Revision as of 15:43, 18 June 2015

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

Discussion page archive

• Archive 1

VLC

VLC official page is http://www.videolan.org/vlc/ not http://www.videolan.org/, which is the official page of VideoLAN. I don't understand why you reverted those edits...

REGARDING YOU DELETING MY POSTS

On my Jude Wright posts you have been removing my info because apparently my citations weren't reliable. But the WHOLE article has poor references that are WORSE than mine, so.....? Why are you just deleting mine?

Angora

Could we just change the image in the Turkish Angora article? Because the previous one is not a typical Angora breed. I don't understand why you reloaded the old photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalpan (talk • contribs) 18:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Upload Book Cover

Hey, How can I upload an Book Cover to http://en.wikipedia.org/Pretty_Little_Things without "no fair use images at Commons"??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaSiMüFi (talk • contribs) 20:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Upload it to en wiki. Do not choose "Upload a free image" and go to Commons, select "It is a cover or other page from a book,DVD, " instead. --Denniss (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

User:KosareLjudi

It's got to be VJ-Yugo - I've filed an SPI report -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Cincinnati Enquirer

I am not trying to vandalize wikipedia. I am simply trying to update the Cincinnati Enquirer newspaper to a higher resolution, more current image. Can you please inform me as to the correct way to upload this image? Thank you

17:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)~~rtbyrd21 3/3/11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtbyrd21 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Using a current image is no problem. But without having a permission from the newspaper to use a free license you need to upload it to the english wikipedia as lowres image under fair use claim. --Denniss (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way to upload a fair use image without being autoconfirmed? Thank you

19:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)~ Rtbyrd21 3/1/11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtbyrd21 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

SVG Resizing

Just wanted to let you know I removed a {{reduce}} tag you placed on an SVG. SVG images cannot be shrunk like that, they can, however, be rendered in small sizes, as the {{SVG-Logo}} template indicates. Thanks anyways, Sven Manguard Wha? 05:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Reltih Floda

Hello Denniss, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Reltih Floda, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 00:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this turned out to be a blatant hoax and was deleted per {{db-hoax}} ϢereSpielChequers 12:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Reltih Flöda

Hello Denniss. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Reltih Flöda, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Lamborghini Gallardo image (re: edit war with HappyLogolover2011)

Hey, if you look closely at the image here you can see that the yellow paint job was added digitally (Photoshop or whatever). The lines are not straight and the yellow is exactly the same throughout (i.e., doesn't change in the shadow or from the glare), and the reflected portion on the ground is different. Even if it somehow passes copyright it looks so bad it doesn't belong on WP anyway. Cheers! SQGibbon (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore it looks like this person used the image taken from here (scroll down or go here for the big version). SQGibbon (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Undoing edits

Hi there. Please do not use the undo-feature to revert valid edits, at least not without specifying a reason why you did so. In your edit here you undid a valid change introduced by an IP editor without explaining why you did so, thus not allowing others to understand your motivation. Regards SoWhy 13:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It was removed because it wasn't a valid edit - no need to add redlinks to infoboxes. --Denniss (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Please review our guideline for such links at WP:REDLINK. In cases like this one, it is valid because it was meant to lead (and, here, lead to) the creation of a valid article related to the subject. Red links are not bad per definition, neither in infoboxes nor elsewhere and our guidelines specify this clearly. Also, please remember that even if you think an edit is not valid (no matter if it really isn't), you should always specify your reasons in the edit summary, so that others can understand your motivations without having to ask you. Regards SoWhy 08:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

AMD 3800+

sources: Screenshot http://tweakers.net/pricewatch/122802/amd-athlon-64-x2-3800+.html#tab:info

p.s. I see I failed reading sorry it was listed..

(Basti640 (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC))

Basia Bulat profile picture

Hello. I just noticed you have reverted my edit of Basia Bulat's page citing "non-free file" as the reason. actually, the permission for the file I put is creative commons with attribution (as you can see it linked to and written under the "license" section here) therefore it is free to share and can be used on Misplaced Pages. I'd appreciate it if you paid more attention next time. thank you. Zeddian (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the chart of what we can use here. --CutOffTies (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah yeah, I got it. thanks. it's more complicated than I'd imagined. I also apologize to Denniss. I'm gonna try to sort out the right license and put it in the infobox though!! --Zeddian (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

RE: Message on my talk page

See here for the answer to your question. Doh5678 (Talk) 19:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Please

Please stop this reverting and wait for a reply from OTRS. Let's talk about things, not just revert EVERYTHING without discussing first. Batavier2.0 (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do not force others to use you old, small, low quality and/or misplaced images. Several other users reverted your edits. You do not own these articles. If you further revert the misplaced image removals you'll be in trouble with Administrators (you even undid reverts made by Administrators calling them vandals). And do not outlog and continue this behaviour as an IP as you have already done. --Denniss (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Some images were in place. You just remove them ALL. Without any discussion. Please wait what happens. If others find them misplaced, they will remove them. If not, then not. What we no do is engage in editwarring. Which isn't good. :) Batavier2.0 (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment from an outside observer Denniss, you appear to be removing Batavier's images simply because you do not like them. How about opening a discussion to achieve consensus on the relevant talk pages before simply reverting. You both are dangerously close to receiving a WP:3RR block. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 12:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to prevent any of us from getting blocked. Why don't we just log out and leave things the way they are now? I seriously doubt I caused any harm whatsoever and it wasn't my intention to cause any harm or conflict. Batavier2.0 (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

@Batavier2.0: As has been pointed out on your talk page, adding images to article is really only useful if the images actually enhance a reader's understanding of the concept. Adding a bunch of 90 year old images to article that they only marginally relate to doesn't help. However, since you added the images in a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, Denniss should have engaged in a discussion before reverting the edits rather than engaging in an edit war. I think your idea to take a cooling off period is an excellent one. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 12:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I am glad you like my idea. ;) I'd gladly take your advice in this case, of course I would. It's just that I loved seeing this images on those pages and I really like the results. I believe most of these images were indeed related to the articles. What is wrong with including a picture of a man smoking a cigarette to a page on smoking, or an image of an engaged couple to a page on engagement? Also, in silent film, I added the picture of the most famous living actor from the era. I see no problem with that at all. I can also provide sources if needed. Batavier2.0 (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Have started a WP:SPI here regarding this issue What we have is three user accounts that have made few / no other edits other than to add images of this person to dozens of pages across Misplaced Pages. These edits have been reverted by many long time user. Per WP:BOLD you add the image. Someone reverts it. Than the person who wishes to add it is supposed to discuss before re adding. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Not vandalism

Hi there. This change was not vandalism because it actually has talk page consensus. The edit by Woodstone was against the talk page consensus. I have already reverted the change. Fnagaton 11:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Air France Flight 7 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Air France Flight 7 is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Air France Flight 7 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 16:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Uriel227 at Dylan and Cole Sprouse

Uriel227 has been reported to WP:3RRN for breaching 3RR. The discussion is here. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You might also like to check out the SPI case that I've just started. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Kosare

I was going through various battle articles and saw the edit war with a continuisly blocked editor that you are having at the article Battle of Kosare. I also read the articles discussion page and saw that in previous years heated debates developed over the result of the battle. As it stands, we couldn't just leave the article without a result. But a neutral result should also be found that could satisfy both sides. So I took the liberty and put that both sides are claiming victory. With Yugoslavia on the basis that they repelled almost every KLA attack wave and retainded control of Kosare up until the end of the war, leaving the KLA without fullfilment of their strategic objective. And the KLA on the basis that the Yugoslavs withdrew after the Kumanovo treaty at the end of the war, after which KFOR took control of the border. I did this in an attempt so future edit wars over the article could be avoided since this seems as a good attempt at a neutral stand point and compromise. Hope it helps, cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 05:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The Sturmtiger

Hi Denniss.
Please visit the Sturmtiger talk page, and give a reasonable explanation for your revert. Megaidler (talk) 12:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Dude...

