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

--Kumioko (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

• Wikipedia:Tutorial
• Wikipedia:Help desk
• M:Foundation issues
• Wikipedia:Policy Library

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Sam Spade 17:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tjek de her links og den paragraf fra straffeloven jeg skrev på Talk:Age_of_consent [1] [2]. Den seksuelle lavalder i DK er 15. Det er kun grænsen for køb af alkohol (og muligvis cigaretter) som er ændret. Preisler 12:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I rather liked the "chicken and cheddar biscuit" effect, but I suppose it had to go... :-( William M. Connolley 21:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Just wanted to let you know that I reverted your edit to Coriolis effect. In the Northern hemisphere, flow around a low is in a counterclockwise direction. In the Southern hemisphere, a low pressure system would have clockwise flow. Let me know if there's any problem with this, and thanks for your hard work and edits. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 22:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that you would be watching the airflow either on the same plane or above it, as that's how most meteorological maps are drawn and satellite images are seen. I can see where you're coming from that if you were to look at it from below you would consider it clockwise, but counterclockwise for lows in the NH is the widely accepted way of stating it. Thanks for your message. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 08:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have just noticed that Croatian Historian has blanked his site from warnings again. He has been banned already for doing so, and blanks the page repeatedly. Could you please do something about it? He also has a history of disruptive behaviour and his userpage is quite insensitive (if not insultive and racist), and so are his comments. Thanks Mostssa 08:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Test 1 --^{[[[User talk:OrbitOne|1]]|2|OrbitOne]} 21:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Test 2 --OrbitOne ^{[[[User talk:OrbitOne|1]]|2]} 22:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Test 3 --OrbitOne ^{[[[User talk:OrbitOne|æ]]|ø]} 22:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Test 4 --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 22:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Test 5 --OrbitOne ^{[[[User talk:OrbitOne|Talk]]|Babel]} 20:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd already blocked him, I suggest you don't get into a war at the moment regarding the warning removals etc. I've requested some comments on WP:AN/I. --pgk^(talk) 09:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I find that part ofWP:VAND dubious, and have raised it at the Talk page. Secondly, many if not most of the warnings on his page were placed with no good reason with editors who opposed him in disputes at articles; in my view placing them was disruptive, not removing them. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the WP:VAND text is in part precisely that no-one would object to the removal of mischievous warnings from one's Talk page; I've done it myself, when childish vandals respond to warnings by returning them, or when PoV-pushers and trolls are venting their spleen. I think that, unless an admin is prepared to check to make sure that warnings are genuine, he or she shouldn't take steps against an editor for removing them. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

208.22.177.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) block has been extended to one week due to past vandalism issues. Thank you for posting your request on WP:AIV please let me know if there is anything else you need. Your friendly admin, ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, OrbitOne, to Esperanza, the Wikipedia member association! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is the StressUnit, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We will send you newsletters to keep you up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Possibles.

I encourage you to take an active voice in the running of Esperanza. We have a small government system, headed by our Administrator general, Celestianpower, and guided by the Advisory Committee comprised of KnowledgeOfSelf, JoanneB, FireFox and Titoxd. The next set of elections will be in April, and I would be glad to see you vote, or even consider running for a position.

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact Celestianpower by email or talk page or the Esperanza talk page. Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!

Misza13 ^{T C} 08:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but is mathbot your wikibot? --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 21:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was doing a test on my bot's page when you reverted me. :) You have good vandal fighting skills; the text I had introduced was obviously nonsense (again, it was some testing). Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait what? He blanked warnings, so he got a wr. Nothing unusual, the guy blanks warnings every time his talk page gets unprotected. --Rory096 05:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was he cleared of this lovely comment too? I doubt it, and my warnings are legitimate. --Rory096 06:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a clearly involved party, I'm in it for the long run. And I don't want to see this guy get away with what he did. --Rory096 06:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the very first page blanking of his; believe me, I know. --Rory096 06:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The warnings that he blocks are either mischievous, placed by opponents in a conflict about content, or warnings placed by editors and admins about his removal of the mischievous warnings (because they haven't bothered to check the facts).

