User talk:Srobak

Arhive: 2009

Linking common terms

Common terms can be linked in articles, but that doesn't mean they should. Linking starts getting out of hand and next thing you know, there is a sea of blue links. For example, sure, you can link the term "United States", but do you honestly think there are many English speakers that don't know what the United States is? Do many English speakers NOT know what New York City is? Linking just because we can doesn't help the article. Linking to a generic article about Miami doesn't really enhance the article about Miami Vice, especially since the majority of people already know what Miami means. But linking to an article to help someone understand what "geospatial" means does enhance an article. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree against making a sea of blue and links - but I really do not think that linking the first instance of Miami in that page specifically would necessarily contribute to that, nor do I think that it completely fall under the aspect of it being so common that it shouldn't be linked. Without the actual city of Miami, there would not be any MV - there is a direct correlation between the two, and Miami's significance in its role in MV is quite substantial in my opinion. If you disagree, fine - we can discuss at length - and/but also at that point I would rather move the discussion to the mv talk page to get other peoples feedback as well. I am all about consensus :) $.02 Srobak (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on user talk page

Hi Srobak, since you mentioned that you would move this to my talk page, I thought I would beat you to the jump :). Seriously, I don't know what the deal is at Skimobile, sled, snowmachine, whateveryouwanttocallit, but leaving a warning/comment at a user's talk page is fine. Once they have read it, they have every right to remove it, or archieve it or whatever.(just as you did with cb's message) To edit war over reinserting it after another editor has removed it as well is not helpful or productive and boarders on distruption. User talk pages are treated slightly differently than main space article talk pages. Anyways, please feel free to respond here since this page is now watchlisted or just...remove it after having read :) (removing it implicitly implies that you have read it fwiw) Thank you and good luck, --Tom (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

While they have every right to remove something from their own talk page - you as a 3rd party to the user talk page and the original comment poster - do not. You have been issued repeated warnings in the past about reversion wars, and more specifically reversion wars on talk pages. Yes they are treated differently - specifically in the sense that they are not generally to be reverted other than by the original author(s). An edit war warning was issued to the user in question, and as the issuer of that warning, I am well within my right to re-affirm it and keep it in place per WP guidelines, as it may be necessary to use as reference for future abuse issues.

Case in point, and to that effect: you will also notice that you have been issued an edit war warning as well, as per the three-revert rule you have conducted 3 destructive reversions in less than 24 hours to the same page. The fact that you did it as a 3rd party to a user talk page only pours salt on that wound. If this conduct does not stop, then I will be forced to open yet another WP:AN/I for you, as has been done in the past. Due to your repeated history and warnings in such matters, there will be no problem in having it enacted. Srobak (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• You were earlier advised not to continue to replace the removed warning at User talk:Pierre cb. Users may normally remove warnings from their own talk pages at their discretion. You have continued to re-add the warning: diff. Therefore, if you do so again I will block you from editing to prevent further disruption. CIreland (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

CIreland - see comments above. Valid warning was issued. A 3rd party Tom took it upon themselves to conduct destructive edits to a user talk page in violation of [[1]]and also violate the three-revert rule. 3rd party edits to user talk pages do not fall within the scope of proper usage, and he has violated both of those repeatedly in the past. I trust you will agree to this and be civil about it. I have followed up with this on your talk page. Srobak (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Miami Vice

