Jump to content

User talk:I already forgot/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Die (manufacturing)

Nice additions to the above page, keep up the good work and I look forward to seeing more edits in the watchlist. Perhaps WikiProject Metalworking will survive by the looks of the recent additions to the contributors section. — Graibeard (talk) 10:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I have my eye on a few. Now just need to find the time!I already forgot 07:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking for guidance

Straight into the hard stuff heh? ;-) I agree that the casting article could be an overview under cat. manufacturing with each method (eg: lost wax) having a summary and a link to its own article, I don't think there is a need for [[casting (metalworking)]] though, as each article will have an appropriate category and a search for casting will present an appropriate link.

As to how to go about it? You can always be bold, however doing that to an article with a pedigree such as this one could be overstepping the mark. If you make the changes and get bounced for them, just chalk it up to experience and don't let it ruin your day. Being bold when sorting and expanding articles in the metalworking area has (to date) been uneventful as the edits have been uncontroversial and obvious improvements.

If you're unsure that being bold is the best approach then open a discussion on the articles talk page with your proposal, it will become clear after a short while if your intention worries anyone and you can act accordingly. The downside to this approach is there may be more talking than doing.

Whichever way you choose, always keep in mind that the GFDL requires that the articles history (author credits) be attributed, so don't do cut'n paste page moves and when merging content make sure the edit summary clearly links to the article's origins, if necessary add any additional comments (reason for merge, date of first inclusion in old article) to the new talk page, also the initial entry on the merged article should only be the transferred content, the next entries can incorporate new edits.

Regarding redirects: If there is no entry for an article, readers are encouraged to create it, this is good as it reduces the tendency to end up with a host of similarly titled pages; die making, coin die and Coining (machining) (or even [[press tools]], [[die (forming)]] :-) created by different authors, modified by others but with no links back to the parent or similar articles. Therefore when an article is created we should also create redirects to catch alternative names or related searches, these redirects (or placeholders) can also be added after the event. Looking at the history of [[casting]] gives an insight into how it evolved. It originally started as an article that predominately described the Lost wax method with the lost wax redirects coming much later. It could be argued that it was misnamed originally, or that the redirect should instead have been an article that merged the appropriate material but I won't take that stance as this is a wiki and everyone contributes what they can, when they can; as long as the articles move forwards and improve that's the main goal.

In short; redirects are good, but at some time they may need to be reclaimed and used - consider them as the smallest of stub articles. — Graibeard (talk) 02:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


Apprenticeship question

I'm trying to move from computer science into tool and die work, and I'm starting to get frustrated with the lack of information out there. Any suggestions on what I should be doing, and where I should be looking to get into a tool and die apprenticeship? - Toastydeath 21:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. I didn't really want to get into a long and drawn out internet arguement over something that's highly semantic and subjective - i.e. what one considers "self-replicating," etc. Don't worry, I'll still be editing all over the place.

N. Ramani

Thanks for good work at N. Ramani. Badagnani 20:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

User space

Sorry, I didn't think that categories, etc. in user talk space were picked up. They probably shouldn't be. I'm just keeping that around in case the main article is deleted; I don't want to lose all those cites. --John Nagle 21:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Muslim pop in Kashmir

Kashmir has a muslim majority. Most Hindus have been ethnically cleansed from the region. Even before that, Sufi sants had converted the population to Islam centuries back.Netaji 23:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
To your post in my user page (moved it to my talk page), my answer is:
Damn Straight. I'd count 250,000 Hindus ethnically cleansed from kashmir as an act of persecution.Netaji 05:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Hold on. Let me qualify my last statement. I forgot that the title is "Historical persecution". However, even historically, Kashmiri pandits have been slaughtered by muslims there and had to seek protection from Ranjit Singh. See this.Netaji 05:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
In contrast, there has been no persecution of muslims from the Dogra clans who ran Kashmir from the 19th cent onwards till independence.Netaji 05:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Steve Irwin

