User talk:Necessary Evil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Necessary Evil, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Nlu (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


Contents

Barnstar[edit]

I Angelbo award you this Barnstar for your military, air force and danish related contributions

Hi Necessary Evil
Her is a barnstar, you really earned it.
Perhaps you would be interested in joining WikiProject Denmark or WikiProject Military history, or some of its taskforces

Best regards and happy editing
Mads Angelbo Talk / Contribs 07:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Mads, thank you. I would like to thank my history teacher in high school, who taught me to see history from unconventional angles. I'll look at the wikiprojects, you've mentioned. Regards Necessary Evil 22:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


Tycho Brahe[edit]

Thanks for your edits, but I have now updated the article HEAT1X-TYCHO BRAHE so it has no content which has not been paraphrased.--Confusedmiked (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Shuttle-Mir Program da:Rumfærge-Mir-programmet[edit]

Hi there, take this :-) Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif Zilotte (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, she found me! ;-)
Well thank you, Zilotte. Well done with the Space Portal. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 08:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Rollback[edit]

Your request has been granted. Please be sure that you never use the rollback functionality in content disputes, and be open to discussion about your edits. ffm 19:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Your Post[edit]

Hey. It's common practice to not evaluate users and each of their contributions prior contributing to the articles they created/edited. User:Slikkidrajs may be a scumbag, but you should take a more mild approach to posting to talk pages of non-scumbags, as they would essentially be "on your side" in a dispute such as this. If he is flooding Wikipedia with new articles with misspellings of Rajasaurus, you should have put a warning on his page. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 17:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi DRosenbach, I'm not an Administrator so a warning from me does not really matter since I can neither block him nor delete his articles. I know that people can change but not within a few hours. So if a 'scumbag' is misbehaving, his attitude should be presented. I wrote to you because I feared that you had a robot inserting "start-class" messages to all new dinosaur pages. Regarding writing to him, I did it once, without any answer. If he'd answered me I would have posted some piece of advice but I don't like talking to a wall :-) I'm sorry if you feel that you have been abused in this matter, my apologies. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I could not disagree more. Recently, about a week or so ago, I suddenly became interested in patrolling the new articles list, preventing vandalism, welcoming new users who obviously have no clue what they're doing and, yes, warning those scumbags who are messing this place up for people like you and me. I am similarly not an admin, but my purpose in warning is not to culminate in an actual block. If it does nothing else, it may straighten an individual who really doesn't mean to do harm but does so out of inexperience -- a warning/stop sign with a hand pic in a post goes a long way. And if it doesn't, the next time the user runs afoul and is caught by someone with blocking privileges, he or she will be able to see that this user has indeed been warned and warned again. Someone with a talk page full of vandalism warnings goes a long way. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 17:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Which dog articles -- they don't show up in his contribs page! And maybe it's about time to archive your talk page. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 17:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
For example. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 18:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
This too! DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 13:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Roger-roger! --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

List of International Space Station visitors[edit]

I noticed an error in this list. I think stuff goes wrong here. the US trip count goes from 151->158 (should be 157). Also, the double stays the same, even though Nowak was on her 2nd visit. If I correct the US trip count, and the double omission error. I'm once again on matching numbers in the current list. So this is what I have done. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 01:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Correction, that cannot be right. Double should indeed stay the same in that edit due to the other person going to triple of course.... OK, then i have all the numbers matching again. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 01:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Nice that someone is vigilant! I must have placed the Japanese astronaut in the U.S. section - sorry. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hej![edit]

