User talk:Ingolfson/Archive2006

Impressed with your Dick Hubbard re-write. I've made some changes in ordering the issues on the entry. Hope its ok with you. --Barzini

Thanks! I didn't actually add much. Simply cleaned up the clutter. Heck, I didn't even know anything about the guy a few months ago ;-) MadMaxDog 03:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 08:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I switched the names in the "Fletcher" disambiguation page back to the preferred format of "Given name Surname" instead of "Surname, Given name". Any time you see such a list the names are written as such. 66.92.54.95 08:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to do what you want with the pictures. I was thinking that the far and near images would help someone who goes there to recognize the monument, as you can only see it for a few seconds. I don't have a higher resolution of the engraving. I was hoping that a photo gallery would encourage someone to put more pictures. Cheers Isaac Crumm 10:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP says that if comments like that aren't sourced, delete immediately. Hard to see how I could act "too quickly". Please explain. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 19:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I see you removed the {{db-noimage}} tag from Image:Posttower Bonn 001.jpg and I would just like to clarify that the image itself is not nominated for speedy deletion but only the empty English Wikipedia image description page associated with it. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't get the point. The page is not empty as such - even if its only a copy from the German one (note that it does provide English info). MadMaxDog 22:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image file and the image description page (with information in English and German) are hosted at Wikimedia Commons (the URL for this photo is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Posttower_Bonn_001.jpg). The only content the English Wikipedia image description page for this file ever had was the {{fpc}} tag. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must have accidentally deleted that paragraph from Bach (New Zealand) when fixing those typos. I have no idea how it happened - sorry! -- FirstPrinciples 10:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sprotect tag should only be placed by administrators who have semi-protected the page in question. The tag itself does nothing except to inform potential editors of the page's protection status. Since you are not an administrator, you should not use this tag. I'm sure it was a genuine misunderstanding on your part, but passing yourself off as an admin would be considered very bad form.

The correct way to have the page semi-protected would be to place a request at WP:RFPP. However, semi-protection is for pages which are being attacked by vandals using ever-changing IP addresses or throw-away accounts. What's happening at Auckland is a content dispute, not vandalism, and accordingly semi-protection is unlikely to be granted. Since all parties are logged in, and there don't appear to be throw-away accounts used, at most semi-protection would prevent one editor from changing the article until his or her account was four days old.

The correct course of action is to take the matter to the talk page, as you have now done. You can also specifically discuss the nature of edits on user talk pages.-gadfium 19:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, you've left an image on my commons account. In fact I have no idea how to fix the resizing problem as appearently none of my bigger images resizes correctly. I've used both GIMP and Photoshop to encode the JPEG but the problem still exists. One size, 300px, works for thumbnails and I have used it when I inserted the image. Can you tell me where you've seen the broken thumbnail? --antilived ^{T | C} 06:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Auckland article, after clicking on the image... MadMaxDog 08:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is something I cannot fix. Same thing happens to my other panorama and so far no one knows how to fix it. --antilived ^{T | C} 08:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just wanted to tell you that I was quite unhappy with the deletion of Anna Marek and that I have asked for a deletion review. I am not familiar with the process so I don't know about the chances of success. Hektor 13:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you inquired at the deleting admin's talk page. It appears that this deletion seriously deviated from the proper procedure; see my comments at User_talk:Hektor#Re:_Anna_Marek. GregorB 12:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I left another comment on his page. What do you think, should we ask for another deletion review? I also found (a wee bit late, dang), that she might be worth WP:PORNBIO criteria #7. However, the hornyrob website is down, so I cannot check if the movies under her name were compilations. Dang, she IS a bloody phantom. MadMaxDog 06:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• PS: I also started a section discussion it on the WP:PORNBIO discussion page.

Dude .. i am glad to see someone objecting here and being rational!

Last night StargateINC lost DNS for over 700,000 websites .. we are up tonight. I just sent sent a letter to one admin explaining why a war broke out with the party who kept putting this listing back up --seems he was emailed an ugly letter from an admin here (assume female) questioning Anna's age and shaming him for sticking up for her as she said her husband had told her that Anna was less then 18 when she first entered the business and she had removed the page. This man knew this was false and locked horns wrongly with the admins by reinstating it. He reacted emotionally to the email he was sent. I know about this as he alerted us after the issue, told me the story and sent a copy of it to us. We were amazed at the ignorance and dumbing down we saw taking place by this person using rumors and invalid information to remove the page. Based on this the whole issue has remained since a mess.

Anna Marek's info and trade stats unlike American stars is not on every trade magazine as we do not do this in Europe... but her info can be found on several companies sites she worked for such as the Color Climax site, Max B.V., Silwa, Hornyrob sites (who put her bio up at annamarek.com and of course her bio is on the Color Climax website.