Thanks for your help, on the Miami Vice article, though I have a feeling we will both need to keep an eye out on it. _{El Greco}^(talk) 17:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - I have a feeling this is not the last we will hear from him regarding this and other matters. I'm gonna have to be quicker to Noticeboard these things in the future vs. try to prevent random newb edits. Srobak (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I find this comment most disturbing. You should not be trying to "prevent random newb edits", because we don't bite the newcomers and also you don't WP:OWN the articles you watch. Instead, you should welcome new users, assume they are trying to help, and engage in polite discussion with them when they have concerns. Mangojuice^talk 15:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not the new user trainer on staff today, sorry. While your expectations might be more forgiving in letting new users arbitrarily learn and practice their edits and contributions on long-standing articles - mine are not. When I see an anonymous IP without a user account (new or otherwise) come and delete a LARGE chunk of standing, previously cited information (for years mind you), regardless if the link is dead (beyond the control of ANY editor) and replace it with un-cited information (which his first couple edits were) on a page which I contribute to and repeatedly revert it - then YES, it is gonna get my attention. Other users involved had already advised the user in question to create an account, play in the sandbox and not in live articles, cite the info, yadda yadda. At some point - the burden falls on the anonymous or new user to learn "how to help" and that is what they need to take upon themselves to do. If this entire deal wouldn't have started out that way then maybe four different standing, contributing editors to that page wouldn't have been blanketly reverting his "contributions". Srobak (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Most interesting. You removed the notice of the 24 hour block you received over your actions and even now, after it's been clearly shown by an Admin that I was both correct and provided the necessary sources which were ignored, thus creating the entire issue, as well as that there was no "vanadalism" or "sockpuppetry", you're still talking about needing to watch things and "prevent newb edits". Perhaps you need to consider first whether the "newb" is correct, and whether you have actually read the info provided as opposed to assuming you have some special dispensation to decide right and wrong. Just a suggestion which you are of course free to ignore.

Have a great day!

FMChimera (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That may be the single longest run-on sentence I have ever read. Yes, I removed the block notice as it no longer pertains. I am free to edit my talk page as I see fit, as are you of yours. Why that is a problem for you is beyond me. Initially, your "newb edits" were just that. As I stated above - at first your massive deletion of standing, cited material and its replacement did not substantiate your claim. I'm sorry - but a random picture of a car on a random discussion forum just doesn't hold water vs. standing, cited article contributions. As Mango addressed to you elsewhere - links to fansites are not prohibited, but using them as points of reference is not good practice.

The whole "if it is on the internet then it must be true" approach is exactly the thing that WP is trying to avoid by citing real, valid, and credible sources. If I create a web page on my server stating that grass is pink and then I cite that page in an article about grass and claim it as being factual - that doesn't exactly work, and I don't expect it to.

In the end, I am glad that you finally created an account vs. remaining anonymous, dynamic IP - it gives you that much more credibility, nevermind your cites, and you will see it will go a long way to that end on all the articles you contribute to, and I am also thankful for the edits you made with the parts that are tangible, credible sources. So long as that keeps up - then there will not be many issues, with anyone on any article. Srobak (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Theatrical/director's cut

I moved the list on Miami Vice to the talk page. I hadn't see the history prior to the removal (just saw your revert of Darrenhusted (also sent him a notice on the list)), but all of the content is stored on the talk page, if anyone wants to whittle it down. I invite you to comment there for discussing what content should remain. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism warnings

Piling on warnings with no additional activity as you did with User_talk:217.44.246.176 is not the way to go about dealing with vandalism. Be patient and assume good faith if the vandal has stopped editing after an initial warning. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Thanks. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The user continued to vandalize the page, after the other wiki user warned them against doing so. Checking the page history and the warning history will reveal this. It is obvious it is a vandalism only account, and it is safe to assume bad-faith in this instance. Please address accordingly, and block the IP. Copying to your talk page. Srobak (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The IP's last edit was at 19:56 [2]. The warning was placed on the IP talk page at 19:58 [3]. The warning was left 2 minutes after the IP's last edit. The IP made no edits after that time. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that the vandal was scared off by the warning. I hope that you will remove the v4im message that you left because it was placed inappropriately and that type of warning is not appropriate for simple childish vandalism, but it is intended for serious and blatant vandalism. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing the timestamps again, will act accordingly and update. Srobak (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed that is the case. Original user posted warn after 2 different sets of vandal reverts. Thought the warn was in between. 00ps. :) Reverted my warn Srobak (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Snowmobile

