This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Abouth the death of Tsutomu Yamaguchi the last survivor of the double bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who died on January 5, 2010.

Hi. Is "Nijuuhibaku" a word, or the name of a film? [1] [2] —WWoods ( talk) 23:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, as far as I properly understood the context of the page, I first though it is a word, but I did not perform a detailed investigation on the topic. My first aim with the wikification of this not yet described term was to attract a next contributor for creating and developing the related page. If you have inspiration and time, please, feel free to search for the information and to contribute. In advance, Thank you very much. Best regards, Shinkolobwe ( talk) 23:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems it is also a word that was used as title for a movie. See the two following references (already formatted):

Donnell, Jams O (2010-01-07). "Death of the nijuuhibaku". The Poor Mouth (blog title). Retrieved 2010-01-08.

Donnell, Jams O (2009-03-25). "The double Hibakusha". The Poor Mouth (blog title). Retrieved 2010-01-08.

Cheers, Shinkolobwe ( talk) 00:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the coordinates. -- Stepheng3 ( talk) 01:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Wwoods! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 940 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{ unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Colin Cunningham - Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!-- DASHBot ( talk) 21:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Are there guidelines that you are following? I think the bot started at 30 days. Why a bot, anyways? It does a bad job of archiving, as the sections end up out of chronological order. Older sections could end up in newer archives. Making a top to bottom reading of the archive page, by a human being, useless. Glkanter ( talk) 18:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The notice "This page is [xxx] kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage." shows up when the page is more than 72k; Monty Hall is still over 310k! The bot is doing a better job than relying on manual archiving; when it was put in, the page was over 660k.

I don't see the need to order archived sections by first post rather than last, but it doesn't seem to be a serious problem. Checking the posts of the last few days — [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] — virtually all comments are posted to the most-recent dozen sections.

—WWoods ( talk) 20:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

When, oh when, will the madness stop? A 5-day setting? Glkanter ( talk) 00:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 13:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

yes your rendering seems to be correct per [ [12]] which is where i got the data from. Excellent catch! XavierGreen ( talk) 02:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated Category:ESBWRs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 02:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Wwoods. You have new messages at Akrabbim's talk page.
Message added 19:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Akrabbim ^talk 19:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ww, Thanks for expanding the Ivanpah article... Any chance that you might again protect Template:Renewable energy sources and maybe semiprotect Efficient energy use... Johnfos ( talk) 01:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Oh, I just remembered. You whacked all the external links on Andasol Solar Power Station, but at least a couple of them were good.

—WWoods ( talk) 02:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, apologies, and thanks... Johnfos ( talk) 02:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I left a reply to your query on my talk page. – droll  [chat] 08:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the archiving problem. I think its OK now. – droll  [chat] 23:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that you recently undid a merge that I made: Levelised cost of energy‎ into Relative cost of electricity generated by different sources. I was wondering what your reason was for undoing my merge. I think that this calculation is important to the cost of energy production facilities, and was wondering if maybe you wanted it merged into Energy Economics. The sample calculations all relate well to the topic which I merged it into, but don't complement the formula very well. The article seems to be a nice formula that is sort of lost. I just would like to hear your opinion on how best to incorporate this article into the rest of the articles, whether or not it is merged. -- Fiftytwo thirty ( talk) 01:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it should be merged into anything else. Levelized cost of energy is a significant concept, while Relative cost of electricity generated by different sources is one editor's pet page. Note that the proposed merge was of the latter into the former, not the other way 'round.

—WWoods ( talk) 02:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I rmd the merge tag then. -- Fiftytwo thirty ( talk) 02:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think I can handle this. I added a rule to my autowiki script that checks for a -n conversion. If you notice anything else please let me know. – droll  [chat] 02:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I had another thought. Some British editors use c. before an elevation that is less than well defined. As you probably know it stands for circa which I think is little more encyclopedic than "about" or a tilde which some editors use. – droll  [chat] 03:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: USS William P. Lawrence (DDG-110) and Category:United States Navy proposed ships, ( diff) The category description is vague about when a ship under construction moves out of "proposed" and into another category. There may be a few others on the fence, so always good to have another set of eyes on things. —  MrDolomite •  Talk 15:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help. I moved the info back from my old archives to let the bot archive everything itself. I've also changed the archive size and set up the index. thank you for all your help!. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 00:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. —WWoods ( talk) 06:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the semi-protection of the Battle of Stalingrad page has been removed, although persistent IP vandalism continues. Can you please consider a possibility to protect it again?
Regards,
-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 15:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 16:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the help in Ivan Vilela article. I commited some english mistakes. Best regards! Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira ( talk) 00:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Wwoods. The Changjiang Nuclear Power Plant is planned to build in two stages. Construction of the first stage consisting of two reactors is approved. The second stage is not officially approved yet; however, it is planned to consists also two reactors. The question is if the infobox should mention only the first stage information or also include information about the second stage? Beagel ( talk) 18:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Having put all four in a table at the bottom, I figured the infobox ought to be consistent, but take 'em out if you prefer.

