have yet to find a suitable infobox for pathways that aren't railtrails or inside of urban areas. I hope you find this suggestion useful. Let me know if you want a hand or have any questions that might be easier answered here than you trawling through pages and pages of WP documentation. Schwede66 21:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I know about infoboxes - I created Template:Infobox New Zealand suburbs! I haven't gotten around to rolling that out all over all of the many Auckland suburbs yet (maybe 30-40% at most at the moment) so I guess I'll be a bit slow in updating my other articles. I am also working a lot on Commons sorting and uploading images so I have reduced my work here on Wikipedia a bit (not that it feels like it ;-). Ingolfson (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's me trying to teach you how to suck eggs then. Good template that. I've used it on Christchurch Central City and had planned to roll it out for Christchurch. What's stopping me, though, is that there doesn't seem to be a geographical definition for Christchurch suburbs anywhere, which I find quite astounding. Schwede66 23:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Auckland has the same problem: city and telecom/post and elections people have some definitions, but no one really agrees. I have decided that making a call here and there is not OR - so I have been using the Google maps definitions instead. Ingolfson (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google maps definitions - what is that? Can you show me an example please? Schwede66 04:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, maybe "definitions" is too big a word for it. Just using the maps, scroll out far enough that most street names and identifiers disappear - except for the suburbs - and then use that to identify which suburbs lie around suburb X for the template. Ingolfson (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Neptune's Navy, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please see comments on the talk page. I intend taking this matter further if you restore the uncited comments without providing citations. AussieLegend (talk) 05:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are amazing. A real bloody legend. Take it further. Please. Exactly that specific case. Ingolfson (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For those who might stumble upon this: Above editor complained that a two-line section, which SUMMARISED a section directly beneath it (which was extensively referenced) needed references. I reverted the cite request, made the summary more NPOV, and placed a hidden "references below" tag on it. As seen above, editor comes back, screams vandalism. I have now provided the references. Exactly the same ones which were already provided directly below where they have now been duplicated. Ingolfson (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to remove it. WP:BLANKING Cptnono (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to keep this here, not an issue with leaving the discussion out in the open. Any further talk about this should be at Talk:Neptune's Navy, though. Ingolfson (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the future, could you please add the references to the end of the sentence, adding them in the middle of the sentence mades it hard to read and disjointed.--Terrillja _talk 05:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But then people like him will tell me my references are too far away from what I am claiming to reference!!! And in a more serious vein, placing them within paragraphs HAS significant advantages if the contents are rewritten. It can otherwise be bloody hard to find which references referenced what. Ingolfson (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about after the sentence, not the paragraph. It can be good if the sentence is rewritten, but otherwise it makes it a pain to read, especially if you have a block of 3 or 4 citations together.--Terrillja _talk 05:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - I don't mind it much, but I can see your point.Ingolfson (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I saw your edit, and I'm proposing that we settle with "Sea Shepherd Conservation Society" instead of "Sea Shepherd animal rights group", since the first seems more accurate and free of controversy (since they repeatedly refuse to be called that way). If not, that's okay, but I'd like to see your thoughts on this. Cheers. Pikolas (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we clarify what we disagree about first? I assume you are talking about my reinstating of the "animal rights" category to (one, more?) of the articles around SSCS? I'd also be interested in the references about them not wanting to be called that way (they like hyperbole - so maybe they have been saying it in the same sense that Paul Watson says "I'm not a protester, I'm an ACTIVIST!").

