User talk:Triddle/Archive 2

Archive 1

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:CID closeup 1.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.

ping? Quinobi 04:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

VfD links

Hey Trids, I can't thank you enough for those links at the TL. It's enabled at us to identify least ten articles that could be deleted on sight already. And about your help desk, I have to say that I did know about it, and I know that's what it's for, but it totally slipped my mind to go there. To be honest, when I asked you, having no idea how hard or long it would be, I thought I was just asking you if it was possible, not commissioning a task or anything. So that's why why your rapid response was even more appreciated and unexpected. Rest assured, next time I'll go there first. By the way, you might want to got to Wikipedia:Bot requests and refer some of the requesters there. Cheers! --Dmcdevit 04:43, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Self nominations for adminship

Hi Triddle,

You've placed your RFA in the incorrect section - the first of the two sections is used for nominating users other than yourself. (Some users may oppose if they spot this) I've moved it to the self-normination section. :)

Good luck and all the best for your RFA, 5 months may be short but still possible. (myself is an example) Alright, time for me to return to my WikiVacation! =P

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my lapse of memory at your RFA (oops!), I've signed it now so all should be well with the world :) Thryduulf 16:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

IRC

Hi Triddle, might I invite you to the Wikipedia IRC channel? See Wikipedia:IRC channels if you need connection information. My nick's 'Talrias' - please drop me a message if I don't see you first. Cheers, Talrias (t | e | c) 03:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Dab identification scripts.

It is perhaps a bit much to claim that I run the dab id scripts. Topbanana wrote some clever stuff which produced these in the past, but was more complex than I was prepared to use, so I wrote a pair of perl User:Rich_Farmbrough/Disambig scripts that run off the SQL dump. Takes a short while to process, but user intervention time is minimal. I have run these twice, I think, but this time someone improved them and ran them before I noticed the dump update - in true Wikipedia fashion. If you are able to provide another leg to this, that's a Good Thing. Cheers, Rich Farmbrough 08:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I take it you're familiar with Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax R.

Untagged images

Answer from you currently required here as far as I can see. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Questioning oppose votes on RfA

I agree that consensus is important; Wikipedia relies on it. Given the threshold for promotion at RfA is 80%, consensus is taken very serious there indeed. Discussion is, of course, the better part of consensus. As for challenging oppose votes, well, I think it is OK, but only up to a point. Whilst I'm not going to provide evidenciary examples of what I say here, most of it is not hard to find in recent RfAs.

I have no problem with people challenging oppose (or support) votes on the basis of factual error — that's a clear necessity. Equally, if someone has been in edit-war or similar with the nominee and presents a biased account of what happened, then for someone to tell the other side of the story is, usually, ok (not always; sometimes a vandal steps into that role). In a self-nom like yours, the candidate must usually do this themselves since they don't generally have an advocate to do it for them. However, there are RfAs where someone just goes down the list of reason-less oppose votes and comments under each "do you have a reason?", or words to that effect. This is, IMO, bad form since no user need justify their vote at all. Even reasoned opposers get challenged such as in Uncle G's RfA (which I supported). The final oppose vote: the voter was right to refuse to provide evidence, particularly given that most of the supportive votes make equally unsubstantiated claims. On the other hand, opposer no. 8 was quite reasonably challenged; what they said was factually wrong. The comments beneath opposer no.2 were entirely unnecessary, no matter how much those editors (and myself) disagree with that kind of criterion.

What I don't like is where one user (or maybe two) work their way down the oppose (and possibly neutral) votes and question each of them; rarely does the same happen to support votes. If discussion of the oppose votes is important for consensus, then so is discussion of the support votes — but that's never going to happen. In your particular case, your comment to my neutral vote was reasonable enough. You didn't challenge it or demand evidence or whatever. The issue with Boothy443 is difficult; his/her RfA votes come in for a lot of flack when it would be better to just ignore them. And Denelson83's blanket criterion...well...I strongly disagree with it, but I don't really think it's fair to insist that someone be rigidly consistent in their application of what is, after all, an arbitrary rule. This is a matter of taste, but I probably wouldn't have made the comment I did if you had just pointed out that you have done more than your edit count reveals rather than actually requesting that the vote be changed. And my comment was rather harsh, too, I'm sorry about that. I don't have any rigid adminship criterion since I think it better to judge each case on its merits, and so I don't have any particularly clearly defined policy about the questioning of oppose votes either...this is why my response here rambles so. -Splash 15:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

The mop is mine!

