User talk:Socrates2008/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

VMWare Server 2 on Vista 64

I have been running VMWare Server 2.0 on Vista 64 since Beta 2. The only restriction is that it you can only run the 32-bit mode version. I believe you are getting confused with running older versions on Vista 64.

Even older versions of Server worked, just with more difficulty. In this case I just installed and it worked, and others have had success as well.

I uploaded an image.

Image Link on Wikipedia

Also if you read the VMWare Server Users Guide you will see that 64-bit Windows OS is indeed supported, but only server additions are officially.

Please stop removing my edits. Clearly you are mistaken.

BTW... the drivers are in fact signed.

Tolstoy143 - "Quos vult perdere dementat" (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

SS Gothenburg

The text you rewrote is in the report that is referenced. I'm sure that such text needs to be preserved in full, in the original language and (mis)spellings as necessary. See this example (outside Wikipedia) of such keeping of original spellings etc. Mjroots (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it may be referenced, but that only shows verifiability of the facts. If it's not quoted, it needs to follow modern style and grammar. So just quote it if that's what you are after and it will be fine. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Nice work on reincorporating the lists. Gnangarra 11:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Ships of the Union Castle Line

I have nominated Category:Ships of the Union Castle Line (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Ships of the Union-Castle Line (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No arguments - please go ahead. Socrates2008 (Talk) 20:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Email

Could you either activate your Wiki-email option, or send me a message? JFW | T@lk 09:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to discuss anything regarding Wikipedia updates on this page or the talk page of the relevant article. Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine then. I was hoping to have a slightly more constructive discussion about the gluten sensitivity-related articles. JFW | T@lk 12:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This is very unusual - why do you feel that you can't have a (constructive) discussion about Wikipedia without email? Anyway, I'm open to any discussion about these articles... Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

GC-45

The discussion on the GC-45 howitzer talk page appears to be based on someone who is not terrible familiar with modern artillery, and the "debate", such as it was, appears to have ended. I would like to remove the accuracy tag. If you have any specific points you have problems with please tag them with cite-neededs. Maury (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to contest any specific point, other than to say that the article is still seriously lacking sources, and therefore largely unverifiable. Adding more sources is going to be the best way to address any remaining accuracy issues. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Key strengthening

You slapped on a "update needed" tag here: Key strengthening#Strength and time. So, do you mind explaining on the talk page of that article why you think that section needs updating and in what way?

--David Göthberg (talk) 11:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

2006 is 2 years ago - computing processing power has increased since then. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of disk encryption software

Do you have a URL for Lenovo disk encryption? I've never heard of it before, and their WWW site doesn't list it as one of their products! Nuwewsco (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

SS Yongala

Hey there, I found an article about SS Yongala, which I have started doing some additional work on. Thought you may be interested in helping. It needs a fair amount of work such coordinates, info box, editing, typos etc. Anyway, if you are interested, I look forward to your imput. CheersSpy007au (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look when I get a chance. BTW, I was in the museum in Morpeth last weekend (this was the old port for Newcastle). Loads of info on shipwrecks along that coast, especially the Maitland, however nothing on the Gothenburg Socrates2008 (Talk) 00:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

SS English Trader

Hello Socrates2008

The article on the ship SS English Trader that you have tagged with a Reference tag is in my view unnecessary. My reasoning for this is that all fact that are mentioned in this text can be referenced paragraph by paragraph if necessary using the publications listed below. This would make the article look very unsightly with all the in-text citations. Maybe the odd one would be appropriate such as dates or names. Stavros1 (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to disagree. The sources are unclear at present, and it's also not possible to determine which parts of the text are potentially unreferenced. Socrates2008 (Talk) 20:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Algerine class minesweeper

I had the same thought, about it being mostly a list...however when I went looking at the Military History assessment scale, they say that lists are evaluated the same as articles...so I went ahead and gave it a yes based on that. Whatcha think? Thanks for checking up on me tho, I am quite nervous that I'm doing the right thing on these! I did give a no to the Algerian Air Force article that was nothing more than a list of the airplanes they own and nothing about battles or training or heck, even something about their uniforms would be better than just a list of aircraft :) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 20:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see an article, maybe with an embedded list. Apart from the infoxbox, haven't had the chance to get round to it yet though, unfortunately. Socrates2008 (Talk) 20:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Spelling on SS Mareeba

Thanks for fixing it, I've always been a shocking speller... Fosnez (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Try installing Google Toolbar - it will highlight spelling mistakes as you type. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

RMS Niagara

Hey Socrates2008 - Can you please have a look at RMS Niagara article? I put in the coords of the wreck, but its been 6 months now and it still has not shown up in Google Earth!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigal.nz (talk • contribs) 20:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine - Wikipedia data isn't loaded into Google very often - might be worth contacting the folks working on the project to transfer the data to see when they'll be doing it again. Socrates2008 (Talk) 03:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Windows Messenger and SIP support

One of your careless edits to "List of SIP software" removed Windows Messenger which supports SIP. Probably, you confused it with Windows Live Messenger or MSN Messenger which do not support SIP at all. I cant pinpoint right now but I've noticed several such careless edits of yours to Microsoft-related articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.128.147.176 (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You use the word "carelessly" rather carelessly. You'll find that I cite my updates more than most other editors, and that I certainly don't remove adequately cited information. So suggest you take your battle up with the editor that didn't provide a reference for that info. Also, kindly assume good faith next time, before making vague, unsubstantiated accusations about "carelessness". Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll assume good faith. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.128.147.172 (talk) 10:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Citation for slipstreaming

Can you provide a citation for "slipstreaming has been around NT 3.5"? Please add it to the article. Also, that article is more for functionality which is lost because of removal of features. In some cases, some features have been removed but replaced by more or equally complete equivalents. e.g.Credential Providers are much more full-featured in functionality than GINA, they don't leave out any functionality AFAIK, thus being a true superset of GINA. Same thing applies to the boot loader. So if I were you, I wouldn't have added those. :)

Regarding that slipstreaming ability, I think it was introduced in the package installer at the time of Windows 2000.

And I'm assuming good faith. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.128.181.113 (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Have been looking unsuccessfully for the citation - looks like I'm wrong about the slipstreaming, so will revert it. The GINA change breaks numerous applications that integrated with it, such as authentication VPN solutions, fingerprint logon apps and other applications that used these API's so it's an important change as there's no backward compatibility. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

WSH version

According to this page, WSH first shipped in-box with Windows 98. Accordingly, I've corrected the VBScript article. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.128.181.6 (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I've updated some of the references in that article to improve it a little. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your excellent work improving and citing the articles relating to the Battle between HMAS Sydney and German auxiliary cruiser KormoranNick Dowling (talk) 09:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sydney GAN

I have replied on the Talk:HMAS Sydney (1934) page about your issues. Regards and well done again on a very good article. Woody (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for doing the review and edits at the end. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Macao → Macau

Thanks for your enquiry. There has been long discussions on this, and it has been settled that Macau will be named as such except when "Macao" is used as a proper noun, such as Sands Macao. Retaining it as "Macao" may be apt here thou, provided it is clear that that section is a direct quotation from a primary source, which was not explicite in this article in question. Could this be made clearer, after which I will restore the original spelling? Thank you!--Huaiwei (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It was not a direct quote, however the place names were used exactly as stated in the source. Some of the other destinations also have more modern names, so we need consistency. So I guess my question is: Did "Macau" exist circa 1795 - if not, then the ship could not have visited it surely? Socrates2008 (Talk) 14:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I would not say "Bombay" did not exist in that era just because it has since been renamed as "Mumbai", but I would agree that consistency would be the key here. Either all will use names as per the ship's records, or all will use their modern names were applicable. If we are to use the former, can we state somewhere that those place names were direct from the ship records?--Huaiwei (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Drive mappings

