User talk:B.Wind

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOTE to bot owners: I am now semi-retired and will be unlikely to respond to bot-generated posts in a fashion the program might even consider "timely." In addition, all bot-generated posts here are subject to removal without archiving by yours truly at any time. Posts that border on overkill will be returned to the sender's talk page. For a ridiculous example of such, check Talk:Miami-Dade Transit. B.Wind (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Contents

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. You may want to take a look at the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages.

I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers such as yourself:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 22:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Stubs

Thanks for the classification of the WV articles! It saved me a lot of time! (since I would have had to do it, and I'm swamped right now) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 07:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Glad to help out, but there is quite a bit of work ahead of you there... Several of your state route pages have ONLY the templates - no information about the roads themselves. B.Wind 08:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Penthouse models

They all came up in one hit because I found them all in one hit, splintered off the List of Penthouse Pets, where all the information that can be merged already is located. I apologise if the mass of nominations worries or confuses you. Saberwyn 09:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

No confusion here -- between the 1970 Penthouse models and the Hong Kong students, this morning's collection of AfDs resembled a theme package. Thank goodness for Mr. Cut and Ms. Paste for easy repetitive voting! B.Wind 09:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

One dollar Federal Reserve Note

I noticed the deletion debate here has fizzled somewhat, but I made some changes to the articles that may further illustrate the points I had been trying to make. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Paul 23:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Gladly! As a child, I collected coins and paper currency. I'll follow up both here and on your user page. B.Wind 03:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Here goes....

Hi Paul, I see what you're doing with U.S. one dollar bill. Your additions enhance the article, but I suspect that you'll (metaphorically) paint yourself in a corner with the different type of notes (USN, FRN, SC,...) here... and, most likely, a similar repetition with each of the other denominations. May I suggest the following (I think I mentioned it in the AfD discussion, but my short term memory isn't the greatest, either):

Set up a section entitled U.S. currency types (or more appropriate name). In it put the description of the red seal USN, blue seal (or brown seal) SC, Hawaii notes, yellow seal GC, etc. with a general description of the various types (after all, do we need detailed repetition between the $1 US Note and the $5 US Note?) and representative pictures of various denominations.

This will cut down on the duplications, and - more importantly - "free up" U.S. one dollar bill (and others) for sections dealing with the evolution of the design over the years. Ditto the other denominations. It will be more challenging for you, but in the long run the results will be far more rewarding for you and more interesting for the so-called "average" reader (I'm partial to the large notes that were circulated prior to 1920 myself).

I hope this helps. Good luck! I'll stop by from time to time and check (I'm in the middle of the Florida State Roads project myself - thank goodness I can write about my local streets!). B.Wind 03:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

FRNs

Your idea might be the best of all, as much as I liked my own idea it is a) cumbersome, I admit and b) not going to be popular, ever. I might give that a try when I get back into heavy editing (tomorrow or the day after - I seriously have no life and edit all day, but I'm taking a day off.) Anyway, I'm not sure what the best title would be...Issues of United States paper currency might be the best, to describe USN, FRN, FRBN, etc. Thanks for the idea and keep in touch. Paul 04:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry about popularity, Paul - just write the best article you can think of. If it's worthwhile, people will like it. B.Wind 04:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry

I hope I didn't come off like a jerk. My frustrations were more towards the people (mostly tha anonymous fellow) who were casting aspursions on my character. I also put a great deal of effort into creating the Angels Wake article. Anyway, I apologize to you or anyone else that didn't deserve it if I was rude at all. If you don't think the band is notable enough, fine. I respect your opinion. I just really like the band and since I know a bit about them and I honestly do think they're notable enough (even if it's just barely) to be included. I think any band or artist that can be verified (has a website that isn't geocities or angelfire), has at least one CD, has a reasonable underground following, has played a number of live shows (and gotten paid for them), gets airplay from radio stations (even indy ones) and has some sort of media coverage (Even if they aren't on the cover of rolling stone) should be considered notable enough to be included. Anyway, I hope you understand my position. I've added and edited several things now, and any constructivie criticism you would like to give me regarding past, present or future articles is welcome. Thanks! -Timothy R. --TaeKwonTimmy 04:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Tim, you didn't come off as anything close to a jerk at all -- you fought the good fight (albeit a bit overheatedly), and I hope that you realized that my contributions to the discussion were in the hope of helping you out. The problem was that your article arrived too early. Give it time, and if/when the band gets the notice that you believe it should get, that will the the proper time for an article. I wish you (and the band) all the best... and please don't let the editorial dust-up get to you. Not everything that is submitted for publication gets printed on the first attempt; not every article in Wikipedia survives an AfD. Good luck... and keep writing! B.Wind 20:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