Thanks for voting in my RfA; I promise I'll wield my sacred mop with care. If you ever need me for anything, you know where to find me. Thanks again! -- Essjay · Talk 15:18, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Edit count page

I see your point, but I'd rather keep it where it is because it's really about that page, and this way the discussion of it will be right there where others who show up later can find it, instead of on some trouble ticket page. Noel (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Bot Writing

After posting this Wikipedia:Help_desk#Help_writing_bots_for_use_elsewhere Help Desk question Dmcdevit (he's helped me before, great guy!) suggested I ask you for help with how to decide if a particular type of information creation task is bot-suitable, and for help on how to get started coding up a bot ... any advice or pointers gratefully received. I have done a fair bit of reading here on bots but confess that I'm not clear where to begin. I have the MediaWiki client perl extension to look at. Thanks! ++Lar 00:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

thanks for your help! I subsequently found User:Pearle which is a great place to start and also someone else on the project figured out how to do pretty much what I wanted to do using a clever (MediaWiki extension he wrote) tag... much less need to create a bunch of templates that way. But I still want to do bots when I get a chance.++Lar 12:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!!

Congrats on your adminship. I somehow missed your vote...sorry about that. :) --Woohookitty 06:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

bong and baung

Hello, as my understanding, bong and baung are pronounced the same sound to me (as the Thai word บ้อง); The word BONG is more familiar to me than BAUNG though. บ้อง (Bong) means in Thai as a cutoff section of a bamboo. The word bong might be shorten from the word บ้องกัญชา /bong-gun-shah/ (lit. Canabis bong). In Isan dialect, they use two words บ้อง (bong) and บั้ง (bung) refer to the same thing, the bamboo section.

But nowadays these two words refer the item in cylinder shape with the hole inside (similar to bamboo shape) --manop 17:21, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Belated thanks on Edwards Air Force Base

Many, many thanks for your good work on the Edwards AFB article! I knew there would be aerospace junkies on the Wiki, but it just took a bit of time. . . You do this "son of The Right Stuff" proud. Believe it or not, there's still much more to add (just check the list from its talk page/FAC to do list). Sorry I was away on a rather extended Wikibreak where real life, among other events, made themselves evident. --avnative 21:45, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

User categorization

Greetings, Triddle! Please accept this message as an invitation to categorize your user page in the category Category:Wikipedians in Washington and removing your name from the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Washington page. The page will be deleted when all users have been removed. Even if you do not wish to be placed in a category, could you take a moment to remove your name from the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Washington page? Thanks!!

To add your name to the category, please use the tag [[Category:Wikipedians in Washington|Triddle]] to ensure proper sorting.

For more information, please see Wikipedia:User categorisation and Category:Wikipedians by location. -- Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 04:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment on double redirects

Hi Triddle,

Thanks for your comment - I'm glad that it's the detection software at fault, and not me. :-) I developed a process to do it rather rapidly, taking into account the rather slow WP servers, so I'll write that up soon back at the double redirects batch page.

Thanks again,

splintax ^(talk) 08:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Parse::MediaWikiDump

Oh, thanks for pointing that out. I prefer to use a two-stage process for efficiency reasons, actually. I have several scripts that look at the raw input, and I don't want each of them to have to parse the full XML. By storing a simplified version, I can also run grep directly on the file, which is much faster than a Perl script that does the same thing. But I have added a link to Wikipedia:Database download so others who might want to use it will be able to find your library. Thanks for sharing it with us! Speaking of database dumps, a new one was published a few days ago. Were you planning on updating Wikipedia:Most wanted stubs? -- Beland 06:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

XML parsing

Well, I don't really use any fancy XML parsing tricks. I just assume that there's one <title> and one <text> tag (possibly with attributes) inside each <page> tag. I just capture the contents with regular expressions. If the XML is any more irregular than that, I don't detect any inconsistency. Which may lead to improper operation, but enh. -- Beland 10:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Feedback

Thanks Triddle, for your help and note. I'm enjoying my first "ad"ventures into Wikipedia, but have to admit all the rules and "do's and don't's" are a bit overwhelming. My first inputs were removed for awhile until users Loo and Lommer validated who I was, so I thought I'd better identify myself on last night's SR-71 change. Now, I understand that the software will keep track of who makes such changes. Thanks. I have been surprised at some of the errors, misunderstandings and misconceptions written in about the Blackbirds; slowly I will try and smooth some of that out.