Finally, we have to discuss whether their own opinion even matters here. If they are called an animal rights group in the press and general public (as they certainly are), then we should keep that tag (and if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck - and well, bites like an angry swan, it might still be a duck!). I also see no reason not to call them conservationists and animal rights activists both. Their language (why they do this etc...) certainly is in line with that of animal rights activism. Ingolfson (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry for the ambiguity. I meant this edit [1] on the Bob Barker article. I couldn't find the YouTube video where he claims that, unfortunately. He often says that his organization is a lot more like a "law enforcing" and marine conservation society than really animal rights protesters. I don't want to seem biased, but his position does sound more accurate. And by the way, what do you mean by a hyperbole in that case? And yeah, I agree with you it does seem in line with animal rights activism, and they are probably connected to it, but I'm not sure if they're actually in it. Pikolas (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the specific case, because thinking it over, it wasn't really necessary. As for hyperbole, I mean that for PR reasons they often claim things that are not (or not quite) what they are in reality. Overblown. For the sound bite. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your reasoning for removing it, but as for the direct London connection. NZ1/NZ2 and NZ38/39 are "direct" one-stop flights via Los Angeles and Hong Kong respectively ;) Sb617 (contribs) 04:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having a stop - whether for refueling or other reasons - is not a direct connection, so I can't really agree with you. Ingolfson (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While you may not agree, the Aviation industry disagrees with you altogether. Direct flights like QF1 Sydney to London via Bangkok, or NZ1 Auckland to London via Los Angeles, is still the same flight number, so technically it is still a "direct" flight, regardless if you agree or not. A connection is where you change planes at a hub and the plane changes flight numbers. Sb617 (contribs) 14:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, though as the article itself says - this is a term apt for confusion. And the map still has no refs and date. Ingolfson (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. You've reverted 3 times in the last few hours despite several editors trying to discuss the issue on the discussion page.

Please don't carry edit warring to my talk page. Totally unnecesarry to spam and revert there. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you can place warnings on my page, yet I cannot warn you about what I consider as potential libel against Watson on yours? I probably should not have reverted your blanking of my warning, true. It's "your" page, anonymous. Ingolfson (talk) 06:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can do whatever you want. But I request as a fellow editor, please try to avoid personal attacks like, "editor is trying to introduce bias" and "Work with = "accept your opinion"". Statements like these do not make it any easier to come to an agreement with you and are clearly not assuming good faith. Please try to chill out. We can disagree, just be cool about it. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a call on the latter comment. However, it is/was my belief when I wrote the comment about "bias" that you were exactly trying to do that. Introduce bias - otherwise I would not get into a fight over it with you! And I had (before the last back-and-forth reverts) explained in quite a bit of detail on the talk page WHY I felt that your reintroduction of the same material, with the same references, was skewing the lede in an inapropriate way. You simply reverted the removal of that disputed phrase - effectively making to keep a contested piece of text in the article for the duration of any further discussion. Ingolfson (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In short - I apologise if I lost my cool. Can you in turn try to understand WHY I felt/feel there was bias in your edits, or at least felt that your edits might be read out of context? Ingolfson (talk) 07:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do. The terrorist comment by Watson was not clear, not really well cited and ambiguous to begin with. It should be noted but it cannot be fairly summarized the way I summarized it. Appology accepted and please forgive me for not trying to hear your side sooner. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't hate your recent edit (still mulling it over but seems good at first glance). Overall I appreciate you going for it. I have a couple thoughts that I will bring up at the related Ady Gil page but nothing earthshaking.Cptnono (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the matter in talk page for photovoltaics ParasiticToxin (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't even worked on that article. If you are talking about our little disagreement on photovoltaic array, don't pat yourself on the back and call it an edit war yet, just because we each changed each others edits once each. I could point out the fact that *I* actually added references to the article, while all you did is prefer one criteria of reading the source over another. But just do whatever you like - I don't care enough about that article. Ingolfson (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm a student at Lower Merion High School. Everyone here has been talking all day about the Blake J. Robbins v. Lower Merion School District lawsuit. You made the Wikipedia article for it, but seeing as you live in NZ, I'm just wondering how you found out about the lawsuit. (You found out about it before we did!) Embokias (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Random chance via the Boing Boing blog website. Every now and then, I create these articles on a topic that interests me, even though I have no connection to it. Took me about 10 minutes at most. Ingolfson (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Rule 34 of the Internet, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rule 34 of the Internet. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm Hunter Kahn. I just wanted to reach out and congratulate you for the shout out the article you created, Blake J. Robbins v. Lower Merion School District, received in the NY Times today! I also wanted to express my admiration for that article, as well as the inclusionist philosophy you outlined on your userpage. Good stuff. I hope you don't mind, but I've nominated the article for DYK, giving you credit as author, of course. Once again, well done! — Hunter Kahn 18:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for adding the info to that paragraph. You also added a citation needed template...If you go to footnote 155, a copy of the letter presented to the Japanese was on that page, which is a link to a news organization. Would you take a look at it and let me know if you think that another cite is needed? Oberonfitch (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still working, will check in a minute. By the way, I used to do semi-formatted references myself, because I found the official templates so cumbersome. But do you know that by going to "my preferences", and activating "show edit toolbar" and then going to "Gadgets" and activating "reftools", you get a built in little cite button that allows you to bring up a very neat citation template, preformatted for you to just fill in the fields? Ingolfson (talk)