Uncited?? In Australia the damage that cloven hooved animals can do to our delicate and NOT evolved for soils is well known- and documented. (cows are now bannd from national parks for this amongst other reasons). So much do i dont think it needs to be sited. How many litte sitations do we need in wikki? Theres no sitations for the fact he was a crocodile trapper for example...... b However i am happy to provide some. It may take a while though as i dont really think i will be able to get quality from the internet. Would have been nicer to put one of those [citation needed] thingys. Cilstr 04:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edit is not only uncited but its POV. Countering a quote with a cited rebuttal from a person who can make such assertions would be more appropriate. However, an editor has already cited source to discredit the statement so the addition would be redundant.--I already forgot 05:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Well,as i said i was preparing(scientific) sources. And it is not POV it has been proven ( scientifcally) that cloven hoved animals damage australian soils. Thats not POV - you coulda said redundant i supose- but the Sydney Morning Herald is hardly a great source. Their statement IS POV and nonscience. Cilstr 07:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


need source "for deady sea creatures"...quick —Preceding unsigned comment added by I already forgot (talk • contribs)

I heard it on A Current Affair tonight. I would use {{cite visual}}, but I didn't catch the title. --DavidHOzAu 09:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You can also view the article here. You'll need to use internet explorer to view the video. --DavidHOzAu 09:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

For your work in narrowing down the list of references on Steve Irwin. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Anytime!--I already forgot 11:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Benilicus

I deleted the contents of Benilicus for a reason - it's a made up animal. There's no such thing and I doubt you'd find any evidence of it outside Wikipedia or its mirrors. damanmundine—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Damanmundine (talk • contribs) .

I do not disagree. The problem is it looks like vandalism as you did not follow WP:DELETE policy. Next time you see an article that should be deleted, follow WP:DELETE procedures and tag it for deletion. Otherwise, deleting the contents of the article is deleting the evidence used for its deletion. Anyway, no big deal, I'll tag it.--I already forgot 10:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
OK thanks, I'll remember next time..--Damanmundine

Hare scramble

The AMA link is provided twice in the current revision.--Scribner 19:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks here, also. I look forward to reading the article. Take care.--Scribner 21:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"Motorcycle racing" vs "motorcycle sport" - I've moved the former to the latter (and changed all links) because the former doesn't strictly incorporate everything within the realm of the sport - notably enduros and trials. if in the context of this article it doesn't sound right then its fine by me, but over here strictly speaking we call our "hare and hounds" not racing for legal (well insurance) purposes (its cheaper - you're chasing the target that is ridiculous) Pickle 17:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Spam reverts

Hi & thanks for picking up some spam today that I was involved with too. Don't know if you have looked at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups but it does make some things much easier (I have other toys but do tend to use that one most). Equally there is a good script somewhere for reporting IPs for vandalism - will happily look out the location if you want me too. I do tend to slap a warning (test or spam from the templates) on any I find - it does help following editors to make decisions about reporting etc. Thanks and regards --Nigel (Talk) 17:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Add Phishing by Police

I read your user mail to me. I will respond in the discussion section for the Phishing article. I ask that you respond there, also.


just out of curiosity

May I ask, then, why an article about a part of the judicial system is too long and too detailed for you because it contains information, while an article about a single tennis player whom only tennis fans have even heard of deserves an article just as long??HarvardOxon


that was a useful review of the NNA...why did you remove the link to it? The article about the NNA is crap, at least leave a decent link about the NNA up. --Roadkillu 19:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

isn't a review supposed to be someone's POV? Is that not the whole point of a review...getting someone's opinion on something? --Roadkillu 20:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


Re: Talk:Off-road vehicle

I already forgot wrote:

I've responded [1][2][3], provided policy[4], later explained in detail on which policy to ref [5], and have responded to jeepday after he disregards my explanations. User will not give up until valid talk entries he disagrees with are removed (which user Loperco requested assistance on and talk was not deleted [6]). It doesn’t matter how I explain myself or cite policy, the user acts if I did not provide valid reasons for rv talk page blanking and then ref different policy while talking from the 3rd person [7]. First the user changed Loperco's talk entry and added quote by adding bigot[8], then cited the talk entry was pov[9][10] as if it was an article and then used his own suggestion as consensus for removal[11][12]. Then it was sending to history (deleting)as if archiving [13], then its speedy delete [14] and now that you have stated that discussion should not be deleted, the users current reason for talk page blanking is copyvio [15] and contends that I'm blindly rv his deletion under the premise that policy doesnt apply [16]. Also, when did citing source and quoting a 30yr old letter to an editor in discussion become a copyvio? Or is it just another attempt to censor valid discussion that both jeepday and I disagree with but is valid nonetheless? For this reason I have rv the blanking just as I do on all my other vandal patrols. I'm sorry this has ended up on your talk page but this user will not give up and I needed to reply to his statements about me. Since you are an admin, I ask for help and guidance on this issue as its becoming exhausting. --I already forgot 01:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your extensive explanation. Neither of you are really at fault here; it was more of a well-intentioned misunderstanding.

I've had a look at the copyrighted material in question. As far as I am concerned, quoting a paragraph of a letter on a discussion page, for the purposes of discussion, where the content of the letter is relevant to the subject under discussion and where the quote is clearly marked as such and sourced is fine. Were the quote in the article itself, I might recommend that it were removed were it not essential to the article. However, quoting a short, inextensive passage from copyrighted material, with attribution, is not a copyright violation; many examples can be found in our articles. The quote should be restored to the talk page. (This message has also been posted to User talk:Jeepday) – Gurch 01:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed

I offer my apologies for what I agree has been a very exhausting argument. I would like to post the following to the Talk:Off-road vehicle page. I offer it first for your review for accuracy and inconstancies.

Begin proposed post

I stand corrected, User:I already forgot and I (User:Jeepday) interpreted Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines differently. User:Gurch who is administrator stepped in, in response to my posting a request for speedy deletion [17] on the Talk:Off-road vehicle page. User:I already forgot and I (User:Jeepday) both posted our perspectives to User:Gurch [18] who responded to each of us. [19] [20] The consensus is that both the Edward_Abbey_qoute and the discussion about it are appropriate to remain on the Talk:Off-road vehicle page, I accept this and offer my apologies to any that may have been offended. (to be signed on posting)

End proposed post

Question -Do think our argument could have been alleviated or simplified by an inclusion on Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines of a sub section on content of talk page? Jeepday 16:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

.--I already forgot wrote on my talk page

I guarantee we both learned something from the incident and will approach similar incidents from a different perspective next time. No hard feelings and happy editing.--I already forgot about the incident.

LOL, Agreed Jeepday 14:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Notary public

No, these issues were not discussed already on the talk page, opther issues were. If you are going to confuse people by screwing around with articles for no good reason, will you please format the new artricles correctly, and try not to drop the references?HarvardOxon 04:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Message above was left after I failed to add the ref tag to a new article that was moved from new york section of notary public which is also the state the user is overly protective of. Not sure how to reply to such uncivil nonsense but here was my attempt [21].--I already forgot 08:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Baja 1000

Do you have a list of the overall winners at the Baja 1000? I would like to see the list added and sourced. I can see reverted the list if indeed it was the winners of a specific class. Also, the list of division does change from year to year, so I'm okay with that list being reverted. Please reply either here or at the article's talk page. Royalbroil T : C 12:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not have a list of overall winners but I can try and dig them up. If the list is correct, the majority of the latest overall wins should be Honda's A Team. More specifically, Class 22 rider of record Johnny Campbell. Again, I will try and get a list started or help to add the correct overall winner. --I already forgot 16:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see the discussion page. Royalbroil T : C 14:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