—WWoods ( talk) 18:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this is fine. Beagel ( talk) 18:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I am letting you know that an article you have been involved in editing, Stephan Martinière, has been nominated for deletion as part of a series of AFDs based on the deletion nomination of List of Magic: The Gathering artists. If there is anything you can do to improve the article further, your efforts would be appreciated. 24.148.0.83 ( talk) 13:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings! Thank you for creating the article on the Panoche Valley Solar Farm. Are you watching it? Somehow it has managed to attract the attention of several single purpose accounts, most of which are pushing a strong anti-project POV (while one appears to be the company POV -- I reverted a copyvio from that one). I don't know much about the project, though I am familiar with solar power issues in California as well as the geographic area -- I just happened to see the article drift by one night on recent changes, so I read it out of curiosity. If you could give it another sanity check that would be good. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I don't know if you saw the later merge discussions here:

• Talk:Relative cost of electricity generated by different sources -- Timeshifter ( talk) 15:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I've set the archiving parameters at Paul (octopus) back to 32k. There is no need to have collossal archives for talk pages which are not likely to remain high-traffic indefinitely; such pages are a pain to navigate, and the archive search function works perfectly well across multiple pages. Is there a particular reason why you chose to set the archiving to 150k? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said, to have one big archive rather than four little ones.

—WWoods ( talk) 14:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your edit summary. Perhaps you would care to respond to the points I raised in opposition to this? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I explained why I made the change I did, and you've explained why you changed it back. Since it's a matter of personal preference, what's left to say? De gustibus non est disputandum.

—WWoods ( talk) 05:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, IMO it's not solely a matter of personal preference: I think there are some good reasons for not using very long archive pages, and provided them for your consideration. I was interested in your response to them. If I were to move a box from one part of a room to another and someone asked me why I had done it, I would imagine they would be somewhat frustrated by an answer like "so that it sits there instead". It merely explains the outcome (which is, well, obvious) without explaining why that outcome is advantageous. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I notice that you have set up a bot to archive the talk page. I see that there is a search box and wonder how this is supposed to work. I searched for words in the text and section headers of the archive and came up with no results. Have you found that this works for other pages? Hal Jespersen ( talk) 15:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It does, yes. Maybe it takes a day or so for the search engine to become aware of a page? Or something like that.

—WWoods ( talk) 15:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I noted you have tried to fix some archiving at Talk:History of Poland (1945–1989), but according to latest archive run 10 threads were lost. Are you able to find and fix the issue? -- Kslotte ( talk) 23:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It's alright. The first time, the bot found five sections without datestamps that I'd missed. Rather than manually shuffling things around, I rolled the page back ... only I forgot to delete the archive pages the bot had created. So the second time it ran, the bot piled its newly archived sections on the same archive pages, spilling on to page #3. Oops.

I could have rolled the page back again, but it was simple enough to delete the sections which were duplicated or are still on the talk page.

I just re-checked: the 25 sections which were deleted from the talk page are the same 25 saved in the archive pages.

—WWoods ( talk) 02:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, good. -- Kslotte ( talk) 13:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you seems to be an expert on MiszaBot malfunction, I post you another issue with lost threads: Talk:Unidentified flying object -- Kslotte ( talk) 13:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow!

Turns out there was a blacklisted link in one of the sections being moved to Archive 7, so the page didn't get saved. But Miszabot went ahead and deleted them from the talk page anyway. I wish it would stop doing that.

