Welcome!

Hello, Ikluft, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place ((helpme)) after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  (SEWilco 03:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

I see you're also using the Commons. You may want to know that images uploaded to Commons can be used in Wikipedia in the same way as Wikipedia Images are used. The Wikipedia servers automatically will retrieve images from Commons. (SEWilco 03:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Template:Black Rock-High Rock NCA and Wilderness Map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. RichardΩ612 17:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I read the discussion and accepted the suggestion to fold the content of the template into Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area, and make the 10 wilderness area pages refer to it. I'll add on the TfD page that you may delete the template. (Note: I edited the section title and previous comment so that it doesn't link to the soon-to-be-deleted template any more, and therefore doesn't make an easy way for someone to mistakenly re-create it.) Ikluft (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Regarding your comment on the TfD page, I'm sorry if my actions seemed too proactive or forward; I'll try to take that on board and contact the creator of any more templates I list for deletion to see if they have a better method of dealing with it rather than straightforward deletion. Thanks for pointing that out to me! ><RichardΩ612 09:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I was going to do that cleanup in a few days. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. Glad to help when I get a chance. It actually wasn't much work - I just did a global search & replace in a text editor. Ikluft (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I apologize for that. It was late when I found that text and I had intended to re-write and wikify the text but my eyes were getting bleary so I just placed it in verbatim for later review (as it is now) which took out the fluff in the article. Warmest Regards Bwmoll3 (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. I'm glad you accepted the message about caution with copyright without taking it personally. I'll help with one part of your new text, moving the reference to an inline citation. Ikluft (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fully wish to cooperate, I think we both need to cool our heads and take a break from editing the article so we can come back with fresh perspectives. I will agree not to edit the article any more if you do. I will also request a third opinion, what do you say? I would also like to thank you for following up on, whether intentional or not with the bus stations category by removing the California meta category and for adding the SFBA transportation category to it. =) cheers.^MY♥_INchile 21:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't go along with that. The problem is that you keep adding that remote-control airplane airfield to Category:Airports in the San Francisco Bay Area even though it is not an FAA-registered airport. It doesn't have (and never had) FAA and ICAO airport codes. There is no FAA documentation to substantiate it as an official airport. Even as a remote-control airplane field, it is neither open to the public nor government-owned. It fails to meet every definition of the category. Ikluft (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forum-shopping for miscategorizing Breuner Airfield as an airport

(I added this sub-heading since the following note was not related to the lines above. The sub-heading is the same wording as the section on another page that it was in response to.)

leave me the hell alone. you're just harassing me at this point. not everyone feels the way you do and some other people feel the way i do. Don't be an egg, and let the discussion continue. i simply disagree and wan't things changed. that is not forum shopping as defined at WP:PARENT nor is it disruptive editing... what you're telling me boils down to "shut up" and i wont, the more you bother me the more you're encouraging me to go forward and try and change it, since you seem so hellbent on the status quo remaining as-is. ^MY♥_INchile 01:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, "cease and desist" doesn't mean "shut up". But that's a specific topic you've received negative feedback from other editors and been requested to exercise restraint. (Other readers see the comment he was responding to: User_talk:Myheartinchile#Forum-shopping_for_miscategorizing_Breuner_Airfield_as_an_airport.) Ikluft (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I should emphasize that it is not my intent to hurt your feelings or limit your speech. But I really wish you had actually read the note that I worded trying to convince you the reasons why it would be best to end the campaign to call it an airport. It's just silly. You seem to be the only one who doesn't see it. I'm sorry to deliver the bad news - but pursuing that line is and will continue to be a collision course with a brick wall. Please reconsider, assume good faith and re-read it after you have a chance to calm down. If you take what I said seriously, you'd see I've been trying to redirect your effort in a more constructive direction and be helpful as much as that can. But trying to push for calling it an airport is a non-starter for all the reasons we've already stated. You'll save yourself and everyone else involved a lot of inconvenience if you can accept that. Ikluft (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for all the work you are putting into this. I have no idea why I missed the section you already had on what an airport is. Too busy looking at the other stuff. Thanks again. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Notability you write, "[...] the question was raised about whether I'm proposing this for my own interests - I'm not." In the context, it looks like I raised this question, I did not. Would you mind amending your comment to make this clear. Pdbailey (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that was directly in response to your comment. If you didn't actually mean to come across that way, please clarify. Ikluft (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is very hard to find the exact spot where one did not do something. Again, I did not imply that you were proposing "this" for your own interest, and I would rather you didn't imply that I did. What I did try to communicate is that I can understand being someone who spends a lot of time at or thinking about general aviation airports and thinking that they have a sort of inherent notability because you are interested in them. I think your current wording makes it sound like I was crying foul because you have some sort of pecuniary or similar interest in keeping a particular Wikipedia page or set of Wikipedia pages around, or similar interest in general aviation as a topic; this is not accurate--at least in terms of intent on my part. Pdbailey (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A page you created, Bayshore/NASA (VTA), has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content, but does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Becky Sayles (talk) 08:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• FYI: This page is part of filling in the remaining redlinked stations on Mountain View - Winchester (VTA). I added a ((hangon)) tag. An admin moved the page to my userspace and removed the speedy tag since it was placed by a non-admin. I've renamed the page so it does not have a slash and returned it to article space. Ikluft (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A page you created, Middlefield (VTA), has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content, but does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Becky Sayles (talk) 08:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• FYI: This page is part of filling in the remaining redlinked stations on Mountain View - Winchester (VTA). I added a ((hangon)) tag. Ikluft (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have moved this page into your userspace. Per the WP:MOS, articles should not exist as /type subpages of other articles. Once you have completed working on the page, you can move it to the correct place. I have also removed the incorrectly added Speedy tag. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thank you. I had created the page via a redlink which uses the slash as shown in VTA's station name. I've moved it back into article space as Bayshore-NASA (VTA). I'll update the links which have the slash in them. Ikluft (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The nomination of the template is the culmination of about a years worth of SPA's trying to spam their favorite website into the templates, not a conspiracy to delete US GA airport articles. The most recent attempt was Template_talk:US-airport#Edit_Protected when a single purpose account, who never edited wikipedia, suddenly shows up at a template talk page wanting to spam their website. I directed them to the airports talk page and no one responded, except milborne who has recommended at least 3 earlier times to delete the template in response to other SPA's who wanted to add their website. Obviously the SPA's are associated with various companies. Someone from flightaware weighed in at the tfd shortly after it was posted. They probably forgot to log in as one of the SPA's on the talk page. No one is stopping you from using a website as a reference, but this isn't a flight planning website or the weather channel, its supposed to be an encyclopedia. If the template were deleted, it would be subst'd anyway, so no supposed references would be lost anyway, just the convenience of dumping a bunch of links into a stub article and the convenience of SPA's to focus on a single template to add their site to. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, it's definitely coming at the wrong time. I'm trying to prevent unwarranted deletion of content from airport articles in lots of directions. Someone recently went through my edit history and slashed content out of airport articles that I edited (everything I added and lots of info that was already there.) The links that are on the ((US-airport)) and related templates are useful. Maybe it will need something like the tools that exist for mapping sites to handle it better. But just deleting ((US-airport)) and all the other airport links templates would be the pinnacle of the frustration, and would doom Wikipedia as a place to look up anything about airports. Sorry - but I don't care in the slightest about bureaucratic reasons to want to delete those templates. You'll have to find a better way to handle this info rather than just simply making it go away. Ikluft (talk) 03:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sad, that discussion on the template's talk page has not been effective. Through the zealous efforts of one or two editors, it has been impossible. This witch-hunt for "SPAs" has blinded some editors to fundamentals that are not only documented in wiki guidelines, they have been overtly encouraged by wikipedia's founder in a video interview. Specifically, Wikipedia's assertion that ANYONE, affiliated/related/connected ("a/r/c") to the topic or not, should be given equal consideration in an article's talk page. Well documented guidelines state that a/r/cs should not add their own material. They are, however, encouraged to offer it up for discussion in the article's talk page. From there, editors are admonished to discuss and attempt to come to an objective conclusion regarding that material's inclusion. Attempts at discussion in this case have been repeatedly torpedoed by one or two editors who have taken on this concept of "SPAs" as a crusade and have lost all contact with objectivity as a result. Gladtohelp (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)gladtohelpReply[reply]