Jeg kan se at du er aktiv på den engelske Wikipedia, og at du er fra Danmark. I skrivende stund, diskuterer vi på landsbybrønden et nyt forslag, om at starte en national afdeling, der vil blive kaldet Wikimedia Danmark. Hvis du er interesseret i at bidrage med noget tid til at få startet afdelingen, kan du skrive dit navn på denne side hos meta. Tak for din tid! Mike H. Fierce! 08:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Valhalla14.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Valhalla14.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 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Multi-Purpose Logistics Module Logo.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Multi-Purpose Logistics Module Logo.png. 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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -MBK004 22:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi MBK004. Do you dislike the Ninja Turtles Mission insignia or do you think that it's too silly with toys in a serious article regarding non-fiction space hardware? I didn't upload the image; I just inserted it as a proof of the Ninja Turtles' similar names. You could have legalised the image your-self in shorter time than it took you to write to me, the image page, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2009 February 23 and the Multi-Purpose Logistics Module article. You see this ping pong game with you inserting a whole string of new templates is boring. If you believe that the article would be better off without the ninja turtle image - fine with me! Just be frank - I've no connections to Mattel and am no Ninja Turtles fan, just a NASA fan ;-) --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I do not dislike the image outright. While I feel that using it under fair use is legal, it is a stretch and not completely necessary to illustrate the page since the link is provided and the article is able to be illustrated by actual pictures of MPLMs. I know you didn't upload the image, but there was a chance (which paid-off) that you would deal with the image problem (I have said above that I don't feel that it is necessary for the article but will not contest its presence). As for the time required, each of those taggings was automatic by WP:TW and took less than 15 seconds of effort. And I'm a NASA fan as well, in fact the MPLM missions are my favorites to the ISS. I just hope that Donatello gets a chance to fly if the proposed manifest extension does happen. -MBK004 03:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi MBK004, I owe you an apology. I misinterpreted you for a grumpy guy who was using all sorts of legal tricks in the book to prevent the logo in remaining on Wikipedia. If you had a hidden agenda there was no reason for me to comply with the demanding templates since they would have been replaced by more templates. Since you're not a bot I didn't realise that it took 15 seconds. Since the modules are the ninja turtles' namesakes, readers might want to know. In order to prevent the article in being spammed with too much ninja stuff I took the edge off future edit wars by inserting minuscule information. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Canberras[edit]

Britain's small wars is generally pretty reliable, learn something new every day. I thought the deployment of PR.9 was an urban legend. Guess I might have to make a FoI request. Justin talk 23:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Zodiac "observations"[edit]

Before you revert my edit again, I'd like you to think carefully about what's going on here. At any given moment you can ask what the Sun's location is. Everyone agrees where it is. Then you can ask "Which 30-degree interval is it in relative to the Spring Equinox?" The answer to that is the tropical zodiac sign. You can ask "Which 30-degree interval is it in relative to the Fagan-Bradley reference point?" The answer to that is the sidereal zodiac sign. You can ask "Which IAU constellation is it in?" The answer to that is the astronomical constellation. All three of these are observations. All three of these are arbitrary human-chosen "agreements" or "votings" (your words). All three are objectively defined and repeatable. None of them have anything to do with anybody thinking that the Sun goes around the Earth. None of them is in any meaningful way subjective or a matter of opinion; at most there can be said to be some dispute over which one is a more useful question to ask. Do you have any idea why someone might see calling one an "observation" and the others not as an implicit value judgment? Do you think implicit value judgments are appropriate under Wikipedia's NPOV policy? Find the citation if you think there's a legitimate argument about whether astrological zodiacs are or are not "observed."

