Translation

Select text and it is translated.
This area is result which is translated word.

User talk:NuclearVacuum

This is a Wikipedia user page.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NuclearVacuum.


Contents

Fair use rationale for Image:KPRF.svg

Image:KPRF.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


Fair use rationale for Image:Volk Nu pogodi.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Volk Nu pogodi.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Great work

Great work on creating/adding the Russian cities Infobox to the Russia article! Also, I reverted your other edit because according to Article 1 of the Constitution, "The names "Russian Federation" and "Russia" shall be equal".--Miyokan (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Your interesting articles

Hi there, I come here as a result of a concern expressed here about these pages. As I said there, I don't think they're doing any harm (although other admins may disagree with me), but User pages sometimes get mirrored on to other sites and these pages could be mistaken for real WP articles. Could I suggest you place a disclaimer at the top of each one similar to the one on your UserPage? That way, everyone is covered. Unless, of course, these pages aren't going to be around for long, but you've clearly put a lot of good work into them and I see no reason to lose that expertise. Regards, --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's saying you're doing anything wrong. There would be concerns if this is all you're doing, but it isn't. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I meant that if you were using your user pages as a sort personal webspace without contributing to the encyclopedia, this would not be acceptable, but I've taken a look at your edits and you contribute constructively. As for the tag, the one on your user page should make it clear on mirror sites that people are not viewing a real WP article. Given that there are unusual names on your pages, a Google search would be quite likely to turn up one of your pages if it was mirrored. That's all. Don't give up, however, you are producing great work here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Further to Rod's message, NV, you have pictures of living people with the title "Führers of the United Oblasts". Fuhrer is a very loaded word and shouldn't be applied next to images of living persons - please would you either replace the images, or change the wording (from "Fuhrers" to "Leaders" or something similar). I'll check back in a couple of days and change it if needs be, but I'm sure you can come up with something more appropriate yourself. Thanks. Neıl 14:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Would you like your picture next to the word "Fuhrer"? Change it yourself, please, as I asked above, or I will change it for you. Neıl 20:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Sorry for sounding threatening but we have to be especially careful with anything relating to real, living people (such as their pictures). Neıl 21:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop

He's obviously read it. You're not accomplishing anything useful by continuing to post there. Friday (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop (2)

Please do not reinsert the poorly-sourced and nonsensical material into vorarephilia. None of the "sources" passes muster per WP:RS, and most of the content is more of a personal essay or opinion anyway. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Your userpage

Wikipedia is not a free webhost. It is not here for you to hold information or images for fictional locations that you have made yourself. Over 400 of your less than 700 edits to Wikipedia are related to your user page. Right now, the only content of this page that is in anyway helpful to Wikipedia is the first edit you made to it, which was just the language userboxes. If you want to put this information somewhere, Wikipedia is not the place to do so. As such, I have deleted your user page, and solely restored the first edit you had made to it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The code of your userpage can be found here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

About my Userpage (for now)

After the "United Oblasts incident" (let's call it that), I have promised to clean up my userpage so I will no longer contain my ideas and other "day dreams" I have. But I will continue to post on Wikipedia and continue to use my userpage for some of my day dreams (witch will only be on for a [if possible, two week long] temporary basis). If they are not worth my trouble, I will delete them, but if they are worth a continuation, I will post them on a new wiki page I will post in the future. This does not count my projects (my editions to wikipedia that might take some time to complete). While I am working on them, I place them in my Userpage for safe keeping, until they are complete and ready to go in the article. Template:Union Republics and Template:Russian cities would be my first two projects that were completed.

For those of you who actually liked my ideas, I will give the new web address when it is available. It's pretty funny, after this whole incident, I have no idea how many of you actually liked my ideas. If you did, please comment on this (it would really make my day to get some positive replies on my talk page). — NuclearVacuum 22:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Even when I complained about your page at the complaint site I said I did like it. The problem is that wikipedia is simply not the place for such stuff. Please understand this. Several people told you so. As I've told you already, a good place for pseudo-wikipedia humor and hoaxes is uncyclopedia. I am sure there is many other jokular wikis. Mukadderat (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Mila Kunis