Agreed, and thanks for the encouragement. It's a fact of life on Wikipedia that as real problems in the system have been identified, the culture here tends to overreact to them. It's undoubtedly fallout from the original wave of bad publicity about Wikipedia content and the community's effort to recover from that. There is now an element of the community poised to "fix" the problems they perceive, even if it obstructs and prevents some obvious growth paths Wikipedia should continue to pursue. In this case, I still think the solution that will work in our community is to write a tool taking an airport code and probably some other parameters and yielding a table of links to airport information sites analagous to how ((GeoTemplate)) turns a lat/lon into links to available mapping web sites, such as these links for Reid-Hillview Airport. Ikluft (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I have a web site, Airport Guide (www.airportguide.com), that I added in the External Links section of all of the US state airport pages. You flagged this as SPAM and they were all removed. Is there some template or something I should be putting these links in? I have a listing of FAA, ICAO, and IATA mappings for every airport in the world and was adding state-specific pages such as http://www.airportguide.com/california.php. Please tell me why my link is SPAM and AirNav's link is not. I will soon be wanting to add airport-specific page links for all countries and eventually every airport (for example, http://www.AirportGuide.com/airport/United_States/California/Los_Angeles-KLAX-LAX/).

Thanks, N8080 (talk) 03:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thanks for asking. Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules say you can't add a link to your own site, or at least need to bring up on the talk page what you're doing and why. You can offer it on the talk page of an article and let someone else evaluate whether it fits at the high-level "encyclopedic" view of the subject. As you can imagine, there are a lot of people trying to add their own site's links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia's culture tends to overreact to problems like this. It's actually pretty tough right now to get any links to aviation businesses because there are editors (often from Europe I've noticed, where perhaps they've already killed off a lot of their aviation businesses and don't see the point) who just go through and delete them all, calling them spam without checking if the editor who added them had any affiliation or not. So we need to keep things clean and by the book in order to have a leg to stand on when those situations occur. As to why AirNav is on the list and you're not - they got in before the debate crippled itself and could get no further. One way or another that situation is most likely temporary. There was a proposal just to delete all the airport link templates, which we managed to save. In response to that, I've proposed a tool (which I might help to write) which would have airport-related information based on the airport code, similar to what was done to resolve the similar disputes over links from geographic coordinates to mapping web sites. Perhaps we can use this to enlist your support for creation of such a tool? Ikluft (talk) 03:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the reply; now at least I understand what is going on. With regards to your proposed tool, is there a description of what you need to do? I'm not much of a programmer and have a regular job like everyone else to pay for this web site creation addiction but if I can help somehow I will. If I actually helped, would my site be able to get some credit? I did do a small airport info popup window for an electronic logbook and if more info is needed then they can click a link to the detailed airport page. Take a look at the following link to a mini page and see if this is along the lines of what you are thinking. http://www.airportguide.com/search-mini.php?airport_id=KLAX N8080 (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, as long as an airport code can be inserted in a URL, that should be usable. At the very least, some words of support will probably help when it's time to roll out the tool. Since you reminded me about this, I requested access to Wikimedia's ToolServer. (meta:Toolserver/New_accounts#en:User:Ikluft) I don't know how long that will take for them to process. I'll start experimenting with the tool when my account is approved. Ikluft (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just read your request. It sounds like a reasonable solution. Let me know how I can help. N8080 (talk) 06:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...like the cockpit of a C-27J Spartan! It was great to meet you...we should do lunch next time you're around. (BTW, pics from today are here) AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heh. Yeah, that was an interesting place to meet. As a fellow photographer and pilot who has noticed your excellent work, I hoped we'd eventually cross paths when I'm visiting Mojave. You've got daily access to the ongoing air show of sorts that happens at Mojave and help share it with the rest of us who can't be there every day. It was great to meet you and talk. We'll definitely have to keep in touch. Ikluft (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would you mind taking a look at a discussion about this airport that I started on another user's talk page regarding this airport. I mistakenly thought he was the one who deleted the airport and it's mention on the List of airports of Santa Cruz County, California, but he mentioned it was actually you that proposed it's deletion. We are losing general aviation airports at this time in history, and I'm afraid if we erase their history from all memory it just diminishes their role and importance. Here is the discussion: [1] Thank you for your time and work on Wikipedia. DanDawson (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Dan. It's nothing against the airport. There was an effort to clean out articles about non-notable private-use airports because most of them are private property, closed to the public. They fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines and are also not supported by WikiProject Airports' proposed notability guideline. Part of the problem is that there is no reason to tempt wikipedia editors to pester people on their private land for information. (It has happened.) So for Bonny Doon, all you need to do is find articles from reliable sources which are specifically about the airport, and preferably about its use as an airport rather than other community functions. Once you have that, then it would establish notability for the Bonny Doon Airport on its own via the Wikipedia guidelines, regardless of the WikiProject Airports guidelines. If you can find that, I'll help you put the article back together. Sorry I don't have time to help search for sources at the moment - I didn't find any earlier but I'm not saying they don't exist. Ikluft (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A couple more notes... First, the WikiProject Airports' notability guideline recommends not including sources derived from FAA data as reliable sources for private-use airports. That's based on the fact that those have tended to fail in Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussions, which indicates the Wikipedia community's consensus is that they're below the bar for inclusion. This may not be exactly what you wanted to hear but will save you from more aggravation in the future. Second, if you can't find reliable sources specifically about its use as an airport, another option is to make a subsection about the airport in the article about Bonny Doon, California. That makes a lower bar for inclusion because the town already meets the notability requirement to have an article. So then it's acceptable to use sources about other uses by the community. I hope this helps. Ikluft (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I assume that you noticed the Lake Tahoe effort from the current contributions on the project template. I added that to try and get some focus on a few articles at a time. I'm going to add Black Rock Desert to the template also. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That would have been too easy. :-) Actually I first saw your request for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nevada, which was why I posted one there too. I made sure to contribute to your effort to upgrade Lake Tahoe to Good Article first before asking for help with Black Rock Desert - it just seems like a good approach for teamwork. Ikluft (talk) 06:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I went through almost all of the tagged articles and et the importance. I don't think I made any big errors but over time someone should probably give them a review. Also most projects try and review the assessments on a yearly basis since the criteria does change and the articles also change. However I think delaying this until after I try to add the B class criteria would be justified. As I understand it, if an article meets any of the criteria for B class it is automatically placed in C class until it meets all of them. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see my comment on the Talk page re: Proposition 13. 192.91.147.34 (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI for other readers of my talk page, I responded at Talk:Bay Area Rapid Transit/Archive 3#Proposition 13 cite - the editor may have misread the diff where I added a reference and it highlighted his Prop 13 info as if it was removed. But it's still there after the ref I added. So I think I answered his concern adequately. Ikluft (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Ikluft,
please send your real-name, your wikiname, your Freenode-nick (if you have one), your prefered login-name and the public part of your ssh-key to . We plan to create your account soon then. --DaB. 16:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The information has been sent. Thank you. Ikluft (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I now have a toolserver account. For those who were waiting for a general airport information tool, I can work on that now. Ikluft (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What an improvement! The last time I looked at that article, it needed much help, so thankyou for your work on it.

I am working on creating articles for all wilderness areas within California (see bottom of my user page for the horrendous list of red links) and am considering starting on the Marble Mountain Wilderness. I am concerned though about duplication of the two articles since the existing article has info on the wilderness area also. Would you mind if I (after creating the wilderness article) remove or shorten some of that info, or maybe we could add more geological information instead. Let me know what you think. Sincerely, Marcia Wright (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're very welcome. I appreciate the note. I have no objection or problem with moving the content around to a better page for it. The changes that I made were relatively easy to add - I've been slowly working on and improving a program that generates mountain range stub pages from USGS GNIS data. When a mountain range page already exists but doesn't have a geobox, it's easy enough to merge it into the page and preserve the existing work of other volunteers. Ikluft (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you write something about the vineyards of the Solomon Hills. In the article ofcourse. here is a hint but you will need to rephrase it. GK tramrunner (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, for now I've added the vineyard as an external link. Initially I've just been going down the List of mountain ranges of California and adding stub articles based on USGS GNIS data for those that don't already exist, and adding geoboxes or coordinates to those that are missing them. When I find or already know something about these, I try to add some links or tips for other editors as well. So this info you've provided is helpful and was added to the article. Ikluft (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I worked 12 years as a code writer. I find it boring and nervous. What can you tell about software engineering? GK tramrunner (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heh, that's probably too broad a question for discussion on a user talk page. :-) It often depends on where you work. For me it probably made a difference that I already did programming as a hobby before I got a degree in Computer Science. But on the job, every work environment is a different. It's up to you to pursue a course in life that you enjoy. Ikluft (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As of me, I try to do the same job for southern Brooklyn in English and Russian WIKI. P.S. in the early 2002 I visited S.F, and was dreaming to move in Southern California But after visiting Odessa, Ukraine I abandoned that dream. I live now in Brooklyn, as always GK tramrunner (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. That's very kind of you. Some of what you may have seen recently with the mountain range stubs isn't all from knowledge - it's also a result of having written a Perl script to turn USGS Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) data into a template-based text for a Wikipedia article stub. As I've tried out the script at first for the Black Rock Desert region, then the rest of Nevada, and now in California, I've been watching what corrections other editors make to these pages and incorporating those changes into the program. (For example, that shaped how it picks categories and stub templates.) Pretty soon it should be ready to put up on the Wikimedia Toolserver so that others can use it as a web based tool for mountain ranges and other geographic features in other states. Ikluft (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ikluft, what you've done is just the kind of legwork that too few of us are willing to undertake. Thanks for doing it. This is just to let you know that it's appreciated.