—WWoods ( talk) 15:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It seems you are the only one opposing the merge of Levelised energy cost into Cost of electricity by source. I don't see any way to resolve this without an AFD ( WP:Articles for deletion) for Levelised energy cost as a duplicate article about the topic. I am open to ideas. Please discuss further at Talk:Cost of electricity by source/Archive 1#Merge discussion. I dislike talks on user talk pages when others may also want to talk. So let's seriously discuss there. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 12:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wwoods, thanks for creating the archiving tool on Talk:Bitless bridle, now,given that almost everything there IS old, can you plop it all into the archive? It didn't seem to go there by itself...? Thanks. Montanabw ^(talk) 01:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The bot should do the page sometime in the next day or so, whenever it gets around to it. If it doesn't, you can of course do it manually.

—WWoods ( talk) 02:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

...And there it goes. I set it to leave 5 sections, but if you want to get rid of the rest, change the value of minthreadsleft to 0 and wait till tomorrow. Or again, you can cut & paste it manually.

—WWoods ( talk) 02:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I seem to be unable to figure out how to get these auto archives to work, but I think they are way cool. Any article that starts in with words like "parameters" just makes my head spin. Any idea where the easy guide is? Montanabw ^(talk) 03:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo explains how this bot works, with examples you can copy and customize. I've got my own on User:Wwoods, which is what I've been using.

—WWoods ( talk) 05:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

On the MOS:JP talk page, a discussion has been started about including or not including romanizations for words of English origin, such as Fainaru Fantajī in Final Fantasy (ファイナルファンタジー, Fainaru Fantajī) (for the sake of simplicity, I called this case "words of English origin", more information on semantics here).

Over the course of a month, it has become apparent that both the parties proposing to include or not include those romanizations cannot be convinced by the arguments or guidelines brought up by the other side. Therefore, a compromise is trying to be found that will satisfy both parties. One suggestion on a compromise has been given already, but it has not found unanimous agreement, so additional compromises are encouraged to be suggested.

One universally accepted point was to bring more users from the affected projects in to help achieve consensus, and you were one of those selected in the process.

What this invitation is:

• You should give feedback on the first suggested compromise and are highly encouraged to provide other solutions.

What this invitation is not:

• This is not a vote on including or excluding such romanizations.
• This is not a vote on compromises either.

It would be highly appreciated if you came over to the MOS:JP talk page and helped find a solution. Thank you in advance. Prime Blue ( talk) 11:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi WWoods, you might be interested in Talk:Twin paradox#Three Reference Frames revisited. Cheers - DVdm ( talk) 20:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit? Clearly no one is going to add to an archived talkpage of an article-turned-redirect merge, so we might as well remove the relevant wikiprojects and the bot that archives the talkpage. Not only does it produce less strain on the bot, the talkpage is retained as historical reference as is. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 01:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wwoods, I have seen you reducing the archiving period at this talk page recently. Although the talk page is becoming very long, and your concern is justified, I still think that it might be better to let the threads remain on the talk page for at least two weeks so that threads do not get archived without reaching some fruitful conclusion. If this happens, we may end up rehashing old arguments again. etc. Cheers.- Civilizededucation ^talk 17:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my saying this.-- Civilizededucation ^talk 18:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There should be approximately 12 talk page archives, but they have vanished from MiszaBot's archive box and it is incorrectly reporting that none have been created. I see that you have adjusted the parameters on that in the past, and thought you might be able to take a look and see what might be causing this to happen. Thanks harlan ( talk) 04:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Talk:Palestine/Archive <#>. The links didn't show in the archive box because the first few in the series were missing.

—WWoods ( talk) 04:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

For the interest in our project, may I ask what brings you over to help? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been working through long Talk pages ( Wikipedia:Database reports/Long pages), clearing out the old stuff. In this case, I realized that simply twiddling the archiving deadline wouldn't suffice, since the new stuff you're still working on was in the same section as the old.