My edits to snowmobile were not vandalism. The last one in particular, which you undid and warned me for vandalism, removed the link to ski-doo in the See also section because it redirects to Bombardier Recreational Products, the very first link in that section. My edit summary was quite clear about this. I'm pretty sure WP:ALSO doesn't allow unnecessary duplication of links. Regardless, all my edits are in good faith.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection, Bombardier Recreational Products is the second manufacturer listed in See also section.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

the existing BRP link is sufficient, though the outright deletion of standing material should be carefully considered in your future edits so as not to be considered vandalism. Please also register an account if you are going to continue participating in WP. Srobak (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Eric Clapton sound files

Hi, problems with their copyright status, in particular the fact that 12 are used in the article, and that there's precious little supporting description in the article text. Are you able to help with determining which ones (probably four) should stay? Tony (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Storey

Storey [4] is not the same word as story [5], even if they're spelled the same in the US. The article, as far as I can see, is in UK English. As you say, keep it consistent. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Burj khalifa

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

Regarding your revert and warning

Thanks for trying to make Wikipedia a better place, however this revert of an automated process being ran by a bot wasn't helpful. The bot is re-categorising, and whilst the contents of that talk page were changed, no real comments made by a person were refactored, meaning this warning was un-necessary. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 15:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Editing other users talk pages is indeed bad practice despite having good intentions - per the notice given - and is also fairly pointless on individual user talk pages vs. article talk pages - where the real cleanup is in fact necessary - not to mention being rather resource intensive. A lot of this should already be apparent, and I recommend that you might give some reconsideration as to the activity and purpose of your bot - whose functionality would be much better served on article talk pages. Srobak (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Srobak, you will see that "fixing links" is listed as an appropriate edit to another user's comment. This bot is running through pages which are in a renamed category, and fixing links to the category, which is very useful. And the bot may in future be fixing categories in articles too. Regarding the resource issue, bot policy points out that performance is unlikely to be an issue, and not something to worry too much about. Also, I would not belittle the time Nja has put into this by saying that you personally feel that there are more important things to do. While there may well be, that does certainly not mean we should ignore smaller jobs. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

AKG Acoustics

Listed below is your reference.DeeplnsideMioAkiyama (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.newstin.co.uk/tag/uk/166676972

References go in articles - like the 7 historical notes above yours (see the superscript?). They do not go in individual user talk pages.

Can you please point me to the directions on how to add references? Thanks.DeeplnsideMioAkiyama (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind.DeeplnsideMioAkiyama (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:February 2010

Ummmmm...excuse me? Yes, you are correct; it is generally prohibited to refactoring others' talk comments. I blocked DeeplnsideMioAkiyama for Disruptive Editing and Vandalism. Following that, I reverted all their recent vandalism. Their edits to your talk page were vandalism so fine, my bad. On a side note, I realize it's very difficult for you to do so, but I would like to remind you to make a conscious effort to AGF and consider the whole situation before acting rashly and immaturely. I understand you may be feeling self-righteous and angry but this but know templating with a vandalism warning is absolutely not the correct manner to address others' mistakes. Good Day. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Parts of your message above are a bit cryptic - but I will do my best to interpret and address. To start, I might suggest that you take your own advice about considering the whole situation - as viewing the edit history by DeeplnsideMioAkiyama in both AKG Acoustics and on my talk page would yield that he was obviously a new user. Granted he should have been sandboxing to learn, but I don't believe it to warrant wp:biteing and blocking - so I would request you to give some consideration to reversing the block. To that effect - his contributions to AKG were in fact valid, and other than his deletion of the K-240 - were not destructive or vandalism in nature. Regarding your reversions - it would probably do best to actually review the pages and contents individually before kicking off a blanket reversion. Not doing so is not editing in good faith or good practice on your part, nor is not realizing that you are about conduct a destructive edit on a talk page. The assumption of good faith would indeed actually require some good faith vs. sweeping, blanket edits without bothering to actually look at what those edits are. Lastly - you were not issued a vandalism warning - or any warning, but merely a General Note advising that it is in bad form to conduct such edits on talk pages, especially on user talk pages. Srobak (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Tim Robbins