The diff given by Rory096 hardly constitutes grounds for blocking, and is scarcely a personal attack, even though it might be inaccurate.

OrbitOne asks

"Hi. I would like to ask you, why was Croatian historian unblocked so soon after being blocked for personal attacks?"

For all the reasons that I've given at Talk pages and at WP:AN/I. I've seen no siognificant evidence of perosnal attacks or any real misbehaviour, though lots of examples of extreme oversensitivity on the part of admins and other editors, failure to investigate the situation, and consequent heavy-handededness. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 06:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course that isn't grounds for blocking, it's just one of many examples of him calling me a vandal (and this time going a bit further with it), one of many personal attacks he's made. --Rory096 06:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is orbitone grabbing my IP address. Please do not delete this, will log in afterwars. 195.184.109.162 16:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC) Like I said, DO NOT DELETE! OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 16:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the star! Mapping has been in my blood since I was a child (I used to gaze at road maps and atlases), and I love doing this stuff. As my work takes me to various countries of interest, I check Wikipedia for info and if it is missing, try to aggregate it from a number of sources (UN, Statoids, Gazeteer, etc). I only wish it didn't take so much time to compile one of the maps! :) Rarelibra 17:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added over 180 maps... if you haven't seen the list, check out User_talk:Rarelibra/Maps Rarelibra 16:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stood read like a review, not to mention that it was copied verbatim from a different music site, as evidenced at the bottom. Yes, it was long, but the article was not very good at all. :<

I normally sign. I just forgot. I do believe that I had the right to blank the article, as the article as it was before was horrible. Anyone who read it should come to exactly the same conclusion. The copyvio tag was also unneeded as it was all deleted. It was a review. On another note, I do have the right to change/blank it. My edits have just as much weight as others' edits, and the nature of Wikipedia allows people such as myself to do so. -- 65.118.187.102 21:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you misunderstanding me? I don't want the article to be deleted. What was written in the earlier version of the article was a great bunch of cruft. The album deserves an article, as it is a pretty popular album, IIRC. It just needs to be rewritten. AfD is not the solution; I did not completely blank the article, I just stubbed it. Maybe I shall write up a more uniform article when I get home. Who knows? Maybe somebody else will write one. On another note, I do know the procedures for stuff like this. I have been editing Wikipedia for Goddess knows how long. -- 65.118.187.102 21:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truly sorry for any trouble or stress I may have caused to you, too. I know that all you want to do is make this encyclopedia the best you can, just like the rest of us. :> -- 65.118.187.102 21:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello OrbitOne,

I recently reverted what appears to be vandalism on Fidel Castro by Editorfromhizzel15. I'm not sure what the policy is on reporting vandalism from Users however the seem a bit similar to the previous vandalism by 12.189.55.237 you had reverted previously. Sorry to have troubled you, but I wasn't sure what to do about the matter. Thanks for your time. MadMax 20:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

read the diskussion page from our gang. The pictures are against european law. They must be deleted. --Hhp4 04:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A watered-down version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much. Loom91 13:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you have misinterpreted the policy. It is against censorship based on morals, not for it, so I don't see how your vote of Oppose fits with your rational. Perhaps there was a mistake? Loom91 17:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have contributed to the Rosalind Franklin article. It has recently had a rewrite and been had a request for peer review. Your comments would be appreciated. Alun 14:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information I added can be found in many of the other sources about vikings and the ships used by the Norsemen. What complicates this a bit is that the information I removed is hard to actually dispute with sources that explicitly states that it is incorrect - No scandinavian archaeologist or historian would ever think of longships and warships as different ship types. It would be a bit like finding a source that supports the claim that giant pink centipedes live at the north pole - To most people, that claim would sound ludicrous. But untill we find a source that proves (or at least states) that this is wrong, we would have to accept that as a fact. Unless we choose to view the source claiming the existence of the pink centipedes as unreliable.

Which is also the case with the previous source cited, it is not reliable. (We are talking about lecture notes, and as such, they are the interpretation of the one who attended the lecture, and can be misinterpreted and misunderstood.) So far, it's the only source that I have seen that actually states that longships and warships were two distinct ship types. Any other source focused on norse/viking ships would distinguish between the knarr and the longship.