Anna since 1992 to date has appeared in more CCC magazines and series then any other model and is their most popular model. We owned the videos U.S. rights since 1996. Anna is easy to trace and has probably sold more videos and been on more peoples computers in image sets then just about any adult model in the world. The above 4 companies mentioned certianly have not always gotten along well and is no way in the universe their info being the same is a collarboration .. it is simply because it is accurate and mirrors know facts and the info Anna has shared with us. Anna has only asked us not to not share anything that would violate her privacy as she is married with a family now.

All of this insanity started as one of your admins set off one of her fans canceling the page based on misinformation ... i am still watching all this chaos in amazement -- what amazes me most is how US oriented the proceedures are for your verifacation. Anna has been part of the IMDB database since 1993 and one of the longest lasting adult stars on the net. She is now 31 and just came out for another Color Climax magazine set that soon will be published.

[email protected]

I will see whether we can verify something from that. Though it may take me a while. MadMaxDog 06:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, am confused by your comment that the Sunderland MR5 was a Sandringham variant, (the Sandringham, after all, was a post war variant of the Sunderland?) Winstonwolfe 01:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may have been overeager in this edit, as I was of the understanding that the TEAL Shorts were Sandringham versions. So I thought that the one on display would have to be one as well. Excuse my sloppiness, and if you have any real reason to believe that the Motat version is not a Sandringham, please change it back. MadMaxDog 08:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt answer, Sorry, will rv as;

1. MoTaT has an RNZAF Short Sunderland, AND a Short flying boat used by Teal - they are two different aircraft &

2. Teal used three different Shorts flying boats, the Short S.30, the Short Sandringham and the Short Solent, MoTaTs preserved Teal boat is actually a Solent.Winstonwolfe 01:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right, I was about to revert my deletion of that link. Cheers Kahuroa 10:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we worked in enough references and qualifications to satisfy the most contentious points - thus removing NPOV tag Yeah! ~~

Tags are perfectly fine. But they do have a tendency to stick around way too long. MadMaxDog 05:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've got the edit history confused, it was 24.205.178.148 who removed a link, I just added a few (including some useful pages that were linked to in the blog post that was removed). But I do think it might be better to remove that link (which is why I didn't restore it when 24.205.178.148 deleted it), the writing style isn't too professional and the external links section shouldn't include every random blog post on the post-scarcity idea (nothing wrong with blog posts, but they should either be from notable people or include information that can't be found elsewhere, I think). What do you think? Hypnosifl 07:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad. I do usually check all the changes in one batch. As for the relevance, I'll admit that I haven't read the articles linked themselves. If there had been an explanation (as you just provided) as to why the link was removed, I might have done a more involved check and agreed with the delete. I agree that this section seems a bit cluttered (partly due to a bit of lacking formatting, tough). MadMaxDog 07:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In toto, yes, should be checked for a bit of a whittling down. Can't do it the next couple days though... MadMaxDog 07:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory of companies with links to them. If you wish to give me the names of other such companies, I would be happy to delete them as well. Danny 11:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken like someone who, for whatever reason, is sure his choice is right, that he can do no wrong, while the common user does err all the time - and that discussion is unneccessary, as long as the decision from on high has been declared. MadMaxDog 05:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum after I have somewhat cooled down: I am coming around somewhat to the viewpoint. However, I still feel that the whole thing was handled badly by Danny (especially because no warning was given for articles who were lacking in content and references, but were not simple vanity articles at all), and because I think the deletion process can do without irony and more consideration. MadMaxDog 08:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're an Iain Banks fan. Presumably you recognise where I got my user name from.-gadfium 08:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes I did - I thought I'd ask about it, but never got around to. Have read only two so far, but Consider Phlebas is the next one already on the desk! Spent quite a while working on the main culture article and the one on orbitals too ;-) MadMaxDog 08:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was a blatant advertisement. I take the point about reasons for deletion, but its time consuming in the face of a mountain of junk, text followsjimfbleak 06:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Established in 1987, moladi has developed construction technology addressing the basic need for durable quality housing which is a viable affordable alternative to traditional building methods. Representing the most advanced technology and innovations in industrial construction of affordable low-cost housing, schools clinics and other structures, with years of experience in the industry our knowledge has inspired subsequent ulterior solutions for development.

Lack of resources, insufficient funds, skills shortage, time constraints, work flow control and waste are key challenges embodied in affordable housing shortages. Our technology addresses these issues and this is why individuals and organisations recognise moladi as the solution to housing needs throughout the world.

With the help of locally trained unskilled labour, the conduits, electricity, trusses, doors and windows are strategically cast in situ which eliminates the need for chasing or beam filling, which greatly reduces waste. The use of unskilled labour aids in job creation and the transference of skills and technology promotes development within under privileged communities.

Having undergone and passed rigorous testing by the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS), we have received numerous awards for our high standards in innovation. Constituting a lightweight patented, reusable, recyclable plastic framework system and SABS approved lightweight aerated mortar (which holds Agrément Certificate 94/231) the results are durable, permanent reinforced mortar structures of the highest quality and which is certified by the National Home Builders Regulation Council and bonded by top financial institutions.