There's also a grammatical issue here - signs and constellations are the same type of thing (namely, arbitrarily defined regions of the sky) whereas an "observation" is what you do to decide which sign or constellation the Sun appears in. It doesn't make sense to refer to the type of thing in one column header and what you do to find the thing in the third header. I think that's less important, though. 69.63.60.29 (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you for real? ;-) You're comparing observations in the sky with observations on a diagram. In the Antiquity people decided that Castor and Pollux showed the Gemini. Today Castor and Pollux are still determining Gemini. Wikipedians might be interested in where the Sun was when they were born. The table gives them an exact knowledge - if you're born May 23th you belong to Gemini but the Sun is in Taurus May 23th. Even if the constellation boundaries are agreed, the Sun is well inside the pattern of bright stars making up Taurus. If someone looks in the newspaper, he's also observing the letters and ciphers to see whether he belongs to Gemini or Taurus. According to you everything is observations :-D --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 02:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you understand that the astrological signs are not the same thing as constellations, even though they are named after constellations. On May 23 the Sun is approximately 62 degrees past the equinox. That means it is in the interval 60-90 degrees past the equinox. That interval is called Gemini in the context of the tropical zodiac. It's not really an issue of everything being an observation - there's only one observation involved - but there are three ways of describing the observation. If anything, one could argue that it's impossible to observe that the Sun is visible among the stars of the constellation Taurus because it's so bright you can't see them... "62 degrees past the equinox" is what you can really see. Would you say that describing a distance as "1 inch" isn't really a measurement because only "25.4 millimeters" is really a measurement? That's the same thing you are asserting here. 128.100.5.116 (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Welcome 128.100.5.116 to join the discussion. During eclipses the Sun is visible among the stars, and satellites can view it constantly. So the astronomers are observing the positions of the Sun and the planets in the sky - giving 62 degrees past the equinox. Then the astrologers are observing the data (62 degrees past the equinox) and recalculate it to Gemini. That's not the same as transforming 1 inch to 25.4 millimetres. To observe is more or less an objective act; to nip and tuck the stars into equal 30° boxes, even excluding stars, is a subjective act. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Again, the signs and constellations are not the same thing despite having similar names. (Not all the names are exactly the same, e.g. Scorpio/Scorpius.) The sign Gemini is the range of longitudes 60-90 degrees past the equinox (tropical system) or past the arbitrary reference point (sidereal system). That is its definition. The sign Gemini is not the constellation Gemini. There is no "nipping and tucking" involved in saying that a longitude of 62 degrees past the equinox really is in the range 60-90 degrees; it objectively is in that range. That there is something else somewhere else with a different size but also named Gemini is completely irrelevant. The astrological signs are a mixed-base number system for representing longitude, and that's all they are. One reason they remain popular is that the mixed-based system is convenient for mental arithmetic and some of the pattern-recognition that figures prominently in astrological calculations. The astronomical constellations are distinct, despite having a historical connection and similar names. The citations for all my assertions here are already in the article we started out discussing; please read them if you are still confused. Anyway, dab has reorganized the table in question completely and I think the result is a big improvement over the changes either of us made, so we can probably leave it at that. 69.63.60.29 (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I hate to introduce yet another analogy, but the case of electoral districts might be instructive. Electoral districts are named after cities and neighbourhoods they contain, but (at least in the USA and Canada) they often don't coincide with other administrative boundaries, because there are legal constraints on how the boundaries have to be drawn to (for instance) intercept equal slices of the population. You could be in the Hogboro electoral district but in the Busytown city limits. There could even be 12 electoral districts in an area that also contains 13 cities, so that Busytown doesn't even have a district named after it; and the people drawing the boundaries might make bizarre choices about the naming so that a district ends up named after a tiny neighbourhood instead of the larger city also contained within it. It would be completely inappropriate to describe your status as a voter in the Hogboro district as being in any way "fictional" or "subjective" - no, you really are within the bounds of that district, that's objective - but that's a separate question from whether you live in the city limits of Busytown. Have fun showing up at the neighbouring Baconburg polls which encompass most of Busytown, and explaining that you should be allowed to vote as a local there because the fact that your Busytown address is outside the boundaries is a subjective convention. 69.63.60.29 (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay there are two extreme definitions regarding the word "observation".
A) Everything is observation, watching the front page of the book "The Earth is flat" is an observation of an image of a flat Earth.
B) Nothing is observation, since you have to follow certain rules. Observing the stars means that you discriminate fireflies and airliners in the sky.
I believe that observing the Sun and the stars in the sky is observation, and determining the Sun's position in 30° boxes devoid of parent stars isn't observation, it's fiction. It's like creating an imaginary genus of winged lions and placing 1/12th of every lion in that genus, regardless of wings have been observed.
This is however an academic discussion, since dab has altered the table. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Argentine Naval Forces[edit]