No, and thanks for the tip; as you can see, I did the citations repeatedly (irritatingly). Will give that a try. Oberonfitch (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ingolfson, would you mind replacing the Animal rights movement category and removing the activist one? It's there for a reason, namely that not all members can be considered activists. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 06:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're adding academics as animal rights activists. It's not accurate, and yet it's hard to decide with some of them, which is why we stuck with the movement category. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 06:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, move those who you are not considering "activists" out of it again, and back into the "animal rights movement" category, or into categories (currently non-existent) like "people associated with animal rights". The fact that there are not always tidy lines between things like "being active for something" and "being an ACTIVIST" does not mean that subcategories become useless or even discouraged. In fact, the animal rights category is a prime example why we need such subcategories. "Animal rights" is so crowded with people articles that it is hard to find the non-people articles. Also, have a look at Category:Activists by issue. There is a whole parent category just for categories like the one I reinstated!!! Ingolfson (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An example of how your argument is lacking is found at Frances Power Cobbe where you reverted my change. It says right there in her article's lede that she WAS an aanimal rights activist. She FOUNDED several advocacy groups. The only semi-logical reason I can see for you to revert that move of mine is that for you, "animal rights activism" = "people who break illegally into labs, etc..." - however, that is a way too narrow interpretation. Ingolfson (talk) 06:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to start a proposal somewhere if you want that; you can't just move them without discussion, because this has been discussed and decided before. You've moved people into the activists cat who aren't activists. And it's close to impossible with many of them to decide who is. There's no need for yet another AR subcat. We already have ALF, PETA etc. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 07:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert me. It is you who is undoing my work. I've been maintaining this category for years, and you are not meant to use Hotcat that way. It says on the page that this kind of use can be regarded as vandalism. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 07:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would respect you for your years of work - except that using "seniority" to block change is about the worst argument you can use it for. I will now seek mediation for your edit warring. There would have been nothing lost from you waiting for a resolution. Ingolfson (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a personal level, it is deplorable that we got at loggerheads like that. I worked a lot on Commons over the last years, and a category like animal rights activism, with tons of material not diffused into subcategories, is a bit of a red flag for me. I hope we can find a reasonable compromise. Ingolfson (talk) 07:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure we will find a solution. I'm not quite sure why it would be a red flag though. What I want to avoid is any false attempt to impose an activist category on some of them, because it's so unclear and fuzzy, and quite wrong if we apply it retroactively. We would end up getting tied in unnecessary knots. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 07:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red flag in the sense of "Ooooohhh, badly maintained category alert! Must take out my tools and cleaning gear and hammer out an appropriate subcategory structure and then sweep it all into the correct boxes. I said I was "Commons"-dominated these last years. I am constantly sorting horrible hodge-podges of sub-categories there. Ingolfson (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it's a badly maintained category. And it's the sweeping into boxes thing that worries me, because they would be the wrong boxes. Then you would disappear, and I'd be left with the mess to somehow sort out, and then maintain, not to mention the BLP violations. I just can't take on that extra work. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 08:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, you do sound as if you are taking this all a bit TOO serious (I know, because I have weaned myself away from that very slowly). I have written some very, very beautiful articles on Wikipedia (like Seacliff Lunatic Asylum - that is probably my best one yet!). And I have created category structures on Commons that are intricate, yet totally logical and sensible (= beautiful). But since they are both on Wikis, they are constantly "under threat" of being changed - vandalised even. One day I will leave anyway (either because I die or lose interest), so they are by default not eternal. If I let that get to me (more than it already does), I would be a nervous wreck. About several hundred (articles) times over.