In regards to your email, you can request that an administrator semi-protect your user page at [1]. Hope this helps --NaconKantari 21:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Many thanks, --NaconKantari. The request has been made. Let's hope this stems the tide of vandalism on my user page. B.Wind 22:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I've semi-protected your userpage: log. Contact me, or post an unprotection request at WP:RPP if you want it unprotecting. Izehar 22:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Many thanks, Izehar, for the semi-protection. Let's see if this will do the trick. B.Wind 22:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You can add the template {{sprotected}} if you want. I logged out and tried to edit your userpage and couldn't, so semi-protection actually works. It's a rather new feature, so we are all quite suspicious of it. I'm suprised you wanted your userpage semi-protecting, mine has been vandalised many times - I keep a vandal counter on my userpage :-) Izehar 22:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I may be putting another request soon. The revertbots and vandalism squad have been quite busy reverting vandalism edits... all from one immature anon. I have reason that this is the same one that was using my User page for target practice the first time. B.Wind 01:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Redirects and deletions

One of them being nominated was by User:SPUI - the reason he provided was this link; you might want to discuss this with him to see what he thinks. --HappyCamper 03:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  • It was improperly done, as I've mentioned both on your talk page and the redirect's talk page. If SPUI were that determined to get rid of it, the appropriate way was RfD, not CSD... or he could have done the proper thing and write the appropriate article in question. Deletion accomplished nothing positive, and (from the viewpoint of a few Florida State Roads editors who contacted me while I was away) the fallout continues. The feedback I received is that none of them are being respected by him, and his recent heavy-handed tactics (including the meaningless insistence on reporting the lengths of the roads to the nearest five feet... and usually on articles not started by him) are feeding to the general bad feelings. It's a shame as we are all here for the common cause, and if we work together with no personal agendas, Wikipedia's readers would be much better for it. B.Wind 00:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

'Redland' vs. 'Redlands'

It is entirely possible that there never has been a standard name for the area, and that both forms have been used. It is also possible that 'Redland' is an innovation. I see too many places where local writers construct a 'history' for an area from dubious information. Ah, the importance of credible sources. :)

The old books can still be cited, I've done so in articles I've worked on. The more accessible a source is, the better, but if you're using sources you found in a library, that should be fine. I have a number of 40- to 50-year old books on Florida here at home that my father collected. Unfortunately, none of them cover southern Dade County.

By the way, are you aware of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Florida? You can join by signing in the Members section of the project page, and there is no particular obligation involved. -- Dalbury(Talk) 11:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

You might be able to use the public records to find the answer. With [2] you can select a piece of property and click on the link to the left (after "Folio No.:") to find the plat book (first line of the legal description). This sometimes has the name of the area as platted. You can also look at the plat with [3] (uses Java) - the standard search for post-1974 plats and the old search for pre-1974. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Recently I've found a gold mine of such information - the details of the source can be found at Talk:State Road 908 (Florida). I found the book in the reference section of the library of Miami Dade College - Wolfson Campus, should anybody which to read it in downtown Miami (if they can't find another copy). B.Wind 20:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Florida State Road A1A Alternate

Greetings:

Regarding the discussion at Florida State Road A1A Alternate → State Road 707 (Florida), I would like to suggest that a redlink in this case would, in fact, be better than a bluelink.

User:SPUI is correct, as infuriating as that can occasionally be. Redirects which could plausibly target more than one article should not simply point to one of those targets. At the very least, it should be a disambiguation page. With this in mind, my initial thought was that I would disambiguate the redirect myself, and everyone could laud me for my Solomon-like wisdom.

However, after some investigation, it seems that Florida State Road A1A Alternate is linked only from one other article: State Road A1A (Florida). And the place where it's linked contains, as a parenthetical comment, the exact list of the roads that Florida State Road A1A Alternate turned into. In other words, the entries I would use to fill out the disambiguation page are already right there where the link to the disambiguation page would go. Which, I'm sure you will agree, would make a disambiguation page rather redundant.

One of the things we take into account in closing out RFD nominations is whether Wikipedia as a whole would be better served with a redlink or a bluelink where the nominated redirect currently exists. Redlinks encourage interested parties to add to Wikipedia's collection of knowledge and information. Bluelinks aren't always clicked on. And sometimes even when they are clicked on, people don't notice that it's a redirect. Or people notice that it's a redirect but may think that they can't expand a redirect into an article or a stub. Or they don't know how to do so.

As it currently stands, Wikipedia has a hole in its information where Florida State Road A1A Alternate should be. There appears to be an interesting history to this road, and I feel it would be better to encourage interested parties to add that history to Wikipedia. As pointed out above, a redlink would encourage this in a way that a bluelink wouldn't.