Windows has always allowed a network UNC to mapped without a local drive letter being assigned. At the console, this is "Net use \\server\share" while in Explorer, you chose "(none)" as the drive letter. The latter has been removed from Vista. Socrates2008 (Talk) 14:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that functionality, but simply connecting with a UNC path is not called "drive mapping". -/- Warren 14:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

So what's it called then? (It uses the "drive mapping" dialog box). Any any event, the point is that this functionality has been removed. Socrates2008 (Talk) 14:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Talk:Features removed from Windows Vista

East Indiaman

I believe the term "East Indiaman" is also used for ships from other countries or companies than the Honourable East India Company, such as the ships of the Dutch East India Company sailing to the (Dutch) East Indies. See these texts for examples: [1] and [2]. Therefore I believe I correctly tagged the article East Indiaman with {{globalize/UK}}. Best regards, Ilse@ 22:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

About HYPER V

hey u know whether using hyper v have any adverse effect on java appications. --Khi279130 (talk) 06:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, can't help. Suggest you try one of the Java or HyperV discussion forums on the Internet. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Features removed from Vista

Hi! I noticed this addition: "Typing the initial characters of a filename...displaying the results in a new window" in Features removed from Windows Vista. Have you checked out the last option in this screenshot? Or perhaps it only affects List View and for other views, it carries out a search regardless of that setting? :-) - xpclient ^Talk 20:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that setting is unrelated - however the setting two down ("When typing into list view") can revert the old behaviour. Socrates2008 (Talk) 00:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

By "the last option", I meant "When typing into list view" itself (I didn't take that screenshot :P), not the one that's highlighted in the screenshot (Use check boxes to...) which is unrelated. So, as such, then this is not a removed feature since a clear user preference is provided in Vista. - xpclient ^Talk 03:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it can be reverted if the user knows of the the setting and where to find it, however the default is to search. BTW, this applies to all folder views, not only the detail view. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Cuba in Angola

hello socrates2008. i expected you to point out my using cuban sources. indeed, i do, but very sparingly and carefully and there is no reason to doubt them as they only give insight to established events. accounts of generals are the least trustworthy of any accounts in any case: what general would ever put his own actions into doubt?

Allow me to chime in on your talk page for a brief comment Socrates. I take it Sundar, you haven't read many war memoirs? Guderian, Grant, Sherman, Von Manstein, Zhukov, Giap and even Ike have all written memoirs where they've criticized their decisions or mistakes (varying levels). Those memoirs are also used as sources for countless histories of the American Civil War, WWII or the Vietnam War. One couldn't imagine writing a history of Operation Barbarossa without an account by Guderian referenced somewhere. Virgil61 (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

if you come up with government documents, even south african ones, which say the same, that would be a different matter, even if there still would be reason for some doubt. i did point out that the south africans wanted to protect the dam which aleady indicates that they felt it was threatened. but that mpla, swapo or unita acutally spelt out threats is most unlikely - they certainly had more important things on their mind at that time. mpla was not active in the south and unita was already being supported by south africa. also, you cannot compare the south africans witht the cubans: the cubans were not the fox in the henhouse but the ones who came to get them out. for a similar reason, after some thought, i will remove the word "retaliatory" from the raids on anc-offices. we have to keep things in the right order: the anc was already operating "retaliatory", since they were fighting against apartheid oppression. i'm not sure if it still fits the definition, if action against that again is called "retaliation", bacause any action by the anc afterwards would again be retailiatory. there has to be an end somewhere. you have to keep in mind where everything starts. i hope you see my point. Sundar1 (talk) 10:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest once more, in the nicest possible way, that you review Wikipedia's policy on neutrality as your desire to include sources only from one perspective is highly POV. Furthermore, trying to remove a citation inserted by someone simply because you disagree with it is not the way Wikipedia works - the rule here is verifiability, and one that note, the source I provided more than meets the criteria. Furthermore, regarding reliability, why is an interview with Castro more reliable than an interview with one of the South African generals? It's not.

"Retalitory" in respect of the attacks on ANC offices stems from the fact that each of these raids was a direct response to a terrorist bomb incident in South Africa, which is what this word is conveying here. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

the source you gave does not support what you wrote. it's as simple as that. the most you could write is that the south africans felt that the dam was threatened. besides, i did not say castro is more reliable and i did not cite him on disputed issues which is quite a difference. and when he is cited it is directly mentioned in the text. generals are as reliable talking about battles as fishermen talking about fish they caught.

as to retaliation. i am perfectly aware why anc was attacked. it does not change what i wrote. Sundar1 (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

VMware ThinApp

I replied on my talk page. SF007 (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I replied again. SF007 (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

link in username

Hi, could you tell me how you make the link of your username in talk pages and so on, so it only links to talk pages (the thing most people want)? thanks in advance SF007 (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

See How to fix your signature Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

re: Cuban Intervention in Angola AfD

Yeah, a RfC would probably be more appropriate given that the discussion of the article has been going on for a while. It's not aparant to me that deletion is justified at this stage, as the article looks to be salvagable and is on a viable stand-alone topic - but that's just my opinion. By the way, I've posted a notification of the AfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/African military history task force. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks v much. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just closed the AfD per your request. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - will open the RFC soon as I get a chance. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

SAS President Kruger

We have the complete newspaper following of the events that took place, the owner of these was a SA Medical Services medic on board at the time of the sinking. We're just looking for a place to upload all the detail (would scanned images work, or must it be typed out as well?). Please contact us on wisdumb [at] the pub .co.za —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.41.13.202 (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Unsigned drivers in x64 Vista

From this article, it appears that there is an official workaround. The feature is only disabled/locked down, isn't removed. That tweak also enables it in Local Group Policy. :) - xpclient ^Talk 07:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Read it again. This policy no longer has any effect on Vista - the KB is explaining how to apply the setting to legacy versions of Windows. See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa906239.aspx Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed?

Have you specifically and explicitly confirmed this on Vista? Bcoz I know that they removed it specifically in Vista. Please confirm before undoing. I don't think it can be turned on for "Connect To" and "Printers". :) - 221.128.202.70 (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit: It's there on the classic Start menu in Vista, just not on the Vista Start menu. "Connect To" not expandable is a major PITA and an especially UI overlooked case. - 221.128.202.70 (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I turn both of these back on by default for Vista machines (via Registry keys in the default user profile). To do it manually, right-click on the Start button, select Properties, then click the Start Menu tab. Click Customize, then tick the boxes next to "Network" and "Printers" Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation link

Ok, you are correct that the wp page I pointed to as a reference for what I did was incorrect. However, I should have pointed you to this page: wp:hatnotes#Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous. The problem is that shim is the ambiguous page and no one will end up at shim (engineering) incorrectly, therefore it doesn't need a dab link. Wizard191 (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't get what you don't understand about wp:hatnotes#Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous. There are places for the template. For instance piercing, which redirects to body piercing, but needs a dab link for piercing (metalworking). In that case it's legit because I searched for piercing (while wanting to find the metalworking process), but instead got body piercing, but the dab link allowed me to find what I wanted. Wizard191 (talk)