Hi,

It would be a good idea to check the Talk Page, as Jor70 and I had already discussed this and had agreed to put in the Spanish names already. Is "Task Group" Spanish? It simply was ridiculous to have half the headers in Spanish and the rest in English. A bit of good faith goes a long way you know. Justin talk 10:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

We'd agreed to have both just hadn't done it yet, is there any need to be so aggressive? Justin talk 18:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
We still have FAA or Fuerza Area Argentinas, thats a specious argument IMHO. We're talking about units or command e.g. Army Group North (German: 'Heeresgruppe Nord') or are you suggesting that example should be in German? How would anyone looking for it on the English wikipedia find it when the German name is not well known? Justin talk 08:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I looked at the article, saw that half the names were in English half were in Spanish. It made no sense to me so I stuck to English only, this being the English Wikipedia. Discussed it further with Jor70 and agreed to add back the Spanish names with a Lang-Es tag - we just hadn't got round to doing it when someone leapt in ignoring the discussion and reverted back to a half-way house that everyone had already agreed was unsatisfactory. As has already been explained, so what is the point in repeatedly going on about this edit????? SATO or TOAS appear to be acronyms you've just made up, their relevance? In fact do you actually have a point, because repeatedly just going over the same thing has just left me confused as to what exactly you want anyway? Justin talk 14:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Right, just so I try and understand your point if you have one. I suggest you look at the talk page to see what had already been agreed, I didn't revert because I usually try to follow WP:BRD and in avoiding the revert it becomes a poor excuse that I hadn't got round to do it in the 24 hrs before your revert. I suggest you look at the timing, the discussion with Jor70 followed my initial edit - NEITHER of us had got round to it before your revert. And rather than following the discussion you simply went back to the previous format, with the mixed language that you acknowledge doesn't look right - and what was to stop you using the Lang-ES tag exactly? I'm also utterly bemused by the allegation that I've invented the acronym SATO, since I didn't. So if I understand you, you don't actually disagree with what we'd proposed but you don't agree with using an acronym that I never actually used. Is that about it? Justin talk 07:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

OK no worries. Justin talk 22:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Tailhook[edit]

Thanks, I understand what you mean now with regards to Tailhook and I agree with you on re-reading the section. RP459 (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that this edition http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=F-15_Eagle&diff=167812942&oldid=167811915 triggered the Land-based tailhooks section. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for digging up that revision, it puts that paragraph in perspective. RP459 (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Friendly fire vs Blue on blue[edit]

Hello, you have shown an interest in whether the term "friendly fire" or "blue on blue" should be used in the 1982 British Army Gazelle friendly fire incident article. I have now raised the matter in the article's A-class review, if you are interested. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ryan4314, you should have told me that the article was in the middle of a review in the first place. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC for War of the Pacific[edit]

Hi User:Necessary Evil,

I started a RfC in the Talk Page in order to improve War of the Pacific. I would appreciate your opinion and advice to the theme. Please, feel free to improve the grammer, style or spelling of the text. --Keysanger (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

OK! --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Fighter Command R/Ts 1940[edit]

Yes I see the problem; there is also an unsourced statement: "The TR9 HF radio used by RAF fighters was limited in range, and even with a network of relay stations the squadrons could not roam more than one or two sectors from their airfields." which makes things even more confusing.

Ramsay's point is the effective range of the TR9 was limited because of distortion and interference from other HF stations; the further away the fighter was from the transmitter the more distorted the signal became. The transmission range was shorter because the power of the set was lower than that of the TR1143. I will rewrite this.

As it is there are other statements in this section which need a source: "Finally, the system for tracking RAF fighters, known as HF/DF or "Huff-Duff", restricted sectors to a maximum of four squadrons in the air. The addition of IFF, "Pipsqueak", while a welcome help in identifying RAF aircraft, took up another radio channel." Not very useful because there is nothing to confirm any of this.