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I do hereby award this barnstar to Ikluft for his assumption and completion of the otherwise thankless task of creating a stub for each of the mountain ranges in California—over 200 in total. Great job! Unschool 09:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! That's my first barnstar. I'll proudly post it on my user page. Did I mention that I did Nevada's mountain ranges too. :-) Ikluft (talk) 09:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I still think that the word certified is valuable in US Airways Flight 1549. First, it is used in the referenced article and in several others. Second, it's kind of giving a hint to readers, that Sullenberger had the necessary training to fly a glider, but doesn't imply the he was flying it recently. --Alogrin (talk) 11:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I don't argue at all with wanting to make sure he gets credit that's due. I realize you were using similar wording to the article you cited as a source, which was a good way to add new material. But the media doesn't always get everything right. The author of that article didn't use the term correctly so we don't need to imitate that exactly. We don't say "certified pilot" - the correct usage is just "pilot". The main reason for the change I made as stated in the edit comment was WP:OVERLINK - it makes it confusing for the reader if there are too many links next to each other. So the term certified is redundant in this case because the sentence carries the same meaning without it. So that provides several reasons why the term was unnecessary and better to be omitted for brevity. I hope you didn't take the edit personally - I view both of our edits in combination as having improved the article, as with many other people's efforts there too. You added a relevant statement with a good reference. And I made the text a little tidier with correct aviation usage. I hope that helps. Ikluft (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, no, there is nothing personal. It is just for me, who has quite a vague understanding of that piloting stuff, this word "certified" was giving me a little more information (or I thought so). I'm comfortable with the correct aviation usage of words. --Alogrin (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem at all. Interest in flying is where all pilots get started. If you pursue the interest that you're showing, you can become one too. Ikluft (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I've reverted your removal of the decompression incident category because this was a very noteworthy fact when it became known, as it changed previously thinking that the aircraft had blown up in mid-air, killing everyone instantly. Specifically, the CVR contained recordings of decompression drills that illustrated that people were still alive and the aircraft still flying for a while. Furthermore, when I created that category, I did not intend for it to be limited to scenarios where decompression was the cause (c.f. decompression incidents where metal fatigue was the cause). Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, no problem. There seems to be quite a flurry of editing on aviation accident articles since Flight 1549 dominated the news a week ago. Having seen this misunderstanding of the intent of that category, it would be a good idea to add this info to the category's intro text to help everyone reach a common understanding about it. Also, I have changed the KAL 007 to use a new more specific subcategory Category:In-flight airliner depressurization. Ikluft (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your note. I actually posted my comment in reply to someone else's who was trying to undermine the vote of newcomers. I appreciate your intervention to tone down the discussion. Still, I personally find it unacceptable for someone to register an account with the sole aim of deleting an article instead of helping improve it. There is annoying asymmetry between vandalism or inappropriate edits that can be reverted in one click by anyone and VfD that require a vote to be stopped. Are you aware of any relevant discussion on WP guidelines on this issue? --DarTar (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Yeah, I can understand that. But we really should be careful not to assume every "new editor" is a throw-away account. On the FreeMind AfD, the guy who was pointing out all of those already made a false positive by pointing that same finger at a user who is a long-time contributor on the German Wikipedia. And we just don't know about the others - they could have come over when someone said on a mail list somewhere, "they're going to delete the article about X". AfD's do generate those reactions. In treating any new individual, the guideline in WP:DONTBITE applies. However, specifically about your question of what to do if there are suspected recurring new-editor AfD nominations... if you think a string of them are by one person, the ability to check the logs is a privilege given to approved CheckUser editors. They can check for a pattern from a single IP address, or probably other tricks too. Report any suspicious activity. That's all we can do. Ikluft (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please remove your BITE comments from the AfD. Identifying new editors in an AfD is standard procedure. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Sorry, I won't remove the comment. Just because you've seen others pick on new editors in an AfD discussion doesn't make it a good example to follow. It certainly isn't supported by WP policy. The very first line of WP:AfD#AfD_Wikietiquette says the same advice I gave, "don't bite the newbies". You said that the FreeMind page is a source of annoyance to you, in its AfD. If that's playing a part in the snap reactions at new editors, you may want to consider removing such pages from your watchlist to avoid situations where you don't enjoy it and may feel tempted to lash out at new editors who haven't done anything wrong. Don't take it personally but please take it seriously. Ikluft (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry that you would game the system so. Please don't take it personally, but do take it seriously. --Ronz (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"If that's playing a part in the snap reactions at new editors, you may want to consider removing such pages from your watchlist to avoid situations where you don't enjoy it and may feel tempted to lash out at new editors who haven't done anything wrong." If you'd stop basing your actions on hypotheticals that assume bad faith, we wouldn't be having this discussion. --Ronz (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• If you think you're trying to convince me, I'd like to see a place in WP policy or guidelines that supports the action of pointing out and talking down to every new editor in an AfD discussion. And if you can't find something to support that, you should stop doing it. Because WP:BITE contradicts that course of action. Leave it to the Checkusers if you think a specific new editor is a sockpuppet. But don't pick on all of them. Also, trying to assign your imagined motives to my actions is not an effective communications method. It also isn't conducive to reaching consensus in any discussion. Ikluft (talk) 05:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A bit clearer then: If you'd just stop assuming bad faith, we wouldn't be having this discussion. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Once again, I haven't gotten an answer to the question about which policy or guideline you think supports the action of calling out new editors in an AfD discussion. If you can't answer that question, you need to seriously reconsider that practice. If you're following someone else's example, consider that they set a bad example for you. Ikluft (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've struck out "No one is biting the newcomers here" because DarTar's are fairly BITEy. Of course, he discussed the issue with you, above. My response to DarTar's comments was to identify new editors. DarTar's response of pointing out that Boatsdesk was a new editor after I had already done so seems BITEy also. Still, that was before he came here to discuss the issue with you. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:AFD --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Back from travelling.) I don't accept that answer. But you don't need to respond - I'm only putting this in the talk page as a closing remark. It looks like you're one of those people who always thinks you're the victim without showing concern for how you treat others. I already pointed out that WP:AfD#AfD_Wikietiquette within that same page refers to WP:BITE on the first line of the section. You have repeatedly cited WP:AGF but you've made it impossible to continue an assumption of good faith when you offer WP:AFD (which absolutely does not support such behavior) as the reason. It isn't at all convincing in justifying the jabs at newcomers in AfDs. I will object again if/when I see that happening. Ikluft (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm the editor that Jmcc150 describes as disruptive. I created that article.

Jmcc150 has called for its deletion... I just thought you might like the full context (read the talk page for more details).