Not saying you have to agree to all I'm saying here, but think about it. Sky doesn't fall if we stop doing something, or if somebody else does something wrong. It's a wiki. Have fun while doing positive things.

As for "badly maintained category", it is obviously not so for you. For me, it is a category where it is harder to find something than it would have to be, because so MANY articles are lumped in together. No matter whether I get you to agree to a category like "activists" (I suspect not), could you please consider a category like "People associated with the animal rights movement"? That would be very neutral, and it would allow moving of the biography articles into a subcat. Ingolfson (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind that: animal rights movement (people), perhaps. It's tricky because the movement is the people, really. Often the "groups" are just names that a bunch of people use to do a particular thing; they have no separate existence.

One of the problems I find with WP cats and subcats is that they're often so particular, the connections between things get lost, and/or they become harder to find, so they actually end up being less informative. That's something I'd like to try to avoid here. How many entries in your view should be in a category or sub-category before it becomes unwieldy? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 08:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I do like Seacliff Lunatic Asylum. It has the potential to be a featured article; an interesting read, nicely written. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 09:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SL, one thing where you are/were certainly right is that I might suddenly have no time to keep maintaining an article/category, especially as you ARE right that you have a lot of work on animal rights articles, while all I did was work for a month or two on Sea Shepherd related articles... - as for "how many" should go into a subcategory - well at least enough that the main category doesn't need to be over two pages anymore (less than 200 items). More to the point however, I think that there should be a category (like "Animal rights movement (people)") for ALL biography articles except those opposed to animal rights obviously. I do not see the problem with the groups being "just" fronts for these people. Even if I'd take that view - they are still concepts, whereas the biography articles are about, well, people, not concepts. Hope I am making some sense Ingolfson (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We meet again !! lol :¬)

I didnt know you were a robotics fan - have you joined the Robotics project ?

I just did some work on the ATHLETE then noticed your comment when I went to assess it.

If you are a member of either of the projects I would appreciate your input!

thanks...Chaosdruid (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disappoint. I am a dedicated jack of all trades, master of none. I only edited anything related to ATHLETE as part of my works to sort out the "Space exploration" categories on Wikimedia Commons. Ingolfson (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are proposed changes to the first paragraph that I think are pretty good, but as you have been editing SSCS for awhile, thought you might like to weigh in. Oberonfitch (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On February 27, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Blake J. Robbins v. Lower Merion School District, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Ucucha 18:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Kopu Bridge at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Gatoclass (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 March, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article James Arthur Flesher, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why? Snorkel is the Company, Snorkel aerial work platforms is a little bit big, snorkel snorkelift is the brand name, a skorkel snorkelifts? OR? :o--Sarkana (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - based on their website they are called, overall, Snorkel International (see last item at the bottom), so that became the company category which was still missing. The vehicles machines themselves are called snorkelifts, so I am happy with either "snorkel snorkelifts" OR "snorkellifts", but it can't be "snorkellift" (singular). If you would like to change the last part to make it a bit less cumbersome, no problem. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snorkelift is a Brand Name. Is not Plural. No. Never. What follows now? Bison Stematecs? WUMAG elevants. These are not a horde elephants, is a name. It is not a plural. It is not a singular. It is a name. Also Snorkelift is a name. not a Singular.--Sarkana (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please - neither of us two is trying to be difficult here just because we don't immediately come to the same conclusions. We are just working at finding a logical solution.