So you're saying I've organised the dab page incorrecty? i.e. shim (engineering) should be moved to shim, which in turn should become shim (disambiguation)? (I'm trying to help people find the software shim here, when they might have ended up incorrectly on the engineering shim) Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm saying either. It is laid out perfectly fine the way it is. If someone is trying to find the article about a software shim they will probably just search of the term "shim", which ends up at the article named that. This is what we want because it is a dab page. There it lists one option as shim (engineering) with a nice explanation of what it is. It also has an entry for shim (computing) with an explanation. Therefore anyone looking for a software shim should easily be able to find the article that he/she is looking for. We may have wanted to do what you outlined above if one of the shim articles is much more prevalent than all of the other options, but that isn't the case. A good example of that is steel; there it's pretty obvious that the article about the material is probably what the majority of people are looking for when searching that term, but if that isn't what they are looking for steel (disambiguation) is there to help (through the {{otheruses}} template). I hope that clears things up. Wizard191 (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for this. I still feel it's a bit of a grey area, but understand where you're coming from. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Explosive decompression

As a courtesy, please note WP:DTTR and sign your comments on talk pages. Also please read through WP:V - the status of explosive decompression comes from a reliable source - the pilot - quoted in numerous reliable publications. At this stage it is merely your opinion that this was not the case. -- Rob.au (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Conversation moved back to here Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your assertion that there is only one possible reliable source that Wikipedia can accept in this case is even remotely correct and I really can't fathom why you are so anxious about this particular case... there are numerous previous examples of this kind of structural failure at high altitudes such as this one have resulted in explosive decompression. We already do know the facts of this case include a pressurised airliner flying at 29,000ft has had a sudden structural failure in the fuselage, from an abundant colletion of reliable sources, and the captain of the aircraft has labelled it as an explosive decompression. It is rare for linked articles to need sourcing - I don't see you removing any other items in the list on that page, none of which are sourced. I've been editing Wikipedia for awhile... your comments seem to assume I'm a newbie and reek of WP:OWN I must say. You have your view, but it isn't necessarily correct. -- Rob.au (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The other links have well-established articles behind them with reliable sources such as crash reports for references. However the article you linked does not state that explosive decompression is a cause (or effect) for QF30; also, I checked several news agencies (e.g. BBC) before reverting your edit, all of whom reported "rapid decompression" as opposed to "explosive decompression", two concepts that are frequently confused. All indications were therefore that your unreferenced edit was original research, so I reverted it. No, I did not review your edit history before doing this, however regardless of you being a newbie or not, I stand by my reversion.

I'm aware that you've subsequently found a reference for your edit, which is why I did not revert it again; however given the lack of an official incident report and contradictory and changing "facts" currently being reported by various media agencies, conclusions about explosive decompression are premature at best and original research at worst. There is a lot of hype around this incident and its associated articles, however I don't expect an experienced editor to join the herd by throwing out Wiki requirements for verification and reliable sources. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

As your comments thus far have generally been uncivil and are becoming increasingly so, I've no intention of enterting into further discussion with you at this time. I'm always happy to discuss issues, but not with that attitude, sorry. -- Rob.au (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I feel exactly the same way. For example, you could start by discussing your removal of referenced information like this, which constitutes vandalism. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of GeoSmart

A tag has been placed on GeoSmart requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Mission Fleg (talk) 08:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Citations

"(cur) (last) 08:22, 20 August 2008 Socrates2008 (Talk | contribs | block) (18,005 bytes) (Undid revision 233070465 by WhisperToMe (talk) Ask for a citation) (undo)"

If you want to post information, it is your responsibility to cite things. If you want to add it back, you need to find the citation first. As per WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.[2]" WhisperToMe (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I noticed that you got a citation, so that is good. Just remember that in many cases uncited information is always in danger of being removed and that the remover is usually not obligated to get sources himself. It would be a bonus if he does, but that cannot always be expected. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion moved to here Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

WC-135 Constant Phoenix copyvio tag removed

I've removed the copyvio tag you placed. If you look carefully, the website you said was being violated is a U.S. Government website, and it exists in the public domain, therefore copying from it is allowed. If you go to the link you listed in the tag, go to the bottom and click on the security notice, and look at item two, the PD status of the text is clearly noted. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Delprof and Vista

Does it really work (as in "tested comprehensively")? Reports are rampant over the internet saying it doesn't work always. :-) And just out of curiosity, have you taken the plunge or stayed with XP? - xpclient ^Talk 10:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It uses an API that is fully supported on Vista, and is listed in Microsoft Support articles such as this. That said, I've experienced multiple issues deleting Vista profiles, but that's OR so I'm not going to discuss it here. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What about the other question? : ) - xpclient ^Talk 12:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I use Server 2003, XP, Vista and Server 2008 (32 and 64 bit) on a daily basis for my work. For my personal machines, I use Vista for the laptop, work desktop and Media Center; home PC is still WinXP due to longstanding application issues with HP scanning software crashing under Vista, as well as a lack of 64-bit support from VMware and PGP. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Uncontrolled decompression

Hello Socrates, I have reconfigured and added to the notable incidents table, do you think we should add another column: 'Injuries' and list fatalities/injuries? Ex nihil (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, you've done a great job. Not sure about adding every possible detail to the table. However I was wondering about adding wider stats for decompression incidents for military and civilian aircraft over the past few years. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Stats would be good if you have them. I might experiment with an injuries column and see what it looks like, maybe too cluttered. Another day. Ex nihil (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a minor misunderstanding here, where I temporarily removed the License to Kill example and you undid it. I didn't remove it because the film's head explosion is unrealistic but because it may be too realistic to demonstrate extravagantly inaccurate media depictions. Since the explosion involves a hyperbaric chamber, it is feasible that the pressure inside the chamber was several times greater ground-level pressure. The scene would then have too much resemblance to the Byford Dolphin accident to be usable, and it should be checked. Are you familiar with the movie? --Kizor 20:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Pressure vessels

Hi, I replied to your question yesterday. forgot to say at the time, sorry. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Talkheader

Hi, Socrates! I have a fuller explanation on my talk, but the short version is on {{Talkheader}} - the template should be used only when needed and should not be added to every talk page. Let me know if you have any other questions :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 11:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Vista SP2

About this: how does the KB article support the statement "Service Pack 2 is currently undergoing private beta testing"? And how is a news article written by a well-known journalist, including quotes from Microsoft spokesmen, unreliable? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That reference you removed supports the statement that there's no release date yet, which is the primary point being made here. In response to recent speculation about when SP2 would be released, Microsoft stated categorically that the date is not yet decided, and released this KB article to back that statement up. Microsoft itself is the most reliable reference for details about the release of its future products, so replacing this reference with one from a third party is not appropriate. Lastly, if look at the KB, it states that it will be updated over time with new details - another good reason to keep it. I will have no objections if you add details about SP2 being released before Windows 7, something that your reference clearly backs up. Socrates2008 (Talk) 01:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

HMAS Sydney - Commission of Inquiry

Thanks for your help. Please see my proposed revision: Talk:HMAS_Sydney_(1934)#Commission_of_Inquiry_:_proposed__revision

Comments and help welcome. GilesW (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Good Article status approved for B-52 crash at Thule Air Base

Nice job on the B-52 crash at Thule Air Base article. Though this is my first time reviewing an article for GA, this appears to me as a slam-dunk. Well-balanced, thoroughly researched and commented, stays on point without being wordy, well-written, good use of images. Well done! -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"Of the six who ejected safely, one remained lost on the ice for nearly 24 hours and suffered hypothermia as a consequence." This implies at least 5 lived. Did the one with hypothermia live? Can you clarify? Note, it is clear that the one with no ejection seat died. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hypothermia need not be fatal - I've updated the article to clarify, thanks. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Zahi Hawass potrait.JPG

Just to let you know, this image couldn't be deleted at IfD as it was a Commons image. I've posted it at Commons for deletion. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 23:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Backpacker Murders