...have you even read the source? Like, before you assumed right away this was a vandalist action and reverted it? Because that's where the source is about: Stalin's link to Przewalsky. 84.87.138.125 (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Types Of Guns

Hi Denniss.
Please visit Talk:List_of_artillery_by_type and write on this talk page what you think. Megaidler (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of link (to Operation Sea Lion wargame result).

Could you explain (via Adolph Galland Talk page) why you deleted what I would consider, not just a good link, but a perfect one. I intend to replace it unless you can come up with a reasonable argument. --JustinSmith (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

theaviationindex.com

Please see discussion. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC).

Bismarck sources

Hello Denniss, I got my source about bismark displacement from this page: http://www.kbismarck.com/bsweights.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armada09 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion tagging

Why did you tag this for deletion? The uploader is claiming it as there own work, and I see no reason to doubt that based on image quality and the presence of metadata. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Look at the logs of this user, all of his images with own work claim were deleted as copyvio (except this one). --Denniss (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Decent reasoning, although I would suggest noting why you tagged it in unclear cases like this (or taking it to FFD/PUF instead of DIing it). However, I'm still unsure as to whether or not this particular image is a copyvio; TinEye comes up with some results, but this is twice the resolution of the others so they other images may have been copied from us. If you still want to argue for deletion, I'd recommend taking it to FFD because this doesn't look to me like a completely clear-cut case. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

SMS Preussen (1903)

Hello Denniss. I noticed you moved the article to SMS Preußen (1903) giving the reason that this was how the ship's name was spelled. The problem is, English-language sources almost entirely spell it without the eszett. We must therefore do the same thing, per WP:UE. Therefore, I have reverted your move and spelling changes at that article and on Scharnhorst class battleship. Let me know if you have any questions or wish to discuss this further (I'll be watching your talk so you can just reply here). Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice, a blank revert without noticing the correct spelling anywhere in the article. Even using a wrong german spelling in the infobox. Good work. --Denniss (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not "wrong", it's how the ship is named in English. Even the English translation of Erich Gröner's German Warships 1815-1945 spells it this way. We must follow English usage in accordance with WP:UE (which is established Misplaced Pages policy). Parsecboy (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm able to live with this dumb policy but not with your blank revert. The lead should notice the proper german spelling and the infobox should not claim Preussen to be the proper german spelling for Prussia. --Denniss (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

There is already a note explaining the spelling difference. Parsecboy (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

File tirpitz 004

I asked and granted permission from Michael W. Pocock and MaritimeQuest.com to use that file photo.what should i do for blatant copyright infringement Udisblizbadjoke (talk)

Pocock does not own the copyright, so he can't release it for use. The image is German in origin (almost certainly created by the German Navy), so under German copyright law, the creator of the image has to have died more than 70 years ago (and since the image was taken in 1941, this is unlikely) for the image to be public domain. Unless the image was seized by the United States after the war (as some were), it would not be public domain in the US until copyright expires in Germany (and in some cases, longer than that due to the URAA). Parsecboy (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The picture are in the Public Domain.they are all very well knownUdisblizbadjoke (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC).

No, it is not in the public domain. The photo is most definitely still copyrighted in Germany, and more than likely still in the US as well. You need to demonstrate how the image is public domain for us to be able to use it. Parsecboy (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Is public domain in usa {{PD-US}}{{Do not move to Commons}} Udisblizbadjoke (talk)

No, you have to show how you know that. You can slap those templates on anything you like, but it doesn't make it so. For the image to be public domain in the US, you need to demonstrate that the US Government considers it to be seized Nazi property. Parsecboy (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Frequently_updated

Hi. A quick comment: The "frequently_updated" parameters has a technical function in Misplaced Pages, not a semantic one. In other words, you do not set it to yes if you think the computer program of the article is frequently updated. You only set it to "yes" when you want infobox to to enter FU mode. Prerequisites must be ready. For more information, see Template:infobox software/doc. Cheers. Fleet Command (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

WWII informations on Japanese ships

Been trying to update these details and some were incorrect, do i have to keep update them every time you change it??? Sorry i didnt add my profile on wikipedia to give details about myself. Having solid background on WWII ships in Pacific Regions for over twenty-five years of research. Also Working and updating alot of WWII games such as Hearts of Iron Series, Pacific Storm: Allies, War in the Pacific: Admiral Edition, etcs. Just trying to give out correct infos on those WWII ships. There alot of books on the markets and some are hard to come by, some had incorrect informations as well, though you would like to know.

Please cite the sources your changes are based on. Otherwise we have to assume original research or guesswork. If you don't know how the reference tags work please state the source in the edit summary or contact a regular author at WP:Ships, asking for help. --Denniss (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Vandal at the ATI/AMD articles

It looks like a guy (TheGreatness2, TheGreatness3 etc.) is making new users and doing lots of changes that we have undone several times, but he just makes new users when he is banned and keep vandalizing. What is the solution to this? Jørgen88 (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Funny

Funny thing is, After I edited the ATi Pages recently. I Recieved a "Thank you for your Contributions" Notice. Now, Isn't that funny?. Because If I was "Vandalising" as you claim, Why would I recieve a "Thank you for your Contributions?".

And so what this means is: is that the Other mods allow my Edits, and in fact, Thanked me for them.

Now why would they do that?, well, because My Edits are Valid. And my Edits are valid because it showcases that, Indeed, AMD is now in Ownership of ATi. But it is ATi Still making the GPUs. And I had Also added in the Detail of "ATi is known Internally as AMD Graphics Products Group".

My Edits are, Perhaps, the Best version of the "ATi GPU" pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGreatness6 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This reminds me of the discussions on Misplaced Pages when some people just wouldn't give up the fact that Pluto is not a planet, but a dwarf planet. Or the people that just wouldn't accept that the world is in fact round, not flat. ATI does no longer exist, it will never exist either. Jørgen88 (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Frankfurt collage

I'm not really sure how to add the source but i can assure you that i've made the collage myself from these pictures:File:Frankfurt Am Main-Roemerberg 19-27 von Suedosten-20110307.jpg, File:Frankfurt Am Main-Stadtansicht von der Deutschherrnbruecke zu Beginn der Abenddaemmerung.jpg, File:Frankfurt Am Main-Samstagsberg-20070607.jpg, File:Karl der Grosse vor dem Historischen Museum Frankfurt.jpg

You need to link from the image compilation description page back to the original images, state their authors and tag it with a license matching the originals. In case of the Frankfurt compilation this would be GFDL 1.2 (not blank GFDL). You should also link from the source images to the new compilation. --Denniss (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Are the pictures fixed now?Alphasinus (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(Harry potter portal links and pictures)

Why do you go around and undo half of the links that I have put up trying to broaden the Harry potter portal on wikipedia and why do you remove the pictures that I have put up on "Harry potter" characters page when they were stained properly I have gotten them from the wiki which states they are free use anywhere? And so why did you take down the portal links? 04:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonstonecastle77 (talk • contribs)

The images at the wikia page are not free as they are screenshots or taken from other copyrighted material. --Denniss (talk) 06:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Dixie Carter-Salinas

Denniss. While I appreciate your zeal in reverting pictures on Dixie Carter-Salinas' profile, please allow the Commons attribution their time to apply the license we have sent in for the picture. I can personally assure you that the rights are properly allocated and that the picture is a proper picture for the profile. If you wish to discuss this further before reverting for a third time...please do. Thank you for your understanding in advance.