SODA & Jack Flannery

Do you have a background and/or sources with the SODA series? I would like to see the SODA (series) article expanded. I would also like to write an article on Flannery, but I can't find any web sources. I remember watching the races on ESPN. Most of the races were held at tracks close to my home, but I only went to one event at Road America. I went to stockcar races at 4 of the former tracks this year (Antigo (Image), Luxemburg (Image), Lake Geneva Raceway, and Oshkosh (Image). Thanks! Royalbroil T : C 06:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#North_American_Motorsport

I am wondering if you would be interested in contributing to a new WikiProject that I have proposed? It focuses on motorsports in North American that are not covered by other WikiProjects. One big uncovered areas is Off-road racing, and I obviously are knowledgable about the Baja 1000. Please check out the proposal, and join if you are interested and have the time. Cheers! Royalbroil T : C 21:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I won't set up the WikiProject except if we find several more gungho knowledgable participants. I know Barno & I are. It takes quite a bit of work to setup and maintain a WikiProject, and my time might be best spent working to improve the variety of articles. We should each just do our own thing like we have been except if there is a push. There seems to be a push in the U.S. towards all forms of racing. I haven't seen that real much in Wikipedia (except NASCAR). I thought I should ask to find out if you would be more interested in that area. I appreciate your thoughts and honesty on the proposal. Royalbroil T : C 22:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I am totally impressed!!! Royalbroil T : C 23:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Your gross incivility on User talk:Embryoglio

Please do not make incivil false accusations of incivility and false accusations of vandalism on your target's talk page, and do not vandalize said talk page by restoring your false accusations that were deleted by the user. It is the right of a user to blank any portion of one's talk page, and especially that which violates Wikipedia:Civility. Embryoglio 23:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sex positions

I returned one of the images to the article after reviewing it's status. It seems to be a valid GFDL, and not a copyvio. Am I mistaken? Atom 18:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I like your username.

^_^ - ∅ (∅), 16:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That’s one hell of a compliment coming from I do not exist :).--I already forgot 18:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Me, too! I can definitely identify with it. --A. B. (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Htmclogo est1945.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Htmclogo est1945.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 06:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

re: [[:{{{1}}}]]}}.

Thank you for your consideration, I regard my posts as contributions expressing the vital current usage of the relevant ~pedia - the sandbox in this respect seems like a scratching post (re: Your continued donationskeep Wikipedia running!)?

I have to confess the source is different to what I am accustomed to, I had repeatedly edited my posts to achieve a final look until attaining just the simple layout I intended, I am using the 'Wikiwalkthroughs' for would be contributors to finalise layout & presentation and it is coming together more gracefully with my continuing essay.

File:Pyrofexavatar.gif
Kind regards
Pyrofex 23:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


Original message-------

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --I already forgot 17:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey. The glossary you added at Mountain Bike in the external links section is very useful, but also take every opportunity to advertise for the company. For example, after discussing a material, it will talk about why they use it in one place on their bikes and are therefore better than other manufacturers. Do you know of another similar site thats a little more neutral, with a little less spam? It's useful enough to warrant leaving if not, but is very Fisher-centric. Goodnightmush 18:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The new one looks much more neutral. Thanks. Goodnightmush 22:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I saw your edits to User talk:125.24.11.105. I leave those links so that if someone does a linksearch on some spam link in the future, they'll instantly see the other users that have added the same link. Here's an example:

  • Current list of articles with jobseek-info.blogspot.com links

If you click the link, you'll see what I mean.

Otherwise, in the anarchy of Wikipedia, spammers change accounts, add the same links again, get a low-level warning, then repeat. This way they can end up getting reverted and warned on an ad-hoc basis by many different editors for months and months before anyone connects the dots, if ever, and puts the domains on the spam blacklist.