I'm also removing this speculative statement "This is, in part, a reflection of the novelty of the type of combat, as well as the control system. Sector Control could have been assigned one frequency for all fighters to "listen out" on (or "guard", in modern parlance), with "roving" intercept guidance, rather than the close positive control used, which limited controllers' ability to handle large numbers of interceptors.[1] " Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem! At the moment I am having a close look at the citations and bibliography - there are problems with both of these. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
PS: I think I'll ditch Pope - while the article(s) is(are) interesting some of his information conflicts with Ramsay - eg; acording to Pope the TR1143 was introduced in 1943. Ramsay's account of the transition from HF to VHF is more complete. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
You're the expert! --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


Orphaned non-free image (File:Blue Zone - On Fire single cover.jpg)[edit]

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 07:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you for real? First you remove the image from the article and then you want it deleted because it's orphaned! Instead of just refering to the bulky "Wikipedia:Non-free content", you should have written exactly what the problem is! Blue Zone is disbanded and there are no images on Wikimedia. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment Don't feel singled out, I have seen this same thing happen all the time with the orphan and then the notice :( RP459 (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks RP459! If I've done something wrong, I need to know exactly what it was. Else my lesson would be: "never upload images at all". I'm pretty sure it's a minor detail. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Chronostrat site[edit]

Regarding the use of Late instead of Upper, there must be a cite to some international body that uses such terminology? I can't get the currently sourced paper on T. rex biomechanics but somehow I doubt this explicitly lays out a system of chronologic nomenclature in its conclusions. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely right in that the T-rex biomechanics ref. is inadequate. The section has been rewritten numerous times, so I've kinda lost track of things. People, even professionals, are some times slovenly with 'Late' and 'Upper'. If you look in "Glossary of Geology" from the American Geological Institute (mine is the fourth edition from 1997, ISBN 0-922152-34-9)Glossary of Geology at Amazon.com:
late: Pertaining to or occurring near the end of a segment of time. The adjective is applied to the name of a geologic-time unit (era, period, epoch) to indicate relative time designation and corresponds to upper as applied to the name of the equivalent time-stratigraphic unit; e.g. rocks of an Upper Jurassic batholith were intruded in Late Jurassic time. The initial letter of the term is capitalized to indicate a formal subdivision (e.g. "Late Devonian") and is set in lower case indicate an informal subdivision (e.g. "late Miocene"). The informal term may be used for eras and epochs, and for periods where there is no formal subdivision.(p. 358)
early: Pertaining to or occurring near the beginning of a segment of time. The adjective is applied to the name of a geologic-time unit (era, period, epoch) to indicate relative time designation and corresponds to lower as applied to the name of the equivalent chronostratigraphic unit; e.g. rocks of a Lower Jurassic batholith were intruded in Early Jurassic time. The initial letter of the term is capitalized to indicate a formal subdivision (e.g. "Early Devonian") and is set in lower case to indicate an informal subdivision (e.g. "early Miocene"). The informal term may be used for eras and epochs, and for periods where there is no formal subdivision.(p. 198)
middle[geochron]: Pertaining to a segment of time intermediate between late and early. The adjective is applied to the name of a geologic-time unit (era, period, epoch) to indicate relative time designation and corresponds to middle as applied to the name of the equivalent time-stratigraphic unit; e.g. rocks of a Middle Jurassic batholith were intruded in Middle Jurassic time. The initial letter of the term is capitalized to indicate a formal subdivision (e.g. "Middle Devonian") and is lowercased to indicate an informal subdivision (e.g. "middle Miocene"). The informal term may be used for eras and epochs, and for periods where there is no formal subdivision.(p. 409)
middle[stratig]: Pertaining to rocks or strata that are intermediate between upper and lower. The adjective is applied to the name of a chrono-stratigraphic unit (system, series, stage) to indicate position in the geologic column and corresponds to middle as applied to the name of the equivalent geologic-time unit; e.g. rocks of the Middle Jurassic Series were formed during the Middle Jurassic Epoch. The initial letter of the term is capitalized to indicate a formal subdivision (e.g. "Middle Devonian") and is lowercased to indicate an informal subdivision (e.g. "middle Miocene"). The informal term may be used where there is no formal subdivision of a system or of a series.(p.409)
upper: Pertaining to rocks or strata that are normally above those of earlier formations of the same subdivision of rocks. The adjective is applied to the name of a chronostratigraphic unit (system, series, stage) to indicate position in the geologic column and corresponds to late as applied to the name of the equivalent geologic-time unit; e.g. rocks of the Upper Jurassic System were formed during the Late Jurassic Period. The initial letter of the term is capitalized to indicate a formal subdivision (e.g. "Upper Devonian") and is lower-cased to indicate an informal subdivision (e.g. "upper Miocene"). The informal term may be used where there is no formal subdivision of a system or series.(p. 692)
lower: Pertaining to rocks or strata that are normally below those of later formations of the same subdivision of rocks. The adjective is applied to the name of a chronostratigraphic unit (system, series, stage) to indicate position in the geologic column and corresponds to early as applied to the name of the equivalent geologic-time unit; e.g. rocks of the Lower Jurassic System were formed during the Early Jurassic Period. The initial letter of the term is capitalized to indicate a formal subdivision (e.g. "Lower Devonian") and is lower-cased to indicate an informal subdivision (e.g. "lower Miocene"). The informal term may be used where there is no formal subdivision of a system or of a series.(p. 378)
Faithfully typed by me. The dictionary is however not flawless, since Late, Middle and Early Jurassic are epochs, and not periods. But the general idea is that T-rex are found in Upper Cretaceous, and that they lived in Late Cretaceous. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