You have to add a proper license and a usage permission or the image(s) will be deleted again. --Denniss (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Appealing to your expertise here on this one...we got the email back from Wiki Commons Permissions stating that the permissions had been added and the image fixed. Does the current image look like it is all good now? Thanks. Wikiuser1254 (talk) WikiUser1254 August 9, 2011 9:23AM CST —Preceding undated comment added 14:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC).

Ciara Bravo Picture

The Ciara Bravo picture is free for use unless we don't help bring activity to their website. --Kamek98

No, the image was not free (no content on this site is free). --Denniss (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

STOP UNDOING VALID EDITS!

I made an edit to the page myTouch 4G regarding the HTC Panache, which is an HTC Glacier variant, so it belongs in that section, if you dont belive me, look here http://www.htc.com/ca/products/panache-mobilicity/ NOW STOP UNDOING PEOPLES VALID EDITS!

Your revert on PCI IDE ISA Xcelerator / PIIX3

Since the PIIX3 shipped in 1996 how can there be a USB 1.1 controller? Any reference? -- 10:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

AMD Phenom II X3 715 Black

You undid my edit to the Phenom Processors page modifying the HT link speed from 2GHz to 1.8GHz. I have a 715 and in stock configuration it sets up a 1.8GHz HT link. See http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/AMD-Phenom%20II%20X3%20715%20Black%20Edition%20-%20HDZ715WCJ3DGI.html Or straight from AMD: http://shop.amd.com/US/_layouts/shop/ProductDetails.aspx?productID=HDZ715WCJ3DGI&region=us-en (they show it as double actual clock) 64.234.92.60 (talk) 06:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of AMD chipsets

You undid my edit http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Comparison_of_AMD_chipsets&action=history As you can read there: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:82.56.177.251 You can find the source there: http://en.wikipedia.org/AMD_900_chipset_series and there http://www.nordichardware.com/news/69-cpu-chipset/42174-amd-bulldozer-series-9-chipset-detailed.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.31.16.204 (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Denniss, please read Misplaced Pages:Vandalism and inform yourself about what is Vandalism.

You have erroneously accused me of conducting vandalism.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVNOJist (talk • contribs) 18:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

00:07, 16 July 2011 Denniss (talk | contribs) m (13,987 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 76.64.226.31 (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Denniss. (TW)) (undo)

The vandalism page clearly states that this would not count under the category in the first paragraph. Copied from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Victoria_II&action=history

Kimberly Hunt picture

Hello Denniss, This photo is my property. I had to upload it under a new account, because for some reason, I was unable to log-in to my regular account under wikimedia commons. I have reverted the page back to reflect the new picture. Please instruct me, if for some reason, I have not done something correctly. Thank you for your help Kusinews (talk) 07:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/Kimberly_Hunt

Please follow the instructions at your Commons user talk page how to send an image usage permission to OTRS. --Denniss (talk) 07:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

List of Airbus A380 orders and deliveries

Lufthansa has confirmed the order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millfire (talk • contribs) 20:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Board of directors approved purchase of additional aircraft. That's it, nothing more. A firm order is firm once the contract is signed, I'm sure you'll see a press bulletin at both Airbus and LH then. --Denniss (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

8x57 IS

As a German, you should know C.I.P. standardisation; if you are interested in WWII weaponry, you should also know the source Dienstvorschriften as well as the German books on the subject. 7.92x57mm seems to be either a misnomer/a nomenclature mix between "Patrone 7,9mm" (as written in the Dienstvorschriften) and 8x57 IS (C.I.P./SAAMI-designation) OR the BESA machine gun had this official calibre in Great Britain - compared to the 98k, MG-34 and MG-42 weapons rather a curiosity.

The seminal work on German rifle developement seems to be Hans-Dieter Götz, Die deutschen Militärgewehre und Maschinenpistolen, Stuttgart 1974, ISBN 3-87943-550-X - who also talks about "8x57 IS". 7.92 seems to be written especially in popular science books in the USA or translated from the USA.

If you should have new information (and sourcing!!!), please feel free to add it to the sources in Talk:8×57mm_IS#German_military_designation.3F. Given that C.I.P. and SAAMI both agree on the correct nomenclature, you really should have good arguments. --Hornsignal (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

747-400 list

My Cargo (ACT) and Silkway Airlines both operate 744.116.71.7.54 (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Duplicate

Category:Duplicate, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 02:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Windows xp market share data

Statcounter has a history of incorrect data, as we all witnessed windows xp slid past the 50% mark in august (includes the mobiles os), but their graph declares its lost the 50% mark in January! Other then them 3 more Os analysis show windows xp currently at 50%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matniky (talk • contribs) 02:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It all depends on who's observing what and where. As said in the comment, feel free to add other stat sources as a scondary opinion regarding market share but do not remove the old one. In gneral usae the XP maketshare should stil be high but the more tchrelated the observed website is, the more Win7 users you'll find. (My computers are one Win7 and three XP, makes 25% Win7 and 75% XP) --Denniss (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this

Hello, you said File:Air_Boom_1.JPG's "description page currently doesn't specify who created the content"? I'm sure it's pretty clear. The file is composed of two pictures from Julian Holtom and Krystal, both of whom I did mention at the "Author" section. I also sourced the pictures to their original link. I myself combined the two pictures to form this picture. So what do I have to do now to make sure the file isn't deleted? Starship.paint (talk) 06:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Please check the second link. The license has to be corrected as well (unless the second image is a by-sa image). Be a little more careful when uploading images from Flickr - you have to use the license and creditline given by the author, not a similar more restrictive license. --Denniss (talk) 11:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. It seems that the file has been removed by its author. What should I do now? And what should the appropriate license be if I combine two pictures with different licenses? Starship.paint (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

When combining images from different authors with different licenses the most restrictive license counts, license have to be compatible though (you can't combine a Free-Art with a Creative Commons licensed image). All authors have to be properly attributed. I don't know how the en wiki handles Flickr images that have been removed or their license changed to an incompatible type - we at Commons have a bot and Admins/Trusted users reviewing these images to have a confirmation that they were available under the given license at the time of upload. EDIT: I found the image uploaded and reviewed at Commons. --Denniss (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for settling the matter! To help me out, could you give me a list of Flickr licenses allowed on Misplaced Pages from the most to the least restrictive? Starship.paint (talk) 03:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Typically Flickr has cc-by-sa-2.0 and the less restrictive cc-by-2.0 as compatible CC licenses. The also have NC and ND variants of the former two but these are not compatible. I don't know if they have CC-PD, plain PD or a similar license. But as always with outside sources - make sure these images do not look like taken from other sites as Flickrwashing (copyrighted content taken from elsewhere but claim own work/free license) seems to be a new hobby for vandals. --Denniss (talk) 04:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion

I wanted to let you know that I declined your speedy deletion request on Aishah Himegami; I feel that claiming to be a voice actress on many different national tv shows is a sufficient claim of importance to pass the relatively low bar of WP:CSD#A7. I did, though, add a BLP Prod to the article, because it currently has no sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Tiger 1 page

You have removed my edit and accused me of vandalism when clearly you know nothing about the subject. The entry claiming 1700 Tiger 1's were lost is a clear misreading of the linked source that says 1700 Tiger 1's and Tiger II's were lost. The Tiger II has a seperate Wiki page. It is adding the 2 losses together and claiming they were all Tiger I losses. You can not loose 1700 tanks when only 1350 were produced. The Tiger II loses have been counted as Tiger I losses. A clear case of factualy incorrect information being allowed into the page.