David Dempster 15:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

DragonBooster Article

some body has been editing my DragonBooster article because of weird stuff like "vandalism" and other stuff I cannot understand and one person happens to be YOU!! I do not like that you are messing up my hard work. its not fair and I just want to tell you that so I don't have to press any farther.

Hello and sorry but I don't have any idea what you are talking about. I couldn't find DragonBooster but did find Dragon Booster. I can't even find my name on the edit list (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dragon_Booster&action=history if you would like to know who has been editing that page). Additionally you can't own an article here; any article you submit here is Wikipedia's article, open for everyone to edit and read. See Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages for why people might be treating Dragon Booster in a way you don't agree with. Instead of leaving messages on individual's talk pages you will get much further leaving a message on the article's talk page. Good luck, Triddle 16:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Double Redirects

I took the inititive and just deleted all of the mangled links. I figured it'd be easier that way. --Woohookitty 16:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

And

We're done! That might've been the fastest double redir project yet :) --Woohookitty 04:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Partnering with the Computer help desk

Yep I can do that for you. There are definitely some good candidates. :) I'll leave notes when I find ones for you. --Woohookitty 05:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

April Fools

I read a comment attributed to you that there should be a template for April Fools jokes. Perhaps such a template has been created already, but if not, I think it's a good idea, and it should go something like this: An editor, upon seeing funny vandalism on April 1 can put {{subst:April fools}} at the bottom of the article (so it doesn't spoil the joke), and it will expand to read, "The article you are reading is a joke, in honor of April Fools' Day. Here is the real article."   The link would go to the last version that existed prior to the vandalism. The need for subst: comes from the fact that the "good version" link has to be fixed in the article so that subsequent edits don't reset the link to point to joke copies of the article. The expansion of the April fools template would include the article in a category that can easily be swept around noon on April 2, UTC (when April Fools' Day finally ends in Hawaii) to quickly revert all jokes back to the last good version, as identified when the tag was added in the first place. It is important that editors using this tag understand the importance of verifying that the previous version of the article is pristine, for two reasons: because the tag links to it, and serious Wikipedia users will depend on it, and because it will aid in quick reversion on April 2.

Doing this has some distinct advantages over the way things were done in 2005. (1) It allows people to have their joke without interfering with serious use of Wikipedia, (2) Adding articles to the April Fools category helps quickly identify those that need reverting, (3) by leaving the practical jokes up and visible for the duration of April 1, pranksters are less likely to keep trying all day.

Why do I mention this in October? Well, I think over the next few months, we should start to have a dialog about a set of April Fools guidelines. By writing and agreeing on a set of guidelines now, we will develop a cadre of editors who will be adept at dealing with the onslaught of practical jokes in 2006. The guidelines will be necessary for a variety of reasons. One is because not all jokes are pure fun. "Every silver lining has a cloud," someone said. Paraphrasing Honest Abe: Some jokes are offensive to some people. There is a point where any joke crosses the line. It's a judgment call where that line is, but the guidelines can help. Another point, which the guidelines can address, is that for the April fools template to work, the version just before the joke must be pristine. So the editor who adds the template will need to revert to a good page first, then revert to the joke page with the template. If a joke is clever, but the jokester has the misfortune to start from an already-vandalized page, then the editor must revert to the last good version, with an Edit summary that invites the jokester to try again. (Hence the need for a "try again" guideline, which can be linked in the Edit Summary; and hence the need for a cadre of editors who have read and understand the guidelines in advance, and failing that (who reads guidelines, anyway?) the existence of editing guidelines will give editors dealing with vandalism a leg up on that day.)