Hello. Non-free images such as Image:Jackie Burkhart.jpg may not be used to illustrate biographies of living people per non-free content criteria 1, which states: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". A free image depicting this actress could be created, so the image's use here is not covered by Wikipedia's non-free content policies. Please also note that flag icons should not be used in birth information in infoboxes per Wikipedia's guidelines on the use of flag icons. --Muchness (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSFLAG guidelines state: "The use of flag icons in the birth and death information in a biographical article's introduction and/or infobox is strongly deprecated, as flags imply citizenship and/or nationality". If you disagree that the guideline should apply to this article, can you please establish on the talk page that there's consensus to ignore the guideline in this case before adding the icon back to the article's infobox? --Muchness (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:United States cities issue

Beautiful work. At the moment, it's giving the wrong pop. figures for at least Los Angeles and Chicago. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, I was thinking the pop. figures were automated. At any rate, I made the corrections. All the best.—DCGeist (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Russia Culture

You made a nice job, thanks a lot, very nice addition to the culture about Russian cartoons Pakhomovru (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Your reversions

From what I see there has been *no* decision supporting your edits. You have refused to compromise on anything, which is completely unacceptable. Just because you created the template does not mean you WP:OWN it. Your trying to get support for "standardization" will not work as each template is different. Furthermore, "standardization" does not concern trivial matters (2 images instead of 3, abbreviations instead of the full text, Tnavbar), only the main format of the template has to be the same, which it is.--Miyokan (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You ignored an important point. "Standardization" does not concern trivial matters (2 images instead of 3, abbreviations instead of the full text, Tnavbar), only the main format of the template has to be the same, which it is, which completely deflates your argument. Writing the whole name does not "make the template too big and runny, very unpolished", on the contrary, there is plenty of room to fit the text, and there is a huge gaping gap. Putting the abbreviation does not tell readers anything, they would have to click on the text to actually understand what it means. Actually look up the definition of "abbreviation" - "abbreviations were often used to save space and effort when writing", which does not apply here as there is plenty of space. And also, no, your unilateral decision to categorize the templates does not mean they are "standardized" (also note, I was the one who actually made it into a template).--Miyokan (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I have just seen Template talk:Mexican cities and it looks like another user, User:Supaman89, does not agree with your "standardization" of the templates and agrees with my position. Furthermore, it appears that you did not create the table at all as you so often claim, but merely copied the Mexico template that someone else created.--Miyokan (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Building process

I see you've been on Wikipedia for seven months now. That's a good amount of experience, but not necessarily enough time to become familiar with all of our policies (I don't claim to be familiar with every one of them either. Lord knows, there are a lot). You should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. The fact is, you made up a very nice template. Once you hit the edit button and made it part of Wikipedia, that meant it was no longer yours. Working from that template, I made up a different one—one that better serves the United States article, where it replaced the one you made up, which had in turn replaced a long-standing, smaller, in-article table. The template I made up combined the design virtues of the one you contributed with the depth of information on each metro area that the older table possessed. (Listing twenty cities, by the way, is just too many for the overview article in question. We expanded from five to ten with the move to the template, and I think that's sufficient.)

So...that's the way Wikipedia works: people contribute, building on what people before them have done. I'm sorry you thought something untoward was going on, because nothing was. In fact, when I first drew up the ten city/metro area template, I made sure to acknowledge what you had done on the Talk page: Template talk:U.S. cities and metro areas. All the best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Template:United States cities. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you.
You should specifically be aware that redirecting from one article/template to another with different content—as you have done repeatedly with Template:U.S. cities and metro areas—is an abuse of the redirect command. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Redirect#What do we use redirects for? Suppressing an article/template because you don't happen to like it is not one of the things we use redirects for. If you believe that Template:United States cities best serves the United States article, then make a case for it on the article Talk page as I have done for the later version of the template. I note from the article's revision history that another editor has already made clear that the version of the template you devised (and clearly feel you own) does not best serve the article.—DCGeist (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

3-revert warning

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on United States. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. 3 reverts in under 22 hours: [1]; [2]; [3]. Solo edit warring hardly demonstrates that you're truly interested in "working together."—DCGeist (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


AfD nomination of Potential superpowers

An article that you have been involved in editing, Potential superpowers, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potential superpowers. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Daniel Chiswick (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Mexican cities

