Kept a few I might still want to refer to someday, remove as I think they become un-necessary
((helpme))
on talk page to summon help.An RFC on content you have commented on has opened, comments are welcome. MBisanz talk 01:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that, looks like the image did have a valid fair use rationale. :I
Whoever fixed it forgot to remove it from the "disputed images" category, and as such I accidentally swept it in with a bunch of other images. east.718 at 00:26, January 12, 2008
I apologize for creating an erraneous redirect from computer.com to Tiger Direct. I must've assumed that computer.com was a part of Tiger Direct or something near there. Thanks There are 10 kinds of people: those who understand binary and those who don't. (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
see comments below. Your discusiion was sensible and I wonder if you'd be willing to weigh in now and try to improve the situation at Dark Ages.
I have just read through 50 pages of Talk on Dark Ages, and it reveals a Wiki article that is in deep trouble. 29 people contributed comments complaining about the one-sided polemics against the term "Dark Ages." 7 people argued that to talk of the Dark Ages is invalid and that the article need only represent this one point of view -- but mostly the rejecttion of diverse views is the work of two people, stbalbach and Doric Loon. Loon compliments stbalbach for "assiduously maintainging and defending this article over the years," meaning, beating back all other contributors and defending their personal POV. They don't seem to be ashamed that during this time the artcle lost its status as a Good Article, way back in Mary 2006. Some defense! In the talk pages, stbalbach and Loon state openly that they consider the Dark Ages not dark, and that their opinion is the only valid one, and the only one that may be included. For ex, stbalbach: "Its impossible to defend the use of the term (Dark Ages) with what we now know." Any alternate, referenced quotes or information are undone and dismissed as not good references. This is Orwell's 1984 - some pigs are more equal than others. Marskell said it very well back in 2005, and its still true now in 2008: "It's disappointing to see revisionism has won out. 'the middle ages were not dark, therefore there can be no causes of darkness...you see stbalback beecoming a crusader...it is still possible to walk into a respectable university and hear the Dark Ages discussed...unfortunately readers of wikipedia won't be able to find out...." One poor user of Wiki wrote his frustration on teh talk page, that none of the information he was hoping for on The Dark AGes was here, just polemics. His complaint was trashed. This page is crying out for arbitration, to stop a small number of people from domineering and preventing balanced POV. It's time to rebel against the dictatorial rule of stbalbach and his henchwomen. I am fairly new to Wikipedia. Judging from stbalbach's page, he is very active - does that make him impregnable or is there something that can be done? There is really no point in trying as individuals to improve the article while he is in place as the self-appointed Dictator of Truth. Now is the time for concerned people to speak up. If you agree that stbalbach's reign of power should end, and the article should include references that support the term Dark Ages, and explain why, so as to have a balanced POV, please speak up now. More experienced Wikipedians - what can be done?--Cimicifugia (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Cimicifugia
.
Thanks for fixing up that photo I uploaded. It was a scan of a 35mm print and the colour was never ideal. Your rework is an improvement! - Ahunt (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Craig,
It is a bit late, but I have replied to the discussion on the talk page of Air New Zealand flight 901, about the possibility of their weather radar showing the land beneath them. BTW, that same WX radar CAN pickup and display small blips, when other aircraft are in the area too. [[1]] EditorASC (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)