I'm sure somebody who disagrees with Jmcc150 trying to restrict the use of a common aviation term could be described by Jmcc150 as disruptive (FWIW WP:ANI didn't consider my editing disruptive.) - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand. Both of you seem to be coming from completely different points of view. Each of you would appear to be a brick wall to the other until some mutual understanding can be accomplished. I proposed a number of ideas intended to facilitate consensus on this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gliding#Gliding. Please help us find a solution everyone can live with. Ikluft (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, FWIW the category thing you changed on airliners category, the problem I see is that these kinds of airliners meet the definition of gliding flight that is in the original category itself. The unpowered flight category is an enormously more general category into which all kinds of flight would probably fall (including balloon flight, and probably ballistic flight). So unless you think that the category is incorrect defined, then I would ask you to revert it back to how it was before, but it's up to you.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I took your edit comment on that into account as I've been thinking about what will work for everyone. I included that in my suggestions brainstorming for a solution. Let's discuss it over there. Ikluft (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have proposed a solution to the glider debate that should satisfy Wolfkeeper. It is on a couple of talk pages for comment before I post it on the Glider Talk Page. I will not enter into a debate about Wolfkeeper's behaviour or tactics, except I think you will find there are two sides. I hope that my proposal would quieten things down, but a debate has now been opened on another article. Terminology is always a grey area. I think 'Glider' is a 60:40 issue but for the sake of making progress, I have suggested a solution in favour of the 40. I hope this will be accepted in the spirit in which it is intended. With 'Gliding' we have to use the internationally recognised name for the sport. When Americans compete in the World Gliding Championships, people, even in the US, will type in gliding to find out what it is about. The next question is whether there are people who are typing 'Gliding' into Wikipedia, and being surprised with what they see. The Wikipedia naming convention is to use the natural name for things, not every definition, as in a dictionary. As I have said, there are many articles with a main definition, but the one I always quote is London. If this is typed in, most people would expect to see an article on the city rather than a disambiguation page, and this is what happens. Other places are linked in a separate disambiguation page. Wolfkeeper's search for neutrality if taken to its logical conclusion would turn most pages on common things into disambiguation pages and thus destroy some of Wikipedia's usability. There is scope for an article called 'glide (aeronautics)' or 'gliding flight' for a gradual descent. There may be a few people who search for this mode of flight rather than getting there by a hyperlink, but I suspect very few. If you strongly disagree then you should support Wolfkeeper's suggest to to hilt. My concern about the gliding flight article is that it is a parallel article. I can see the need for a piece about the descending flight of animals and aircraft, but the present incarnation does not seem to add much else, apart from duplication. I also think an ornithologist would find it odd to find a paragraph on winch launching in a general article on descending flight. I can't stop it, it just seems a shame. With the glider article, there is a solution. With 'gliding', there isn't a problem, or not much anyway, not 60:40 but 95:5. Thank you for your offer to conciliate on glider, but I hope we can agree to let the current gliding article stay as it is. If I have not been clear, please let me know and I will explain. JMcC (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm trying to facilitate consensus, not to take sides. As I said to Wolfkeeper, from an outside point of view, I could see that the two of you were coming from completely different points of view and were not communicating for lack of enough common understanding. When reading both your comments to each other on Talk:Gliding (flight), it was apparent each would find the other to be a brick wall until or unless some improvement could be found in the situation. I'll try if possible to help with that - but you've undoubtedly seen situations like this too where parties can only be helped if they want help. Please take this effort seriously and try to help find a consensus everyone can live with, even if it isn't to anyone's 100% satisfaction. Ikluft (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've changed my mind. Once the "discussion" on Talk:Glider was pointed out to me, I see I've been unknowningly getting into a much longer-running argument which shows no hope of resolution. It was not my intention to interrupt that. I withdraw from that discussion and will not try to help moderate it. Ikluft (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I think we're actually getting somewhere, and I thought that before you joined in, and I still think that even if you withdraw. If this couldn't be resolved then the wikipedia is deadman walking; and that's not the way to bet.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I agree it wasn't obvious from the project talk page what has been going on. I have innocently wandered into all sorts of arguments, so I can sympathise. To avoid confusion, would you also strike out your suggestion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gliding#Gliding? JMcC (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. It's enough that I said I withdraw. You can use the suggestion or not depending whether you can find them useful. Ikluft (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pop figures are totally screwed up. Needs a "revert", not just an undo. Offender needs to be cut off. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC) StanReply[reply]

There is no difference - it's just revision control either way. I reverted multiple revisions just trying to help when it looked like you had your hands full cleaning up after the vandal. You'll need help from an admin to block the user. I am not an admin. Ikluft (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've put out the word and requested help. Seems like everybody is out celebrating Valentine's Day, and not much response. Thanks for the helping hand. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC) StanReply[reply]

I wrote a response on the Airports WikiProject discussion page under the section "Remove Private Party Links from US-Airport Template". I would appreciate to hear your response. Thank you. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Remove_Private_Party_Links_from_US-Airport_Template - Neilh89 (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 00:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		WPOR Award: Sponsored by the Big Gold Dude.
		This +1 Barnstar of Mountain Creation is awarded for the work you've done creating Virtue Hills, Sheepshead Mountains, Rogue River Range, Red Hills of Dundee, Paulina Mountains, and many more in Oregon's geographic range. tedder (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much! I appreciate it. I copied it for display on my user page. Ikluft (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ditto! I second that Big Gold Dude. tedder beat me to it. Thanks again! Katr67 (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Ikluft

In regards to a separate article for the Australian Rocketry Association INC i saw one had been made a couple of months ago but was deleted for some reason but the article was up to date and all inforamation can be confirmed can this article be retrieved for use.