Since redirects which could plausibly point to more than one article should not simply point to one of those articles, and since I feel Wikipedia would be better served by a redlink in this particular case, I am exercising my prerogative as closing admin to delete the redirect, even though you have voted that the redirect should be kept. (The vote from the anon IP is being discounted, as anon IP votes usually are in most xFD discussions.) It is my hope that you find my arguments for doing so to be persuasive. If not, I welcome reasoned commentary. I have no emotional investment in this issue, and would be willing to reverse my decision if a suitably compelling argument were made. Feel free to respond either here or on my talk page, whichever you find most convenient, in the event that you would like to convince me of the error of my ways.

In any event, I felt that you deserved a fuller explanation of my reasoning than could be provided in the closing notes.

All the best.
Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I appreciate the message, but if you truly believed it, you would have not written it as if you were trying to convince yourself that the decision was correct. I have been told by numerous admins that a useful redirect is far preferable to a redlink. The deleted redirect was indeed a useful one, as it led to the one article that mentions the topic in depth. The actual motivation is not irrelevant: you made a call, and it was the wrong one. I now wash my hands of it and urge the proposer of the deletion (SPUI) or the admin who made the call to do the proper thing and write the article that they have in mind to replace the redirect, as the deletion made Wikipedia poorer, not richer, for it. B.Wind 15:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Compromise on precision

Do you have any objection to giving figures to two decimal places? This is what the FHWA rounds to in their Interstate Route Log and Finder Guide, and I have seen many other official records given to that precision. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • A 50-foot uncertainty (half the width of Florida State Road 94) is more realistic and reasonable than a five-foot uncertainty (half the width of a lane on the Overseas Highway). Let us remember that we are writing for the reader and not ourselves... and who is most likely to be reading the articles after we are finished writing them? B.Wind 15:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"When you fight an asshole, the asshole always wins."

Did you have any specific Wikipedia editors in mind when you posted this on your User page, or is it just a coincidence that SPUI seems determined to win at all costs? Where did you find that quotation? It's great! 147.70.242.39 00:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually, it's an original that I first posted in my www.xanga.com quotation page. The story behind it I'd rather not mention here, but I assure you that although it might fit that "certain Wikipedia author" (in which I would jokingly say "You win" immediately after saying that to him - if it weren't for his being most highly unreasonable in the revert wars that involve us). But I wouldn't say specifically who it is as it could violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, although he doesn't believe either of them apply to him. B.Wind 04:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

SR 582

What evidence do you have that this goes west of Florida Ave? Just curious. On its page you have stated that it goes to Lake Fern. TimL 23:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my contribution to that article has been limited to adding and removing a {{cleanup}} tag (and later realizing it should have been an {{expand}} instead). As I am not as familiar with Gulf Coast roads as I am with Atlantic Coast roads in Florida, I shall double-check my maps and make the necessary revisions, if any, unless someone beats me to the punch. B.Wind 23:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Rewrite is complete. It's not great, but it will do as a stub. I removed the information that I could not verify with the maps I have, and put a request for verifiable information on any prior configurations of SR 582. I hope this meets with your approval, Tim. B.Wind 00:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, if you need evidence of the Tarpon Springs extension of SR 582, I can send you some photographs, as well as some maps. In the meantime, I have to learn how to create my profile for this site. DanTD 20:49 23 May 2006

AfD N. Nagaraja

I raised a new issue at the AfD page that you might affect your vote. I'm contacting all the past discussants. --Kchase02 (T) 20:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

  • It doesn't change my vote at all, nor does it address the issues I raised in my discussion. It's a badly-written recreation of a deleted article. As for the issue of the person/people in question in the Bangalore assembly being (non)notable, the assembly is on the same notability level as a state assembly in a U.S. state or a legislator for a Canadian province, which in itself is insufficient. The article as it stands must go IMO. Thank you for the heads up! B.Wind 04:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your opinion. The relevant guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (people), indicates that members of provincial legislatures are notable, but I'm guessing from your response that won't do it. --Kchase02 (T) 05:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
If notability is based solely on participation in the legislative process on the state/province level, and nothing else, I'd say that it's insufficient. A freshman legislator in the West Virginia Assembly would not reach sufficient notability simply by being there; and the issue being raised was whether or not the subject of the article in question was there in the first place. To me, that is a nonissue based on the above reasoning. Even if the answer were "yes" the article needs a complete revamp to make it encyclopedic, and frankly, I do not know if it's worth the effort. B.Wind 05:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Effort for a questionable article over strict process. I can appreciate that. --Kchase02 (T) 07:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Page protected

I've semi-protected your talk page as the constant stream of vandalism is getting boring. Kcordina Talk 14:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Histories

Unfortunately, the software won't let you copy histories. Histories can be moved but not copied. (unless I'm wrong.) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no way to copy histories... the MediaWiki software won't let you do it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