Thanks for warning that guy and reverting his spam. That wasn't his first time or first account used. --A. B. (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for adding the Porsche 911-powered VW T1 bus link, I thought it would be interesting. --HashiriyaGDB 13:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm Sorry

I was merely trying to reverse vandalism. I did not realize that the included links were spam. Thank you for informing me of my error. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.27.124.111 (talk) 04:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

EADS

The addition of EADS NA Defense Security and Systems Solutions, Inc. to the Parent company of EADS is appropriate. I appreciate your zeal to keep Wikipedia correct, and would appreciate you returning the link to the EADS web page that has now been removed twice. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank-you. Gam2121.

Please see WP:EL and related pages. The sole purpose of your account was to create links from multiple articles to your website. The article in question has the appropriate link to the home page of EADS and should not contain a list of links to every subsidiary or affiliate of the company. In addition, the home page of EADS and EADS North America link to subsidiaries of the company so adding a list would be redundant and add no value to the article. For example: ITT Corporation has subsidiaries scattered across the globe but the article page links to the corporate site which then links to affiliated companies. --I already forgot 17:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Mitnick

Oh, I see. That's fine. Thankyou for notifying me on the matter. Happy editing! Lradrama 13:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Regarding notability of Football (soccer) players

Hi, seeing you have been involved in previous Afd debates on the subject I invite you to contribute to this discussion to clarify certain issues about football player notability. I think clearer guidelines are needed to avoid repeated inappropriate nominations for deletion and time consuming discussions. Cheers! StephP 19:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

moved from user page

Please take the time to revisit some of the changes made from this IP that you have deleted. Bumpal.com IS a social bookmarking site and deserves its entry in that list. For the external links I submitted, I strongly apologize.

Have a nice day.

Regards, George—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.106.23.131 (talk • contribs)

Baja 1000

I notice that you revert some external links to the Baja 1000 article. I didn't like the first link (dictionary terms), but do like the second link (the one about the classes). I think it is helpful for a more detailed description of the race vehicles and not spam. I think that it should be returned. Let's discuss on the article's talk page. Royalbroil T : C 04:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Shootings

No probs. I assume you were reverting the disgusting racist epithet. Any chance of tagging the vandal? Famousdog 21:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

AIV

Hi there! I'm not an administrator but I have removed you report of a user to WP:AIV, please report vandals after they have vnadalised aftyer their last warning, AIV should not be used for help requests. Thanks - Tellyaddict 11:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If you suspect sockpuppets take it to Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets.Tellyaddict 12:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
See WP:WARN, that will help you if they're removing speedy tags.Tellyaddict 12:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Uh, well it is the first tag listed on my user page...but it's called WP:UTM :) .-- I already forgot  talk  12:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk page and username

Regarding user talk pages, it is best to not delete notices to make space, but instead, to archive them. You will find how to do this here [22], under "When pages get too long." Your talk page is intended to serve as a place to discuss your contributions. It ends up being a sort of a history of the work you've done and the conflicts you've been in, or the praise you've received. It's alright to archive comments or warnings, but blanking your talk page is not considered acceptable, as it is not actually yours. Please read WP:USERPAGE and WP:TALK. If your deletion of notices and concerns on your user talk page is to keep the "clutter" down, I suggest that you instead create archives for these messages, like mine here: [23]. I would be happy to assist you in doing just that if you ask me to. Finally, and most importantly...I love your username! Very clever and funny! -Kukini hablame aqui 07:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought for sure the welcome message and Esperanza newsletter were worthy of deletion in favor of archiving. It was a judgement call but I guess some users would prefer to see such templates on my talk page so I'll revert them back and reluctantly archive my talk page when it gets a bit longer. Thanks for offer to help.-- I already forgot  talk  07:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey...I meant no offense...just didn't see an archive page and wanted to be sure you knew how to do it. I appreciate the good work you are doing here. Kukini hablame aqui 07:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
No offense taken, none at all. Just giving an explanation. No worries here... -- I already forgot  talk  07:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


Fortran installation

I think an external link that details how to install Fortran is warranted. When I first found that I would be using Fortran for research, I looked it up on wikipedia first to get background info. Then I had to go through several different and scattered websites to understand how to install the program. It was a process that I had to figure out myself, but would like to spare others in the future. I dont think it fits as a wikipedia topic, but it should be a link.

re:scooby

I sure wasn't trying to vandalize anything, and I don't really remember what I did. Sorry if stuff got screwed up. --Shane_42

Just asking. Some of the edits were a bit strange. -- I already forgot  talk  19:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

PHP

I'm sorry but why did you feel like you should remove the practical example that was written for the Object Constructor?