Smaller longships were more commonly used in war (or battle), but the reason for this is that smaller longships were overall more common. This doesn't mean that smaller longships were warships, while the larger ones were not. Therein lies the misinterpretation made by the author of the lecture notes that were previously cited as a source.

• Norwegian page about viking ships
• Encyclopedia Britannica

Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Celestianpower ^háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Denmark was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help…

Posted by (^'-')^ Covington 07:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC), on behalf of the the AID Maintenance Team[reply]

Per your request: Danish-to-English Originally Requested by --OrbitOne 22:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Jeg har lige brugt en hel aften her: Copenhagen Fire of 1728

I hope it is up to par.

Do you think the thing with "matrikel" is clear now? See Talk:Copenhagen_Fire_of_1728 for more about what I did.

--SVTCobra 03:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of weeks ago I worked on the Copenhagen Fire of 1728. Do you still think it needs to be on the list of pages to be translated? Any feedback would be appreciated. --SVTCobra 23:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advise OrbitOne, I am not very skilled in dealing with dufficult editors I admit I have not encountered cases like Comanche before in spite of being a long time member of Wikipedia. The guidelines for dealing with such things are not very easy to wade through. I have tried to envoke attention from administrators before, but it seems most are too busy to engage more than a few moments. I have lost patience with Comanche because of the many wrongful accusations such as the ones on my talk page and several personal attacks. Making repeated wrongful statements regarding my edits even though I have made it clear that I have not made such claims. Personal attacks (calling me ignorant, narrow minded, idiot and other things are personal attacks), abusive language and the 3RR are the reasons for my warnings and they are well founded. I have both attemted to guide him towards taking a look at wikipedia policies such as the ones regarding Vandalism and 3RR. Then I moved on to use the standardised warings in the prescribed order. When he removed those warnings I added the Do not remove warnings.

Dialogue has been attemted and is ongiong to try to resolve the edit-conflict, but it is difficult when Comanche dismisses all information going against him as Icelandic/Norwegian ignorance/nationalism and other similarities. I am trying to get as much attention towards the edit-conflict as possible, on History-project pages for instance, but it seems the subject is not mainstream enough or people are intimidated from engaging in a conflict (I don't blame them). I hope neutral experts will engage as I feel now Comache will get a wrongful view through purely based on stamina. The warnings are based not on the edit-conflict but on clearcut breaking of wikipedia policies.

Hope this wasn't too long :) Inge 10:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your name on the list of available translators for Danish-to-English. I was wondering, if you had the time, if you could please translate da:Codex Bobbiensis? Any work you put towards this project would be greatly appreciated! Thank you for your consideration.--Andrew c 17:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That was fast. Thank you very much for your contribution, good work.--Andrew c 12:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Barnstar is presented to OrbitOne for his fabulous work in translations, his incredible patience and excellent mood! Keep it up! Phaedriel 19:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I'm truly sorry it took me almost four months to bring you this piece of rock from the British Museum, dear Orbit - but hey, have you ever tried to swim across the entire ocean with the Rossetta Stone on your back? ;) Congrats, and keep it up! Big hugs, Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 19:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, dear Orbit - I don't know why the Lore ipsum filling text displayed for you when you tried to add the award to your userpage, so I took the liberty of putting it there myself, and it's fixed now. Enjoy it, and see you around! :) Hugs, Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 22:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you have been involved with this editor before I would like to give you a heads up about this entry on the admins incident noticeboard.Inge 15:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you, OrbitOne, but Comanche is back in business. This time he is not only simply reverting the article on Denmark-Norway (six times during the last three days) but now he's even a created an "article" called Fjeldabe, the contents of which is very misleading. Again, this is a strongly derogatory / racist term. All attempts at dialogue are failing, and I have no reason to believe his behaviour will improve. (Btw, I really regret my attempt to pick up the pieces on WP:AN/I the other day, but I hate seing Norwegians being offended.) I don't know how the situation on Talk:Denmark-Norway is ever going to change, but would you please delete the Fjeldabe nonsense? I have listed Denmark-Norway at WP:RfC at the advice of User:Grutness. Regards. Valentinian ^(talk) 11:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyway. :) Valentinian ^(talk) 13:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the deleted message. Just for the record: If you take a peek at the talk page, this issue has been answered at least three times. Unfortunately, Comache refuses to accept the fact that monarchs often had more than one title back then, however such an approach makes much European history meaningless. Including the titles of the Dano-Norwegian kings. Cheers. Valentinian ^(talk) 08:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And btw, feel free to delete this one is well. Cheers. Valentinian ^(talk) 09:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to delete it. I will just archive the whole page later.

--OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 09:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your comments directly on my talk page, to keep things together, so to speak. /M.O (u) (t) 20:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on my talk page here. Thanks for bothering to leave a comment for me. :D —LactoseTI^T 14:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

for the barnstar. I've been here a long time and this is the first one I've gotten. It's a bit of a back handed compliment, though, huh? I do tend to often spend more time making talk page comments than actually constructively contributing. But what can be done? john k 22:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, then, many thanks. I can always be relied on to give long historical lectures, if those are needed. john k 00:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section in question lists games that feature the weapon from the article. The section is poorly written and there is no context as to why the games are notable in relation to the weapon. I feel this is Fancruft and/or game advertisement. It is common to see links in certain types of articles, such as weapons, ships and airplanes, that link to a game without explaining its importance. Such a link is often presented as; The game XXX features this weapon/ship/plane/place.

When I removed the section in question, it was reverted, when I attempted to start a discussion to chalange its inclusion, I was given no explanation, waited, and thinking the other side gave up since I saw no reply, gave a warning I would delete the section agian in 24 hours and then deleted the section after 24 hours. This was reverted again with the -only- comments being in the edit summary.

Here are my five main arguments as to why the section should be deleted.

1. It was argued that such sections are common and this valid. I and other editors disagree. This is can be seen on the VillagePump where I proposed the deletion of such sections as policy. I will also point out, although it may be common to have such a section, the work of a few users can make such a section common, the inclusions of such sections need not have been with concensus.
2. Several essays support the deletion of Fancruft, irrelevant sections and policy demands the deletion of directories or information added with out discrimination. Essays, although not policies, are a guide to understanding the intent of policy on Wikipedia. Essays therefor are the proper understandings of policies of Wikipedia.
3. The section is poorly writen. The games mentioned are without context. There is no mention as to why it is notable or interesting beyond that the weapon is featured in one form or another.
4. Policies call for the deletion of software directories. The section is a list of games with little or no context. The section can be rewritten without loss of context so it is a classic software directory. Because it can be rewritten into a software directory without loss of context or content, it already is a software directory, even if poorly written.
5. There have been no solid arguments or explanations as to why games are relevant.

Pedants counter arguments.

arguments against inclusion

The following are all the arguments I can find in the discussion as to why the section should be deleted:

PROFESSIONAL, PLEASE, GAME MANIACS GO AWAY

You see how awkward it is to have a section dedicated to games in the end? This isn't even infos, buddy. Especially in such a short article. I tried to moderate it, but it just looks so bad.

Isn't it obvious that Hwacha would be in museums? This is what I mean by fancy. Unnecessary but long, as to look professional and official.

Isn't it obvious that Hwacha would be in national parks? People just want to mention games. They get excited, don't they. Why don't they play games all their life and not edit in Wikipedia, then.

I say delete it.

Not sure if I can trust games to depict hwachas and stuff.