Hello, thank you for helping to clean up this article after the merge. I'm going to try to work on adding more sources and general copy editing in the near future. Would you mind taking a look at the former Ivan Milat article? I haven't performed many merges and want to make sure I didn't omit anything that should have been transferred to the Backpacker Murders. Thanks so much, momoricks ^{make my day} 11:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Feathers of Knysna

This was added after reading the Knysna section. After visiting that town, the artists and manufacturers of these birds are well known in the region and often sought after by visitors to the town. The article was intended to refer to this interest and was not intended as advertising. If you can offer any suggestions of how to, or if you can personally clean up the article to make it read correctly, please let me know.Printpost (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note, I've declined the speedy on this one after the rewrite. If you still feel that deletion is approprtaite, please use WP:AFD. Many thanks, Gazimoff 18:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to have some association with this company - certainly the article appears to be written with "inside" information, which is why I have some concerns about COI and promotion here. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

GAC of KAL007

You're most welcome. Glad I could help, although I didn't do as much as I would have liked. Dave (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

photo of roads and port at Tolanaro

Did you take this picture yourself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.36.78 (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes Socrates2008 (Talk) 20:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

from place to place

Socrates, thanks for advising. I am moving from place to place and use computers not my own when I can. I know to add the 4 tildas on Talk page but how do you log on when posting from different computers?67.186.182.174 (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

foolish...got it!67.186.182.174 (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

citation request

"March, 1993. Another KAL007 families delegation was invited back to Moscow where they were given 93 pictures of plane debris which included floating $50 and $100 bills and the voice transcripts of ground to ground, ground to air, air to ground and air to air communications during the time of the incident and other documents.[citation needed]"

I heard the above from someone on the Amercian Committee for Families but I don't think there is a published sourceBert Schlossberg (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Bert, this anecdote does not meet verifiability (not from a published source) so it will have to be trimmed. Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not edit this information. I am reporting, though, that I heard some of the same information from someone on the association and that I don't think that there is a published source. It may be best to verify through the person that did the editBert Schlossberg (talk) 10:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

ACEs/CACLS

hallo, sorry for my bad english, I'm italian and I'm trying to translate the cacls page; I've seen one of your edits about "ACEs" in the cacls article and I don't know what of "ace" meaning is related to: i see this link ACE#Computing but what of these meanings is your edit about? thanks for your contribution. --Wikit2007 (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Here you go. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

"access control Entries" !! Thanks Socrates! :) --Wikit2007 (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Sea of Japan naming dispute brought to KAL 007 article

My apologies, i was presuming East sea was neutral, my thoughts should not strain from the discussions currently ongoing at the talk page. Sorry to affect your time.--CorrectlyContentious 10:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggested move: Battle of Cassinga to Cassinga massacre

Hi. Since you've been active on the discussion page for the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale recently, I thought you might be interested in the discussion around the requested move of Battle of Cassinga to a new title of Cassinga massacre. The discussion has only attracted three editors so far (including myself), and I think it would be beneficial to have the input there of some of the more regular contributors to Border War articles. — Impi (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

KAL 007 peer review

I do apolgise for not getting back to this, but I simply have not had time. I did my best to be thorough with the parts I reviewed, and I hope you found my comments helpful. It is unlikely that I will have much time to spare in the immediate future, so it might be as well to close the review. Brianboulton (talk)

Battle of Barry

Thanks for looking at the article Battle of Barry. I could do with some clarification as to what you're after with the 'who' tags though. The location of the supposed battle is referenced in the article. I wasn't aware referencing would also be required in the lead. Or is it the wording that is at fault?

Are co-ordinates for a battle that never actually occurred really required?

Thanks --Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The "who" tag denotes a weasel term. If there was no specific location for the battle in this case, then you're correct, the coord tags are not relevant. Cheers Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded the sections in question to try to address this. I've also added co-ordinates and an info box, as the traditional location of the battle is well attested to, even if it turned out the 'battlefield' was actually a domestic graveyard. See what you think, cheers. --Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Werner Heisenberg GA

"All" the cleanup issues? I see a couple ill-placed cleanup tags on sections that happen to be lists or mostly lists. If an article could really be quick-failed because it's got those tags, then we have an error in the system. However, should this be the case, please point me to the area of MOS that outlines the proper formatting and presentation for sections like that, and I will be happy to bring them up to code compliance. GlassCobra 10:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Just trying to help - good luck with the article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Socrates2008. You have new messages at Xymmax's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RE: Battle of Triangle Hill

I submitted to A-Class review, but the the prose/copy edit problem keep shooting the article down. Then there was also an edting war between the original article creator and one of the copy editors on "whose english is better", and I believe the copy editor quit. So I decided to wait for a while, and the entire article has to be rewritten before I could consider anymore reviews. Jim101 (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You could try the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The request is still there. I placed the request before the edit war started.

I appricate your helps. Jim101 (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

MRG talkback

Hello, Socrates2008. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Again. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Phorm UK-centricity

Good $TIME_OF_DAY. I have inspected the article and removed the globalize tag because (a) an effort to follow the tag was recorded on the talk page, and suggests that there's little imbalance to fix (plus I'd rather eat my own teeth than trust The Register alone as a reliable source), and (b) the situation in the UK has now kicked up a lot more dirt, making any disproportionate focus less of a problem. ;-) If you disagree, let me and/or (preferably) the good folks on tghe article's talk page know. Thanks, Kizor 13:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I'd still like to see more coverage on non-UK activities, as this is a global enterprise whose business is not restricted to the UK - but I appreciate that most of the "dirt" has been kicked up in the UK, perhaps because the consumers there are more savvy. Socrates2008 (Talk) 02:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Socrates2008. You have new messages at Steve's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Images

Hi, wp:mos says no images directly under === headings or less. it also says for images to face in towards text, Tom B (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, the image is not directly under any heading (there are 4 paragraphs between the heading and the image). Presumably you mean the guideline "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text", however this is not a portrait-type photograph... Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

true. to me it looks better with them walking in towards text rather than off the page, though not a big deal. Tom B (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

re: 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash

Hello, Socrates2008. You have new messages at Nick-D's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry for the slow response as well by the way. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Able Archer 83

Hello, Socrates2008. I see that you have nominated the page Able Archer 83 for FAR. Thanks for the message. Unfortunately, though, I am bogged down with last minute studying and examination work, and will not be able to get to this until at least May 16, maybe later. Additionally, although I am listed as the FAC man that is in fact incorrect, for I was not the one who did the initial work to bring the article up to FA status. As you can see from this post the original posts were from the two primary article contributors, Melchoir (talk · contribs) and Natebjones (talk · contribs). I only got involved and an offer to take the article FAC materialized owing to the apparent absence of Natebjones. In this respect, you could say that I "stole" the article. For some time now I have been meaning to straighten that out, but I never seem to find a free moment to do that. At any rate, I wish to reassure you that I will get to this sometime after school ends, and in the meantime I would recommend adding FAR messages to Natebjones and Melchoir's talk pages so they are made aware of the FAR. -- (an unlogged in TomStar81 (talk · contribs)) 71.153.240.194 (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries, there's no rush from my perspective. Cheers Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

McGregor Museum

I noticed that you removed the Category Kimberley from the article on the McGregor Museum. Just curious as to why? Blarcrean (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

...because it's already a member of the Kimberley category via its membership of "Category:Buildings and structures in Kimberley". Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean. I think it best to move it away from "Category:Buildings and structures in Kimberley" and back to "Category:Kimberley" since the McGregor Museum is more an institution of Kimberley (and a set of many buildings) than a "building and structure" per se. Would you agree?Blarcrean (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem with that. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thule Airbase crash

Congratulations on getting that passed! I hadn't noticed it until I saw it on the Signpost. Well done! JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - it was quite a grind to get FA, but nonetheless a very interesting article to research. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