Regarding this revert: Please follow your own advice and actually look to see what you're undoing before you undo it. What you "undid" was proper formatting of the reference and updating of the filmography coding. I did not remove a reference there. Please look closer next time prior to handing out advice to "Read it before further editing." Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't template the regulars

I generally don't template established users. If you have an issue with an edit I made, a discussion is more useful. PDCook (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You are free to template whoever you chose - as am I, and I will - established or not. A bad edit is a bad edit. As an established user you shouldn't have to be advised not to create internal links to articles which do not exist. Redlinking is in bad form. If you wish to create an article and then link to, please feel free to do so. Srobak (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a good essay about this. See Wikipedia:Don't_template_the_regulars. PDCook (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of my addition

Please provide a reason why you reverted my link to snowmobile stud on the snowmobile article. PDCook (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

See above, as well as the edit summary for the reversion. It is also bad form to start redundant dialogue on the same page. Please stop. Srobak (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not make a redlink. The fact that the link is blue should be indicative of this. PDCook (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Your previous link was to a blank page, and was a redlink. Thanks for updating it. Srobak (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It was not a redlink after my second edit. Maybe you saw this version, in which I messed up the link, but within a minute fixed it with this edit. PDCook (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - i missed it. My apologies - sometimes quick on the trigger due to the large number of bad faith and vandal edits to snowmobile. Srobak (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

re: Phil Collins

I still believe having 3 paragraphs dedicated to the case is putting undue weight on the issue. One paragraph could just as well sum it all up. Nymf _talk/contr. 19:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That I agree with a bit... I thought it to be a bit long in the tooth for this article as well, and have been mulling over how to condense it a bit more without having it lose substance. One paragraph is even a bit repetitive. Srobak (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Eric Clapton

I have not changed the English variant on this page. I have reverted changes from UK to US English on a page about a UK person which is principally written in UK English. This is in accordance with Wikipedia policy - I have reverted such changes in the opposite direction in other articles. I shall continue to revert such changes, and I shall report you for edit warring if you continue to make such changes without discussion. I might add that it is exceedingly impolite to use a template on the talk page of an established user. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't make any changes. Pay attention and do not ever issue threats. That is also the only word in the entire article that is written in BE. Srobak (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You twice undid my revert of [this change]. I could only find "storey" and "honour" which were regional variants - both UK. Can you find any US English? (Other than in titles, that is?) You pay attention, please - I reverted an unnecessary change in accordance with WP:ENGVAR. I also attempted to discuss it here, but you ignored that and proceeded to add a warning template to my talk page. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That was a month ago, dude - and you reverted it back and I left it alone per your cite then, and has nothing to do with now. The most recent template was only a template, in efforts to get people to quit screwing with English forms per WP:Manual_of_Style. The constant flip-flopping - regardless who is doing it and to which form - is annoying un-necessary. Just because someone changed it does not mean you have to change it back - even though they did not need to change it in the first place either. If you notice - I also templated the person who changed it in the first place. Srobak (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It was you who asked for consistency, was it not? I reverted a pointless change which made the article inconsistent. I did NOT do what your template says - I have never changed anything to my preferred variation. I have reverted such changes in both directions and will continue to do so. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The O.C.

Just to let you know I have restored this edit which you had reverted of an IP. It was infact correct (see Trey Atwood). I have also removed the warning from their user page. Please be careful in future and WP:AGF. A level 4 warning for a correct edit is hardly going to encourage that user contribute constructively again. Best, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

oops indeed - I have not had my morning coffee... was looking at one article while editing another LOL. Thanks. Srobak (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Your message