...none of which seems to be a well reasoned argument as to why the section should be deleted. [edit]

continued

  1. (above)
  2. Policy precludes the imprecise use of the term 'fancruft' as being insulting and without definition. Please cite the essays to which you refer? It is not irrelevant to include a mention of games which have hwacha in them, the article is titled hwacha, and the references are relevant to hwacha, I don't see how that is difficult to understand.
  3. Poorly written sections can be rewritten, that's how wikipedia works. Not every editor is a native speaker of English, and nobody is expected to write as brilliantly as you, because you can edit the writing yourself to make it brilliantly written. You should not just delete poorly written text.
  4. The text to which you refer is not a software directory. It is a paragraph about modern cultural referents to the subject of the article. See this for a definition of a directory, which I already quoted above, I will henceforth consider that you in fact have read it and are either misunderstanding or misstating official wikipedia policy if you refer to the removed text as a directory. Previously an editor has said "Firstly, about the game section. I agree that Hwacha's should be noted for their use in games. However the section should be kept at a basic level and not detailed." and nobody disagreed with the editor, so really, an undetailed game section follows consensus. This comment was after the first vote which was inconclusive: 3 to 2 to keep the games section.
  5. Games that have Hwacha in them are relevant to the article Hwacha because they have hwacha in them. I don't speak Korean or Chinese, is hwacha the correct plural? The article called Hwacha mentions games that have hwacha for the same reason that Knight mentions Chess, and the individual game articles in question link to Hwacha for the same reason that Chess links to Knight. Also, since the text was in the article and then removed, I think the onus is on the person removing it to say why it should be removed. HappyApple has been very patient to try to express the point, but has not gotten any clear response as to why it should be deleted.

My counter to points 2 through 5.

To address point 5.

Not everything that features a Hwacha is automaticly relevant to the historical weapon. The games never have had an effect on peoples factual knowledge of the weapon past that it existed. A good test of relevance is to ask, would the article change significantly, or at all past the games mention, if the games never featured this weapons? If it would not change, then the game is not relevant. If it would change, then it would be relevant. Also, the section is missing context as to how it is relevant to the historical weapon. If you wish to explain in what context the games are relevant, then please do.

But the point of Knight being linked to in Chess is a questionable argument. The knight is a featured and important part of that game. Applying the test mentioned, the article would be significantly changed if the knight was never part of the game. Likewise, the games that feature a Hwacha should link to the article Hwacha if the use of the weapon in the game is significant to game play, but this still does not make the games relevant to the Hwacha.

To address point 2.

   * Wikipedia:Fancruft
   * Wikipedia:Notability
   * Wikipedia:Listcruft

To address point 3.

If you wish to suggest a rewrite, then I must insist that it also has some context as to why it is notable. Would you care to explain how it is notable?

To address point 4.

As I said, the section can be rewritten into a software directory without any loss of context or content. If it can be rewritten into a good directory without any loss of either context or content, then it is a directory, no matter how poorly written. Also, the claim that Wikipedia's examples of a directory are the only kinds of directories is short sighted. Wikipedia cannot list every kind of directory and instead gives a few examples so there is an understanding as to what a directory is. It is my understanding this is a directory.

Pedant then countered by saying I misrepresented the section as a link exchange. I object to this because I am not the one who reasoned links should be bidirectional. That was HappyApple himself who reasoned the links should be "bidirectional" and not "monodirectional".

Pedant is, I think, resorting to discrediting me instead of explaning how the links are notable and relevant to the weapon, Hwacha.

--OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 13:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orbit one! I read your userpage and it seems you are very against popular culture sections in articles, since it made it to your front page.

I understand how you feel that games are irrevelent to the article and should be deleted, but I disagree with you. I am not advocating an overloaded popular culture section with all sorts of info of where you can find the hwacha. Instead, only a short brief section is what I want. I don't think it would hurt to at least mention the Hwacha's popularity and its usage today. Good friend100 13:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrbitOne - according to Wikipedia:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages#Appearance_and_colour, and I quote:

"Markup such as <big> tags (which produce big text), or line breaks (<br /> tags) are to be avoided, since they disrupt the way that surrounding text displays,"