AF447

I've reinstated the Brazil category, reasons given on talk page. Mjroots (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I see you reverted the reference to Skybrary on the above page. Out of interest, why do you consider it unreliable? All content on that site is reviewed by Eurocontrol before publication (http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Writing_a_SKYbrary_Article). Johnwalton 12:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note - the site appeared to me to be a wiki, and I could not see anything to indicate that it was edited or maintained by a reliable specialist. So given there was another ref, I didn't see any point in keeping it given my doubts. However happy to be pursuaded otherwise. Cheers Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it's kind of redundant now anyway as I managed to find a web copy of CS-25 (the other reference), which is the official documentation anyway, so I'm not planning on readding it. I can understand why you thought it was a wiki, but I think it is a reasonably reliable source because of the content control. Thanks Johnwalton 12:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of this, I notice you removed some external links: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Air_France_Flight_447&diff=294540699&oldid=294540611 Even though they are used as references, they are so important and central that they should not be removed. The reason why they are in the external links section is that they are easy to find there. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of links Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I am well aware Wikipedia is not a collection of links, Socrates. These links are very important to the understanding of the topic. They cannot be left out. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Then use them as references and incorporate them into the article... Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

But they must also be visible. They must be noticed. That is why the external links section exists, Socrates -- it is there to link to the most imporant websites regarding a topic. Wikipedia:External links explains the purpose of the sections. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW I am in favor of reducing external links sections to only include relevant pages. It's that Air France's Flight 447 center in particular is a vital external link that needs to be kept at all costs. Airbus may post further updates on its Flight 447 page as well. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No, there no such policy or guildline unfortunately. "Some external links are welcome (see "What should be linked", below), but Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable. The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources. If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it." Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That is precisely the guideline, Socrates. What "comprehensive list of external links related to each topic" means would be listing every single external link under the sun related to a topic. The same page explains that external links can be used because they "contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." - What the page means is that one has to limit the number of external links to the most useful and relevant. What I am arguing, Socrates, is that the Air France link is highly vital and needs to be kept. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I have switched the "Air France" link to point to the "Home" page - It by itself is not being used as a source (the "list of all press releases" is the page being used as a source) - The "Home" link can link the user to all of the Air France-related pages of the topic. Also I removed the non-English embassy and Brazilian military pages, so only English external links are listed. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think a better approach is to discuss specific external links. Look at my approach. I submitted the Brazilian air force link and asked if it would be an acceptable external link. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Re Op Epsom

Heh - you're right it's grammatically incorrect, but correct grammar doesn't always make for engaging prose. I just think it reads better. Funnily enough split infinitives came up in a recent FA (Operation Perch I think), where another reviewer admitted he rather liked them :P Incidentally, thank you for your work on the article - another set of eyes is always welcome. EyeSerene^talk 11:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Leave a message

Your username in 'Leave a mesage' syntax is incorrect Ex nihil (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Air France Flight 447.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Air France Flight 447.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words

I am not clear on your comments 12 June about the air speed inconsistency paragraph on Flight AF 447.

Would you expect to see a citation when the words I used directly reference material from other reputable Wikipedia pages? The next sentence then quotes what the French transport minister was reported to have said on the matter. Is that not enough?

Thanks for you help in advance 84.175.85.143 (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself (See WP:SELF). The wording used, in particular without a reference, coveys an implicit authority that does not exist. This can be fixed by rewording and/or adding a citation. Cheers. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Basic user level in Software Restriction Policies

In the Windows 7 RC I'm currently using, under Group Policy -> SRP -> Security Levels/Additional Rules, I can assign a Basic user level to any new rule I create except a certificate rule. Is that what you mean can't be done by this or are you referring to something else? - xpclient ^Talk 13:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can still configure the GPO, but the functionality has been deprecated - Win7 will block the application instead of disabling the administrator/PU SID in the process token.Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your review

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the coordinators, for your help with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews April to June 2009, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award.  Roger Davies talk 12:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Wow, thanks! Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy Socrates2008/Archive 2's Day!

User:Socrates2008/Archive 2 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Socrates2008/Archive 2's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Socrates2008/Archive 2! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it.

• July 03 for you. Sorry for lateness, I had to take a wikibreak. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Too kind, thank you! And welcome back. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

AF 447

It appears to me that you might be an experienced editor, given some comments from you that I have seen. I wonder whether you might have the time to look at the "Preliminary Report" section of the AF 447 article and comment on the discussion at the end regarding whether or not to include press reports that might or might not contradict the offical BEA report. I'm a newcomer to Wikipedia and I'd like to learn best practices.--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm keeping an eye on the discussion there - my suggestion is to ensure that anything you add is referenced per verifiability, and that you keep a lookout for original research and synthesis. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, this is helpful.--Gautier lebon (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Registry cleaner

Hi Socrates2008: I added CCleaner yesterday to Registry Cleaner page in Wikipedia with all the best intentions. You deleted it 10 hours later & I'm very upset because CCleaner is very good software free of viruses

Thanks for your note. Here's why I removed it:

• This article has recently been the target of persistent spamming by the vendors of malware products.
• Wikipedia is not here to make recommendations or to give advice to users
• "Good" is a subjective term, especially since you did not add a reference for this judgement. (See WP:OR)
• Why should we limit ourselves to just this "good" Registry cleaner - that gives it undue weight, and appears to be an endorsement of the product.
• The information you added does not belong in the introduction (See WP:MOS)
• You are an unfortunately IP user with a very small number of edits, and therefore do not have the credibility of an established editor yet.

Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I did respond to you on my Talk.

For the record, I responded to your closing comment with [3]. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I also just confirmed that you did intervene, on the talk page for the admin who blocked me, to argue that what I'd done when I was blocked wasn't blockworthy, before you took the matter to AN, which lends credence to your account of your motives. My apologies. --Abd (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

ClueBot time revert

Yes, I'm aware that it's in hours. I goofed with the number of significant figures, but ten days is too short a period; I'm going to bump it to 30. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Collins class subs

Hiya. During my improvement of the Collins class submarine article, you commented on the potential to run this up to GA class or higher, to which I responded that I'd like to get it as finished as possible first. I think I've reached that point, and the article appears quite stable (a single edit over a month-long period).

Would you be interested in giving the article a once-over before I start dragging this article through the various processes towards a GA, or even an FA, nomination? -- saberwyn 04:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look in the next few days. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Major improvement since I last looked at the article, well done! The referencing is very good, however I tweaked a few places where the language did not flow. This aspect could benefit further from the input of a good copy editor, but I don't think it's bad. Probably the biggest point for me is the use of weasel words where the party making the statement could simply be named instead. Also, you might want to watch the use of passive voice where active might carry more force. With a few more tweaks and changes, this should easily pass GA. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Arb case stmt

Thanks for helping on the arb case today. I posted a stmt on the PD talk page and my own talk page you may want to read. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMAS Sydney (1934)/archive1

Hi, were you ready for this to be submitted to FAC? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Siege of Kimberley

I noticed you withdrew your nomination of this article after only 4 days because it was taking too long. I also think they take too long but typically it sits there for about 4 or 5 weeks before its reviewed, just FYI. So if its an article such as this one that yuo are going to try for A or FA it is frequently quicker to submit it for A or a peer review and skip GA. --Kumioko (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I've done a few before, but this is the longest queue I've seen for reviewing at any point over the past 2 years - the A-class review is already receiving comments. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Siege of Kimberley and Kimberley, Northern Cape