Eugene Vasilchenko 18:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Article pages should not be a repository of code examples and tutorials unless it has encyclopedic value. Also, adding your name as the author of such scripts on the article page raises a few other issues as well. I would suggest using the talk page for inclusion of lengthy code snippets. -- I already forgot  talk  19:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. When the bot flag is set it will show up in this log. ST47Talk 23:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll wait for a flag before starting the bot up in auto-mode again. -- I already forgot  talk  02:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You removed this link from the Mossberg 500 article. What in particular did you find objectionable? It's an unbiased review that mentions the pros (it can put out a line much farther than other methods tested) and cons (it's a shotgun, so it can be lethal if misused) of the system. scot 13:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The link provides little to no information on the Mossberg 500. The article is a shootout between Line Launching Devices with the only relationship to the main article being the statement of "Mariner Line Launcher - This special purpose shooting system, made by firearms manufacturer Mossberg, uses launching blanks in a specially adapted shot gun". The article gives no clue to the relationship between the launching devices and the Mossberg 500 other than the one vague sentence. More suitable links would be similar to [24] that also links to [25] which provide more detail on the article subject. I only rv linkspam so feel free to rv the change if it’s a valid entry but poor editorial discretion on my part. -- I already forgot  talk  15:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The manual, while it has more information on how to use the launcher, lacks context. It doesn't mention how unusual it is (no other shotgun I know of has a conversion kit, most powder based line launchers are dedicated systems), nor does it give any sense of relative effectiveness. The review provides context, and being a source outside of Mossberg, offers a less biased assessment of the launcher kit--basically, it's not for the amateur, but it can sure launch a line. In fact, the review said they were getting over 400 feet with the floating head, while Mossberg lists a 250 foot range with the float, 700 without. I don't think the lack of info on the shotgun as a shotgun is particularly worrisome, as there is plenty of other reference material there, including a link to the Mossberg site, which has manuals online (the launcher manual is here). How about this--I'll put the line launcher review back in, and put in a set of direct links to various applicable manuals on Mossberg's site--the basic 500/590 manual, the line launcher, and the 500 double action model. scot 19:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Off-road vehicle

Hello, I have some problems with those last few additions to the article. At least one of the reference does not support the content added, so I am probably going to move (some or all, still looking) to talk. But I was wondering if we want to archive some of the talk page. My first thought was just archive everything but on quick review seems like at least the Talk:Off-road_vehicle#Criticism_of_off-roading and related should probably stay on the talk page. What are your thoughts? Would you be willing to archive some of it? If you would like to actually make the move, I would support what every you chose to archive. Jeepday (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious that the user is the old loper account that is anti OHV and is using wikipedia to push the POV. I think there definitely should be a section on the controversy over the land use and environmental disputes but the way that it’s being created goes completely against wikipedia philosophy. In regards to archiving the talk page, look at it like any other talk page you have come across that you did not have much opinion on the subject. If you then feel like it needs to be archived, then feel free to do so. -- I already forgot  talk  06:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I made a proposal it starts a paragraph above Talk:Off-road_vehicle#Build_a_criticism_section. Please come take a look and see what you think. Jeepday (talk) 03:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It will be interesting to see how well everyone can work together on this issue. -- I already forgot  talk  03:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Would you like to sign up to participate? Jeepday (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there
No offense, to you personally ! But yesterday, I spent 2 hours to enhance - and was inspired to do so by Wiki - the SATA article page, to include Reliable Sources, instead of just 'External Links' as remains in the article.
If you remove my amendment, that points the reader to the 'deepest links' you can ever get into the ANSI standardization body, and to the SATA-IO standard, I suggest you spend time on something different.
If Wiki is going to be thrustworthy, which is whole idea of the current improvement project, you MUST allow Wiki to refer to Standardization bodies and their Work Products (ie. Standards) as Facts or Evidence. I cannot help, that some corporate directors, decides to make money out of standards, which are for the benefit of humans. Until these are free, you must allow Wiki refer to deep URL's (as deep as possible) to standards.
If for some reason, you act on the basis of some Wiki policy, I suggest you raise this as an general issue. As I points out in my comment in my amendment: 