List of longest running U.S. cable television series

The page looks good, your work is appreciated!--Son of Somebody 20:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Many thanks! There's much more to do, but it makes a nice break from writing road articles and getting in the middle of some hand-to-hand combat with a few of the more opinionated editors (and one in particular) who think they own all the road articles. This is therapy to me, and thank you for your support and indulgence... B.Wind 00:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey

I rock your comment on the Salo in Space AfD. Keep up the good work. - Francis Tyers · 10:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Gladys

The Original Gladys Holiday Greeting
For your hard work, insighful opinions and overall contribution to Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow, I hereby award you this Thank You, along with my sincere hope that you have a wonderful holiday season.

james.lebinski 18:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Song move

You gave me some good advice about moving and redirecting pages. Thank you.

Unfortunately, I made a real mess when I tried to move "Let It Snow" to "Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow!" When I did the redirect, I accidentally mistyped the title as "Let It Snow! Let It Snoe! Let It Snow!" (notice the "Snoe") and forgot to look before I leapt. If that wasn't bad enough, I then went to the Redirect page for "Let It Snow" and, instead of leaving the misspelling alone, I changed it to redirect to "Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow!" (the correct spelling), thus creating that page, which did not previously exist. Thus, when I tried to change the misspelled name to the correct name, I of course got the error that the other page already exists.

Not to mention that there were some double redirects when I looked in "What links here," which I was going to start to fix until I realized how badly I messed up the original move. (It turns out that someone had renamed the page in 2005, with no discussion, from "Let It Snow, Let It Snow, Let It Snow" to "Let It Snow," a move I would have vehemently protested if I'd been hanging around here at the time.)

I need some help to undo this. The simplest thing would be to delete the current "redirect" page for the correct title and resume from there, renaming my misspelled page and then looking at the redirects again, but I can't delete pages, and I know the rules about cutting and pasting. Cheemo 06:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As a follow-up, I posted my proposed move in "Uncontroversial moves," and an admin took care of it very quickly. I have also fixed any double redirects I could find. Thanks again! Cheemo 18:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Bob Crewe

You recently flagged this entire article for an alleged lack of references. The majority of the information in the article comes from the two listed external links -- a bio at the Songwriter's Hall of Fame website, and the Internet Movie Database. It would be more useful if you could tag only the specific portions of the article that you believe need sources. Thanks! -- Engineer Bob 00:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see my reply on your talk page. As someone who has been working very hard on various articles (mostly stubs, I must confess) about The Four Seasons (group), I wanted to make sure that there's a "heads up" in case someone on an article deletion kick wants to use the lack of references as a motivator (oh, and IMDB is not a reliable source - please see my explanation on your talk page). I hope this helps....B.Wind 00:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the quick response. My interpretation of Wikipedia:Citing sources is that the {{unreferenced}} tag is intended for articles with NO sources, yet the Bob Crewe article cites two sources (the IMDB was used in this article only as a source for birthplace/birthdate and filmography data). However, I'll see if I can add another source or two. -- Engineer Bob 07:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

State Road 836

Thanks for updating the page. I don't see why people that just paid an increased toll at the Turnpike and Bird have to pay again to get off at 107th for what used to be free. The county is raking it in, especially since they won't have to pay workers for that stretch. I wonder how many tourists are gonna get burned getting out of the airport with their rental car, heading for the turnpike, and first thing getting a ticket for not having a Sunpass. But then I am just a bitter old Miamian that voted for the 1/2 cent sales tax increase, just to see not only the tolls go up in cost, but them adding more tools on 874 and 836. Someone is making a dollar or two on this, and it ain't me. Thanks for letting me vent, too. :) CodeCarpenter 17:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Glad to do so - but I feel compelled to mention that MDX has nothing to do with county government as the Miami Dade Expressway Authority is a State agency, while the half penny tax is strictly for Miami-Dade County and municipal projects. The 836 extension (and other MDX projects) was paid by toll monies over several years (and, before I forget: over a dozen years ago, MDX broke away from another State agency, the Florida Turnpike Enterprise. Isn't State government wonderful?). The stated goal of MDX's open road tolling seems laudable enough: make everybody who use the MDX's roads pay proportionally for the use, but the project is a long way from attaining that desired effect. B.Wind 00:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Baseball player naming conventions

Thanks for your input into the proposed naming convention for baseball players (made either here or here... or both). Hopefully, the final tweak has been made to the proposed guidelines. If you get a chance, please review them here and add any comments/suggestions/feedback on the talk page. If there are no major issues, we'll put this thing to a straw poll in a few days, and if successful will then submit for inclusion on WP:NC. Thanks again, Caknuck 04:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Frankie Valli and The Four Seasons

I have nominated Category:Frankie Valli and The Four Seasons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me why I don't miss the editing side of Wikipedia one iota. My life is much too busy with things with actual substance than to deal with the nonsensical cliquism that pervade several Wikiprojects. Wikipedia is no longer about maintaining verifiable facts; instead it has become more a vehicle of self aggrandisement. At one time I thought I was helping the cause; now I no longer give a damn. I shall henceforth do the same as the cliques: edit only for myself, and only when I have nothing better to do. B.Wind (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Presidential $1 Coin Program

What does this mean? Speculation?