With respect to your recent post, you should be aware of several points. Firstly, as mentioned by another editor earlier on this page, it is generally considered bad form to use templates and heavy-handed warning messages on established users. Secondly, please note that the edits in question were reverted because of new problems they introduced, problems that had previously been explained to the editor in question. I also explained the rationale for the reverts to that editor, especially how it is unrealistic to expect others to manually correct flaws in the script when it is easier to correct the script and re-process with it. (In fact, I even offered to help.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not template you. That was hand-written as your reversion introduced multiple problems to the page in question and further seemed to demonstrate potential harassment, and even advised how to better go about dealing with troublesome users rather than follow them around on WP. However, as I also mentioned in response to the earlier editor - if there is a fitting template for an infraction - it will be utilized. The establishment of an account does not negate ones ability or likelihood of their bad edits, abuse or infractions. If the shoe fits, it shall be worn. To that effect - it is equally bad form to conduct blanket reversions without fully understanding the scope of those reversions and the impact they have on articles that you do not normally contribute to or bother to review prior to executing said reversion. In addition - none of the problems that were introduced in your original discussion in his thread were in effect on the page in question, and as I stated in my original post to your existing discussion thread - your reversion actually re-introduced problems with that page. This is another reason why blanket reversions without proper, manual review are a bad thing and should be avoided. Lastly - as you had an existing thread on the topic on your page - your deletion of my post there while at the same time responding to it in your edit notes, it prompted an out-of-context response from me on your page and a subsequent out-of-context post by you on this one. This too is in bad form, and there was no need to fragment the discussion thread in the way you did. It is interesting and odd that a WP administrator needs so many of their own bad form items pointed out to them. Please use better discretion in the future on all these and other items which are listed in your talk pages as they are not conducive to the mission of WP. Srobak (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're presuming an awful lot in your posts. One, your claim that I didn't review the edits is utterly incorrect, as is your spurious claim of "following". Many of the articles in question have been on my watchlist for years, as is easily evidenced by an extensive history of contributions to television-related articles. When dozens of articles pop up on a watchlist at the same time, with edits that introduce problems, that is cause for concern. You're also completely incorrect in presuming that there was no review involved. The simple fact is that it is easier to adjust the problems with the script and re-process the articles than it is to expect other editors to manually edit each and every article to repair the newly created problems. That was clearly explained on the editor's talk page, as I'm sure you've seen. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You aren't paying attention. I'm done. This will just have to be dealt with another way. Srobak (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC/U notification

Greetings. Because you have twice mentioned civility issues to User:Prestonmcconkie, I felt you might wish to know that I've opened an RFC/U about this issue. Thanks. Omnedon (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Srobak. You have new messages at 86.139.197.245's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And to confirm what that Talkback says - it was me accidentally editing from a logged-out browser. -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Image galleries

Hi Srobak, greetings from Aotearoa New Zealand. User:Bwmoll3 asked me to let you know of any guidelines re image galleries. The guideline is at WP:IG, also see Category:Wikipedia image galleries. In general, any large collection of unannotated pictures of a USAF base would be better as an image collection on Commons. A couple of recent deletions->transfers of pages to Commons have happened this way. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Buckshot06 and thanks for the response. I have read over the information contained in the WP:IG link, and while I understand the guidelines listed - I don't think I can completely agree with the qualification of the emblem removals on JBLM_McChord_Field as exactly falling within those guidelines. Their nature are of an encyclopedic reference as they are emblems and logos of current and past assigned squadrons at the base. They are not pictures of the base itself as implied. They more resemble the images contained within the article for the US Air Force Portal, US Military Portal, etc. - than they do of an image gallery of the base. True those images were a bit large and did not contain any annotations - but those are both circumstances which are very easily changed and would bring far more encyclopedic value to the article than even the 3 images currently contained within just the Operational History portion of the article. That being said - if indeed it is still determined that the emblems are not appropriate within the article itself, then at the very least it would be prudent to capture and move those images over to the Image Galleries or The Commons and properly referencing them to the article(s) they were removed from, prior to removing them from the article. To date, this has not been done. Srobak (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. My usual practice is to exchange talkpage messages on each others' talk pages, which is why I was not aware of your response. User:Bwmoll3 gave me the impression that we were talking about pictures. However emblems are much the same. All are - often in historically different versions - accessible at the individual units' page. As a gallery, they do not illustrate directly activities on the base itself, which is the critical point. This is different from putting the historical emblem of a newly formed unit directly adjacent the section of text in which the unit first is associated with the base. The situation would be different if you had a photo of unit activities on the base which happened to show the emblem. However again in this case one would place it in text, rather than in a separate gallery.