Cheers 58.107.45.173 (talk) 11:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I removed the links from High-power rocketry because it was far beyond the national level of detail for other countries in the article. I'm not surprised that there was an article which got deleted. There's a lot of spam out there, including self-promotion by organizations who try to use Wikipedia when they should just use their own web site. As volunteers scour for self-promotion of organizations, some are ruthless in deleting a lot of topics that possibly should have been given a chance to develop - and they might have known that if they could have been bothered to do a Google search before proposing the article for deletion. So the problems with the system go both ways. In order to differentiate a new article, make sure it has sources about it from independent media such as online newspaper and magazine articles. The relevant rules you need to make sure it complies with are notability and reliable sources. I found one with an Australian government aviation advisory circular In order to have a bullet-proof claim of notability, they really like news articles specifically about the subject - I couldn't find one for ARA. If you find enough to meet those requirements, then it's OK to re-create the article and it (most likely) won't be deleted again. (I say most likely because there's always someone out there to call something non-notable if they don't like it. It isn't supposed to happen but it does.) A Wikipedia administrator can retrieve previously-deleted articles - I'm not an admin. It's probably better to start over since you'd need the same sources to prove it's worthwhile for them to look up anyway. Ikluft (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Another suggestion to help differentiate your edits from those of spammers: register for a Wikipedia account and put something about yourself on your user page. When editing just under an IP address, that's one of the big warning signs that actually calls the attention of the people patrolling for spam. Ikluft (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey thanks for your help editing this article. I have put a great deal of time into this article and want to see it lifted from its current quality scale rating of C. i think it ready for B, but dont feel i should be the one to change it, would you mind going thru the article and rating it for me on what you think its worthy of. please feel free to give me any feedback that can help make this article even better. Cheers Wiki ian 21:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Heh. I fully understand that request. I have the same problem with Black Rock Desert being at C waiting for a B review (for over a year). I'm willing to help with a review of the Hobart Airport article. It may be a few days before I can get around to it. This is not a condition for helping you - but if you feel you can provide similar help with Black Rock Desert, it would also be appreciated. However, if Nevada is too far away and you feel you can't do that review well, I'll understand and it won't affect the Hobart Airport article's review. As for me, I haven't been to Hobart. But I have been as close as Melbourne and saw a red Tasmania Ferry in the harbour. (Yes, I used the Australian spelling on "harbour" since it's about a location there.) There's no problem with finding items to fix in the review because after each suggestion will be a chance to address it. Ikluft (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Well, Black Rock Desert just needs the grammar to be reviewed. Sorry, but I'm not the one to do that. Any editor can do that, even if they have edited the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For User:Vegaswikian - thanks! I see that you reviewed and checked off the references to get to that response. That helps a lot! Ikluft (talk) 07:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For User:Wiki ian - Whew! I had to get some other work done during the week. I've done the first round of the Class B criteria review. See Talk:Hobart International Airport#B-class review for WikiProject Aviation. It's good but there are some things to fix, a relatively small effort compared to what you've already done on the article. Ikluft (talk) 07:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Thankyou for your review of the article. I have already made the changes you have suggested. In the end only two references could not be replaced and i added dead link notifcations inside the references in question. I was a little confused about the reference "Airport Set for Boom Travel" as i could still click on this link and see the article [2]. Other than that everything you suggested is complete. please advise me further on any more fix-ups i can do to this article to improve it quality. Also I'm interested in having a map for this article like File:Melairmap09.png but do not have the software of the know-how to create one. Do you know of any editors who might? Thankyou once again Wiki ian 08:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Good work fixing the references. (If I learned enough of the Aussie lingo, that would be, "Good on ya, mate!") As you probably already saw at the article's talk page, I approved of the changes and assessed it as Class B. I think the Melbourne Tullamarine terminal map you pointed to is not so much special software as a contributor's special artistic effort. If you want to make a terminal map for Hobart, I'd suggest using a drawing program with layering, and start by tracing the outline from aerial or satellite imagery. Then remove the aerial image and make a simple presentation of the information you want to include. It often takes some experimentation to get more ideas and arrive at a good image. If using a raster image editor, start with a larger image and reduce it. There are Wikipedia editors who would insist that line art images should be done with an SVG-capable image editor. But it's actually most important that you find software that you are comfortable using, in order to keep your volunteer effort sustainable. Ikluft (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the inactive tag is based on activity on the talk page. While it is has not been updated in a while, have you looked at the cleanup listing? Vegaswikian (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• With the effort that folks like you put into Nevada articles, it seemed silly for someone just passing through to tag the project as inactive. Ikluft (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, would you please notify WikiProject Volcanoes as well about the TFD for the crater infobox? Not everyone there is part of WP:GEOLOGY. I'd do it myself, but I think it's better coming from the nominator. -- Avenue (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thanks for the suggestion. Done. Ikluft (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps you have noticed that nobody else uses symbols at AfD votes. The bold is quite enough to make it clear. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I know it's not currently common on WP AfDs. But saying "nobody" is incorrect. I saw others too. It's an everyday thing on Commons, which is obviously where the idea comes from. Those templates were conceived for an experimental consensus-building method currently in the brainstorming stage. And I'm trying out the reaction on AfDs. I've noted your response. So do you have a reason or policy you can cite for such a forcefully-stated opinion? An actual reason or some effort to convince me would go a long way toward, well, convincing me. But a case of WP:DONTLIKE might count only as one voice in the crowd. Ikluft (talk) 05:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yes, it is done on commons, and some other wikiprojects. It is even used her for SP:SPI and some similar projects. I don;t think anyone else is currently using it; people try sometime, but they usually stop when it's pointed out to them. It hasn't been actually outlawed here, but it seems to me that it makes you looks excessively egotists: "look at me, here's what I think". We're all equal in an AfD discussion DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So far it sounds like a repeated statement that you don't like it. I'm waiting to hear something convincing. I suggest writing an essay when you collect your thoughts on the matter so you have something convincing to cite in the future. Since we don't seem to be convincing each other, this is actually a good time to try out one of the other templates from that consensus building method... Ikluft (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The icons don't do any harm to the discussion.