the "Orbit" in your signature shouldn't be so large. However, the page is only a guideline, not official policy, so the decision on whether to change the signature, or not, is up to you. I just thought I'd bring that to your attention, in case you hadn't noticed it. Happy editing, Picaroon9288|ta co 00:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good day bainer. I have noticed on the AMA notice board, Æon has asked you to handle my case. You can read my description of the case at User_talk:OrbitOne#AMA_request. I hope to see you on my talk page soon so we can discuss the case. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 09:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that the other day but I've had little time until now. I've accepted the case, and I'm ready to help. Firstly, I ought to ask whether you're happy to communicate on talk pages, or whether you'd prefer email. --bainer (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 05:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Oh, sorry. I just meant to remove the 'fac' template since it's not a current featured article candidate but I must have had an old version open. Haukur 09:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I hope you don't mind my asking this here. I thought that both the US and Denmark did not allow dual citizenship? Icemuon 00:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:replied on other user's talk page) --OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 08:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be bugging you about this, I'm just curious because I was recently discussing this with a Danish friend of mine. I see here that the US allows dual, but it also says that Denmark doesn't...? Icemuon 01:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I sent that message to almost all advocates who weren't banned or co-ordinators. As for the specific problem, I think that it certainly looks like your advocate isn't continuing with the case, for whatever reason, and the case has been in existence for so long that I think you'd be perfectly justified in finding a new advocate. Since you made your request, we've updated our requests system, which may slightly complicate things, but I'll try to walk you through it :). Firstly, I think you should try to message your advocate, informing him that you plan to look for a new advocate, and see if this spurs him into taking action on the case. If you get no response or an unfavourable one, then you should go to WP:AMAREQ and start a new request using the box on that page. On the edit page which appears, you should fill in your username, the page name and the usernames of those involved, as well as copying the text from the AMA requests section on your talk page into the new requests page. When you're happy with the request, save it, and add it to your watchlist. After an (uncertain) length of time, another advocate will pick up your case. I hope this has been of some help - if you need anything else, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Martinp23 09:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the Text of the Design Science License article, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

Feel free to re-submit a new version of the article. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I irrevocably release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, for use on Wikipedia and elsewhere."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. --Benn Newman 22:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind message. It gives us a chance to solve this dispute. NCurse _work 19:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for your involvement.István 16:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"As HappyApples advocat, I would like to have your input on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history#Popular_culture. HappyApple seems content on ignoring this style guideline, which is a problem if other users agree the guideline should be followed. --User:OrbitOne"

What do you mean exactly? Are you one of the Mediators on the case? An author of the guideline? An opponent of HappyApple's position? In what context do you want input? Are you asking if I agree on the guideline? Are you asking if I believe the guideline has any standing in this case? Are you asking my opinion on HappyApple's behaviour, characterised by you as ignoring the style guideline? Obviously a subset of users agree on the guideline or it wouldn't exist. Who wrote it, and when, might be of some use in a discussion, as well as why it is a guideline and not a policy. I believe HappyApple's case can be resolved at a Wikipedia-policy-of-user-behaviour level, rather than at the level of wikiproject-guidelines-of-style. At this point I don't see much point in discussing this outside of the forum of the ongoing mediation. User:Pedant 23:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you took my comments to be rudeness, really, I am sorry. I've just recently received a lot of aggressive sounding (and 'anonymous') email about this case, and I think most of HappyApple's antagonists have been pretty brusque and snotty to him.

WikiMachine seems intent on using HappyApple as a 'foil', to make sweeping changes in policy, otherwise he would, in my opinion, have simply made appropriate edits to the popular culture section in question.

As for the guideline, it reads a little unclear to me. Without being specific, I am in general averse to proscription of classes of subject matter or topic sections on Wikipedia, which this guideline seems to be. I don't prefer to edit the guideline itself, as it applies (more accurately is being applied) to the case I'm involved in, and I am not part of that particular project. (I think that military history is far too often slanted in favor of the victor, and that the vanquished then become the ones who were wrong, I don't agree with Julius Caesar on the rights of the conqueror to do as he pleases to his vanquished foes) I don't see myself how the guideline applies to this case (which I think is understandable at the actual official policy level, rather than burrowing into obscure guidelines which have only even been seen by a relatively minuscule group of editors and have not been vetted as policy by the greater Wikipedian community), nor would I characterise HappyApple's behaviour as "ignoring" it, he may not be aware of the guideline, and I am not aware of HappyApple having been steered towards it. I also suspect it is a new guideline, and that it may not have existed before the present controversy, as I have already seen that at least one party has edited policies to make them seem as if there has been a clear-cut violation of policy.