To be honest, I don't think the Wiki cite web template are useful for these (type of References).
Can you explain in more detail this "deep URL's" phenomenon? One link was to an already linked home page and the other was a link to purchase a book??? -- I already forgot  talk  20:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

ZombieWacker and BirdHunters

I see you've tagged these two as sockpuppets of each other. I suspect EnviroGranny is the same person. Normal practice is to tag one account as the {{sockpuppeteer}} and the other accounts as {{sockpuppet}}. Unless you object, I'll tag EnviroGranny as the sockpuppeteer, since it is the oldest account (that we know about) and the other two as socks. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding User:Nuklear

Please file a report about your complaints regarding his behaivour at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I can't make heads or tails whether he's an academic who's misguided in regards to Wikipedia policies and guidelines or a true crackpot trying to disrupt Wikipedia. His behaivour is not clear-cut vandalism and requires a review not possible at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  08:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Some interesting bits of info:

  • Nuklear adds info [26], I move it to the top some time later [27], and Nuklear adds a fact tag to his edit that I moved [28] as if he had no idea he added it in the first place.
  • Nuklears only communications: [29][30][31]. You would think that someone who adds so much written content could communicate a tad bit more information. Unless the kind of response you will get is like any of the following (taken from an AFD [32] of an article he created). [33][34][35][36][37] Which looks like vandal talk.
  • Looked up some of the edits by Nuklear and I remove some of his edits [38] which had exactly the same text on the article at [39]
  • Similar copyvio edits removed here [40] that was copied from the article at [41]
  • And he recently creates an article with the same copyvio edits: [42] which is again a duplicate of the article at (under heading PHARMACOPHORE MODELING) [43]

At this point, it looks like the articles he's creating are for purposes other than wikipedia's intended use (meaning I have no clue on what's going on) so I add the speedy tags and request admin help as something is not right here and the copyvios are concerning. He continues to avoid using the talk pages and removes tags added to the article. I'm willing to assume good faith but the user remains to be illusive as if it were a bot or vandal performing the edits instead of a wikipedian. What to do? -- I already forgot  talk  10:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, if you want action to be taken against Nuklear, you'll need to post this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
If I'm the only one with an issue over the edits, then maybe it's not an issue. After some talk (or lack of) at Ohmefentanyl article I'm not sure, I'll give it a rest for now.-- I already forgot  talk  21:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Off-road

Pointless deletions from Fortran article

Why did you make the reversion (cur) (last) 17:10, 23 May 2007 I already forgot (Talk | contribs) (46,253 bytes) (Revert to revision 131118990 dated 2007-05-15 20:09:52 by CmdrObot using popups) to the Fortran article? The compilers I added to the non-open source list were valid. It makes no sense to include only two.

What’s the encyclopedic value of adding a list of links to every known FORTRAN compiler on the net? All it does is dilute the valuable links in a mere list of links. I think most users are capable of typing "fortran compilers" in search engines to pull up the same results. Let’s make this an encyclopedia with a small handful of valuable links and not a repository of low value list of links or facts one must weed through to get the meat.-- I already forgot  talk  17:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

With reference to:

(cur) (last) 10:25, 12 June 2007 I already forgot (Talk | contribs) (20,910 bytes) (Revert to revision 137202135 dated 2007-06-10 07:55:19 by YechielMan using popups)

The deletion of the link to the JavaScript Essentials book seems a little overzealous. The link was to an online book containing 23 extensive chapters of detailed information on JavaScript and is at least as valid as any other of the external links listed on the JavaScript page (and on closer inspection of some of the other links I would even argue it is more valid). If a comprehensive online book on JavaScript is not a valid external link for the JavaScript Wikipedia page, I don't know what is.