|The icons link back to a consensus-building method that's part of a wider experiment to make tools available for consensus building anywhere discussions take place on WP. Having templates link back to the docs is important for making consensus-building tools accessible to newcomers and long-timers alike. Ikluft (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want to do your work by essays, do so. I do mine by individual discussions. Sometimes they convince people,more often they convince others who see them. DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You recently reverted some of my edits; including my removal of undue precision in coordinates (we don't need to give the coordinates of a 13Km-wide feature to a precision of about a centimetre - Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Precision specifically says "A general rule is to give precisions approximately one tenth the size of the object, unless there is a clear reason for additional precision. Overly precise coordinates can be misleading by implying that the geographic area is smaller than it truly is."); and the removal of redundant fields from an instance of ((Geobox Geology)), where you said "Geobox docs recommend leaving fields blank from sample so they can be filled in later" - I somehow can't see us ever needing to add the flag, capital, confluence, population or author of an impact site. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The edit comments answered both of those - I can expand on them, but not by much. 1) The recommendation to limit precision of coordinates is for cases when one is making one's own from a map or a GPS device. The coordinates you downgraded were from USGS GNIS. Using numbers directly supported by a reference is a different situation entirely which takes higher priority. 2) I reverted the removal of all the blank fields in a Geobox as per the Geobox docs recommendations. See the bold wording "Do not erase empty fields" at the top of Template:Geobox/legend. Ikluft (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The coordinates guidelines I quote above are not limited to editor-derived values; and the inanities of the GNIS do not trump them. In the case of the Geobox guidelines, you cite only half of the sentence, which is "Do not erase empty fields, other editors might supply the missing data." Again: which editor "might supply" the flag, capital, confluence, population or author of an impact site? Nonetheless, I will see clarification at the relevant talk pages, in both cases (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates#Precision_and_precedence, Template talk:Geobox#Redundant fields). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1) WikiProject guidelines cannot take priority over Wikipedia policy of verifiability. Since the article talks about the location of Victoria Island, use USGS's coordinates. The change was reverted because it took a number directly verifiable by a reference to one which is not. It doesn't matter what one's opinion of USGS is - those are the numbers we use. 2) The Geobox template says not to mess with empty fields. So in both cases, leave them alone. Ikluft (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that this template, ((Infobox crater)), has been recreated as a redirect to ((Infobox terrestrial impact site)). This is a bit confusing since you were the one who nominated it for deletion in the first place. I understand that the new template is restricted to impact sites on Earth, but the fact that there is a redirect from ((Infobox crater)) is strange, given that the name "promoting confusion" was one of the reasons for nomination in the first place. How about redirecting ((Infobox crater)) to ((Infobox crater data)), and putting some information there about where to go for the various crater templates? Would that be better? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I redirected it to ((Infobox crater data)), which should probably be used as a backend for all impact craters. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm confused. If ((Infobox crater)) was pointed at ((Infobox terrestrial impact site)), that history has been erased from it. I created ((Infobox terrestrial impact site)) when the proponents of ((Infobox crater)) sounded like they were going to create something else soon if nobody wrote anything else to fill the perceived gap. I have no problem with pointing the ((Infobox crater)) redirect at the astronomical impact crater related ((Infobox crater data)) as you did - that looks like a good choice. The main issue from the TfD which we still want to avoid was the confusion of calling things "craters" without regard for the completely unrelated processes behind the different kinds of craters. Ikluft (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I think we sorted it out for now. You are correct that you weren't the one who created the redirect, which was subsequently deleted. I had second thoughts after deleting the redirect, and recreated it as a redirect to the crater data template. There is still some desire to merge all impact crater templates, but I would be happy if we just merged all non-Earth impact crater templates. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for shedding light on that mystery. Yes, it's probably best to keep the non-Earth impact crater templates separate from those on Earth. Impact craters on Earth are Geology. On other celestial bodies they're Astronomy. Even on Mars where the Mars Exploration Rovers have done some geological data collection, there is no debate about whether something needs to be confirmed as an impact crater like there is on Earth. On or off Earth, they all relate to Planetary science. But that's where the similarity ends. There are obviously completely different methods of studying them when we live among them versus those where we can only use telescopes or send probes. Ikluft (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That will all change in the future when we colonize other planets :) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, you're preaching to the choir. My interest is publicly declared after I contributed some pictures on the subject to Commons from May 2004, June 2004 and October 2009. Ikluft (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've reverted your reversion of my layout change to this article, because the previous layout is not acceptable. It is indeed the ideal that images be with the text they apply to, but not at the expense of huge blocks of whitespace under Internet Explorer, the worl'd most popular browser, and thus most likely to be used by many readers who come to Wikipedia to get their information. I'm not married to the layout I made, but it does solve the problem, and the text part of the article is short enough that no image is far away from the text it is associated with. Feel free to play with it to find other layouts, but whatever it is, it has to solve the whitespace problem. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Upstate Connecticut, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upstate Connecticut. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Orlady (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Ikluft! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re:Template:Infobox crater