31 U.S.C. § 5112(n)(3)(E) specifically says:

“ The coins issued under this subsection commemorating Presidents of the United States shall be issued in the order of the period of service of each President, beginning with President George Washington. ”

That means they are issued in the order they serve, negating any possibility of issuing coins out of order of their service. If a president is skipped then any issuance after the fact would place that coin out of order therefore violating 31 USC 5122(n)(3)(E). There is absolutely no speculation there. None. Cburnett (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

First, "2008 Presidential nominee" would not be the appropriate term - whoever would take the Oath of Office on January 20, 2009, would be GWB's elected successor to the Presidency. Second, the act is silent on the possible situation in which, say, Carter dies less than two years of issue of "his" coin but a post-GHW Bush President died at roughly the same time. Your statement is an interpretation of the quotation, but the law itself is silent on the issue. A new law would be needed to resolve a possible/likely ambiguity should this issue arise. I'd strongly recommend stating what the law says here and not read between the lines. Interpretation can be considered a violation of Wikipedia's rule against original research, and the interpretation is really a speculation as to how the law can be applied in the future. B.Wind (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I just reverted back to Branddobbe's version (prior to having seen your response here). I don't know if that changes anything. I will reply to the rest of your post in just a second. Cburnett (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have no problem with the nominee bit. I am having trouble understanding the scenario you've outlined.

If carter dies in 2014 and is not eligible for his coin in 2016 per (n)(2)(E) because it has been less than 2 years. If Reagan's coin is issued then Carter will never get a coin per (3)(A) because it would be out of order. If at the time the coin after Reagan is to be issued and if no presidents (GWB or any successors) are eligible then the program terminates per (8). Where is the speculation? Cburnett (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

... and if GHW Bush is dead in time to be eligible for a coin, he will get his released. But now two years have passed since Carter's passing (per the scenario above). The law does not specifically mention such a scenario (even moreso if the President #44 or 45 doesn't live to 2014), and either Congress will have to pass another law to resolve the ambiguity or - if politics rear its ugly head - a ruling would have to be made, either by the courts or the Executive Office of the President at that time. Either way, interpreting and not simply stating what's in and not in the law is, in fact, speculation as to its possible future application. B.Wind (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I still don't see where the problem is, but that's probably from still not seeing things the way you are. Here's a timeline (I think) of what you're setting up here:
  • GHWB, Clinton, and GWB's successors all survive
  • GWB dies in, say, 2010
  • Carter dies Januay 2015
  • As of issuance of coin #3 in 2016 Carter hasn't been dead for 2 years, ergo he is skipped
  • Reagan gets coin #3 in 2016
  • GWB gets coin #4 in 2016
So your question is who (if anyone) gets coin #1 in 2017? And contending that the law is ambiguous and doesn't specify this scenario. In an assumption that it is and to avoid another round of messages here's my response to that.
After Carter is skipped for #3 in 2016 then he's done for and can never get a coin under the law as is. If no presidents are eligible for coin #1 in 2017 then the program is done. Carter is not eligible because issuance of him for #1 2017 would put them out of order; none of the other presidents are eligible because they are alive. Could you simply and plainly state what ambiguity you see because I don't see any whatsoever.
Your edit summary says you're done for the weekend so, if you would, please leave a message on my talk page when you reply again. Cburnett (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Split section

Hi, I noticed that you tagged Gothic Revival architecture with a splitsection, but did not start a discussion on the talk page. If I was going to split it, I would probably start with the "Famous examples" listings rather than the relatively few architects.Altairisfartalk 01:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Whichever you think best. I tagged it while I was cleaning up a lot of debris at WP:PM. Architecture is far from my expertise, but something needed to be done. Many thanks. B.Wind (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