--GraemeMcRae^talk 15:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Graeme, I think your April Fools template idea is pretty good. I did in fact make some comments that Wikipedia should try to work with April Fools instead of against it, but the idea is more important than the particular implementation. With that said I think the verbiage you left on my talk page is pretty good. Have you started to discuss it with others? Perhaps Wikiproject April Fools is in order (I would join that in a heart beat). I had the idea that a set of standard joke articles could be maintained and brought into the Wikipedia on April first, taken out on the second. I definitely think that working with the April Fools jokes is the way to go; I was on the receiving end of an admin's frustration at the April Foolers when I was a brand new contributor here (over the M1126A Fryker article (which I maintain is tasteful, well done, and high quality - perfect attributes for a Wikipedia April Fool's joke)). One question: are you interested in April Fooling out the Wikipedia when the time is right or are you just planning ahead and trying to relieve some of the stress when the next April Fools comes around? Either way I think it would be a step in the right direction. Take care, Triddle 16:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I wasn't thinking of playing a trick myself, just getting ready to properly appreciate the good ones, and quickly revert the dopey ones. I haven't started to discuss this with others yet, but I did try to search to find out if a conversation or project had already started. I searched for WP:AFD (is it an accident that Articles for Deletion and April Fools' Day have the same TLA? I think not!), and looked at Talk:April Fool's Day, and did some googling, but found nothing along the lines of a project. I'm still pretty new around here, but I'm bold. I just reread the WikiProject best practices, and I think this qualifies. (I also boldly renamed it. Can't wait to see how that goes over.) I'll work on a main project page, and let you know when I've done that.--GraemeMcRae^talk 18:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds great. I had some additional thoughts too. First of all I think the most important thing to consider when dealing with April Fools day is how to relieve the stress and amount of work required by the volunteers who try to back out all the April Fools changes. I think trying to find these in real time and deal with them as they come in is extremely labor intensive and time consuming to say the least, and may be impossible to maintain in the long run. As such, for the sanity of the volunteers at the Wikipedia, I think any solution needs to actively reduce the amount of work required on any given April Fools day. Secondly, if no good solution can be found, I think it might make sense to redirect Wikipedia to the Uncyclopedia on April Fools day - that way the content in Wikipedia can stay high quality and everyone can get their jollies where it is absolutely welcome. Just some thoughts for a big big problem. Triddle 17:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Double redirect fixing

I'd be happy to help, although I know absolutely ZERO about Perl. Well, that's not true; I do know it is installed on one of my machines. :-) My 'bot uses Python and the Pywikipedia framework. Feed it a list of links and it will verify whether they actually are double-redirects; and fix them if they are. --Russ Blau (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

If you would like I can email you a standalone copy of the double redirect finder: all you would have to do is chmod +x it and you are done.

Yes, please do that. Since I am an absolute Perl newbie, it wouldn't make sense for me to spend the time to figure out how to write it myself. --Russ Blau (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

January 2006 Seattle meetup

Redwolf24 mentioned on Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle3 that you might be interested. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the Cannabis template!

It has been a need for some time. There are a number of articles on cannabis history, culture, biography and law which are not included, and many small method articles which could crowd if included. How do you feel about broadening the scope to a set of well-organised templates and creating a set of sub categories? -SM 00:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• What do you have in mind? If you can list some of the articles here in our conversation and give me a little more info that would be great. If I can sort it all into good categories I'd be willing to setup some templates for them. Let me know. Triddle 01:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Great! For starters, look at Category:Cannabis. I don't know which articles may be yet outside of it (i.e., lacking the cannabis category, just added two more), but many subcategories under Cannabis suggest themselves,

• Cultivation
  • Varieties
• Methods
• Biography
• Law
  • Decisions
• Politics
  • Politicians
  • PoliticalParties
  • AdvocacyGroups
• Culture
  • Magazines
  • StonerFilms
  • StonerMetalBands

Don't worry about adding all the bands, films, methods, do some, and let others finish.

You might have a look at Wikipedia:Category as well for guidance. I will do the same.