You may be interested in this discussion Bulwersator (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Ikluft. In the edit summary for your revert here, you write:

Undid revision 454724163 by Ὁ οἶστρος (talk) rv changes from simple dashes to foreign character dashes on US article

Pardon my French, but what the heck are you talking about? En dashes are not "foreign character dashes" and hyphens are no dashes at all, neither "simple" nor otherwise. Please read this. Both unspaced em dashes and spaced en dashes are acceptable, hyphens, however, are not. So please do not use hyphens when dashes are required, and re-edit the article in question accordingly. If you insist on using unspaced em dashes instead of spaced en dashes, go ahead, I'm fine with that, although that looks a lot uglier in non-literary contexts in my opinion. Regards – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• You should explain your edit more than with just the comment "punctuation", which made it look more like vandalism. Go ahead and re-do or un-revert it. Ikluft (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are obviously very committed to that article, doing a lot of work there, while the changes I made were miniscule. I just think it behooves an encyclopedia to have proper punctuation. When I encounter something that's off while reading, I correct it as a matter of course. To me, when I see hyphens used in place of dashes (or the other way round) that's the same as when I see a question that has a period instead of a question mark, and who wouldn't change that? But I certainly didn't want to sow confusion, and I'm sorry if I did.

Not everyone has read all the myriad bureaucratic standards that apparently you have. When you left no explanation other than "punctuation" in the edit comment, it wasn't enough to understand the purpose. I looked around to figure out what the dashes were. Finding that they were not in ASCII or ISO8859-1, I assumed they were foreign characters that looked like dashes. When you explained they're in the MoS (and I realized those HTML entities don't appear in ISO-8859-1), my reaction was "OK, whatever. Go do your thing." It's a very strange rule since I used the dash that's available on my keyboard, like many people are going to do. Ikluft (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(If you can spare a minute: I came to this article to find out why Upstate California is so sparsely populated compared to the rest of the state, and why there are fewer and smaller cities. Is it the geography, the climate, because of the many parks, a mixture of these reasons or something else entirely? Or isn't it expounded because it should it be obvious, and I just don't get it? Or did it just develop like that for no particular reason at all?) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 08:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upstate California is similar in population density to other rural parts of the US. But that makes it different from the mega-metropolitan centers of Southern California and Northern California. And there's the identity problem for them - they're located north of the "Northern California" metro areas known around the world. So it seems they made the right choice to avoid the word "north" in picking a new name for the region. When I lived there, they called it the "Northstate". But there was no recognition outside the area of where that is. Ikluft (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:In-flight airliner loss of all engines, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Ikluft. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 22.
Message added 21:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Got it. But I already got it the first time. Please don't ping my talk page more than once about the same topic. After the first one, it's up to me whether I want to put it on my watch list. Ikluft (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Ikluft

This message is in regards to the IPs listed below that keep removing the Australian Rocketry Association from the high power rocketry page they need to be told to leave the page as is, What they are doing is pure vandalism.