Overzealous? I think whipping up an online wiki, slapping a bunch of google add links on it and then linking it from wikipedia as a comprehensive online book is a smack in the face to all us volunteers who do not gain one bit from the work they do. If you would like to help, please help expand our wikibook we already have on the topic. Otherwise, I would love to add my wikis loaded with google adsense so I can make a few bucks off of click throughs as well. -- I already forgot  talk  17:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I am confused. Are we talking about the same URL? What you describe bears no resemblence to the content I linked to. I have just spent 2 months writing an entire book on JavaScript and that is exactly what is on the site I linked to. The http://www.techotopia.com/index.php/JavaScript_Essentials link I specified contains the table of contents for my book. Every one of the links on that page is a link to a chapter of the book and each chapter contains detailed content. You say all I have done is slap together a bunch of google ad links? Did you follow any of the links on the Table of Contents page? I can assure you they all link to detailed and original content.

I put a lot of work into both this book and the PHP book you have also deleted from the PHP page (which also took me months to write). I am not looking to make money from these books but had hoped that I could find ways for people to find them so that they could use them to learn about these topics. I put them in wiki format in the hope that others would be able to contribute if they felt they wanted to.

As regards wikibooks, it is particularly sad that Wikipedia will prominently link to the JavaScript wikibook book which is barely a third complete two years after it was started (writing books is very, very hard work - that is why many wikibooks are and will remain incomplete) and yet a volunteer will delete a link to a completed book simply because it is not a wikibook. If I was to put my entire book on wikibooks it would look just like it does on my site except the link to it would not get deleted.

I had assumed Wikipedia was an open community effort where anyone could contribute useful information. My experience in the last two days has been disheartening and it seems to me there is a need for a better system where other stakeholders of a particular page get some say in whether something is useful or not before it can be deleted. I know many other people monitor the pages I edited yet it seems you are the only person who objected to my additions. In fact, at least one other person tried on a couple of occasions to re-instate the JavaScript Essentials link because they considered it to be useful.

I'm not sure what the real underlying problem is here but I detect deep seated resentment in your comments. I personally think the content I linked to is relevant, well written, well researched and presented in great detail. I worked hard to create the content and I thought it would be useful to people reading about JavaScript on Wikipedia. I am confident people will find it and use it regardless of whether it is on Wikipedia or not - and that is all I really ever wanted.

I know the work you do in preventing spam is vital to Wikipedia - I just wish you could see the value in the links I added in the same way I do.

I wish you luck in your continued Wikipedia volunteer efforts. Clearly contributing in an environment where a single person gets to decide the worth of my contributions is not for me.

Don't bother responding. I won't be coming back to this page.

Well I'm going to respond anyway. If you do not wish to make any money, why all the adsense links? We have an online wiki book here hosted for free, why not volunteer here? Why not add just one bit of information to our book? Maybe just half a sentence or just a couple words? I guess its easier to say screw you... you get nothing wikipedia unless you accept my site as a link first. I'm not trying to be difficult but vandalism and linkspam is a problem that's difficult to combat and always pisses off the author of the link site. If the web authors intentions are honorable, it is shown in the content of the site which in turn usually results in inclusion on wikipedia pages if the site provides additional valuable information beyond the scope of wikipedia. Not saying your intentions are not honorable, but there is definitely a conflict of interest. Take a look at WP:EL for more information. -- I already forgot  talk  20:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey there!

Excellent "work" on Jimbo's userpage... :P Love, Phaedriel - 23:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:I_already_forgot/Archive_1&oldid=1144567142"