Talkback

(Hohum ) 17:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Firefox

Hello Beta 6 is officially released, here is the official FTP link. ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/8.0b6/ and the home page will update around 24 hrs. and it is not a good thing to 1. revert without noticing editor / 2. warn a user without having enough information. Thanks! Nima1024 (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from further editing the page if the software is not officially released through http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/channel/. Just placing it on the FTP is not an official release. --Denniss (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Competition between Airbus and Boeing

Denniss, you keep changing the update I have made to Boeing orders an deliveries. I ONLY make these changes when I see them at www.boeing.com website. I'm not making up numbers. Could you please refrain in "correcting" something it's correct already Alainmoscoso (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC).

While the date may be correct, the information presented in the table is not. You have to update the information which say xxx net orders until <date> and xxx deliveries up to <date>. Currently Boing data shown is until november 1 but according the the table notes Boeing data is up to October 18. Noticed the discrepancy? --Denniss (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent images

The various images I've uploaded on Yui (singer) in this case are impossible to link to. Images are obtained from a slot machine from the site provided, and link directly to the base image. I wish to clarify this issue as soon as possible, thanks. Cooldra01 (talk) 08:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

On a second review, I'm not exactly sure which part you're having a problem with. The album images are properly sourced, and I would like to know what's the problem with them. Cooldra01 (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

So much work though, I'll bet you had to do everything by hand? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Discuss major picture Change?

On November 3rd or 4th, i switched the lead image on the article Airbus A380. On November 4th, you reverted my edit with the reason being: "Please discuss any major image changes first". I have read through pretty much every image use guideline, Manual of style, ETC, and i do not see where it is said that any changes to the lead image must be discussed. I would appreciate if you would let me know either on my talk page or here, where it says that i must discuss any image changes. Dusty777 (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay Denniss, i started a discussion and was able to switch the lead image. I consulted an Administrator and he said that there is no essay, rule, guideline, or manual of style that a user must discuss a lead image change. He recommended a discussion on the grounds that Airbus A380 is a "good article", so that is why i discussed it. Thanks for your time. Dusty777 (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Please be a little more considerate to other editors

They way you've responded to my changes to the Fritz X article was uncalled for. I clearly explained why I removed information that seem to come out of thin air, and I did not want to add information to the article since I have no knowledge on the topic. Your last edit shows you did understand why I changed it. There's no need for saying things like "what's your problem?" - you obviously know what the problem with the article was and if I have any problems myself, it is people acting they way you did.

    — SkyLined (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

ORTS delay?

I forwarded various messages to ORTS but only one of the images from Course Setting Bomb Sight appears to have been updated. What sort of timing is typical these days? Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Depends on how much work is there and how many volunteers (with matching language ability) are there working through the permissions. I've seen it done within some hours to nearly one month. --Denniss (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll keep going and keep my fingers crossed! Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Image disappeared

Hi, The image LDS Baptism Panama.jpg that I uploaded to Commons yesterday disappeared, and I was wondering if you knew where it went since you were the one who fixed the link after it was gone. The other image is fine, but I liked the cropped version better. -- Adjwilley (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there anything to be done?

Take a look at this.

In spite of the fact that I uploaded ORTS tickets for every single one of these images, they have all been deleted again. They were deleted after a period shorter than the posted ORTS backlog. And again, no one made even the slightest attempt to explain the issue, warn me in any fashion, or do any work whatsoever except click "yes" on some bot script.

Is there any hope for the Commons? Can this be fixed? Or should I just give up on media entirely?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Me 163 first and only rocket powered figher.

The Comet and Me 262 are powered by jets engines that get their thrust from the combustion of oxygen and jet fuel. The ME 163 got it's thrust from a chemical reaction without air from the outside. Making a rocket engine and rocket engine two separate. Modern uses of Rocket engines are missiles and the use in NASA shuttles/rockets.Articseahorse (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

nikos galis

what do you mean vandalizing wikipedia ? i have only changed the picture of Nikos Galis , what is your problem ? the picture i added is with the team he spent 12 years of his career — Preceding unsigned comment added by R3vma24 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio images are not accepted here. --Denniss (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

galis image

this picture is mine , its not copied , it belongs to no one else but ME !!!! stop acting like a fascist — Preceding unsigned comment added by R3vma24 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Merry X'mas~!

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm sorry

Okay, I'm really sorry. I won't do it again. But please don't block me. I'm a new and registered user, so I don't know much about copyright on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.255.210 (talk) 07:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Ade Putra A.S

Hello Denniss, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Ade Putra A.S, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not ambiguously promotion - please remember to notify the editor when you submit for CSD. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Ski images

Actually I think something just got lost in the shuffle. It appears no one contacted William back in May. But they have now so it went through instantly. I'm not so sure the OTRS software is keeping up. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Everyone should really understand

Denniss is what's causing all this problems. So therefore, I will quit editing Misplaced Pages and he is just reverting everything. This really is annoying. So if someone can block Denniss (at least I tried), that would be a desirable favor. Misplaced Pages, at least have a talk with Denniss and tell him to stop reverting every edit. But I will try to find a way to block him if I can. Be a Misplaced Pages citizen, not a bully. TsarSrbinu29 (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I do see a problem here. Denniss, when you revert or undo someone's edits, you need to explain what you're doing. Specifically, when you undo an edit, you will see the following highly appropriate message:

If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only.

Your mass undoing of others' edits without explanations is problematic and disruptive. Please stop.

It's clear you want to help the project but your unilateral and heavy-handed reverts are not necessarily constructive and are clearly not in the spirit of how you should be editing. Toddst1 (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

A cupcake Apology for you.

I apologize, now eat this cupcake please. TsarSrbinu29 (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I apologize

I apologize dearly for my rude comments. I just worked hard on the Kosovo War page yesterday and now I put on references. Please check them. Please check my new references. Again, I apologize and I'm very remorsefulness. TsarSrbinu29 (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

alive Magazine

Denniss, can you please explain in detail as to why you have reverted to the previous edit of the 'alive Magazine' Wiki entry? As a rep of the company I can assure you that the most recent edit (which you reverted) was factual, and not an advert. The previous entry did not reflect our brand or business in any way. We wish to provide the end user with proper and current information - looking forward to connecting with you soon. Thank you. AliveEditor (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Based on the edit summary Denniss left and the content he removed, it appears he correctly removed promotional material added by the publisher of the magazine, presumably you, with a major WP:COI. Toddst1 (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

airbus a319-100 virtual tour

Hi,

but why did you removed that external link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.79.9.87 (talk) 09:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism with flags?

Hi, I added to some plane list the flag of the Country of the airline who odrered the plane. (SSJ-100 , A350 , B787). I saw you removed my work because it has been classified as "vandalism". Could you please explain me better what is possible to do and what is not, I really don't understand how to add a flag near an Airline could be considered vandalism, in my opinion it's nice to see the flag near the Airline name but maybe I make some mistakes, I'm sure you could explain me better how to add changes. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollomz (talk • contribs) 12:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

German tanks in World War II

I understand that it's easier to just do a wholescale rollback when you want to remove something (although since the entire article's uncited, I don't see why you're removing the material), but it's not legitimate to remove a maintenance tag such as asking for clarification. Allens (talk | contribs) 14:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Tirpitz & K-21

Hi!