AR mags[edit]

Hi, a quick google search : [1] (we are winning) [2] (we are still winning) (obviously touched) --Jor70 (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Find more: [3] [4] [5] [6] (!!) [7] (THis is one would be excellent for Pablo Carballo article!!) --Jor70 (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but none of Thatcher as a pirate. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
did you see 6 ? --Jor70 (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. It could be used if I knew what "El Porteño" is. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Tal Cual and Thatcher[edit]

I have found this: [[8]], the images are towards the bottom. I'll let you decide what do with the images, the pirate one is in the background of the 'La Dama de la Muerte' image, and is quite difficult to see. I hope this helps. Regards, Rtdixon86 (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the images are interesting but of low resolution. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cabinet of Lars Løkke Rasmussen II[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Cabinet of Lars Løkke Rasmussen II has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is not a new cabinet. The first has merely undergone a change.

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. |EPO| da: 18:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

==Merge discussion for Luftwaffe North (Ostland) detachment (Luftflotte 1, Baltic Area) [edit]

Information.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, Luftwaffe North (Ostland) detachment (Luftflotte 1, Baltic Area) , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Perseus71 (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC) ==

Perseus71 (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Blue Zone - On Fire single cover.jpg[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thank you for uploading File:Blue Zone - On Fire single cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yawn, standard paper shuffling. What's your problem? --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Blue Zone - On Fire single cover.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Blue Zone - On Fire single cover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Aspects (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

File:100kroner2009-sketch.jpg[edit]

Just so you know, I've closed the move request you filed for this article. Files cannot be moved like articles can, you have to upload another file under the new name and have the old deleted (of course replacing all instances of the old file with the new one). Just wanted to drop you a line on your talk page informing why I closed it. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me of the red tape Parsecboy, there are three other banknotes to go. Better have the correct procedures ready. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Squadron (cavalry)[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Squadron (cavalry), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://plumbot.com/Squadron. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm convinced that the material was copied from Wikipedia, not opposite. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Necessary Evil. You have new messages at Talk:List of International Space Station visitors.
Message added 20:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Squadron[edit]