Hi man, as I explained to you in the edit summary, when you run your PC at a 800x600 resolution it doesn't fit pretty well, here is how it looks that's why the table was formated in a way it would fit fine, on the other hand I do appretiate your editions and I think you know more about wikitables than I, that's why I'd like to ask you a favour, six months ago I saw something like this and I think it would look pretty good in our table, but I don't know how to do it, maybe you could help me out on that one, cheers. Supaman89 (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sup man, I do can change the resolution but I just wanted to show you how it looked at that size (cuz a lot of people have it like that) and it has to look good in all sizes, right?. Regarding the arrows thing, it wasn't in this template, I saw it in another one around 6 months ago and I've been trying to find it ever since to try it on this template, (The image I showed you was made in Paint, looks real ain't it? XD) anyways I'm pretty sure it can be done I just need to find out how, maybe when I finally know how to do it it won't even look that good after all, lol.
BTW, it's ¿Hablas español? and yes I do, saludos. Supaman89 (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is how it looks with 2 pics at a 800x600 resolution, the red lines show how much it outfits the screen, mate. Supaman89 (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours, due to your edit warring at Template:Russian cities‎. In future please consider using the dispute resolution process to deal with such disagreements over content. TigerShark (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware that there was such a help process here. You should have informed me about this before blocking me, not I can't even use this new piece of information. Please reconsider your actions and please give me the right to defend. — NuclearVacuum 16:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Flags

Please look very carefully at the two versions - you have indeed deleted certain small details in the name of window-dressing decoration with flags; e.g. the first version mentioned when German was the official language of Namibia, yours does not. Small but valuable details which should not be cast aside. The old three-step hierarchy also gave a much better idea of the prevalence of German in each country - i.e. those in the first bracket had widespread German use, those lower down have use restricted ot certain municipalities. This has been lost in the grand one-size-fits-all alphabetisation. A version with flags and all the information would not be so bad, but the onus is on you to produce it. However, the use of flags in infoboxes like this is far from universally welcomed - see WP:FLAGCRUFT. What do they really bring to the article? I'd suggest making a case at the talk page. Knepflerle (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Map wording

Is there any particular reason why the wording on the potential superpowers map was changed? The changes certainly don't help the map's accuracy: America is a continent, not a country, and Europe and the EU are not the same (Norway, Switzerland and a few others are not part of the EU).--71.112.145.211 (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Indian Cities Infobox

Hey,

Thanks for the infobox on the india page that you made with the largest indian cities. I hope no one else is oppposed to it, because most other country articles have such a box. great job once again. Nikkul (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

UK cities

Hello, I noticed you made a change without replying to some comments at Template:United Kingdom cities. I think the crux of the issue here is that you've perhaps overlooked that Manchester is considered the UK's second city ([4], [5], [6]), regardless of city size. I suspect this is why, understandably, Joshi has expressed it should be included. I think it would be curtious to engage him on the talk page. There have been three people on the talk who've expressed a dislike for Birmingham only. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Certainly pages like this have troubled me a bit now as to how you're likely to take this dispute. Regardless of how many reverts, I think it's always wise of any user to stress the importance of discussion first, rather than constant reverting with the intention of "winning".
I'm a sucker myself for consistency (and make that clear on my userpage), and so I understand your preference. However, I do see a strong case for Joshii's preference too, and so I think we need to talk out an amicable solution. Don't you? --Jza84 |  Talk  14:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Map on European Union

Why did you abandon the discussion on the EU talk page that you initiated? I think you had raised some very valid points. Unfortunately the article is still stuck with the teeny map version that you objected. I think that the least thing to do is to implement the current version such that it shows larger upon clicking and I had the impression that you think so, too. Tomeasy (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Superpower map

NuclearVacuum, the new map is in .SVG (high quality). Why restore that map? Felipe C.S ( talk ) 23:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry man, I wasn't trying to say the map was mine, people update maps all the time, I updated yours (people have updated mine, etc.), and it does say that it was made by you not me so I don't see what the problem is, I could upload the new map and create a new image but it would just be unnecesary space, I don't know if you got me here mate, cheers. Supaman89 (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