Thanks again! -SM 03:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

GTAW

Hi Triddle, I thought I'd let you know that I'm just about done writing the article on gas tungsten arc welding and I wondered if you'd be able to take a look at it for me and let me know if I'm missing anything. Thanks! --Spangineer^es (háblame) 00:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right there isn't too much about the cleaning action—I guess it's mostly limited to the second paragraph of the power supply section, though it does say "the ionized shielding gas flows toward the base material, removing oxides and improving the quality and appearance of the weld." I'll try to develop that part a little further so that it's better explained. Also, when you talk about waveform shaping, are you just talking about something that can make a square wave? That's sort of mentioned in the last paragraph of the power supply, but not in the context of being able to go back and forth between cleaning and penetration. Thanks also for the operator section—I might move it around a little but you're right, the article is missing a basic explanation of how the welding actually occurs. One more question for you—I'm thinking about putting in a few short sections on pulsed-current GTAW and dabber GTAW—do you think that's a good idea, and also, do you think other variations should get more than a brief mention (manual programmed, hot-wire, increased penetration)? Thanks alot for the comments! --Spangineer^es (háblame) 01:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I've incorporated a few sentences into the power supply section on the cleaning action and the unbalanced wave. Let me know what you think. Also, your comment about nuclear power reactor parts reminded me of an article in a book I've got laying around about GTAW being used to seal spent nuclear fuel canisters before we bury them in Nevada. I've added a mention of that in the quality section. I think I'll try to add the process variation info on thursday -- my last final of the semester is that morning at 8am, and I need to study for it tomorrow. Let me know if you think of anything else. Thanks for your help! --Spangineer^es (háblame) 04:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I just did a bunch of work to the GTAW article. I went though my sources and tried to find things that backed up what you wrote, and where I was successful I kept/rewrote what you put in there. The rest of it I commented out, so if you've got a source available that talks about that stuff, that'd be awesome. Now I'm wondering mostly about the layout—the stuff on cleaning I talk about in the quality section already, but I'm not sure if the quality section should be moved up or not. In the GMAW article, the description of the equipment went first and then came the description of the operation, but I'm not sure that that's the most intuitive way to lay things out. In any case, I'm thinking that the quality section should be next to the operation section (or at least nearby). The materials probably should too. What do you think? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 20:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I took the plunge. GTAW is now a featured article candidate, so if I haven't fully addressed your concerns or you'd like to support the nomination, please leave a note there! Thanks again for your help! --Spangineer^es (háblame) 05:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks so much for creating that list, Triddle. You just made what was becoming an increasingly annoying and difficult task infinitely easier and more fun. I owe you one. Chick Bowen 02:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem, thats what the Wikipedia:Computer help desk is for. Spread the word. =) Triddle 02:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I found it through the pink box at Wikipedia:Help desk. But the tricky thing (as far as getting the word out is concerned) is that it took me forever to figure out that my problem could be thought of as a software problem--I spent weeks kicking myself for not going through the lists in order in the first place before it occurred to me to try to do something about it. So I don't know what you can do about that. Since you say you're trying to get the word out, I went ahead and added a link at Wikipedia:Technical FAQ. You could also put a link at Help:Contents (although I don't how often veteran users look at that page). I'll post an endorsement at my wikiproject, in any case. Thanks again, and best wishes, Chick Bowen 04:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Corwin Amendment

Actually, the 13th Amendment is self enforcing - the 14th does some different things. The 13th says no slavery, but says nothing about citizenship, equal protection of the laws, due process, etc., so harsh discrimination remained possible until the 14th. In theory, at least. BD2412 T 14:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Picture-of-the-day bot

How would you prevent the same image being showed twice in a row? You mentioned a device that guarantees that every picture is shown once before there can be any repeats. Perhaps it would be a good idea to add a if/then statement to prevent the last image in the set from being the first image in the next set? (I may not check back to see the responce, but good luck anyway!) Justin 18:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

SMAW

Well, here's another one. Shielded metal arc welding is just about ready for FAC, in my opinion, so if you get a chance, let me know if anything is missing or problematic or whatever. Thanks! --Spangineer (háblame) 03:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Hey, thanks, I have given thought to the mentioned problem, I can't see any way around it that isn't disproportionately complicated, but I look forward to solving other problems! Martin 20:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Please weigh in on request for semi-protection for Cannabis

The request is meeting resistance, and I am arguing special circumstances. -SM 13:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Double redirect award.triddle.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Double redirect award.triddle.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.

It's a cool image and I hope you know where you got it so we can keep it around. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Stray templates

User:Triddle/working and User:Triddle/working1 are showing up in Category:Wikipedia cleanup. Can these be deleted or otherwise removed from the category? -- Beland 19:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

re: short shackling -- any reports

In your recent edit you say that confirmation that short shackling includes shackling both the hands and feet to the ring bolt is not mentioned in -any-- military report. There have been something like a dozen. Some remain classified. Are you are sure you checked them all? If you only checked the unclassified ones, perhaps it would be better to say it is not mentioned in any unclassified report?

Do you have a list of all the reports? I think this is something missing from the wikipedia's article space -- a list of all the inquiries that were devoted to or touched on abuse of detainees in the GWOT. The ones I know about, by name, are:

• Ryder report
• Taguba report
• Church report
• Fay report
• Schesinger report CNN WAPO WAPO NPR

-- Geo Swan 15:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see my response here. Triddle 15:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Lockheed SR-71.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Lockheed SR-71.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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.

User:dbenbenn 20:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Long talk page

Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 00:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)