Hi, now that Squadron is a disambiguation page, per WP:FIXDABLINKS could you help fix the links that now point to a disambig? Thanks, --JaGatalk 12:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but if you're busy don't over do yourself. I, for one, am busy, so I do ten articles a day... until my administrative duties subside. Fleet Command (talk) 08:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll beware of mouse injuries ;-) --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 08:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks much for your help in cleaning up Squadron! Much appreciated. --JaGatalk 09:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
There is still some Squadron (cavalry)Squadron (army) cleaning to do. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Satellite Imagery[edit]

The US didn't provide satellite imagery during the Falklands War. A request was made but the USG refused to retask satellites that were spying on the USSR. Its a myth not reality, so I support your removal of that material. Justin talk 21:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Milhist A-class and Peer Reviews Jul-Dec 2009[edit]

Wiki-stripe1.svg Military history reviewers' award
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews during the period July-December 2009, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

The commanders[edit]

Nice! [9] one step closer to finish :-) --Jor70 (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! If you think the Battle of Top Malo House is unimportant, just delete it. I don't know how much that should be translated to English. It's perhaps odd to have an air force general opposing an admiral, but Crespo's aircraft and Woodward's ships and Sea Harriers were major antagonists. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Top Malo was a skirmish between special forces rather than a battle per se for information. I dropped by to ask for your input on the current debate on maps. I see you have the same book I quoted. Justin talk 22:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

The Black Buck raids were commanded from London, so it had a fairly long command chain.

Air Commander Sir John Curtiss Air Vice-Marshall George Chesworth in Ascension & Mike Knight in the UK Air Chief-Marshall Sir Michael Beetham in the UK Gp Captain Price in Acension - Gp Captain Laycock wasn't in the command chain during the raid. Sqn Ldr John Reeve

Laycock commanded the training element in the UK.

On the Top Malo thing, we already have the precadence of Skirmish at Many Branch Point. What do you think? Justin talk 20:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well based on precadence Skirmish at Top Malo House would seem appropriate. Do you agree? It would be polite to include Jor70 and Darius in seeking opinions. Regards, Justin talk 22:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Troll[edit]

Yes I know ;-), but I cannot delete someone else talk --Jor70 (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not feed the trolls.
You can insert this image to advice other users, and to show the troll that he's been exposed. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


neologism[edit]

Hi Necessary Evil,

There is an interesting discussion in Talk:Falklands_War#Malvinist? and I would like to know your opinion about. --Keysanger 20:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I understand, it is whether "malvinist" is a negative, positive or neutral word in English and Spanish. I couldn't tell. I do remember that I've read that Admiral Anaya was anglophobe, although he had been an naval attaché in London; perhaps in Jimmy Burns: The land that lost its heroes, 1987, Bloomsbury Publishing, ISBN 0-7475-0002-9. It was a library book, so I don't have it. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Falklands War[edit]

I've started a discussion on the talk page, your input would be appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks J Milburn. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Subscripted 7 in 2010 TK7?[edit]

Please respond at Talk:2010 TK7#Subscripted 7 ? Mitch Ames (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Port Stanley Airport - Google Earth.JPG[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Port Stanley Airport - Google Earth.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Veggy (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Port Stanley Airport - Google Earth.JPG[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Port Stanley Airport - Google Earth.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Veggy (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You still haven't provided any argument for why this copyrighted image is irreplaceable. There is really no rationale for using a Google Earth pic. -- Veggy (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Steen Andersen Bille[edit]

Hej! Could you please look at the new section Steen Andersen Bille on my talk page. You may be able to help me! Viking1808 (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Necessary Evil. You have new messages at WT:TLS.
Message added 17:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

W. D. Graham (previously GW) 17:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Replied again. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 19:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Battle of denmark[edit]