I think far too much time has been spent on banging HappyApple around about his lack of facility with the English language, and precious little time on constructive edits to the article in question (Hwacha). This is essentially the core of the problem as I see it.

Again, I'm sorry if I seemed rude. I'll be glad to discuss, constructively and cooperatively, anything at all, as long as it doesn't stray too close to any case I am working on. User:Pedant 21:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest? User:Pedant 04:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem to be much of a compromise. It's a slippery slope from there to removing the pop culture sections from all weapons articles, or replacing them with 'weapon X appears in some games' (which is close to no information at all) and from there to removing them entirely. I think that HappyApple's position is that those references are more valuable when they have information than when they are just a vague reference to games in general.

There is a long-standing and well established practice of including that sort of reference, I won't attempt to list them here as I don't want to make it convenient for them to all be removed, which is really what's at stake. See AK-47 just for instance.

I think we should let consensus work it's magic on this, rather than setting precedents which could be used to change policies, or as an excuse to remove other information. Cultural influences and cross references are an important part of the reference value of an encyclopedia.

You wouldn't remove the link from Tek-9 to Drive-by shooting would you? User:Pedant 19:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 05:52 3 January 2007 (UTC).

I see your user name listed as a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago. I do not know if you are aware that we are attempting to revive the CHICOTW. See our results history. We could use additional input in nominating future articles, voting on nominees and editing winning nominees. Should you contribute you will receive weekly notices like the following:

	Chicago Collaboration of the Week
Last week you voted for the Chicago COTW. Thank you! This week Rich Melman has been chosen. Please help improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list.
	Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago

TonyTheTiger 01:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the star. It is much appreciated. Hemmingsen 19:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OrbitOne, regarding the addition of Solid State Heat Pumps to the Heat Pumps article.

Your reason for removing the section was "It is not a heat pump, but a magnetic effect that warms a metal. (did the research)) ". One could make the same erronious statement about gas compression heat pumps: "It is not a heat pump, but a compression effect that warms the gas". They are both exactly the same. In both cases, when the pressure is released, or the magnetic field removed, the temperature drops below it starting point. That is a heat pump, the word "pump" is not used in the context of a gas being being compressed by a PUMP, since a pump always moves liquids and gases, it does not merely compress them. The word "Pump" in heat pump refers to the heat itself being pumped, i.e. moved, from A to B.

A heat pump uses a quantity of work energy (w1) to move a quantity of heat energy (h1) from one location to another. The temperature of one location decreases by (h1), and in the location the energy is moved to, the temperature increases by (h1 + w1) according to the conservation of energy. Clearly the solid state heat pump meets this definition, as do gas-compression based heat pumps. They both "pump heat from one location to another". Indeed it is impossible to build refrigerators without heat pumps.

Anyway you asked for a description of the process, here it is:

Here's an article describing the process

There are plenty of wikipedians who are professional physicists who can correct the article and will correct it, if and when it is wrong. If you think that the solid state heat pumps described don't meet the definition above, that's fine, let's discuss that. I don't mind people making mistakes, you were trying to improve the article. In fact, both of us are trying to improve the article in good faith. But how can other wikipedians discuss the validity of the new section if you keep removing it? I think it would be more appropriate to discuss the validity of Solid State Heat Pumps on the discussion page of the Heat Pump article, what do you think? --Ralph Purtcher 22:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed you were a member of Wikiproject Canada - Education.... Celebrate the Centennial University of Saskatchewan Anniversary in the year 2007. Would you please go to Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive and vote for this University of Saskatchewan article!!! Tell any and all other editors / U of S students you know who wiki to vote also please!!! Please help Celebrate the Anniversary of the U of S University of Saskatchewan Academics Talk Please help to bring the article to feature status !!!SriMesh | talk 03:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OrbitOne!