List of television series canceled after one episode

In regards to the message you left on User:Steve Crossin page, I don't think he was the editor who initially placed that notice comment on the page. It looks like he just reverted a big unexplained deletion by [[User:powxmansal] here [4]. I don't watch the page, but it looks like that particular show has been a source of controversy that should probably be taken up on the edit page. Take care! Redrocket (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you, Redrocket. If it's been re-added as a revert, then I've cautioned the wrong person (well... sort of, as even a revert is a restatement of the threat) and the originator of the threat should be cautioned. I must confess that I came close to reverting the Viva Laughlin re-addition until I read the entry for a fourth time and found out why it was put into the list in the first place. How can the Australian "run" be emphasized and the CBS "run" de-emphasized? I'm not too sure right now. B.Wind (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you RedRocket, this is true. And you are quite correct B.Wind, threatening an edit war is not acceptable. However, I have not threatened an edit war, my edit summary could have been more detailed, but as RedRocket stated, I was not the editor who placed that comment. I was doing RC patrol, and saw the deletion, which I reverted. I assure you I would never engage, or threaten, an edit war. Would you be kind enough as to remove the comment from my talk page, and replace it with something about a misunderstanding? I'm currently under a fair bit of attack from vandals, and I hope to go for an RfA in a few months, so that sort of thing I could be criticised for, even though it was not my fault. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Steve, for your understanding. I've finally traced the original threat in the history about two months ago to User:Kevin586 (the hidden message makes its first entry here[5]. Good luck on your RfA when you go for it. If someone hasn't beaten me to it, I'll caution Kevin before returning to my current run of American Football League edits. B.Wind (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed the warning my talkpage and it comes as quite a surprise to be accused of inciting a edit war. Reviewing your discusson on this talkpage, You have the wrong creator of the hidden warning to the entry of Viva Laughlin in the article "list of television series canceled after one episode".
As I see it User:B.wind did not go far back in enough in the article history to realize that it was Yukichigai, who on November 6, 2007 [6] added what I considered an informal request that viva laughlin not be deleted, which I did later modify [7] .
My latest revert was only done because of an unexplained deletion by an anonymous user.--Kevin586 (talk) 04:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You wouldnt mind fixing the message on my talk page, explaining it wasnt my fault? That sort of message could get me scrutinised in an RFA. Steve Crossin (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I was posting a followup when you posted here. If it seems insufficient, I'll be glad to go more into detail if you feel it necessary. B.Wind (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Seems slightly insufficient, normally I wouldn't be overly concerned, but I am also currently mediating an edit war, trying to get the editors to come to a compromise, and that sort of message would make me look as bad as them, if you know what I mean. Steve Crossin (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • More detail/explanation coming up (again, with my thanks). B.Wind (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No problem, we all make mistakes, and I partially made a mistake, but it was a mangled edit I reverted. There was an attack message in it, but also restoring content. These things happen, I suppose. Steve Crossin (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Soccer ball

Regarding this post here, the ball is part of the generic Template:Infobox Sports league. the best place to discuss changing that is on the template's talk page, not on the NFL page, as that page has no dierect control over the soccer ball image. I've opened a comment at Template talk:Infobox Sports league, so we'll see what happens. - BillCJ (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC) - BillCJ (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sons of Noah--still fighting? ;-) don't need this conflict

Thanks for your comment on the the Sons of Noah article dispute that is on-going. If I could trouble you to visit the discussion page for Sons of Noah and scroll down to the bottom and post an opinion about the issue of adding a new article in place of the Table of Nations redirect. The original author is more inclined to delete any changes, edits, or alterations to his article and is opposing an improvements. I'm trying to avoid conflict here and seriously just want to make this article and wikipedia better by adding a sub-article that goes into more depth. If you can come up with a suggestion as a third-party I would very much appreciate it...and will (most likely) do something along those lines. More than 5 hours of my work was arbitrarily deleted and it is getting frustrating. Best regards. Hkp-avniel (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I'll take a look, but please be advised that the subject is well beyond my expertise. B.Wind (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I won't bother you with details. I've noted the lack of sources on the article...I tried to help him here, but I will instead go for a "commentary" approach on the passage in question. The original "featured article" was not at all like the current one. It addressed the racist implications of how the Table of nations was misued in the the past, and the current author has cast it in a different tone... I would rather not colaborate with someone who deletes the section deleting with racsim. If that's what you support, then so be it. Hkp-avniel (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  • It's not a question of whom I support. It's a question of what is the best way of improving Wikipedia. A "commentary" (i.e., an interpretation) would be an imprudent way to do it as it, by nature, is at least a POV and could be a synthesis. "Revert-revert" doesn't help; the alternative is to try to find some middle ground, if possible. I reiterate my suggestion regarding a Sandbox article as mentioned on your talk page. I hope this helps. B.Wind (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heartbeat (Scouting for Girls song)

Hi, do you have a link to UK chart look-ups for this song? The only one I had found was at polyhex.com, but it was at #64 and dated a few days ahead of the date I found it, which made me think it was a bad posting. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 12:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

  • From the first external link on UK Singles Charts, it's here,[8] with the song in question at #40, up from #64 the previous week. B.Wind (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Afd Robert Rock

As the nominator I have closed the Afd as non admin WP:SNOW per nom. yeah it does exist. It was only placed under afd because it had been hijacked by a bunch of kids (apparently) who thought that one of their buds should be the Robert Rock of the article. Robert Rock (UVF) was speedily deleted. Thanks for your imput. If you have any concerns about non admin closures of Afd, please reopen. -- BpEps - t@lk 05:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

High Price

The criteria for notable albums and notable songs are different. Per Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums , "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage." But Wikipedia:MUSIC#Songs says, "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."