The media we are categorising show aerial work platforms, not brand names. These are machines/vehicles. Therefore they should comply with the plural rule. How about "snorkelift aerial work platforms" then? That would cover the brand name and machines in them. I know you feel it may be a little longer, but it is clear and unambigious. Ingolfson (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plural is good, Category with brand name is easy and logical. Names are known. Brands are easy found - but not possibly always. bad name of brand name is no solution for plural. IMO is awkwardly unnecessary "snorkelift aerial work platforms". However, is a solution. Then existing category can delete, it is unnecessary.--Sarkana (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you today. As discussed, Edward Richardson is the article. Would appreciate the copyright links. Schwede66 06:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to Auckland Meetup 5 on the afternoon of Sunday 9th May 2010 at Esquires Cafe, Ground Floor, Auckland Central City Library, Lorne St, Auckland. Please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland 5 for details and RSVP. You can also bookmark Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland to be informed of future NZ meetups. - Linnah (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have added a proposal to the Kitsch page to merge its lengthy concluding section devoted to a single work of art into a separate article devoted to that artwork, on the grounds that the significance of the statue in question is currently given undue weight in a general article on kitsch. I saw in the article's edit history that you have made a significant contribution to the kitsch article and had previously attempted to address this specific issue. User:Goochelaar, another user who made significant contributions to the page, has already commented in favor of a separate article. If you would still like to see this change, your (brief) input at the article's talk page would be appreciated. Thanks, InnocuousPseudonym (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Daedaluscap158.JPG, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:File:Daedaluscap158.JPG|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Uwe W. (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ingolf, please see Talk:Merchant submarine#Which ton(ne). Peter Horn User talk 20:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Mt Eden terraces.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Mangere Mountain.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Rangitoto island from north head.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Rangitotolavapath.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion is of the 'blank' image description page here at Wikipedia, NOT the image itself.

Amongst other things, eleminating the blank pages (for images that have a description on commons) helps better identify the pages that are genuinely problematic.

I was advised (badly it seems) to use F2 for the situation the images you've raised concerns about, this was after I was told to stop using a special variant {{db}} precisely BECAUSE F2 could be misleading.

I am inclined to raise this with an administrator, because F2 is obviously causing confusion. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who apparently imagines that Von Richthofen is a figure from the SECOND world war is madly reverting over a silly idea that funeral flyovers originated from his funeral. His source indicates that it is a supposition, but he insists is "useful" and "accurate". Anyway, I would appreciate your having a look at this as we need to get a consensus.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...is there any reason why you categorised this as Southland? :) Grutness...wha? 10:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a copy-paste error from when I first created this one and then used it as a quick template. Thanks, Cheers. Ingolfson (talk) 06:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox New Zealand suburbs 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. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 03:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I haven't seen you in a while; I hope you are well (including the fingers). Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 1 might interest you, in case you haven't seen it. Schwede66 05:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, maybe I should have read the previous talk page item... Schwede66 05:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of '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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How pleasant to find we had a decent article already on the Pike River mine before the recent accident. I see the article has had over 5000 views in the last day. Thanks for your hard work over many years.-gadfium 02:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for the kind words - I stumbled across this article subject in an engineering society magazine while on one of my "must create new articles" binges ;-) These days I seem to do more over at Wikimedia Commons - but I didn't manage to go down there yet to take some photos, I guess. Ingolfson (talk) 02:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I don't feel strongly about this edit, but am just curious what the exact rule is. The subjection only partially contained the article's name, i.e. it was not identical to the article's name. Is this not allowed? In the language of subset and Intersection (set theory), which of the following is allowed and which is not by the MOS?

1. (article name string) ∩ (subsection name string) ≠ ∅
2. (article name string) ⊂ (subsection name string)
3. (article name string) = (subsection name string)

Number 3 is not allowed as far as I understand but what about the first two? Number 2 is the situation which you corrected. bamse (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bamse - set theory is not my strength, and I am too much in a hurry to look it up, sorry - so here's how the rule is (to my understanding) intended to work. The rule is intended to prevent the following (fictional case, and a bit exaggerated, of course):

Wrong

1. Hyperflux capacitators
   1. Types of Hyperflux capacitators
      1. Ultramarine hyperflux capacitators
         1. Criticism of the use of ultramarine hyperflux capacitators
            1. Criticism of the use of ultramarine hyperflux capacitators in gender role contexts