You are doing some excellent work on these articles. I am planning a trip to the Northern Cape next month, primarily to go to Augrabies Falls, but I will be spending at least a day in Kimberley as well. If there are any specific photos that will help to enhance the articles, let me know and I'll see if I can get them. --NJR_ZA (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I haven't been able to find a photo of the concentration camp memorial yet, so that would be a bonus; all the other images are mostly historical. Would you mind taking a look at this A-class assessment and voting if support or oppose the promotion of the article? Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

A few further comments for Siege of Kimberley

Hi, Socrates. I've added my support to the ACR for Siege of Kimberley as you've addressed most of my concerns and I believe the article is very good. I've got a couple more comments, however, that you might like to look at if you are thinking of taking it to FA status. I have included them here, rather than on the ACR as they are really only very small points, in my opinion. Anyway, please look at them at your leisure and do with them what you wish:

• I feel the alt text still needs tweaking, but to be honest I'm not very good with alt text myself. You might want to take a look at some of the examples on WP:ALT;
• There is some overlinking (for instance words such as De Beers, Orange Free State, Transvaal). I suggest only linking once in lead, once in the infobox and then once at first mention in body of the article;
• In the last paragraph of the Background section, there is a large run-on sentence that could be tweaked a little...;
• In the fourth paragraph of the Preparation section (begining with "Cecil John Rhodes" there are three sentences very close together that begin with the word "however", can this be tweaked so that they begin differently;
• In the fourth paragraph of the Siege section begining with "Rhodes had his own agenda" the word shortage is used twice very close together, could this be substituted?;
• I suggest with the co-ordinates, that you move them outside (i.e. after) punctuation, as at the moment they are pushing the punctuation a long way from the prose. (This is just cosmetic and is only a very minor point, and it might just be my screen that they are doing this on);
• Can some of the links in the See also section be worked into the text?

I hope this helps. Anyway, good work on the article. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for reviewing and for your considered and extensive feedback. I think I've now made all the changes you suggested. Socrates2008 (Talk)

Categories

Will fix it. Only recently started to take categories seriously and made a few similar mistakes. JMK (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Siege of Kimberley

Promoted, congratulations! EyeSerene^talk 09:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

KAL 007

I have added further information on the discussion page - please read that, before you start to undo in the Alvin Snyder part in "Aftermath". Have a nice day Understandable science 17:54 , 7 september, 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 15:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC).

Cabin Pressurization Policies of Airlines

I have posted a response to your comments, on the talk page of Cabin Pressurization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cabin_pressurization): EditorASC (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that all airlines do this, or that they take the cabin pressure outside permissable legal limits. However I have a parachutist friend who recently flew on an unnamed national airline, and happened to have his altimeter on him, which indicated a clearly measurable drop in cabin pressure after dinner time until just before breakfast time. Co-incidence perhaps? Personally, I'm skeptical, but can appreciate that no airline would publish this information either. In any event, it's rumour unless we find a reference from a reputable source. Socrates2008 (Talk) 00:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Cabin Pressurization Policies of Airlines

I have posted a response to your comments, on the talk page of Cabin Pressurization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cabin_pressurization): EditorASC (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that all airlines do this, or that they take the cabin pressure outside permissable legal limits. However I have a parachutist friend who recently flew on an unnamed national airline, and happened to have his altimeter on him, which indicated a clearly measurable drop in cabin pressure after dinner time until just before breakfast time. Co-incidence perhaps? Personally, I'm skeptical, but can appreciate that no airline would publish this information either. In any event, it's rumour unless we find a reference from a reputable source. Socrates2008 (Talk) 00:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Cabin Pressurization Policies of Airlines

I have posted a response to your comments, on the talk page of Cabin Pressurization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cabin_pressurization): EditorASC (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that all airlines do this, or that they take the cabin pressure outside permissable legal limits. However I have a parachutist friend who recently flew on an unnamed national airline, and happened to have his altimeter on him, which indicated a clearly measurable drop in cabin pressure after dinner time until just before breakfast time. Co-incidence perhaps? Personally, I'm skeptical, but can appreciate that no airline would publish this information either. In any event, it's rumour unless we find a reference from a reputable source. Socrates2008 (Talk) 00:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

DeBeers

I just wanted to say thanks for your massive improvements to the article. I knew there were POV problems with it, and the history section was needed, but I didn't really know enough to fix it or have the time to research it myself. Well done! --TexasDex ★ 02:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

DeBeers

I just wanted to say thanks for your massive improvements to the article. I knew there were POV problems with it, and the history section was needed, but I didn't really know enough to fix it or have the time to research it myself. Well done! --TexasDex ★ 02:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Still need a citation

I note you restored the previous citation in the cabin pressurization article, which is a word doc seeking an exemption for the A380, from the current FAR limits on cabin pressure designs.

I have no problem if you want that one in there too, however it does not provide a citation source for this statement:

In practice, these regulations place an operational ceiling of 40,000 feet on the majority of commercial aircraft.[5][Note 1] [bold emphasis is mine].

How have you determined that a majority of commercial aircraft cannot operate above 40,000 feet, because of that FAR restriction? I cannot find any numbers in your citation document that shows a majority cannot meet the limits, if they fly above 40,000 ft. It isn't in footnote number 1, of the cited document, or in any other part of that document, that I could find. It seems to me, that there must be a citable source to verify that more than 50% of commercial aircraft are thus restricted, or the statement will have to be removed. EditorASC (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Only a handful of aircraft have been granted an exception to FAA regulation CFR 25.841(a)(2)(i) for cabin pressure not to exceed 40,000 feet under any circumstance - so I'm not sure why you feel all other aircraft types in operation that have not been grante this exemption would not by definition consist of a "majority"... Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The number of airplanes approved to fly above 40,000 feet, for which no high altitude special conditions were required, is approximately 6,000. For comparison purposes, the total number of airplanes in worldwide fleet are approximately 50,000 airplanes (but this includes general aviation, private airplanes, company owned and some military variants).

PS-ANM-03-112-16

So I make that "majority" approximately 88%. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you seem to be lumping in all airliners, into that new (25-87) FAR, which applies only to newly designed airliners, such as the A380, etc. All the older airliners, like the 747-400, the 777, the 767, the 757 and I think one version of the 737, are still certified to fly above FL 400. I have flown all those models, except that one version of the 737, quite legally, above FL 400. That new amendment does not have any legal limit effect on those planes, because they are all previously certified to fly above FL 400.

The comment about 50,000 airplanes in the worldwide fleet, really doesn't tell us anything at all, as to how many of the newly designed airplanes are restricted to FL 400, in comparison to the ones that have long ago been certified to fly above FL 400.

The many in the older fleets that cannot fly above FL 400, are restricted by their own power to weight ratios, inherent in their own designs----not by that new FAR, which applies only to newly designed aircraft with underwing engines. This comment, in the Cabin Pressurization article, "In practice, these regulations place an operational ceiling of 40,000 feet on the majority of commercial aircraft." Cannot remain, if there is no valid source citation to show that THAT NEW FAR limits the majority of airliners to FL 400 or below.

Eight thousand planes have been certified to fly above FL 400. How many of the new planes are there, that have not yet obtained the exemption from that new FAR? To come up with a percentage that is accurate, you have to know how many newly designed planes there are, that are governed by that new FAR, as well as how many of those new planes have obtained exemptions. Then, add the new planes that have obtained the exemption, to those 8,000 other planes that are already certified to fly above FL 400, and then subtract the new ones that are not yet exempt and you will have the numbers to determine what percentage amount to apply to each category.

Some existing large commercial transport category airplanes type certificated prior to Amendment 25-87 are approved to operate up to 45,000 feet altitude (See Attachment 4). Special conditions were issued for operation up to 51,000 feet for several executive business jets and the Concorde (60,000 feet) to address cabin depressurization concerns.