This is why I argue that unit emblem galleries in the base articles are inappropriate. The proper place, as the policies indicate, is on Commons, well tied into the article by links. I agree this changeover should not be done precipitously. But if the emblem (or image) gallery has been deleted, why reinsert the gallery temporarily just to make a WP:POINT? If the images are now inaccessible to you, I'll place any version you would like to name in your userspace preparatory to a move to Commons, and if you want other help, please don't hesitate to ask. (Admin rights have got to be useful for something!!)

I'm quite happy to have this particular discussion on your talkpage. But please again add a header on my talkpage to say you've replied. Kind regards from Aotearoa, Buckshot06 (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobody re-inserted anything, or made a WP:POINT. As I said - I think that such emblems serve a purpose in the articles - so long as properly sized and annotated... nothing more was said and no other action was taken. I do think that the emblems and images in question should certainly be moved over to Commons if they are not going to go back into the article, as at the moment they are completely lost unless someone wants to go back in the history and find them... but this is only one of a few military related articles that I follow. If this is the type of editing that he and/or others have been doing - then there is the potential for hundreds if not thousands of lost images. Again - I think it would be prudent of the editors who are removing those images, like User:Bwmoll3 to place them in the Commons so they are not lost. They clearly do have significant value to the bases they relate to, the articles, and wiki in general. Srobak (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• One of the good things about Wikipedia is that nothing is really "lost", as the image gallery being discussed is easily found in a previous version of the article. Unless the images are deleted; which is something that was not done. I have mixed thoughts on this issue also, as unit emblems are part of the history as well as a symbol of the current units assigned to the bases. Now, while we don't want to have a large gallery of emblems on the page, a small < 5 gallery of images I DO think is appropriate. However, the present guidelines discourage that.. and I believe that should be revised. Now, with regards to historical emblems; it's not difficult to create an image gallery over on Commons.. and also that is where all of the graphics should be placed. PNG format with transparent backgrounds. I've spent a great deal of time moving many graphics over there and converting to that format. Having a gallery on commons for a base, can include all sorts of emblems; photos, or anything else, and can be linked to the page easily.. Those are my thoughts on this.. Regards.. Bwmoll3 (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Bwmoll3 - I agree with most of your thoughts. The only real thing I have issue with I guess is the "it is never lost cause it is in the article history" approach. Most non-editors/contributors do not go back and look in the history of the article(s). As time goes by - those edits that link to the images will be buried - essentially "lost" to the common end-user of WP. This is one reason why I think they should be moved and associated asap. Just my $.02 Srobak (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Attacking Editors

Hi Srobak! I got your warning about attacking editors, but I'm not sure if it was warranted. Was it me accusing someone of being a random IP? I would like a bit of clarity. :) Thanks! Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoops - that was supposed to go on their talk page... not yours. My bad. LOL... deleting in a moment Srobak (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your advices!

Nice to feel not alone on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc Spoddle (talk • contribs) 13:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Phil Collins

Phil Collins IS filming a show at ITV studios in London on 28th June I was e-mailed by the official Phil Collins fan club to pre-register for tickets and this information is also being promoted on the Official Genesis Website.

http://www.genesis-news.com/news-Phil-Collins-Registration-for-London-TVSpecial-now-open-n164.html

have amended my original post but I think the information is valid in the 2009-Preent section as it is the only live appearance by Phil Collins in the UK this year to be announced.

"Register now for tickets to attend the Phil Collins ITV special: One Night Only

Phil Collins returns to London to host a one-off music spectacular for ITV, Phil Collins: One Night Only. The show will be recorded at The ITV London Studios on Monday 28th June. Doors open at 6:30pm.

If you would like to be informed when booking opens, then register your interest now.

Special ticket allocation for fans SRO audiences have reserved a special allocation of tickets for Phil Collins fans.

To access this allocation, state "Two Hearts" in the "Comments & Information" field on the application.

To unsubscribe from future Phil Collin's updates, click here"