This song has no mention of individual notability -- yet. If you can find some, I will hold off renominating it. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Watch the Billboard Hot 100 over the next two weeks and watch it enter the Top 10. Billboard has already reviewed it in its most recent issue. B.Wind (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paramax

Could I ask you to take another look at this AfD? I've moved the article to the appropriate title, expanded it and added a reference, which takes care of your stated concerns. The combination is used differently from either drug independently and there is also a suggested effect on paracetamol's absorption by metoclopramide, which suggests an article on this topic would be useful. There is a lot more that could be added, but I'm no expert in this therapeutic area. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Blow blow blow

Good work. Don't let them scold you, though. It's irresponsible to let a piece of crap sit around just so someone can claim faim with a process. Edit it when it stinks. The fewer hours or days or weeks any piece of crap is accepted on Wikiepdia the better the whole thing is.

There's a lot of scolding going on, though, on Wikipedia. I think there are a lot of people who don't socialize outside of cyberspace and seem to think that adults working together scold each other. I call it the daddy syndrome. Only time I've ever seen it used outside of cyberspace (one adult scolding another for a minor grammar matter) it brought days of laughter--as it should. --Blechnic (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impro-Visor

You voted delete for this, citing the need for "independent sources". I'm not sure of the exact definition of the latter. It doesn't seem to be an official WP term. Does it mean someone who likes it, a group of people who like it, someone who can supply it (on or off the web), a web page, ...? If it is purely web-based, then perhaps pages not marked for deletion could display their independent-source references, so that we can learn what is required.

Thanks.

Rmkeller (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Check WP:V and WP:RS for further information regarding this. In the context that I was making, the source for citation should be independent of the company who made it and the inventor who created it. A review from an unbiased sourced would be ideal, so would independent news coverage. I hope this helps. B.Wind (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I've added links to two published papers, both of which were refereed by disinterested parties. I've also linked to the user group, which has over 1200 members. If that's not enough users, what would the threshold be? Do I need to publish testimonials? There are lots of similar products in this area that don't have as much supporting info, but which aren't flagged. Rmkeller (talk) 05:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe so, but that is not a justification for keeping your article - it likely means that there are more articles that need to go to WP:AfD. If you think so, you - as a registered, signed-in, editor, have that option, but be very sure of the policies and guidelines mentioned on the AfD page before nominating for deletion. B.Wind (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ref: Rail transport in Argentina

Hey B.Wind, thanks for quick response, I'm not sure if a should answer here, anyway I'm still in doubts about Rail transport in Argentina, it still redirects to Transportation in Argentina, it seems that Rail transport in Argentina has not been released. I consider mysef a good editor but not really "protocol saby. We would like to canalize all rail articles into one, as other countries, Argentina is experiencing a rail revival, Will it be bold? it'll be spectacular, we have a good team. Kind regards ~ Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Moebius, if you have an overall article covering Rail transport in Argentina, go ahead and write it (with sources) - that's what WP:BOLD says. For the other articles that you mentioned, put them in [[Category:Rail transport in Argentina]] and you'll be fine. Redirect pages are not "released" - but unless they are protected, and I didn't see any protection on this one, they can be overwritten easily. Just write the article after clicking "edit this page." I hope this helps... and happy writing! B.Wind (talk) 01:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • …OK, "think" i got it, will get back on monday if i have any problems, the other articles are just links, thanks and happy weekend! ~ Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 02:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey you all, in regards to "Rail transport in Argentina", something that seemed so hard turned out to be so simple, Rail transport in Argentina is on it's way, thank you all for being so cooperative,, Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical revisionism (negationism)