So.. what's the answer mate? if I upload the picture as a new file, I would have to replace the one in the article anyway so it would just be an unnecesary picture, so would you let me update the map as I did before so we won't have 2 maps? Supaman89 (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sup mate, actually we're discussing about this right now at the article's talkpage, we agree that Mexico, Brazil and India are obviously not in at the same level as Russia, China and the USA, that's why we're thiking on separating the article in 2 sections, please join us in that discussion, see you there. Supaman89 (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
A random and picky point, but the Malvinas are not marked as part of the EU. That an individual member of the EU was able to fight a war to assert its sovereignty over them halfway around the world is very significant to showing the ability of Europe to influence events around the world militarily.Somedumbyankee (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I just reverted a change of yours with this diff. Please discuss changes at the template's talk page. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I await your justification on the talk page regarding your 2nd revert. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Y/N

Hello NuclearVacuum! Talking about the template, I prefer the "—". It is more neutral than that scandalous red "X"... Felipe C.S ( talk ) 20:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay! Thank you! :D Felipe C.S ( talk ) 20:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
With Inkscape. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 21:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

UAR (disambiguation)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of UAR (disambiguation), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: UAR. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I have now fixed this attempted page move which resulted in a copyright infringement. Please see Help:Moving a page for more information about how to move a page. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Potential great powers

Can you help to improve the article? Felipe C.S ( talk ) 22:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Mexican cities/metro areas

Can you explain your rationale behind reverting my edits at Template:Mexican cities? These are not cities, but metropolitan areas. Moreover, you reinserted a text that said "Mexico is the biggest country in the world" [7]. Is there a reason for your edits?--the Dúnadan 16:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Then the template should not be used - or alternatively I can create a template with the exact same code and call it "template for metropolitan areas".
You see, the population therein reported are those of metropolitan areas, hence the title "core cities" and not "cities" on the second column of the template. By reverting me you are misinforming the reader into believing that Mexico City has a population of 19 million, whereas it is actually Greater Mexico City the conurbation with 19 million inhabitants.
I will revert you once again, but I have no problem at all in meeting you at a Dispute Resolution panel if you wish.
--the Dúnadan 16:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Templates of cities

Okay mate, I'll support your opinion, I just wrote a small comment, if they discussion keeps going I'll try to keep commenting, saludos. Supaman89 (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry. I have no willingness to discuss at the aforementioned template of the United Kingdom. In the Mexican template, you have bordered on WP:OWN and WP:3RR by reverting, without a reason, perfectly valid correction to your misinformations. Those are not, I repeat, those are not Mexican cities, but Mexican metropolitan areas. I already directed you to the appropriate links so that you could read and tell by yourself, but you have ignored me, and reverted me. I will report this incident at both WP:3RR and at the Administrator's Noticeboard.
--the Dúnadan 18:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not threatening you, I am telling you. Please read my comments carefully, I said you have bordered on, which means you "almost" violated both WP:OWN and WP:3RR. --the Dúnadan 18:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Insulting you? Where? Gee... --the Dúnadan 18:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Your contributions history shows that you have been aggressively cross-posting, in order to influence Template:United Kingdom cities. Although the Arbitration Committee has ruled that "The occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice."1, such cross-posting should adhere to specific guidelines. In the past, aggressively worded cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that has resulted in blocks being issued. It is best not to game the system, and instead respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building, by ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

NuclearVacuum, I think this issue surrounding "Template:X cities" is getting out of hand, not just for the UK version, but other national variants. I'm concerned that you're persistence and distinct lack of edit summaries put you in poor standing with others. What would you say to a centralised discussion, that draws stakeholders/editors from each version to state what they think is the right way forwards? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think your actions of "popping back" every few days to do a series of three reverts (despite fierce opposition), without discussion, and without edit summaries is highly disruptive, and could be interpretted as gaming the system. You don't seem to engage with the opposition, and consistently so. I don't think you're far from an early stage mediation and that's my main concern here.
My second point was one that seeks to avoid the above scenario. I'm suggesting that we have a centralised discussion that invites editors of all these "city" templates to discuss if a) they want a consistent approach b) how rigid that should be c) what variants (if any) are acceptable d) where should these be transcluded, etc etc. That way, we can gauge broader opinion. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I think a discussion at Category talk:Templates of city populations would probably be the most befitting place to hold a discussion. Would you be happy about that? I could put something together tomorrow (it's now 1.30am where I am) if you like?
I have no ill thought of you, and don't think you need forgiving as such, I just think your approach with working with others hasn't been as good as it could, and, looking through some of the discussions, I think it'd be fair to say you're starting to get negative notoriety regarding this template. I think there will certainly be a need for variants of this template, but if we can codify what is and isn't permissable, I think that will go some way to resolving this issue of standardisation. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Why you reversed my edits? Felipe C.S ( talk ) 17:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It is a problem? I find, better, locate the images in the middle. Could you explain this little problem? Regards; Felipe C.S ( talk ) 19:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
There was no need, but it was done. Standardize templates, organize the articles. Myself who created the model that was being used, and thought it would be a good idea to create a more "wikify" template. Regards; Felipe C.S ( talk ) 20:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
You reversed my edits again? Why? Felipe C.S ( talk ) 20:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
You can not simply eliminate all my edits because you judge unnecessary. Open a discussion first, and we will decide what will be done. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 20:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It is just that? Resolved problem. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 21:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Largest cities of Australia