Hello Necessary Evil. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Battle of denmark, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: no valid reason to delete - see WP:R#KEEP. The speedy criteria for redirects, R2 and R3 are deliberately limited, because there is not often any point to deleting redirects - it doesn't save any space. When you move the target, there is a bot which should sort out the resulting double redirect within a day or so, though it's tidy to make sure by doing it yourself - I've done this one. JohnCD (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Help translate ekvipagemester[edit]

hi NE - could you have a look at Jens Schou Fabricius which is newly expanded from a stub by using Topsøe-Jensens book (in Danish) and the Norwegian wiki-article. I am stuck for a good translation of ekvipasjemeister or ekvipagemester. Neither carriage master nor master of horse really seems to fit!
Can you help? Viking1808 (talk) 10:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Translation now improved. What do you think? Viking1808 (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Viking1808, couldn't have done it better myself! My dictionary suggest "chief of staff to the admiral of the dockyard", but your "Head of Naval Stores" sounds better. The ancient Danish encyclopaedia Salmonsens Konversationsleksikon describes it here [10] --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks. Viking1808 (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List of active United States military aircraft[edit]

Thank you for signing my comment, i really didn't notice i hadn't! Gavbadger (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't mention it! BTW I like your name proposal. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

AF447[edit]

Hello, I'm discussing your latest edit to the AF447 air disaster here: Talk:Air_France_Flight_447#Post_report_findings. While I believe that your edit is totally inline with the cited source, I still think the source itself is quite misleading. See you there to know your opinion on the matter. Cochonfou (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Chicago's Fire[edit]

Hello. I think you misunderstood. I have been learning Danish for eight years, and I can translate from Danish to English with accuracy. I will admit, I need practice regarding grammar, since I haven't written anything in Danish for two years. However, the standards you refer to are more flexible than you think. No one asked the rest of wikipedia to correct my commas, but assuming good faith, you should assume I will continue to work on the article. What I am a little worried about is the treat of deletion, especially when my poor translation makes for a better article than what was available before. As for google, I did not use a computer to translate the text at any point. CAT programs split the text into segments, and the user translates each segment manually. This is to assist multiple language translations within the same file. That is the main function of CAT programs, so I fail to see the relevance of google in all of this. My suggestion is, over time, improve what I have translated. I will keep working on it, but it isn't something that can happen overnight. But if I need to argue against deletion or reverting it back to a previous version, I wont be able to translate the whole article or correct the grammar of what I already have written. --OO(talk)(useless text here) 15:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a lot of people who spam the Danish Wikipedia with Google translated contents. It's our view that the readers of the Danish Wikipedia should read about in Danish. If they see a Google translated text, they could have done it themselves. If someone only bothers to spend two seconds on a Google translation, the text isn't viable.
You on the other hand have been wrongly treated with a delete threatening template, so I've changed it to a more benign template. Sorry for your anxiety and hope to see more of you in the future. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience. This translation will be difficult due to the code that can split a text mid-sentence. Currently, 1300 words, with code, have been translated. I aim to keep as many citations as possible, and try to turn the article into one of the major articles available on the Danish wikipedia. However, this is a very slow process. I will try to improve the grammar over the parts I have translated before translating the next 1000 words from the English article.
Perhaps we can cooperate and start a project that improves the consistency of content between languages. CAT tools such as OmegaT fall under the GPL agreement, and multiple translations can be kept track of in a single project file.
--OO(talk)(useless text here) 17:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Parsec may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Done, thank you BracketBot. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It is unhelpful and unfriendly not to explain reversion at Gulf War (disambiguation)[edit]

You reverted my edits at Gulf War (disambiguation) with the completely opaque and unhelpful comment "Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water." What baby? What bath water? What you reverted back to is a complete mess. It is repetitive and confusing. Your choice to revert and not edit is, further, unfriendly; against the spirit of cooperation, inclusion and consensus that undergirds Wikipedia; lazy; arrogant; and even bullying. Please explain on the talk page your insulting action -- your disregard of my work -- with an understandable explanation and not some flippant cliched metaphor. You owe my edits at least that much respect. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 11:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Gulf War (disambiguation)#Inexplicable revision. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Unafraid of the Dark, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heliopause (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) 08:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Allen was invoked but never defined (see the help page).