User talk:Wwoods/Archive 2011

File source problem with File:Oldarm.ww.gif

Thank you for uploading File:Oldarm.ww.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Virginia Beach move

Hello Wwoods. I see you moved Virginia Beach to Virginia Beach, Virginia, but I am having trouble figuring out why. Is there another Virginia Beach out there somewhere that the Virginia city might be confused with? Just curious.--Kubigula (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

US city articles are named in the form "[[City, State]]", except for New York City (and a handful of cities with NFL teams).

—WWoods (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I always thought additional qualifiers were only used when disambiguation was necessary; thanks for enlightening me.--Kubigula (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

twin paradox

Thanks for your thoughts on the twin paradox. I think you've completely missed my point.

You state that the high velocity attained by the hypothetical spaceship being accelerated at 1G will cause time dilation of orders of magnitude greater than just the 1G gravity effect on an earth-bound clock and twin. I totally agree. But you must be willing to accept that the velocity-caused time dilation is a two way street and is observed by BOTH twins in respect to the other (hence, Relativity). If they were both in identical closed compartments they will sense the exact same sensation - 1G force and would not be able to distinguish who was earthbound and who a space traveler (nor would their clocks). The earth-bound twin is traveling too from the point of reference of the space-traveling twin. 1G acceleration was chosen to equalize the environments of space traveler and earth-bound twins and equalize the small time dilation effects of gravity (aka acceleration) and lets us look more simply at just the large velocity time dilation effects of their travel.

So, I had to make this reply since you seem to be making a point that only one twin will observe the effects of time dilation which is relativistically incorrect.

To support my point that the smaller dilation effect of 1G acceleration is equivalent to 1G gravity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle "The equivalence principle proper was introduced by Albert Einstein in 1907, when he observed that the acceleration of bodies towards the center of the Earth at a rate of 1g (g = 9.81 m/s2 being a standard reference of gravitational acceleration at the Earth's surface) is equivalent to the acceleration of an inertially moving body that would be observed on a rocket in free space being accelerated at a rate of 1g. Einstein stated it thus:"

Gordon Quickstad — Preceding unsigned comment added by GQuickstad (talk • contribs) 00:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you! for the help Intoronto1125 (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Bosnian Genocide

I'm not really clear what you've done to the Talk:Bosnian Genocide page. My impression is that it is intended to be helpful by structuring the archives, but I'm not clear and it would be useful if you could leave a message on the page indicating what you've actually done. Thanks. Opbeith (talk) 08:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Why did you change the method of archiving the page without gaining a consensus on the talk page? The procedure being used was the move procedure, this has advantages for talk pages were there are high levels of controversy as it is very difficult to check that the archives are accurate without the history to go with them. -- PBS (talk) 08:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the page-move archiving method since it splits the edit history over the archive pages. I think it's easier to search the history if it's all at the original talk page. The only advantage I see of moving the page is that it's easier to do ... unless you don't want to strip the page bare to the headings, in which case you then have to copy&paste the threads you want to keep on the new page.

—WWoods (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

We can agree to differ on that one, as I think that page moves are superior precisely because it keeps the history with the text. But that is not really the issue, the issue is changing the method without gaining a consensus on the talk page. As alterations such as you did involve administrator privileges, I think it better if you were to gain consensus on the current talk page for such a change before carrying it out. In this case no-one has objected to you change but the consensus was against you have been willing to revert the changes? Given that it is time consuming to both merge and de-merge page histories I would have thought it adventitious to gain consensus before carrying out such a process. -- PBS (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment From The Guy With Questions About A Thorium Quote

As I said in my last comment on the thorium discussion page, I don't think an article discussion page is a good place for me, someone who is not a significant contributor to Wikipedia in general and not an expert in thorium, to get into a debate about the merits of thorium. Since I am responding here to your response, and since you seem much more the expert and more likely to make sensible contributions to the thorium page and discussion page, I thought I would place this in your talk page. Feel free to move this if I put it in the wrong place, but I don't think it furthers the article discussion page since it does not discuss specific changes...

However, your first bulleted response showed that my questions were relevant. Everything in the following quote is inaccurate or speculative, which is what I tried to point out in my response to your's but I guess I didn't phrase it right.

"there is no possibility of a meltdown, it generates power inexpensively, it does not produce weapons-grade by-products ..."

What you said in your response seemed spot on; too bad the article contains this quote instead of what you said.