The moladi plastic formwork technology is easily adaptable to the specified design requirements and is suitable for all types of buildings, yet highly suited for use in the mass housing markets; successfully alleviating many of the logistical problems facing the construction of affordable repetitive housing projects.

By utilising indigenous materials the benefits of the technology are spread to local communities. With a highly developed and reliable technology like moladi, the simplicity of the construction process allows for the ownership of a home to be within reach to many thousands of people. By applying the highest quality standards and a disciplined approach to the construction method, the cost of the entire housing delivery process is lowered, without it negatively impacting on the quality or social acceptability of the structure. moladi has been specifically designed and proven to deliver a fast track, cost-effective and easily transferable technology.

We supply our technology and support transfer of know-how by means of on site training internationally.

Web link - www.moladi.com

I've unprotected and deleted the page now, so it's blank for new creation. I had no issues regarding notability, just that it was clearly an advertisement and/or copyright infringement as it stood, thanks, jimfbleak 07:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hey there. I saw your comment on {{expert-subject}}. The parameters the template takes are names of WikiProjects. For example, WikiProject Computing exists, so the parameter "Computing" would work just fine. If you have any questions, lemme know. :) --Brad Beattie (talk) 07:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to make sure that in the lead sentence, the term "self-interest" was included. Enlightened self-interest is supposed (by proponents, at least) to be a form of self-interest. thanks for letting that point stick in the latter edit. r b-j 19:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I didn't simply revert to my own phrasing, as I thought that would be impolite. Ideally, its all about getting the best result, acceptable to all (or most), isn't it? MadMaxDog 12:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:OvergrownSpaHellBourg.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You can choose the size of thumbnail pictures in "my preferences". Unless there is a special reason that a particular size of image is needed (for instance, if it contains text or fine detail important to the article), please do not force the image to appear very large on smaller screens. Warofdreams talk 02:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I take your point - as the images for Hell-Bourg work well together, being above minimum size. However, on many articles, various-sized thumbnails produce bad effects on layout (only happens on images that actually ARE small, or where somebody previously forced them). Also, thumbnail sizing is VERY common on Wikipedia, and I consider that a good thing. But I won't revert your choice again in this case. MadMaxDog 02:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point noted, though it appears we both need to take your advice.—Stombs 09:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Because I answered an over-quick condemnation with irony? Okay, lets stop it in any case. MadMaxDog 09:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, I wasn't annoyed at you, nor did I condemn you. You read that in yourself. And I gave my comment in good faith, not out of criticism. Who is over-quick here?—Stombs 09:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. Of course you were not annoyed at *me* - you didn't even know I wasn't from the US. Your edit summary strongly implied a sort of 'cultural snobbism' on my side (or a kind of ignorance that could be held against me) instead of simply noting something along the line of 'New Zealand company articles should use British spelling - fixed it' . Can we leave it at that for the future, and I'll try to refrain from acerbic comebacks myself? MadMaxDog 10:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you bet. Actually, I assumed you were a New Zealander, because I doubt Americans would even be interested in Mainzeal. Here is the context: there is a lot of laziness going on here with people using US spellchecks, and schools really letting spelling slide. This has been going on in our education system for the last decade or so.—Stombs 10:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my case it is due to the fact that before coming to NZ a year ago, my English was learned mostly via US sources (from novels to Newsweek). Also, I do not use spellcheckers, as I tend to make many small edits (and admittedly I am lazy sometimes, though I do fix the majority of my mistakes myself soon afterwards). More generally speaking, I do not consider the differences to be that important, but I would never object to you fixing them - we may just have hit upon each other at a time when we were both just a bit annoyed? Cheers, MadMaxDog 10:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suspect so. Anyway, good luck to you on the editing.—Stombs 13:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For tireless work copyediting and expanding New Zealand-related articles gadfium 18:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you removed the date links from Nelson Mandela. Date linking has a useful side effect - [[20 January]] can render as either 20 January or January 20 depending on the viewer's preferences. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates containing a month and a day. Zaian 08:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but acc to Wiki Style guide, second paragraph, there is consensus that providing day links is usually not recommended. Not providing year links is less consensual (if one can use that word here ;-) but I am of the strong opinion that in 4 out of 5 cases I encounter, the year link won't be used except very rarely, and thus it only clutters up the text. Therefore I think date links should be/remain removed for most cases. Cheers, MadMaxDog 10:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read that paragraph as saying that day or month names shouldn't be linked - i.e. don't use ([[Tuesday]] or [[April]]. Further up it's pretty unambiguous - "If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should almost always be linked to allow readers' date preferences to work" - so [[27 April]] should usually be linked. But it's not something I feel strongly about. Zaian 13:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]