Would you please check the related article? Do you think it needs an expert too? --Ludvikus (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I'll double-check. I tagged the "negationism" article (per WP:D the article should be moved there) as it comes across as too POV, but since I am not as knowledgeable as I'd like to be with that aspect of historical revisionism, I thought it more prudent to ask for the view(s) of an objective third person who knows much more than I do before I can ascertain what needs to be done here: leave it alone (unlikely as the format doesn't quite fit WP:MOS in my view), merge it with Historical revisionism as being simply a subtopic of that term, or recommend a cleanup at the new location as a worthwhile "stand alone" article. Based on my limited knowledge of the territory, it would appear to be a good "merge" candidate, but I want to see what the independent expert has to say. One thing is certain, there seems to be too much editorializing in the article as it stands right now. B.Wind (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • While it is not as badly POV as the (negationism) article, the Historical revisionism is in dire need of restructuring - the first section is huge! But all the {{fact}} tags and the hard-to-read prose have convinced me that the article needs a fresh pair of eyes. Still, I don't have enough information to make any other judgments about it should it (or the other article) make it to WP:AfD or WP:PM, but in the meantime, the other article should be moved to Negationism, a redirect, and I have requested the move as the target has a substantial history that prevents a bold move without admin assistance. B.Wind (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact tags were added by Ludvikus, I have just been waiting for his/her barrage of requests to move, merges etc subside before handling those. I (and a majority of the editors who have commented) disagree that they are a POV fork -- but you can read about that in the talk pages of the article and your user talk page is not the place to discuss this. ... However I was concerned with what you wrote on the RfD page "one should be merged into the first one as it comes across as a POV fork, but that's beyond the scope of this RfD; however, there's and AfD covering this while this is open)" Which AfD covers this? (please leave an answering note on my talk page as I do not watch your talk page). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The Historical revisionism (disambiguation) page is under AfD. Click the "this article's entry" on the tag atop the dab page and you'll be at the discussion. A copy of this reply is posted on your talk page. B.Wind (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed prod from David Diaan

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from David Diaan, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! -- Atamachat 18:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

re: Hashmi redirects

Your plan sounds good to me. Thanks for taking the next step. My time available to Wikipedia will be limited for the next few days. Rossami (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • My pleasure. I'll start with the obvious ones and then "weed down" the list. B.Wind (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop

Please read WP:3RR before you reert again. Stop adding fangush to Bollywood articles.

Almost every popular actress/singer In Bollywood throughout her career was called The queen of Bollywood. It' a full fangush and POV. Take Priyanka Chopra for example, she is merely a newcomer who is not even considered a good actress. It's just a simple magazine/fansite description to praise female actors - there is nothing formal, and Wikpedia is WP:NOT a magazine. Your list for example does not include top-actresses like Nargis, Rekha, Waheeda Rehman, Nutan, Meena Kumari, Hema Malini (who is the most popular Bollywood actress ever), Preity Zinta (who is Bollywood's most successful actress today), which invalidates their popularity. It is now DELETED - so you cannot say nothing until further decision is taken. Shahid • Talk2me 08:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I say STOP!! I'm reverting your edits and further reversions by you will constitute WP:3RR violations, which will lead to your BLOCK. Shahid • Talk2me 08:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Note that the above was posted as I was writing my reply to the first post. Please assume good faith, actually read the sources for verification, and realize that 3RR applies to Shshshsh as well. As I stated in the reply, I'll wait for deletion review of the dab page that was apparently deleted in bad faith (dab pages don't have citations). The dab page had omissions as it was only a start after only three hours of Google searching for reliable sources, something that I hope both Shshshsh and the admin who deleted would keep in mind as it is clear that there is a need for either a Queen of Bollywood article or dab page. B.Wind (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
No 3RR will apply to you only. I hadn't made 3 reverts within 24 hours - see the minutes. It's clear that you're not that familiar with some policies, so you'll have to know that even if it is supported by RS, it is not automatically for WP. Many reputable newspapers say, "Celine Dion/Whitney Houston is the best singer in the world." - So what? Familiarise yourself with some policies, like WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, WP:OR, and then talk to me. Shahid • Talk2me 08:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

My dear friend, you're misinterpreting something here. Not the sources, the information is fangush. Again, many reputable newspapers say, "Celine Dion/Whitney Houston is the best singer in the world." - So what? Again, your list for example does not include top-actresses like Nargis, Rekha, Waheeda Rehman, Nutan, Meena Kumari, Hema Malini (who is the most popular Bollywood actress ever), Preity Zinta (who is Bollywood's most successful actress today), which invalidates their popularity. Any of them was described Queen of Bollywood in RSes, but you did not add them, why? Either you overlooked because you are not a fan, meaning, POV, or you did not find, meaning, problem. Almost every popular actress has been called this way. It's POV, original research, undue etc., Shahid • Talk2me 09:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I'll give you only one example, see this article by ToI -- not only Aishwarya and Rani, but also Preity Zinta is described as "the queen". This is an example that there will always be an actress you don't notice, or maybe overlook and ignore, because she is not one of your personal favourites. So applies to the above list of Hema, Rekha etc.
In any case, it's nothing but fangush; I will never accept such additions neither on Zinta's article, which I'm the main contributor of, nor on any Bollywood related article. It's just a joke, and I'm surprised that you're serious. This article will not be restored, and if it is, I will fight very much. I haven't spent so much time to improve the Indian cinema project, only to see how it is becoming a fansite. Shahid • Talk2me 09:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
mmm... I see you have nothing to say about what I said above... do you? Shahid • Talk2me 21:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)