"No possibility of meltdown" - In the wikipedia article on meltdown it says that the term is not formally defined, but then gives a definition in terms of core elements. However, the popular definition many people think of when they see meltdown, as shown even in the wikipedia article for LOCA, involves a thermally caused major containment breach accident, and that is the definition readers will use in the current context... I see that some designs lend themselves to automatic shutdown as you describe, and it is also possible in some liquid reactor designs to continuously remove the by-products to minimize the decay heat problems. But it is just not true to say there is "No possibility of meltdown" for a thorium reactor in general, even if thorium does lend itself to designs with a greatly reduced likelyhood of meltdown.

"inexpensively" - Likely, but speculative. I get your point that a thermal breeder is simpler than a fast breeder, and that thorium lends itself to easier designs than PWR, but this is still speculation.

"does not produce weapons-grade by-products". Again, this is just not true, as your response regarding it being more difficult to produce these by-products, but not impossible, shows.

I have seen many web pages where people have stated that thorium reactors can not meltdown, for all sorts of different, unrelated, reasons. The particular source for the quote in this article seems to confuse meltdown with an uncontrolled neutron chain reaction, and, ignoring that a thorium reactor contains U233, says that it can not meltdown because thorium does not support such a reaction. This is pure confusion on several levels; a meltdown could be caused by reaction by-products and have nothing to do with whether thorium, or the uranium, undergoes an uncontrolled chain reaction.

There has to be a more accurate source somewhere summarizing the (undeniable) benefits of the thorium fuel cycle. I'm still looking. If I find one I will note it on the article discussion page for review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.146.23 (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's hope it works

Hi Wwoods, I've been trying to get the archive at Talk:Mexican-American War to work but I've had no luck. I've asked Xeno to look at it here. If you know why it isn't working, I'd love to know the answer. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Eureka! Good job.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I still don't know why it wasn't working, but hey.... :-)

—WWoods (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixing bots

Noticed you fixed the archive on a page, do you mind doing the same on my talk page, and perhaps sharing the trick? BelloWello (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

Thanks a lot! Thanks for helping point out the errors I had in my archive. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For archiving that which needs be archived and thus reducing the burden of others. Thanks, I'd be planning on doing that, but frankly wasn't looking forward to rereading any of it. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

My archives

Thanks so much for explaining what happened with my archives. I must be getting really forgetful in my old age! :( Unfortunately, I can't deal with it all right away as I leave for China this morning - will get to it as soon as I can. I really appreciate your help and patience. Best wishes, John Hill (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for fixing it all up for me - most kind of you! I would have had trouble figuring it out myself - but now I should know for next time. How wonderful. I send you all warm wishes from Beijing (where it is really hot at the mpoment). Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

...for fixing the archive bot at Talk:Fort Hood. Trying to fix the other pages I did (thankfully not that many.) Kelly ^hi! 15:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Horses

Any way to make the wikiproject boxes on Talk:Horse nested again? I like your archiving work, thanks! Oh and why are weird comments from 2007 showing up in the WP Ag and WP mammals boxes? Seems weird and very outdated. Montanabw^(talk) 20:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Does it need the nested=yes? It looks okay in my browser. Maybe if you refresh the page?

That comment is being imported from Talk:Horse/Comments. I'm inclined to delete that page, but...

—WWoods (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I have Safari on a Mac and it still won't nest, I think it needs the nested parameter. And I favor your inclination to delete the "comments" page as this is what the talk page is for. You could pop the one comment into the 2007 archive so it's still out there, but we fixed that particular problem years ago. Montanabw^(talk) 03:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That's weird. The nested parameter was supposed to have been made unnecessary years ago. Have you noticed this on other pages with those project banners?

I wonder if the comment has something to do with it. I left a note on the original editor's talk page (User talk:John Carter#Talk:Horse/Comments). If you don't mind, I'll wait to hear back from him before getting rid of the comment. Then we can see if that makes a difference.

—WWoods (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I just checked the page with Safari (5.0.5 on Mac OSX 10.6.7), and it looks ... the way it otter ...

—WWoods (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hm. The computer I'm using at the moment is still running 10.5.8, maybe that's it, I have Safari 5.0.5, though. I DO notice a lot of boxes not nested on other talk pages, but I never bother to check the markup to see if they intended to be or not. Well, I think John is long gone, but he was a good egg when he was on wiki, so I have no kick if you wait a bit. Montanabw^(talk) 06:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your help with the article Keith Raniere! Chrisrus (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Archive issue

...on Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher. The first thread which is quite long didn't archive but stayed up for 5 days despite the page setting at 3 days. Someone just posted there today so the counter started over but I thought I would point this out. I'm involved in the thread and wouldn't want to archive it manually. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Joseph Goebbels archive

I see you just worked on the archive as to "Talk:Battle of Berlin". I would ask that you look at the archive on the Talk:Joseph Goebbels; I don't think it is working correctly. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's working, but there are only 5 sections left on the page, and by default the bot won't act if archiving would leave fewer than that. You can change that by changing the parameter "minthreadsleft" to something less.