The discussion about torpedoes' count has been finished month ago (being confirmed by respected historians given by Parsecboy). So, please make undo and restore remarks about 4 torpedoes.

Best regards, --Zh.Mike (talk) 09:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Bombing of Guernica

Hi Denniss, As you have now twice reverted the addition of this article to the Category:Mass murder in 1937, giving in your edit summary "No, mass murder cat is not legitimate, the massacre cat is questionable as well", perhaps you should state your reasons for questioning its legitimacy at Category talk:Mass murder by year. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Iosif Stalin tank

Hi Denniss, could you please care to explain to me how I have "vandalised" the Iosif Stalin tank page? I simply corrected the name of the tank due to historical innacuracy, which I do not regard as "vandalism". I do not wish to engage in an editing war with you, but I feel that your removal of my content has gone unjustified as no explanation on why it was removed was given only that it was classed as "vandalism". I would just simply like to know your reasons as to why you would regard my edits as vandalism, as I can prove that the content that I am posting is legitimate and I am willing to discuss this matter with you. Darlomidge (talk)

Incorrect A320 Family Information

You have been accusing me of changing the A320 family page. Well it shouldn't show China Southern Airlines as a primary user, but instead JetBlue Airways as they are a far bigger user of the A320 family than China Southern. Keevin3201 (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

And your data is based on what source ? --Denniss (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

JetBlue A320 Family Fleet numbers and orders. Keevin3201 (talk)

Usage numbers are for active aircraft only, orders are not relevant for user sorting. --Denniss (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

If you say so, but still, JetBlue (an American airline) is a far more major user of the A320 than a Chinese airline, so you're misleading people. Keevin3201 (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Jetblue has 122 aircraft of the A320 family operational, China Southern 178. --Denniss (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Numbers aren't everything. The A320 is JetBlue's main aircraft other than the E190, which they don't have a lot of, whereas China Southern operate a range of aircraft so you're incorrect and are misleading people by accusing me with the correct information. Keevin3201 (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The article is about the A320 family, that includes A318/319/320/321. The article is not about the single type A320. --Denniss (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Well done, Captain Obvious. But JetBlue is a far more important A320 family operator than China Southern. You should be ashamed, giving people false information. You seem to threaten everyone here whenever someone changes stuff to the correct information. Keevin3201 (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to let you know that I will change it back to JetBlue, to provide people with correct information. If you change it back, I will be in contact with Misplaced Pages, and will let them know of your threats to me and other people for trying to provide correct information. Keevin3201 (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

JetBlue more important than China southern is POV and will be reverted (not only by me) as we keep on facts and not personal opinions. --Denniss (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

An admin how nice

So you threaten to block everyone who dosen't agree with you, how interesting Claimsort11 (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Please ask at WP:HELPDESK where people will explain that it is standard operating procedure for normal editors to warn users when they believe some guideline or policy is not being followed. See WP:DR for how to resolved disputes. Johnuniq (talk) 08:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

@Denniss: I was going to notify you about a message at WP:AN, but got delayed after noticing that it is now at WP:ANI, as per the following section. Johnuniq (talk) 08:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

AN/I notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Need some help. Thank you. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 08:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

please refresh your knowledge of WP:VAND and do't apply the term "vandalism" to edit disagreements. Please do not talk exclusively in warning templates with new accounts. Instead, you must explain how to edit correctly. Even if you suspect it is a sock puppet. In this case you have had to advice the user to explain himself in article talk page. - Altenmann >t 08:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Boeing 777

This is a note to let the main editors of Boeing 777 know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 12, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/June 12, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Boeing 777 is a long-range, wide-body, twin-engine jet airliner manufactured by Boeing Commercial Airplanes. It is the world's largest twinjet and is commonly referred to as the "Triple Seven". The aircraft has seating for over 300 passengers and has a range from 5,235 to 9,380 nautical miles (9,695 to 17,372 km), depending on model. Its distinguishing features include the largest-diameter turbofan engines of any aircraft, six wheels on each main landing gear, a circular fuselage cross-section, and blade-shaped tail cone. Developed in consultation with eight major airlines, the 777 was designed to replace older wide-body airliners and bridge the capacity difference between the 767 and 747. As Boeing's first fly-by-wire airliner, it has computer mediated controls; it is also the first entirely computer-designed commercial aircraft.(more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Notification: ANI

Notification: please, visit to ANI--Zh.Mike (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Tirpitz

Hello. You might be interested in this joke, since you are involved in the dispute. Why he did not notify you is beyond me. Parsecboy (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

A380

Can you have a look at Airbus A380. Continued vandalism by 99.250.135.193 after your final warning. Thx. --Wolbo (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey

Why did the images from http://en.wikipedia.org/Luke_Benward and http://en.wikipedia.org/Spencer_List have been removed? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.109.43.91 (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Non-free_content#Images_2 number 1. --Denniss (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Boeing 767

Fifteen new Fedex 767 orders are listed on the Boeing website as of June 30, 2012. There was a delay in the listing due to the Independence Day Holiday in the USA. Citations have been added to the page. Please refrain from hasty edits without looking at source material.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans100 (talk • contribs)

I did look at source material and that's the first notice of the deal at Boeing's website. Although somewhat strange that there's no press release yet as they usually appear in tandem. The update at Boeing's order page is somewhat incorrect as they forgot change the effective date - that's a July deal (unless they dated it back somehow for tax or budget reasons). --Denniss (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The deal was announced on June 29th, so it was a June deal. The spreadsheet was not updated until today due to the unusual 5 day holiday with independence day falling on a Wednesday (July 4th) and updates not occurring for end of June until today. Cheers--Hans100

Request

Hello Denniss.

I am waiting (hoping?) for someone to mentor me in Misplaced Pages.

I am British (native English speaker), educated in engineering and have expertise on WW2 aircraft. Your deletion of my edit on the FW190 was out of order. PS as a unit of power has never existed in the english language. Indeed the EU made it an obsolete unit in 1992.

Whilst I can appreciate that the Nazi engineers used PS in their original design of this engine, for educational/historical purposes we only need two units 1) SI and 2)Imperial.

Wg Cdr Luddite 77.97.181.117 (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

At first, PS was not invented by Nazi engineers and is still in wide use today even if it's deprecated (almost all nations with metric system did not use imperial hp but their own historical hp or something similar to the metric hp). 2) You replaced the correct value in PS by the same value as hp without proper recalculation into hp. For those engines it's preferred to have the original value it was specified with + proper recalculations into imperial hp + kW. This avoids a lot of problems, especially the sadly usual 1:1 PS->hp conversion/translation. --Denniss (talk) 10:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Messerschmitt Bf 109 production

Hi Denniss, I have a copy of the citation Lieferplan B.Nr18/3 Nr.1285 which shows here E-4/BN Mtt.R. 15 WNF 20

Please explain exactly how this means 15 E-4/N and 20 E-4/BN? It specifically shows E-6/N and E-7/N but no E-4/N. Have you got any other evidence showing 109E-4/N being produced seperately from the jagdbomber version? Thanks ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 12:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dennis,