Correct

1. Hyperflux capacitators
   1. Types
      1. Ultramarine
         1. Criticisms of use
            1. In gender role contexts

Cheers Ingolfson (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I think I got it now. Will try to avoid such in the future. bamse (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ingolfson, what exactly is it you want clarified in this article - I couldn't work it out from your edit. Regards Mattlore (talk) 03:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see little connection to the Rugby Leage - why do they get charity proceeds from that? Sorry, I guess I could have just checked the article... Ingolfson (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's relevant because most of the money raised is being donated directly to the relief fund. I have tried re-wording it: "In a joint partnership between the two teams, the NZRL and NRL, all money raised from the match will be divided between the Pike River mining relief fund and the West Coast Rugby League." Is that better? I have removed the clarify tag but feel free to get back to me or replace the tag if it is still unclear. Mattlore (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You removed names of 21 notable people with this edit to Whangarei, leaving the edit summary "Removing unreferenced names". Nineteen of the names you removed have their own wiki articles. I checked a couple, and see their article says they come from Whangarei. Is that not enough? If not, then you need to remove the (unreferenced) Whangarei connection from their articles, such as Winston Peters . You'll be pretty busy for a long long time if you intend to zap unreferenced hometowns from every bio in Wiki. Perhaps WP:COMMON could be applied here. Moriori (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moriori - if you disagree, reinstate it, I'm not going to edit war over such a minor matter. However, you are incorrect on an important matter: no Wikipedian is responsible for fixing OTHER errors and lack of references that one of their edits to remove an error or lack of reference highlights - so no: I am not required or even ethically responsible to change Winston Peters article, just because my edit highlighted to you or somebody else that his Whangarei origin is unreferenced.

Coming back to this specific case - I believe that such lists add little to town articles if they are not referenced, because they tend to proliferate, and because the connection to town x can often be quite tenous (lived there a few months, or grew up there?). So I think the hurdle for adding a name should be a bit higher. Namely providing a reference that clarifies a relevant relationship with the town. This has little to do with whether the person itself is notable (has or should have an article), it's an added matter, but quite relevant. Just think for one moment how the same type of list would look like for Auckland, London or wherever, if such an expectation was casually disregarded. Happy editing Ingolfson (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you have a point, but the reason you gave for deletion was that the names were unreferenced. Forgetting that, I don't see how that list of names could compromise that article, or Wikipedia. I hope others give an opinion of whether or not it is desirable for such lists to be included. Cheers. Moriori (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I've just seen Category:Lists of people by U.S. state which indicates that such lists are ok. Moriori (talk) 03:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but my explanation above is in my view EXACTLY the same as what I said in my edit summary. Just a lot more wordy here, and maybe I could have used more words there. In my view, material on Wikipedia should be referenced from reliable sources as the CORE criteria of whether or not it should be included. I am not a deletionist, in fact I strongly believe in the Wikipedia is not paper philosophy. And by the way, in this particular case, I would not use words like "compromise that article, or Wikipedia." It doesn't rise to that level (or I might have chosen to resist reinstating the list) - it's a much more gradual thing, which is just part of the daily work on Wikipedia regarding how an article should be improved. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your addition to the comment on Lists of people by US state - precedent is useful, but not the same as agreement or policy. I'd suspect that if people wanted to, they could challenge such lists, and have a fair chance of succeeding. I won't, partially because I have much less problem with such list as SEPARATE entities or categorisation tools, rather than article content (oh, and also because I busier with other things - I am not on a list vendetta). Ingolfson (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. You would support me if I removed ALL unreferenced material in Wikipedia? Moriori (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All unreferenced material MAY be challenged and removed, that is the policy. What if I DID support your proposal to delete all unreferenced Wikipedcia material? You'd probably delete 1-2% of all *I* have ever written on Wikipedia, so why should I not support it? But you're being facetious now. Do you disagree with the rule regarding the need for referencing? Thought not. So please don't argue that I am being unreasonable - I don't think it of you either. But I am weary of this discussion. Add references to the list, or not. I don't care. Ingolfson (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-NZ-50-years has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I see you are doing work on Commons. I'm currently going through a big effort tidying up the NZHPT files on Commons. Would you mind lending a hand? I'm trying to get everything out of the parent category. Could you deal with the Auckland Region structures and categorise them? Schwede66 03:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Cycle Action Auckland Logo.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Waterview Tunnel Application Cross Section.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Ingolfson! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Boobs on Bikes 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/Boobs on Bikes 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. Biker Biker (talk) 08:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please add New Zealand Transport Agency to your watchlist? I don't want to run into problems with WP:3RR. Cheers. Schwede66 23:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really do any watchlisting anymore on Wikipedia these days - too much else to do. But I may have the occasional check in the near future. Oh, and 3RR, as far as I would argue, applies not to reverting unexplained removals of sourced content, nor to reverts of anonymous or 1-edit editors, which in all likelihood are the same person anyway. Ingolfson (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble, and thanks for the info. Schwede66 07:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Factories in New Zealand, 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) - 01:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Skeuomorph, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cork (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) 11:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