—WWoods ( talk) 18:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Splitting them by 10 seems like a good solution to that, indeed. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a picture of my grandmother, Mrs. Joseph B. Provance, at he launching ceremony of the USS Pigeon in 1919. The photo is in the public domain and is part of our family archives. Since the Pigeon and my grandmother are mentioned in the article, I thought it might be appropriate to include the picture. However, I do not have enough status to upload images at this time. If I were to email the photo to you, would you considering doing it. I am asking you because you seem to be the person who initiated the entry. Thanks. Mdprovance ( talk) 15:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Does it show the ship, as well as your grandmother? You can send it to me at wwoods6 [at] gmail [dot] com

You might also offer it to the Navy for inclusion on http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-p/am47.htm , and to NavSource Naval History for inclusion on http://www.navsource.org/archives/11/02047.htm

—WWoods ( talk) 22:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Good job with the fix to archives at Talk:Assassination/Archive 0, that was really weird and odd. -- Cirt ( talk) 20:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Woods! Thanks for completing the merge on the above template. Could you also do the same for the documentation page too? Template:Infobox power station (temp)/doc should be merged into Template:Infobox power station/doc. Thanks and regards. Rehman^{( +)} 01:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done

... But what's wrong with Nysted Wind Farm, which is showing the coordinates twice?

—WWoods ( talk) 01:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, great work! The double coordinates are because extra coord templates in that page are missing |display=inline. Will try to fix it shortly. Thanks again! Kind regards. Rehman^{( +)} 01:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Update: Actually, thats because it is with two coord parameters, I think. Will attempt to fix now... Rehman^{( +)} 01:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed. It was a problem with the main template. Rehman^{( +)} 01:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. Per this and this discussion, the template was further updated at Template:Infobox power station/Sandbox. Could you help in history merging that into Template:Infobox power station too? The doc page doesn't need histmerging. Kind regards. Rehman^{( +)} 15:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done —WWoods ( talk) 15:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Rehman^{( +)} 15:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone has nominated this category for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_12#Category:New_England_Fifty_Finest. I support deletion but still think you should have been informed, particularly out of respect for you as a veteran editor. best, Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. —WWoods ( talk) 16:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not set or change archiving parameters on talk pages without first discussing them on the page. This is especially the case when you have not been previously involved in the discussions on the talk page. I am restoring the parameters on Alhazen to 280 days; as is apparent on that article, some discussions have been going on for a long time and should not be archived for temporary inactivity. Talk page guidelines suggest archiving a page "either when it exceeds 70 KB, or has more than 15 main sections" (this is a recent change from the earlier 50 KB / 10 sections). -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 03:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC); edited 03:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You are using {{ Infobox mountain}} on your sub page User:Wwoods/Mountain page template. Your infobox used deprecated parameter names. In the near future the template is to be updated and the old parameter names will no longer work. I updated the template for you. I hope that was OK. – droll  [chat] 20:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, we were simultaneously arranging the archiving of sections at Talk:The Bronx this afternoon. I just moved 120,000 bytes over to Talk:The Bronx/Name, reducing Talk:The Bronx to about 22,000 bytes. So it may not need auto-archiving for a while (unless some new huge controversy takes up lots of space). At the moment, there's no harm at the moment in keeping the discussions since mid-2009, even if no one adds new comments in the next month or 3 months, and the number of archive pages to two (Archive 1 and Name). You'd know better than I, who understands very little of the different auto-archiving systems at Wikipedia. —— Shakescene ( talk) 18:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Thanks also for adding Talk:The Bronx/Name to the archive box box. Have a good Hallowe'en. —— Shakescene ( talk) 19:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this edit. I'm not opposed to archiving, I just don't want living threads to be buried. Dylan Flaherty ( talk) 21:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting rid of those pesky caps on the List of islands of Maine page ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 23:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I sympathize with your changing the archiving date from 60 to 15 days, but some of the recent discussion is relevant to various disputes and archiving it may upset links. I have changed it to 30 days. (Frankly, I would archive 99% of what is there this minute if I could.) Thanks, μηδείς ( talk) 22:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a courtesy note to inform you that articles and discussions about Gibraltar or concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar are subject to a discretionary sanctions remedy. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar#Discretionary sanctions. You are being notified per the actions logged here. Any disruptive, uncivil, or generally problematic conduct may lead to discretionary sanctions imposed by an administrator. This warning is not an indication of any wrong doing on your part. It is simply a general notice to recent editors in the topic area. Thank you for understanding. Vassyana ( talk) 01:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For your tireless work on the power stations articles. Beagel ( talk) 14:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Tra73004 helio ecldto 71204.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{ OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 20:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)