Thank you for your vigilance in maintaining long-stable and reliable articles from being filled with unverifiable, and for all good intentions I am sure characterizing Minorhistorian's latest additions, wrong information. I have found a very interesting paper, noting that the DB 601N was introduced for a Gruppe of 109 July 1940, in the link kindly provided by Minorhistorian, uploaded by this same "major sharpe" character. This Major Sharpe appears to be very well aware of the /N versions introduction date of July, and as a sidenote, he is also appearantly very much obsessed, perhaps a bit too obsessesed with Spitfires and 109s. The source appears to be Petrick/Mankau's Bf 110/210/410 book. Surely it should not be a problem to properly cite it, after all, we are all good-faith editors here, interested in improving the article, are we all not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.222.180.172 (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Denniss, have you got a scan of the original Leiferplan B.Nr18/3 Nr.1285? I have no idea of where the version quoted in the article is from and, because it came from a book, the book should be cited, not the badly translated document. Thanks ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 21:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you ended up getting dragged into the middle of Kurfurst's obsessive interest in my editing in Misplaced Pages - that was completely unintentional. This editor has been blocked because of numerous incidents of tedious and mendacious behaviour, including accusing other editors of being sockpuppets. That he continues to engage in this type of behaviour is no surprise, it is regrettable that it has spilled over into your discussion page. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 03:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

need template help

the reason for the big image is because I noticed it make the template wider which is needed for text to not overlap, any ideas? Matthew Smith (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Conversion template in MSC Flaminia

Hello. I have thought that the use of the conversion template is always recommended if the conversion at hand is supported by it — it removes the need for checking if the conversions are correct as they are calculated automatically. As for the accuracy, I would rather use the less accurate figure given by the conversion template. The output for the main engine that I've taken from the GL database is quite likely the rated output of 10K98 given by MAN B&W and not the actual measured output of this particular unit. The actual output of the ship's main engine may vary over time depending on fuel quality, ambient temperature of the engine room, time from previous overhaul etc. Thus, the overly accurate rating is likely not correct (or at least more likely incorrect than the less accurate figure). Also, when you're talking about a large diesel engine that produces over 76,000 hp, defining the output with an accuracy of 1 hp is the same as defining a the engine power of a car with two or three decimals, which is never done.
As a side note, personally I'm against using kW-hp conversion for modern ships. Horsepowers are not used in official context and the converted figures are in any case meaningless for most people — both 57,100 kW and 76,600 hp are such big numbers that it's impossible to relate them to anything they are familiar with. Tupsumato (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Image

Re: this edit summary. There really isn't anything wrong with the image, just that it was being included by a banned editor. You are free to add it if you like.

I would point out, however, that if you see an edit that an administrator has reverted twice, you should be certain of what you are doing before reversing it. Reversing it while asking a question with exclamation points in an edit summary can be risky if there is some other policy reason for the removal.—Kww(talk) 12:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Removing E-100 information

Could you please tell me how my contribution was not constructive as this will help me provide better information in future contributions. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewmeech (talk • contribs) 13:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Because this contribution was not your own work but most probably copied from another website (as your other recent text additions). --Denniss (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Das Boot

You seem to be involved in a slow edit war on this page. A change was made by an IP user, with the explanation “minor translation error”; you reverted this change, though without explaining why, or starting a dialogue.
It would be better to resolve the matter by discussion; I have opened one here. I have also requested page protection, until the matter is resolved. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

How to Add an Image for Artist's Profile or Replace?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRiderT-Rex (talk • contribs) 02:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Find a freely licensed image that doesn't come from a doubtful source and upload it. --Denniss (talk) 05:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Luftwaffe changes

I have reverted your deletions of my image in the war crimes section since the picture is fully referenced by the section itself as well as in the article from which it came. I have also reverted your unexplained deletion of my changes on the civilian bombing section. I hope you are not denying that the Luftwaffe bombed Warsaw in 1939, and numerous other towns and cities during WW2: they are clear and unambiguous proof that the Luftwaffe bombed civilian areas as a matter of deliberate policy before and during the last war. 81.156.48.77 (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Your report at AIV

Hi, Denniss. Contrary to the non-admin comment at AIV, I believe the 4im warning was necessary. The reported user has stopped after the warning so I will not be blocking them. However, they now have a final warning and their past contributions are concerning. Should they resume their disruption please re-report. Thanks Tiderolls 04:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

DB605

What, exactly, is your problem with the power figures quoted by Smith and Creek for the DB610? They have spent 20+ years examining the relevant records - if, as you claim, they have somehow mixed up ps v hp please provide some proper evidence instead of simply swapping figures around. have a good Christmas :) ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 19:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly becaus they swapped their figures: Please do the math yourself: 2x1475 PS = 2950 PS. The 1:1 translation of PS into hp and the conversion back to PS/kW based on these wrong values is a huge problem in english-language books. This is a problem with all values described as metric horsepower. --Denniss (talk)

You are making these allegations but you have not proved any of it! Just because 2 DB605s put out x horsepower it does not follow that the DB610 generated exactly twice the horsepower - where is your primary documentation showing that Smith and Creek, two highly experienced authors, have got PS and hp mixed up? Please prove that their power figures are not PS translated into hp. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 00:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever seen an engine with that strange power figures you cited? 2909 and 2788 PS are a "bit" off standard practice to use multiples of 5 or 10. Also 2950 hp is not 2909 PS, this may either be an error on your side or from these "experienced" authors. --Denniss (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you or have you not got any evidence to prove any of this? If not, you are engaging in Original Research and reverting properly cited material. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 03:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I have enough evidence but currently no time to include this. --Denniss (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear, you have the gall to use the edit summaries to lecture me on using "proper sources" etc; you then revert properly cited information several times without giving any evidence or proper sources, resulting in a moderator protecting the article for a week, and now say "I have the evidence but no time to include"? Well done buddy, you've been a great help. Note, too: do not use material from the Kurfurst website, that is completely out of bounds. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 07:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Please don't reduce images that don't need reducing.

Thanks. Film Fan (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:SOURCE

This is WP:POINT. A revert simply to annoy another user. I removed unsourced material, and you reinstated it because you claim that 'one person can't speak for the whole of Belgium and the Netherlands'. Well, apart from the fact that that wasn't my intention, you (and the person who originally added it) did exactly that yourself. Speaking for the whole of two countries. In your case, two countries of which you aren't even native (even though if that would be the case it still wouldn't gives you any authority) ... verbeter de wereld en begin bij jezelf. Without sources these kind of statements are removed. Now it is clear you followed my edits, which is fine by me as long as you edit based on Misplaced Pages rules, if I ever get the feeling you revert an edit of me, because of me instead of what I do ... I'll report you for harassment. I hope that's clear. Kleinsma80 (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You reporting ME for harassment - that's the joke of the day ....... --Denniss (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Just set up the joke, and I'll provide the punch line. I dare you. Kleinsma80 (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

As the new member of the editor warring/content dispute I am watching I am leaving this message as a curtsey to inform you of the planned course of action. Having observed the situation Between D and K for the last 24 hours I have seen some attempt at dialogue, so I am going to wait another 24 hours and see if they can't have a civilized conversation on the talk pages for the articles they disagree on. This is being done in accordance with WP:AGF, since I am seeing a little good faith, I'm going to wait a little longer to see if it will grow into something useful. If this does not happen, then 24 hours from now I'm gonna start protecting the contested pages, and if the contested issues do not move toward a resolution in that time then I will make a move to start blocking editor(s) for civility issues. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

your revert of "Bundeswehr"

Denniss, I sort of cannot follow your line of arguments. But, then, perhaps I don't understand what you're trying to say. By "does not relate here", do you mean that there's no relationship between the Bundeswehr and the NVA? Maybe (disputable); but most definitely the NVA is a former German Armed Force. However, if your revert aims at the NVA being in existence at the same time as the Bundeswehr, it's merely a question of the wording to take that into consideration. But I do think that the NVA should be mentioned here. Could you please elaborate on the issue? Regards, Lost Boy (talk)

There are no traditions the Bundeswehr took over from the NVA in the timeframe of their co-existence as opposing forces. The section is merely to draw a line from early german military orgs to the Bundeswehr. In the context of this section the NVA is not a former military org as it didn't (officially) exist at the time of Bundeswehr creation. The NVA is covered in a later section and also has a separate article. --Denniss (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ to all except your first sentence. To me, it's quite clear that the NVA is indeed a former Armed Force and is to be mentioned here. May I suggest that we discuss this in public to get some more opinions? Rest regards, Lost Boy (talk)

A question of superlatives

Hello, Denniss,

I note that you have reverted my edit to Hans-Ulrich Rudel. I also note you have added the conditional phrase "a record score at that time". I further note that when looking for a cite, I find "cite needed" instead, so that I am unable to check the veracity of the claim. In short, you seem to have reverted an unsourced statement in the face of an attempt at achieving accuracy. I hope you have not also committed the WP sin of Original Research with that added phrase.