There were no archives #3 and #4, so I moved #5 → #3, and changed the archive box.

—WWoods (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, for looking into it. Kierzek (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

Hi, can I ask why you keep playing around with the bots on this page? Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Something's stopping the archiving bot from working. I haven't figured out what.

—WWoods (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Kashmiri Pandit

Hi, I have noticed your various tweaks of Talk:Nair with regard to archiving issues. Any chance that you could take a look at Talk:Kashmiri Pandit? The only thing for which I have ever set up archiving previously is my own talk page. That works ok but is not appropriate for an article TP. I have gambled on an initial 180-day archive, simply to clear some of the cruft. It may need tightening up in terms of timespan but my main concern is presentation. I am pretty sure that I have got it wrong, although the bot has yet to run through. Any help/advice would be appreciated. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

There were a couple of things:

It hd been set to move stuff to archive #17; I moved that to #1.

Also, there was no link to the archive; I added the archive box.

I also changed the bot to archive after 90 days, which seemed long enough to leave all ongoing discussions. However, if you or someone else want to adjust it, you see how to change it, both in the bot and the archive box?

—WWoods (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I thought I had set it to archive 1 rather than 17 but clearly didn't! I'll keep a record of the diff for future use. Thanks for your help - much appreciated indeedy. - Sitush (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox NRHP

There is no reason to manually archive these talk pages when the bot is doing the work. Also, changing the archive counter should not be done since it creates excessively small archive files. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think 100k is a small archive. I closed archive #3 because it had all the 2010 threads and none of the 2011 ones, so that was a good place for a page break.

—WWoods (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The Miszabot

Hi. I see that you answered some questions on the Miszabots page, and wonder if you could help me? I've been searching for a way to import wikinews into the Africa Today section of our project - WikiAfrica. I've found a template that can just pull in the top 5 of what's in the news. but I see on this page: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Africa, that there are also Science and Technology; Culture and Entertainment and Wackynews elements, and I would like to pull in these new feeds to the same table. I had hoped that the importer bot page would help me, and was very excited about it until I started to read it, and my limited techno and code defeated me. How can I do what I described above? (here are the subpages I created in steps 1 and 2: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Wikinews_Importer_Bot/WikiAfric andhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikinewshas/WikiAfrica. Islahaddow (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you already know more about the importer bot than I do. I can look at it, but I'm starting from scratch.

—WWoods (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Wwoods - I do have another person trying to help me, if he doesn't succeed then I would be very grateful if you could help.Islahaddow (talk) 10:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio John Fritz Medal

Hi Wwoods, you created in your Wikipedia past on 28 July 2005 the John Fritz Medal article. But the first paragraph, when the latest revisions are reverted, is a copy-paste from http://www.aaes.org/communications/john_fritz_medal.asp I have tagged this first section accordingly. I know in those early days the rules were not that strict, so no hard feelings. -- SchreyP ^(messages) 18:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Defamed By Wikipedia

I no longer attempt to work through Wikipedia talk pages or Wikipedia in general regarding the malicious and defamatory material which left-wing Wikipedia editors, acting out of ideological bias and their own personal agendas, have repeatedly inserted into my Wikipedia entry. I attempted to use the Wikipedia mediation and arbitration procedures, as prescribed, and to date I have not received one single reply from anyone in authority at Wikipedia. Every attempt I have made to use Wikipedia's formal complaints procedure has been simply ignored and my comments taken off line (as this comment probably will be.) FIVE YEARS of discussion was blown away in this manner, I presume because I was making my case against the entry in too persuasive a manner and the Wiki-kooks were becoming embarrassed.

I use multiple accounts, yes, because Wikipedia has responded to my repeated attempts to get them to remove malicious and defamatory material from my entry with silence and with censorship. They say that the greatest compliment one man can pay to another is to attempt to silence him by force. I could do with fewer such compliments from Wikipedia.

These days I carry on my efforts to counter the false, malicious and defamatory material from my entry in a forum which (so far) Wikipedia and the rest of the left has failed to silence. Check out

defamedbywikipedia.blogspot.com

This site has so terrified the Wiki-kooks that they have banned it, so I can't post the complete link. I'm sure you can add in the http etc.