Both the business jets and Concorde shared a common performance characteristic; specifically the ability to conduct a rapid descent following a sudden loss of cabin pressure. Also, business jets typically feature rear fuselage-mounted engines which incorporate an aft pressurized bulkhead located forward of the rotor burst zone which decreases the likelihood of experiencing a rapid cabin decompression following an engine failure. Amendment 25-87 incorporated criteria similar to the provisions of the special conditions into part 25 to ensure occupant safety following any failure scenario including uncontained engine failure.

The effect of Amendment 25-87 is to limit the maximum operating altitude of new type designs with wing-mounted engines to 40,000 feet. Holes in the fuselage, caused by uncontained engine failure (UEF), may be large enough to allow decompression of the airplane cabin to ambient pressure within seconds. Sudden cabin depressurization may also be caused by pressurization system failures or structural failures. [emphasis by EditorASC (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)]

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgPolicy.nsf/0/90AA20C2F35901D98625713F0056B1B8?OpenDocument

Comments

• Amendment 25-87 to 25.841 is not new - it dates back to 1996.
• This ruling, which still in effect, is proving limiting given current research into depressurization events and new aircraft designs. Hence the FAA's current review of this ruling and its willingness to start granting exemptions for aircraft designs previously considered problematic, i.e. aircraft with wing-mounted engines like the A380 and B787.
• Agree it's not clear though which aircraft are subject to the 1996 regulations
• All this applies to US only - the EU allows aircraft like the B787 and A380 aircraft to fly at 43,000ft without special exemption
• Coming back to the statement you have a problem with - what is your preferred wording, given the discussion above? Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

All the aircraft that were certified by the FAA, prior to 1996, still have the legal right to fly above FL 400, if that capability was part of their certification. The new 1996 amendment does not alter their original certifications. I have installed additional information in both articles--- cabin pressurization and uncontrolled decompression, which makes that clear to the lay reader. Take a look and see what you think. I think the problem is now solved. Thanks much for your comments and additional information. EditorASC (talk) 12:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - do you have a ref for the pre-1996 aircraft still being certified FL400+ ? (I had a look, but was unable to find one). Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is in the final document I posted the link to, above:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgPolicy.nsf/0/90AA20C2F35901D98625713F0056B1B8?OpenDocument

Exceprts:

Recognizing the apparent operating restrictions on new airplane designs...

Some existing large commercial transport category airplanes type certificated prior to Amendment 25-87 are approved to operate up to 45,000 feet altitude (See Attachment 4). Special conditions were issued for operation up to 51,000 feet for several executive business jets and the Concorde (60,000 feet) to address cabin depressurization concerns.

The effect of Amendment 25-87 is to limit the maximum operating altitude of new type designs with wing-mounted engines to 40,000 feet.

If compliance with § 25.841 at Amendment 25-87 limited airplanes operations to a maximum altitude of 40,000 feet, this would impose a significant disadvantage on newly designed airplanes that have many safety advantages over older airplanes currently allowed to operate at higher altitudes. This would delay the introduction of these airplanes and the benefits of their more advanced technology.

Number of Airplanes Approved to Operate Above 40,000 feet

The number of airplanes approved to fly above 40,000 feet, for which no high altitude special conditions were required, is approximately 6,000. For comparison purposes, the total number of airplanes in worldwide fleet are approximately 50,000 airplanes (but this includes general aviation, private airplanes, company owned and some military variants).

While FAA imposed special conditions for most executive business airplanes, no such requirements were levied on large transport category airplanes that fly above 40,000 feet. Approximately 2,000 of these airplanes have been approved to fly over 40,000 feet.

Maximum approved altitude is 43,100 ft for the 777.

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:JjvGAhArM9MJ:rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/d351df73d0cea1758625718b00686acd/%24FILE/T00001SE.pdf+FAA+TCDS+for+Boeing+777&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AFQjCNHT1DUGfb7odhpsYpVY00zCN7XOHA (page 5 & dated 2006)

And, 45,100 ft for the 747-400.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgMakeModel.nsf/0/36F8593D0A2289178625762D0058294D/$FILE/A20WE.pdf (page 9 & dated Sept. 4th, 2009)

I flew both the 777 and the 747-400 well after the 1996 revision was made final, and there never was any change to our flight manuals, which permitted operation to FL 431 & 451, respectively. And I actually flew those planes above FL 400, well after 1996, on flight plans that were fully approved by FAA ATC. EditorASC (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That's great, thank you. On another note, if you have a few spare mins, would you mind taking a look at Korean Airlines Flight 007 - have some outstanding concerns about some of the technical facts in the article and would appreciate a second opinion. Thanks in advance. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

KAL 007

Sure, glad to do that. Very big article, including all the Talk Page archives.

The first statement I have a problem with, is this one:

"It was determined that the crew did not notice this error or subsequently perform navigational checks, for example using OMEGA,[93"

Wow! While I cannot say that KAL did not have OMEGA receivers on board their planes, I would be astonished to know of any airline that would have them installed, if they had INS, or that they would have as pilot navigation SOP, the checking of INS position with OMEGA.

United airlines had OMEGA on only three planes in their entire fleet: Three 727s, that were used solely for the Chicago to Cancun flights. Installation of INS on 727s would have been much more expensive, so they used the much cheaper (and far less accurate) OMEGA system for those three planes. It was only needed for about 1/2 hour over the Gulf of Mexico, when we couldn't receive any VORTAC land signals.

I have flown all over the world with both INS and GPS and I cannot imagine any flight crew trying to confirm their INS position with OMEGA. That is kinda like a modern GA pilot, who has dual VOR and DME receivers, trying to confirm his position with old radio range dots and dashes, in his headphones... If KAL did have and use OMEGA navigation, in addition to INS, then that helps to confirm just how incompetent that airline and its pilots really were. KAL is one of the airlines that I would never set foot on. Their pilots had a terrible reputation----as bad or worse than China Airlines. While it is possible that they were so incompetent that they did not recognize they were in autopilot heading mode, and that they were getting further and further off their programmed INS track line, I think it is more likely that they were deliberately taking a shortcut, to save both fuel and time and that it had been done before and they didn't think they were taking any serious risk by doing so.

I gotta get some sleep now, but will read more tomorrow. Let me know if you have any specific questions about specific passages, in that KAL 007 article. EditorASC (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

=====================================================

Footnote # 6, is worded very poorly and needs to be drastically re-worded, or removed entirely:

"^ INS mode, while accurate to within a mile, is not accurate enough for take-off and landing. HEADING mode is typically used during take-off and landing, as runways are by convention aligned on a magnetic heading. (Degani, 2001)"

It is confusing one of the modes of the autopilot with the Inertial Navigation System (INS). Too different animals. While it is true that INS is generally not used to make approaches to a runway, because the accuracy is not quite precise enuf, it is also true that we used it during the initial approach phase, to get to the final approach segment in places like Bejing China, because their ILS beams were so damn narrow, it was extremely difficult to do an intercept of the final approach course, as we routinely do in the US.