Hi there - I see you have been busy at this template. Please note I have no problem at all with the template and what it looks like but I have adjusted the span of cities to remove Albury. Not sure if you are aware but Albury is in New South Wales and lies on the border of Victoria (both different states in Australia). There is a large river than separates the two. Even joined together the pop'n does not equal the figure of over 100,000 people but of course if the template is called Largest Cities of Australia then Albury as a single city and Wodonga as another single city must be shown separately. Towards that end - in New South Wales, Wagga Wagga is a larger pop'n city than Albury. That said there may be a larger city than Wagga Wagga in terms of population and if so then it should go at number 20 rather than Wagga Wagga. Happy to discuss further if you need to.--VS talk 23:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:User:NuclearVacuum/Images

Category:User:NuclearVacuum/Images, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. VegaDark (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:CrystalRiver12345.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:CrystalRiver12345.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC) MilborneOne (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Good grief

Please stop assuming ownership of articles such as Template:Largest cities of the United States‎. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. The fact that you are resuming your silly behavior is both disappointing and pointless--it's clear that you are simply not going to get your way. Stop wasting your time and everyone else's and move on to some effort where you can actually be productive.—DCGeist (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-free images in userspace

Nuclear, why are you reverting User:BJBot at User:NuclearVacuum/Images? Image:Nu Pogodi 19.jpg, Image:Zayats Nu pogodi.jpg, and Image:Volk Nu pogodi.jpg are all non-free images and per policy, are only allowed in article space. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Template CSDs

I declined all your CSDs for those templates as that is not a valid speedy criteria. See Wikipedia:CSD#Templates. If you wish you can take them to TFD in bulk. Are these templates supplanted by some other template? If so, they would meet criteria T3. xenocidic (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please begin using the following code to request these deletions: {{db-t3|~~~~~|PlanetboxOrbit}} (note that is 5 tildes). Thanks, xenocidic (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The templates need to be tagged with the above message for 7 days before I can speedy them, please re-apply the correct speedy request to all those templates. Also, please do not replace the entire template - admins need to be able to see what is there and compare it to the replacement. Just add it to the top. Thanks, xenocidic (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Please remove the template from the pages it is used before requesting deletion OR wrap the deletion request with <noinclude> </noinclude>. Thanks, xenocidic (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Looks like we have to wait 7 days now. cheers, xenocidic (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I actually meant to not replace the entire navbox with the CSD tag, but no matter. I'm sure they'll figure out out. xenocidic (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Exoplanet image and artist's section

Main article: Gliese 581 c

I wish to inform you that these images are all that there can be. Because of the long distance, there is not a way to directly take a picture of these (or any other extrasolar planets) within our lifetimes. An artist's impression is all that can be for something like this. Also, taking up a section for art is not unnecessary for Wikipedia. Wiki commons is part of the Wiki sites and is made specifically for images.

You should consider making an account here. Just anonymously editing and discussing here is not very wise to do (you may not be taken seriously at first). Also, your work looked like vandalism, so please do not bad mouth a user with blocking. — NuclearVacuum 01:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. 24.77.204.120 (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


I didn't count how many times you violated the three edit rule that would have gotten you blocked but you pass the limit by a long shot. Wiki Commons is not the article for Gl581c it is another site. Hypocrite, you defend the addition of the phony rip off of the Celestia texture of Titan and and the same time argue against artistic impression in the article. Others have said the opposite and if you had read and heeded the talkpage consensus you would not be acting like a vandal 24.77.204.120 (talk) 01:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR violation

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Related word on this page

Related Shopping on this page