202.173.165.32

121.215.235.109

I would appreciate any help in relation to this matter.

Regards 175.38.172.48 (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Balls (mountain range) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable: seems to fail WP:GNG

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —hike395 (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding your revision commented (remove tags suggesting excessive see-alsos and links - this is a 12 year old internet standard with widespread deployment including all the major web browser software) would you please explain how this, which is about the quality of the wikepedia article, has any relationship to your remark that "this is a 12 year old internet standard with widespread deployment including all the major web browser software". Quality of article. Age of standard. Please explain relationship.

• I did explain it. The widespread usage of the international standard could easily support a much larger article. The tags are unnecessary. Ikluft (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops just noticed you updated talk page. Will comment there.

Hi, I saw you reverted an edit I made on Upstate California and in your edit summary made a comment about "govt rivalry." My edit had nothing to do with that. The heading says "Humboldt County" and the citation below it says "Eureka, California." So the contents appear to not match the heading and I added the Humboldt County Economic Development link so that the contents would match. I am having a bit of trouble understanding why that section is even needed. I don't see anything similar in the other regions of California, it's almost as if the original author was trying to justify the existence of this term "Upstate California" and show the very few times it's been used in the local governmental literature. I did an internet search on the term "Upstate California" and besides this wiki page and one website, I find very few uses of the term. It begins to look like a made-up term with a long wiki article; a habit more familiar in teenage rock bands than geographic locations. Any ideas? Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• That section was to answer questions that came up on the talk page by other editors. I suggest that you should not have removed the link documenting the City of Eureka's use of the term when you added a link about Humboldt County. Secondly, you should have read what the section was about - the link you added did not provide documentation about how Humboldt County uses the term. If you can't add to it, leave it alone. Ikluft (talk) 05:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I was unaware of the policy of "If you can't add to it, leave it alone" as you cite; the problem happened when I did add to it. You haven't answered my issues on notability, nor why the section on some non-notable Economic Development Group takes up so much of a page which purports to be about a region of a state in the US. Awaiting your response without the threats this time. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I did answer your question - the discussion on the talk page led to that section providing more foundation for the topic. I think you need to take a step back and realize what the appearance was of your action. You could have just added your link about Humboldt County. But by removing Eureka's link at the same time, you created the appearance of removing a rival's link, whether you intended that or not. Please add your own relevant content without removing the relevant content of others. Ikluft (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Actually, the talk page doesn't answer my questions. The Eureka link leads to a document that references "upstate" a few times but fails to provide any meaningful information about the organization. The context of the Eureka document suggests that "Upstate" is a marketing group or marketing effort, per the reference to "trade shows." I went to the Upstate California thing's website which says it is a non-profit entity. However I am unable to locate it in the U.S. Treasury Department look-up service for non-profits and I have filed a written request with the IRS for a name search. There was no list of directors, no calendar of meetings and it was lacking in other information which is typically given by non-profits. There seems to be a difference here between using links to legitimate government Economic Development Agencies which are public agencies, and a self-stated non-profit entity with a name that sounds official. I really think this whole entry is out of scope of the project due to non-notability. I am still unable to find any sources about this self-stated non-profit's existence other than its own website, nor any wide-spread use of the term "Upstate" other than on Wiki, on that one website and in one forum. Please advise what secondary sources you feel are sufficient to prove notability of this entity. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • For starters, go read WP:NOTTEMPORARY. For other items, I won't repeat what I already wrote. Since you seem to see a conspiracy theory in everything, I have no interest in further discussion with you. Please stop writing on my wall. Ikluft (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• So far, in looking at this item "Upstate California" I am unable to verify that it was even temporarily notable. I have no interest in conspiracy theories, but I do not believe that this topic is notable enough for inclusion in Wiki. I have looked for more sources to confirm its notability and do not find them. So far you've suggested "rivalry" and "conspiracy" which are both strange terms to use in a collaborative effort like Wiki. I made a good faith edit and the rest of this flows from that. Please advise what secondary sources you feel are sufficient to prove notability of this entity. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Earth Impact Database, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. DexDor (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Cite IFSG Impact DB has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:CB-deadlock has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:CB-majority has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:CB-consensus has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:CB-position has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:CB-postpone has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:CB-proposal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:CB-refer has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:CB-supermajority has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Infobox terrestrial impact site/map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for so quickly fixing my error in the Florida Swampland article. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Glad to help! It was pretty obvious what happened and how to fix it. Ikluft (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I appreciate all your recent efforts on the topic. Probably much needed. Regarding this edit. Not an expert by any stretch, but it seems pretty clear, by the name only, that annular lakes are not merely circular, but ring-shaped (Manicouagan good example). The adjective is well defined, however obscure the geological term may be. Now it is unclear to me if the term annular is supposed to include any and all ring-shaped lakes, or only those created by impact, but certainly ring-shaped lakes only account for a small subset of impact crater lakes in general. Thus, the first sentence in the article Impact crater lake: "An impact crater lake, also known as annular lake, is a circular lake caused by the impact of a meteor." is untrue. In other words, not all impact crater lakes are annular lakes, so the two terms are not interchangeable. --DB1729 (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

•  Done I clarified the lead as suggested. Thanks for the good suggestion! Ikluft (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop adding the link to transit stations. See also sections are for pages that are actually related, not for tangential connections. The cycling page discussing whether bikes can be brought aboard at certain stations is not of any particular relevance to those stations, as Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Method for consensus building has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. FeRDNYC (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I see you removed Hiawatha from the List of impact craters on Earth. Looking at the Earth Impact Database, it is still not listed there. I wonder why? Because from reading the 2022 news item on Hiawatha, it seems like there is no doubt that it is an impact. The database URL suggests that it was updated in the year 2018 which would explain this. Should we add Hiawatha back or not? --Ysangkok (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]