W.T.F you shouldn't cuss cause ofter kids are on this.

MaijahEvans11 (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment spam? On MY WIKIPEDIA? Ingolfson (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You replaced headings with definition lists. Doing so violates semantics of the HTML code, because each time you do a lone ";" like that, a new definition list is started. The term will be placed in a dt tag and the definition itself doesn't exist since you don't have the colon. The definition list then ends since the next line doesn't have any ";" in the beginning. Obviously, this is not the intended semantics, so you should use headings when that is what you want. If the TOC gets too big, you can limit its size. HTML is not only for layout, it is actually primarily for semantics, so it makes little since to misuse it like this. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you seriously think warning me about a 5-year old edit is a good use of your or my time? Ingolfson (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it will improve your future edits. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. No, it isn't a good use of your time if you spend it that way, digging out ancient changes like that, especially when I have long since stopped doing it, and am not a very active editor anymore (one wonders why!). Concentrate on more important things, or people might start lecturing you when you spell something wrong, to ensure you don't misspell it again. The whole purpose of Wikipedia is to be able to fix minor inconveniences or errors quickly and directly, without such fuss. Rather than going to someone to complain he did it wrong, and the capital of Somethingstan is really called Abudja, rather than Abudjha. Wikipedia has MUCH BIGGER ISSUES. Ingolfson (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your additions here - not because I don't think they're a point worth discussing, or because they're a point worth adding in the future, but just because the article you cited is poorly-written nonsense. No firearm has yet been made by 3D printing. No firearm is likely to be made by 3D printing with ABS plastic. This news article is scaremongering.

The broader issue is a real one and perhaps the 3D print article needs to cover it. But this coverage shouldn't use a news article this bad as its basis. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I am not an expert on this, and you obviously claim to be (more of) one. But I still think it's a bit casual to simply remove something that you think is poorly written or sourced - the story has been taken up by a number of other outlets (admittedly most using the same material without other material), and written up, amongst other places, in this Forbes editorial [2]. So the discussion is certainly real, the gun possibly so, and you should not delete the item in my view - instead, if you disagree with the technical background, you should rewrite the claims to be less "scaremongering", or cite contrary sources. In fact, the Forbes article seems to provide just enough of the context needed for you to adjust the article section to be more factual. Ingolfson (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes article is certainly better, but even that one has awful writing in it like "So, can you print a gun? Yep, you can and that’s exactly what somebody with the alias “HaveBlue” did." followed up by "To be accurate, HaveBlue didn’t ". That's the sort of feeble backing-down I expect from my kid, not from a real journalist.

A 3D printer is no route to firearms. No more than carving one out of wood. Yes, you can make some components this way, but not crucial pressure-resistant components like barrels, chambers or bolts.