-Harold A. Covington — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.244.87 (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Snopes.com archives

Hey Wwoods, I see you set Talk:Snopes.com to autoarchive, but the archives are not accessible by archive box. Can you please add one? Thanks,--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

references for the articles Keith Raniere and NXIVM

Certain sections of these articles's discussion pages are actually collections of potential references for the article. We need to have them there because we're trying to figure out what the sources actually say. Therefore, we don't want to archive these sections. Please don't archive these sections, or revert me when I fish them back out of the archives so we can continue to construct the article. This is a difficult article to write, so it's taking some time so please allow people to keep the collections of references on the discussion page when the archiving bot removes them. Chrisrus (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the maintenance on the paraphilic infantilism archives. It is usually very quiet on that talk page. Every now and then, disputes will flare up on other pages and that talk page will see some activity. It actually happened twice this year (same person too.) BitterGrey (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Swift-hsv.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Swift-hsv.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 10:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Canadian Federation of Students

What are you doing with the talk page? Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Archiving the years-old discussions. And I put the page's history back together, so it's all in one place.

—WWoods (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear power/nuclear energy

There is a discussion about usage of nuclear power v nuclear energy. As an experienced editor in this field you are welcome to take a part of this discussion. Beagel (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

My energy map

Thanks for the pointer - I just eyeballed those pins (especially the wind sites, which spread out over miles ...) so I appreciate the help. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Yugumo class destroyer armament

Template:Yugumo class destroyer armament has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Wwoods! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Chetniks article

Why do you wish to archive discussions after only 20 days? Is not 30 more customary? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The talk page is extremely long. In my opinion, shortening the time to archiving is appropriate. But maybe there are some sections which have been resolved, or are no longer under active discussion that are just hanging around? You could archive them manually.

—WWoods (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed very long, and I wish it were not so. Given the level of contention among us editing the article, I have been reluctant to manually archive anything as I do not wish to create even a slight appearance of trying to control discussion. And I suppose for that reason, I feel that the default of one month (unless I am mistaken as to that being the default) would be the best thing despite the length. What are your thoughts on that aspect? --Nuujinn (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no prescribed default, though I personally think if a thread has gone a month without a comment, it can be considered dead. In general, I use 3 months as my default, but I'm inclined to shorten the time for more active talk pages.

—WWoods (talk) 07:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the auto-archive

Hey Wwoods, just saw that you set the Talk page of Folding@home to auto-archive topics older than 10 months. That's very helpful, so thanks! I'd like to make sure that the archives go to Archive 2 (which has to be created) and that they are moved with the Move procedure since that seems to be the most beneficial since it moves the version history and all. Is this what it does? Sorry I'm new at archiving procedures, and I planning on doing this manually, but a bot would be very helpful. Thanks again. Jessemv (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I set the bot to move pre-2011 sections to Archive 1; then I was going to reset it to start Archive 2 for 2011 talk.

The bot moves sections from the talk page to the archive page(s). I prefer that method of archiving, since it keeps the talk page's history in one place. If you want to archive by the page-move method, remove the bot and do it manually.

—WWoods (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. I was just looking at this page and looking at things like "Editors who have the article on their watchlist will not have the archived talk page put on their watchlist, which happens when talk pages are archived by moving them." and thought this was a big deal. Maybe it doesn't really matter, I'll just add that page as well to my Watchlist just in case. The bot has its advantages though, since it does it automatically so we won't have this problem in the future. Maybe we should just go with your idea though. Thanks. Jessemv (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the recent adjustments and whatnot. I sure appreciate it. Did you do this because of my to-do list or because you're on some sort of archive-all-talk-pages patrol? If it was because of my list, then you sure saved me some time and from being confused when I would try to figure out how to do it. :D Jessemv (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

More or less the latter. I've been working from Wikipedia:Database reports/Long pages.

—WWoods (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Good for you. From our rankings on that page, it looks like we had more of a problem than I thought. Your archive will help, but note that I've inserted a long list of commented-out journal citations in the talk page that may be useful to the article. You can't see them without editing the appropriate section, but they do take up a good amount of bytes. Just so you know. Jessemv (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to keep the bot from archiving a section, make sure there aren't any datestamps in it that the bot would recognize -- or add one set far enough in the future, e.g.

"00:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)".

Or you might want to make a separate subpage -- Talk:Folding@home/Citations. Move them there and add a link to the page in the archive box.

—WWoods (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

New York

Wwoods, Your reversion on the USS New York LPD-21 Entry is correct, here is a link to a photo of the ships plaque that is on the USS New York. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ussnewyork/5404025659/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.26.54 (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)