Please be so kind as to supply a source for your assertions, as I have done for my claims on Rudel's Talk Page. Perhaps you may also want to modify the superlative claim to something like, "flew the most combat missions in World War II", or something similar.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No cn tag there, missions reffed in the lead. And I just reverted your unjustified removal of that part for which a modification would have been more than enough. --Denniss (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, Denniss,

We seem to be on the verge of incivility here, which was not my intent. I hope it is also not yours. While my edit summaries were in good faith, and even backed by Talk page notes, your latest was just a bit snippy. Especially when I took such pains to explain my edits. I corrected your edits in good faith, with no intention of spitefulness, and my deletion of an inaccuracy carries no obligation to replace the false claim.

I am an admirer of Rudel; any military man with his drive and courage draws high respect from his fellow combat veterans. However, we are writing an encyclopedia here, so accuracy is paramount. Quite frankly, I have no idea who flew the most combat missions in history, and I doubt we shall ever know. Besides the Lao and Hmong pilots of the RLAF, there were the pilots of the South Vietnamese Air Force. If some of them who began flying combat in 1962 lasted until war's end in 1975, there must be some incredible totals of combat missions. However, that speculation may be as close as we can come to the truth of the matter.

Lastly, for clarity's sake, how about duplicating that cite in the first para, and placing it exactly where it belongs down below that claim about Rudel's combat missions? For the sake of future readers.

Thanks.

Georgejdorner (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Reverted Radeon Pages

there was a continuous theme that was broken, and I fixed it, they should all be listed as Radeon Rxxx... please revert back to my latest revisions. Matthew Smith (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Move the articles to the new location to preserve the article history, request a move if that's not possible due to existing target pages. Copy&Paste moves are not permitted. --Denniss (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

ok that makes sense, and doesn't make sense, it makes sense that you had to do what you had to do.. however... why the hell is that a rule in the first place... what I did would result in the exact same results.... Matthew Smith (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

We have to preserve the article history, we can't hide it somewhere in the redirects. License condition. --Denniss (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

can you help me get this done correctly? because those pages are already created and they redirect to the name that doesn't follow any continuous theme of generation. Matthew Smith (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding my picture of Georg Bogislaus Staël von Holstein

Hi Denniss, I have written to you before regarding my picture of the painting of Georg Bogislaus in the swedish wikipedia. You seem to not understand english. The picture is taken by me in the private home of a relative of my at the estate wapnö in Halmstad. I do not understand why you can not understand that and stop treaten to take away the article. As you understand the copyright of the picture is mine and a creative Commen. That meen that ANYBODY can use it without asking me. The people who want to use the picture in other places then wikipedia I would like that they contact me. I have I webbsaight about the family on the net that goess back to 1189 that has a mailbox so they can get in contact with me. stael.dinstudio.se. I do not think that you are the right one to help with wikipeda seems you do not understand english and do not lissen to what the athors of the articles writes you.

Yours sincerely Charlotte Staël von Holstein charlotte.brodin92@gmail.com

I am born Staël von Holstein but I am some married called Brodin Staël von Holstein seen it is easier to spell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brodin92 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Argus As 10

I am curious as to why you have reverted my addition of the As 10E2 to the variants section. I added it after finding that the variant was proposed as the powerplanr for the Pilatus P-1, I have re-instated it with refrerence.--Petebutt (talk) 12:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

A380 and Dreamliner

Hi - You just reverted my edits to the A380 article using Twinkle. My edits are not vandalism, I removed some information because I noticed it was wrong (see references included in my change comment). Could you please reinstate the edit? Mark cummins (talk) 10:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, since I didn't hear back I have reinstated the edit myself. For reference the line I removed stated that "A380 is pressurised to the equivalent of 5000ft up to 41000ft". This is not correct. Two citations were provided for this information. The first one was: http://www.hamiltonsundstrand.com/StaticFiles/HS/Communications/General/Documents/A380%20Fact%20Sheet_June%202011.pdf If you actually read that reference, it says: "outflow valves regulate the cabin altitude to no more than 7,000 feet while flying up to 41,000 feet."

The second reference (http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/airbus_a380.pl) does claim 5000ft, but it does not seem like a very authoritative source and is contradicted by better information elsewhere.

The most authoritative source I can find is a scientific article discussing the impact of air travel on patients with lung disease. The article reports actual measurements of cabin pressure on different aircraft. This shows clearly that the A380 cabin altitude is no better (and in fact slightly worse) than older aircraft such as the 747: https://www.ersnetsecure.org/public/prg_congres.abstract?ww_i_presentation=46081 http://www.ersnet.org/index.php?option=com_flexicontent&view=items&id=4106:airlines-are-cu

If you convert the hPa measurements in that article they correspond to a cabin altitude of about 7300ft when flying at 40,000ft. Mark cummins (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

As for the Dreamliner - the information removed is out of date and irrelevant now. Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper citation.

Northbridge (computing)

Why was the edit reverted? The Northbridge is now an integral part of any modern processor, all its functions are managed by the system agent (as noted by AnandTech). It is inaccurate to say that it's still being used as a separate chip on a motherboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yowanvista (talk • contribs) 12:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Your edits in my sandbox

Why are you editing things in my sandbox??? Not cool. Seriously. People get blocked for that. Don't do it again. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Automatic image replacement after movement, nothing wrong with it. --Denniss (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I found something wrong with it and I think it presumptuous. Don't do it again.--ColonelHenry (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks for replacing a deleted image in my userspaces, Much Appreciated :) Thanks - →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 11:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi friend, I would want to tell you that Manuel Schmiedebach will play to the Venezuela selection, so by this I think that would was best that use the flag of his new country, Thanks (that only is my opinion) BYE, Good Luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.85.56.10 (talk) 05:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

He was not born in Venezuela but in Berlin, Germany so has the german citizenship, he may play for Venezuela (due to his mother being venezuelan) in the future but that's not finalyized yet. --Denniss (talk) 09:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There have been three examples:

• First example
• Second example
• Third example
• Fourth example.

Perhaps you'd like to fix this? --Pete (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Monte Cassino. General Wladyslaw Anders.

Hi Dennis. I'm Mark. I wrote General Anders because Polish soldiers won the first hill of Monte Cassino. At Monte Cassino was the first Polish flag. British flag hung on the orders of General Anders, a few hours later. Do not write the names of the commanders General Anders Misplaced Pages is a fundamental mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sieciowiec652 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Athlon 64 X2 Edits

I am not sure how I managed to delete the Infobox, but I only recall deleting the invalid external link, . Thanks for keeping tabs. MadenssContinued (talk) 02:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Just what is a "RüstSTAND" on a WW II German aircraft, anyway?