I noticed you were a member of WikiProject Education, and thought you might be interested in WikiProject Homeschooling. In this "WikiProject," we have been together working on the collaboration of Homeschooling-related articles. As a member, I really hope you can join, and let me know if you need any help signing up or with anything else. If you have any questions about the project you can ask at the project's talk page. Cheers! RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 05:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been marked as an inactive member of WP:CHICAGO since you have not updated your status at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please correct your status. If you consider yourself a member you may want to get involved in the Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3. Also, if you are a member, be advised that the project is now trying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot OrbitOne ! Astuishin ^(talk) 05:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:OrbitOne/Political Letters, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:OrbitOne/Political Letters and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:OrbitOne/Political Letters during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Psychonaut (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year! I came across this picture, which you uploaded some years ago. It doesn't show the sarcophagus of Christian's wife, who was exiled and buried in Celle, Germany, but rather his mother Louise of Great Britain. Favonian (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I moved Tórshavn/Media to Talk:Tórshavn/Media. It appears that this type of page, normally a subpage, is treated as a normal article when located in article space. I discovered it when looking at Special:Newpages. It is already indexed by Google as if it had been an article. Subpages of talk pages do not appear to have the same issue.

You might consider moving it to your user space and just add a link at Talk:Tórshavn if you want to make it seen by others. --Hegvald (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have further moved it to moved User:OrbitOne/sandbox. The proper place for image galleries is the Commons. Did it cross your mind that the Danish Wikipedia, among others, might like to use the images? There already is commons:Tórshavn. Please feel free to improve it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see that you are still around. Just wanted to let you know that I've updated the barnstar you gave me about a lifetime ago to reflect an article move. Hope you don't mind. BitterGrey (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to da:Brugerdiskussion:Necessary Evil#Måske du vil gerne hjælpe?

Q:Jeg har ikke maskine oversat teksten, men jeg brugt en CAT program. Hvis du vil gerne hjælpe artiklen om Chicagos brand, måske det vil gavne mere, hvis du retter min Dansk frem for at slette den. --OrbitOne (talk) 22. apr 2013, 03:47 (CEST)

A:Jeg har da ikke slettet din tekst [3]. Det er prisværdigt at du vil lære dansk, men du kan ikke forvente at folk retter hele artikler øjeblikkeligt. Wikipedia har en vis standard, så derfor bliver computer-oversatte artikler mærket "Maskinoversættelse". Det er ikke for at genere folk som dig - men for at tiltrække brugere der har lyst til at rette.

Med hensyn til dit Computer-Assisted Translation-program, så er det vist ikke særlig godt. Google Translate ville fx have skrevet ugedage og måneder med lille. Måske skulle du oversætte fra engelsk, for derefter at oversætte "oversættelsen" til engelsk med samme programmer. Nogle gange fanger man grove fejl på den måde. Held og lykke OrbitOne! --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of File:ChristianVII coffin Roskilde Cathedral.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:ChristianVI feb-2007.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:ChristianVII-Louisa feb-2007.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings,

This is in reference to a relatively new umbrella article on en-wikipedia named Ceremonial pole. Ceremonial pole is a human tradition since ancient times; either existed in past at some point of time, or still exists in some cultures across global continents from north to south & from east to west. Ceremonial poles are used to symbolize a variety of concepts in several different world cultures.

Through article Ceremonial pole we intend to take encyclopedic note of cultural aspects and festive celebrations around Ceremonial pole as an umbrella article and want to have historical, mythological, anthropological aspects, reverence or worships wherever concerned as a small part.

While Ceremonial poles have a long past and strong presence but usually less discussed subject. Even before we seek translation of this article in global languages, we need to have more encyclopedic information/input about Ceremonial poles from all global cultures and languages. And we seek your assistance in the same.

Since other contributors to the article are insisting for reliable sources and Standard native english; If your contributions get deleted (for some reason like linguistics or may be your information is reliable but unfortunately dosent match expectations of other editors) , please do list the same on Talk:Ceremonial pole page so that other wikipedians may help improve by interlanguage collaborations, and/or some other language wikipedias may be interested in giving more importance to reliablity of information over other factors on their respective wikipedia.

This particular request is being made to you since your user name is listed in Wikipedia:Translators available list.

Thanking you with warm regards Mahitgar (talk) 05:30, 24 October 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) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:FeatheredBluredRose.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned file, no foreseeable encyclopedic use

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]