I'm no expert on AR15s or on US gun laws. I can't even judge Doctorow's statement "the lower receiver is the one and only component requiring a background check". It appears somewhat odd to me that the AR15 has its serial number (a legally important feature) stamped into its lower receiver (a relatively simple non pressure-resistant component) rather than its upper receiver, which is more the "core" of the weapon. The focus on 3D printing the lower receiver (of the few important parts that are printable) rather than the upper means that this story isn't "Make a gun by 3D printing" but is more accurately "Break the letter of the law by making a legally restricted non-gun by 3D printing". As the organiser of steampunk events, I actually care a great deal about this - I don't want our innocent fantasists making a Section 5 firearm with two tin cans and a tie-wrap (actually quite easy to do, obviously illegal, yet completely farcical as a threat to public order).

It's an important aspect that 3D printing et al. can make weapons that are otherwise controlled by various laws. In much the same way, kitchen shops (and a cheap supermarket chain found in near-every UK town) are now selling cheap ceramic kitchen knives that are concealable and aren't detected by metal detectors. We might well discuss these. We might even produce a good article on the broad topic in isolation. Yet we shouldn't just start recycling bad scaremongering when it's so obviously inaccurate. We might note this ruckus in the article, but that needs to be broader and to highlight the erroneous scaremongering, not just repeat it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to contact Ingolfson, since I found a picture on the net that I want to use in a Book Chapter that we are about to publish. Could you please give me your email address? 09:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martensmh (talk • contribs)

Hi. We don't know each other, but I see that you have an interest in the Culture. There is currently a dispute over article naming (which I instigated, I suppose). I don't know what your views are, nor do I care; what I do hope for is a consensus that involves more than the opinions of two people (I've seen how your attempted merger of Contact and SC went--a cause that I'm personally sympathetic to--three users responding over the course of three years, which makes for some poor consensus), so I'm bringing this to your attention and hopefully get some additional voices into the mix. Thanks. erc ^{talk/contribs} 04:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:RedStarCover 01.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you are coming from with this edit. That would have been my first instinct. But the form you revised it from did in fact reflect more accurately the RS source. And, perhaps simple gunpowder is more easily had than you or I realize.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Apologies for not checking the source on this. Ingolfson (talk) 11:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. As I said, my instinct would at first have matched yours.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my friend, I've written an article about John Endean and if you happen to be in town on a nice day, I'd appreciate if you could take a nice photo of the Endeans Building. Schwede66 22:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have some reasonably crappy ones already, but presume you aren't interested in those ;-) Will keep it in mind next time I am over there. Ingolfson (talk) 09:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hauraki Rail Trail, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kopu (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) 12:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Robert Ludvigovich Bartini may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
[[Image:Bartini VVA-14.jpg|thumb|Partial remnants of the [[VVA-14]], a [[ground effect in aircraft]], p.861-864 (In English, Russian); Originally: ''Доклады Академии наук'', 1965, т.163, №4, c.861-864.). Г. Кузнецов и проблема устойчивого развития Человечества в системе природа—общество—человек. 2000'')

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:EMU for Auckland Press Release.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not sure how I got here but I began at Molesworth Station. Recently with a Chinese friend I looked for Auckland's original Chinese area. It seemed to be what's now Myers Park OR to be just north of Myers Park. Shouldn't we all know that? The article talks of shanties etc. Have a nice day even if it is wet. Eddaido (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:All The Culture Novels.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Moladi has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Advert

While all constructive 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. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Moladi 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/Moladi 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Milford Track River.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Mz7 (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Leniency. Since you had some involvement with the Leniency redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Valetudinaria. Since you had some involvement with the Valetudinaria redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of ships Canadian Navy ships. Since you had some involvement with the List of ships Canadian Navy ships redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Cycle Action Auckland Logo.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 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).

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. --B-bot (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Waterview Tunnel Application Cross Section.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lightpath has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There is no more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. — Zawl 15:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lightpath 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/Lightpath 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. — Zawl 16:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Aquablue OldCover.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of civilisations in the Culture series 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/List of civilisations in the Culture series until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sulaco (fictional spacecraft), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sulaco (fictional spacecraft) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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 notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Albany North Shore Possible Bulk.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Failing badly has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No secondary sources found upon search, Wikipedia seems to be the primary source of the term at this point.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Brandon (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]