Dear Denniss:

The PIPE Here - I edited the "Rüststand" term in the Biff (Bf 109) article on the English language Misplaced Pages due to it likely being a bit of a misunderstanding relating to a term in Luftwaffe aviation I do know something about, the Rüstsatz field conversion packages that DID add the /R suffix to a Luftwaffe aircraft's designation, and NOT this so-called "Rüststand" entity you've asserted, that's most likely to be nothing more than a slight misspelling of the "Rüstsatz" term. There is also the "Umrüst-Bausatz" variety — often contracted to Umbau in WW II aviation history works — of more extensive upgrades that usually needed more than just front-line facilities to install, and did get its own "/U" suffix.

A quick Googling for the term "rüststand" revealed it to also be a term in the Dutch language, with that exact spelling - potentially making use of such a term in an article about German WW II aircraft also "out-of-place".

Please enlighten me about what the "Rüststand" term means, as a word im Deutsch, bitte schoen...I have never heard of it spelled precisely "that way" before, unless it could honestly be a misspelling of "Rüstsatz", in which case your edit might have actually preserved a possible misspelling...!

Thank you in advance, and Yours Sincerely,

The PIPE (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

A Rüstsatz is equipment you may quickly add or remove in field conditions like R VI on the Bf 109 G (20mm gondolas) or the various Bomb/DT equipment. Rüststand (also Rüstzustand) is a standard aircraft modified with special equipment either at the factory or specialized facilities, these are intended for specific mission profiles. Examples here are the various Bf 109 recons like G-6/R2 with cams or the G-6/R3 with cams + underwing drop tank option. Bf 109 F-4/R1 with preparations for underwing MG 151 gondolas is another Rüst(zu)stand example. Same with Bf 110, the /R designations are Rüststand, Rüstsatz designations were B or M if I remember right. A Rüstsatz never changed the designation on Mtt aircraft, a Rüststand/Rüstzustand did. There's probably a lot of confusion on Fw 190 aircraft which one of the R numbers was actually a Rüstsatz and which one a Rüststand, production data shows only A-8, A-8/R2 and A-8/R11 as production versions (Standard, Sturmbock, all/bad weather version). --Denniss (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Don McGregor image

Not a prob! I've contacted the owner and asked him to send an e-mail. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

boeing 787 orders and deliveries

Hi,

Why did you change my changes back?

Thanks

boeing 787 orders and deliveries

Hi,

Why did you change my changes back?

Thanks Jh1102 (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Black Dog Whisky

The images in the https://en.wikipedia.org/Black_Dog_(whisky)contains images that we are now moving to appropriate Commons terms as suggested by you. Please check: http://toolserver.org/~bryan/flickr/upload?username=Sumathkarnad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumathkarnad (talk • contribs) 15:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Sinking of the Bismarck

Hi Denniss, I wish to know your reasoning in reverting my edit of adding the Canadian and Polish flags to the list of belligerents in the Last Battle of the Bismarck. I included these countries as belligerents due to their assistance in locating and engaging the Bismarck after the Battle of the Denmark Strait. I addition if you have an issue with a revision it would be appreciated if you placed the reason down when you do undo one.

                                              Thanks J.Mieszała (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see the page history and the discussion page of the article. Also only RN ships participated in the battle (or ships under RN command). --Denniss (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Cheers for the reply Denniss,

I do concede that the Canadian navy although providing naval resources in the operation to locate Bismarck and helping overall in the search its ships were never fully engaged in the battle.

Regarding the Polish destroyer ORP Piorun, it was involved in the actions proceeding the sinking of the Bismarck. It was helped in retaining contact with the Bismarck during the night, as well as exchanging gunfire, and supporting the destroyer Flotilla (carrying out diversionary movements and torpedo attacks).

Although it was under Royal Navy command during the war, the Polish Navy was still a Polish force. This is similar to Polish army units, that although raised in Britain and the Middle East and under British/Allied Command throughout their actions during the war such as Monte Casino, Operation Totalise and Market Garden. They are still recognised as Polish Units and a Polish contribution in continuing the war against Germany (as Poland did not surrender). Would their be an objection to placing Poland in the belligerents section as the commanders section already shows its under Royal Navy command.

                                             J.Mieszała (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from these copy&paste moves. Not preserving the article history is a license violation. Thank you.

Sorry I didn't see a way to move them any other way. How can I edit the title without losing the edit history? --Trifler (talk) 11:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I just found it. I'll redo those using Move. Sorry for the mistake. --Trifler (talk) 11:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Crud... Now it won't let me Move any of them because the name already exists as a result of my previous copy/pasting. Are you able to help? --Trifler (talk) 11:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Marenco SwissHelicopter SKYe SH09

Denniss, have you read or heard anything about the de:Marenco SwissHelicopter SKYe SH09? There's also an article on the Russian wiki. I am thinking of creatng an article for it on En.wp, but many of the sources are in German. Do you know anything about it, if it's really a viable project? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like an interesting vehicle. German wiki has many english sources, manufacturer page and Flight Global at least. Found and --Denniss (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look at all those and see if I can put something together in the next few weeks. One question I had about the German wiki article was why tge German flag was included in the Infobox there. The company that makes it Swiss, not German, as far as I can tell, and its factory appears to be in Switzerland. Does the article text elaborate on a German connection? - BilCat (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Henkvancann

Hello Denniss, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Henkvancann, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

If it were in any namespace except userspace then yes it would have been G11 worthy. But WP:UPYES allows for a certain amount of personal material. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Wiseman

Hello Denniss. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Wiseman, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: that's not 6 months. Thank you. GedUK  13:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Deligabi/Wiseman

Hello Denniss. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Deligabi/Wiseman, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. GedUK  13:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: User:Deligabi/Wiseman

Hello Denniss. I am just letting you know that I deleted User:Deligabi/Wiseman, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 04:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Beleiutz

Hi, Denniss, in evaluating this SPI, I'm trying to connect two dots. I can see on Commons that you deleted File:Jorge- romania.jpg, but because I don't have administrative privileges on Commons, I can't see whether User:Mirciulescu is the one who uploaded the image. There may be some other way for me to figure it out, but I don't know what it is. Can you confirm that Mirciulescu uploaded the image? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed, he was the uploader. --Denniss (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

A Tesla Roadster for you!

	A Tesla Roadster for you!
	Thank you for contributing to Misplaced Pages! Gg53000 (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

These warnings?

where exactly?  Giano  10:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Come along; I am still waiting - where are the diffs for these warnings that you claim to know about?  Giano  15:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Windows 2000

Hello, Dennis

I hope I am not catching you in busy time but would you please elucidate on this revert #594498134 in Windows 2000 article? I read you edit summary but I cannot understand what you are getting at.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello again. I had a chat with another Wikipedian over IM. He suggests solving the issue at template level. He talks sense. Going WP:BOLD. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

New permissions

I've proactively given you several permissions. (I'm not sure if that's how it's normally done, seeing as I spend much of my time on Commons anymore, but I don't really see a problem with it.) The only important ones to remember are this: one can move a file on English Misplaced Pages subject to the same rules as on Commons, and rollback should never be used in an edit war. Details below in the templates.

Rollback boilerplate

I have granted rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Misplaced Pages:New admin school/Rollback and Misplaced Pages:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Filemover boilerplate

I have granted file mover rights to your account following either a request for those rights or a clear need for the ability to move files. For information on the file mover rights and under what circumstances it is okay to move files, see Misplaced Pages:File mover. When you move a file please ensure that you change the links to the file to the new name. If you do not want file mover rights anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Reviewer boilerplate

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Denniss,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33