The autopilot heading mode can be used to set up the intercept heading, so that the autopilot will then lock onto the ILS approach mode, when the approach mode is armed on the autopilot control panel. But, the heading mode is not used to fly inbound on the final approach course to a runway. Either the AP is locked in the approach mode and tracking the ILS beam, or the pilot is hand flying a visual/manual final approach. Further, the heading mode of the autopilot is not used for the initial takeoff segment. The flight manuals have limitations which forbid the autopilot being turned on during takeoff and until a certain altitude is reached. Most pilots do not turn it on until the plane has climbed many thousands of feet. So, no use of AP heading mode for takeoff, as the foot note claims. EditorASC (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Curious, because the author of the quoted document is a NASA engineer who specializes in aircraft ergonomics. (See hisbio and KAL article Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

He, he, yes I can imagine why you would trust him----he is very good and obviously knows his stuff. The problem is, though, that he says nothing in that chapter 4 of his book, which can verify the statements in footnote # 6 above. Whoever gave him and that chapter, as a verification for that footnote statement, either got confused about what sources said what, or he was---shall we say---deliberately "winging it." EditorASC (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have just posted this on the talk page of 007:

Unless anyone has severe objections (supported by good reasons), I am planning on deleting note # 6, which currently says:

"^ INS mode, while accurate to within a mile, is not accurate enough for take-off and landing. HEADING mode is typically used during take-off and landing, as runways are by convention aligned on a magnetic heading. (Degani, 2001)"

My reason for deleting is that it is a very confusing statement, with the latter part not being true at all. The autopilot heading mode is not used to make approaches and landings, nor for takeoff. When the AP heading mode is used to vector to intercept the final approach course of the typical ILS approach, the autopilot is armed to capture that final approach localizer and fly it inbound to the runway with the ILS mode of the AP, not the heading mode. It would be both dangerous and illegal to try and use the AP heading mode to make a landing. And, for takeoff, the autopilot is not allowed to be on at all, so it would be impossible to be using the AP heading mode for takeoff. I could find nothing in the Degani chapter 4, where he discusses the functions of the AP modes, to support that incomprehensible statement of note # 6. Degani did not say anything like that, so the citation is worthless. EditorASC (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

=======================================================

This statement cannot be documented. It amounts to nothing more than speculation:

"In both scenarios, the autopilot remained in HEADING mode, and the problem was not detected by the crew.[8

I can envision two other possibilities to explain why the AP remained in the heading mode:

1. The Captain deliberately flew the plane in the AP heading mode, because he believed he could save both time and fuel by flying to the right of the planned INS course.

2. Both the Captain and the FO failed to correctly set up the present position of the INS, while the plane was parked at the gate. There is a detailed check list procedure that both pilots have to run, to ensure that does not happen. But, sometimes pilots are lazy and they fail to run that checklist. If they don't get the present position right, then when they are airborne, they will have no valid course to follow in flight. They cannot reprogram the INS computers once the plane is moving, since any course depends on starting from the correct present position, before the plane moves. There is only one safe and legal solution when that happens: They have to dump a lot of fuel and then come back and land at the originating station. Then park at the gate and start the INS programming, with the correct present position, all over again. One United Airlines flight actually had to do that. Needless to say, any pilot caught with his pants down like that, would have to think us some ridiculous fairy tale to explain to the passengers why they had to come back and land and go back to the gate, before trying it a second time. Not to mention that he would be in real deep doo doo, with the management of his company, since that would involve considerable expenses for fuel, extra crew time pay and maybe a lot of missed connections at destination.

If the second scenario is what happened, then I would expect the Captain to try and "wing it," by flying the plane on heading mode the entire way, while attempting to do calculations as to how close he was to the planned INS course line. He wouldn't be willing to lose face by admitting they had made such a major screw up, by coming back, dumping fuel and landing at Anchorage, to start all over. I actually witnessed that many years ago, when I was a DC-10 Second Officer. While I was outside doing an external preflight of the airplane, the Captain and FO were setting up the three INS computers with present position and installing the flight plan. But, when we got airborne, it became evident at the first checkpoint that we were at leas 20 miles or more off the desired track line, even though they were tracking the line that was displayed by the INS computers. That was determined by the Vortac crosscheck on the first position point, which was still in range of that station on the east coast of the big island of Hawaii. And, the Captain and FO figured they could "wing it and adjust their error from the erroneous course they were following, so that they would be pretty near the real course line in the flight plan, which was not correctly displayed in the INS computers. They flew the whole trip from Hawaii to SFO that way, and they apparently weren't too far off, because the radar controller did not say anything, when we first appeared on radar, about 200 miles from SFO.

So, the statement that the KAL pilots did not detect that they were in the AP heading mode the entire trip, is not one that can be verified. It is pure speculation ---- that they did not know that. EditorASC (talk) 10:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

SharePoint Designer

Actually if you check SPD can only edit SharePoint websites. It can't create a new website from scratch and publish it to any server like Expression or FrontPage. Expression is the successor to FrontPage and SPD is SharePoint specific which is why MS made it free. :-) - xpclient ^Talk 09:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've just built a non SP site using SPD - it's stil FrontPage underneath - some of the dialogs still say "FrontPage". Yes, the products have been repositioned, but the underlying technology has not changed much. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject South Africa

I have recently overhauled WikiProject South Africa with the following:

• Improving collaboration of participants by adding an Open tasks section with specific as well as common tasks
  • Added link to the CatScan tool to find articles needing cleanup, referencing and expanding
  • Added common tasks that should be performed on Portal:South Africa
  • Added information on how to add Geographical coordinates
  • Added articles missing Images
  • Added assessment information
• Improving the layout to make access to information easier
• Added simple "How can I help?" instructions for new project members
• Extended the Resources section to assist participants in finding South Africa related information
• Added bot generated Article alerts
• Added a bot generated Cleanup listing
• Added more information on template usage
• Added a section on language usage
• Improved the categories section with trees for category:South Africa Wikipedia administration and category:South Africa
• Added link to Wikipedia Books
• Marked inactive sections of the project as inactive

Comments, constructive criticism and suggestions for improving it further are welcome --NJR_ZA (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed you beavering away quietly. Brilliant work - well done! Also just noticed the featured article about the Siege of Kimberley on the SA portal - thanks. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Not been contributing much to article content lately, but I think I have made a dent in the backlog of maintenance issues for South Africa related content. Still a lot to do, but at least we have some tools on the project page now. --NJR_ZA (talk) 09:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Your report to AIV

I would note that I have declined to act on your report (although another reviewing admin might) since I feel the issue is generally one of a content dispute - and as such I have suggested dispute resolution as a more appropriate avenue. I note what you say regarding poor edit summaries, and would further suggest you might consider opening a WP:WQA report to deal with that aspect if you feel DR may not address all the issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note that there's not been any discussion whatsoever leading up to this "content dispute", so dispute resolution would seem an odd remedy when I would happy to work with him. However his disparaging edit summaries and "my-article-is-bigger-and-better-than-yours" approach to editing are not facilitating consensus. In any event, have followed your advice and gone to WQA. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

B-52 references

I saw you were working on cleaning up the references, and I though the article might be improved by List-defined references. I recently converted B-17 Flying Fortress to this style. What do you think? - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 22:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I kinda assumed that was mandatory. Take a look at 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash and let me know if this differs in any way from what you had in mind...? Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, have just read the article talk page, where I see I've clearly upset a bunch of people. So don't worry, go ahead and do what you think is right as I won't be making any further edits to the article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Expansion of articles relating to the Sydney-Kormoran battle

As a major contributor to Battle between HMAS Sydney and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran, HMAS Sydney (D48) (formerly "HMAS Sydney (1934)") and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran, I am asking for your opinion on my expansion/improvement of these three articles. Before I start the climb towards a possible FA nomination, I was hoping you could have a look at the articles' current conditions and make a few observations (either here, on my talk page, or on the relevant article's talk page).

For transperancy, this expansion was prompted by a desire to get the articles looking solid before they appeared in "On This Day" (the entry for the battle was scrubbed a couple of days ago in favour of another WWII event). The article for Kormoran is not yet complete: content relating to the post-war searches and rediscovery needs to be expanded and cited, and will be updated in the next few days. -- saberwyn 01:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Great work there! No problem, will take a look in the next few days and let you know if I have any suggestions. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)