I removed the template as the article is up to A+ standards. Good work on Wiki, your edits are really beneficial. Ksenon 14:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you!. Very interesting suggestion. It will however take some research since i'm not familiar with the biological mechanism that causes unconsciousness under hypobaric conditions. It will have to classify as asphyxia (aka. an overall reduction in oxygen in the body) to be included in the article. Unconsciousness due to acceleration, does not for instance count as asphyxia if we use that definition. But i'll see what I can do! ---Marcus- 08:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you tagged the page WAP (disambiguation) for speedy deletion with the reason "adds no value and is misleading". However, "adds no value and is misleading" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if you still want the article to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 11:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No probs, I've now used a AfD and it looks like its on the way out anyway Ex nihil 03:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comments about Great Strides Therapeutic Riding, Inc. Could you please take a look at the articles Therapeutic horseback riding and North American Riding for the Handicapped Association and make any changes or additions that you think appropriate? TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Therapeutic Riding is just fine, I couldn't improve on it and don't know the subject. I think the comment you referred to was probably deleted after I read these. The problem is only with GSTR, if GSTR has additonmal information this should sit in THR. Ex nihil 06:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Nice pic. On Talk:Drowning the question came up if the image is staged (I assumed so). Could you please clarify, preferably also on the image page. Many thanks! -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Image is staged I am happy to say as it is my daughter. Ex nihil 08:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, User:FoxSportsRadio smells like a troublemaker or at least needs a lot of info about copyrights. I found the sources for two images Image:Drowning 1st.jpg and Image:Drowning 2nd.jpg and added them to the image pages. They are copyrighted by the french red cross. -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I may have found your page based on your contributions or your link repair user box on your user page. If you are not a member, please consider including your name on the project page. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 22:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey, i randomly picked a user from the list of disambiguators, so i hope you don't mind answering my question. i've got a spot where i need to create a disamb. page, but in my searching i can only find out how to FIX disamb. pages, not create them. can you point me in the right direction? cheers! Murderbike 21:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry not to reply earlier, Murderbike. I am working in Dili, Timor Leste on an Australian capacity building project and getting reliable enough bandwidth on the internet to continue things like Wiki is very, very trying. There is a template for disambiguation but I can't get around the Wiki site fast enough to find it for you, just open a good example in edit mode and cut and paste the template with suitable changes. Ex nihil 23:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have no problem with the image being staged, and it illustrates the situation very well. Also, the image has a proper license. What i am concerned with are the 4 other images with unsuitable free-use license added by another editor. Sorry for the misunderstanding --. Chris 73 | Talk 07:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ex Nihil, regarding those comments about "vandalism" about the reversed image, what's the difference. There has been a great deal of controversy over the image, and even if this doesn't totally help, this is meant to give a new angle to the drowning staging. It is not vandalism. Catherine Woods 02:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Catherine Woods. I took the picture to try to show people exactly what a victim of SWB looks like. Floating on the ceiling doesn't really convey the right image of what's happening. I appreciate your interest in the article but I would be really, really grateful if you could let it rest. Apart from anything else I am here in Dili, Timor Leste on an aid project and my internet bandwidth and access is extremely limited and unreliable. I am not able to cope with a lot of activity on my principal pages until I get back to Australia, it's about as much as I can do to download my watchlist and it's kind of stressful. I guess if the picture is going to get adjusted we'll just have to pull it but I think it's useful and it balances of the other one in deep water blackout. The picture is also there with the permission of the lady who helped me stage it, and I need to keep her happy that the image is being used as it was originally intended. Please help me to do that. Ex nihil 02:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the new caption a lot better. Cheers! Jzerocsk 16:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed your edits to Wireless Application Protocol and WAP. It is very important that we keep the edit history for an article in one place and don't split it across multiple pages. When people contribute content to Wikipedia they retain copyright on their contributions so it is important that we can see who contributed what. By copying and pasting content from one place to another, you make the edit history less clear.

I've fixed the edit history on that article, but in future if you want to move an article either use the "Move this page" function or if that is not available please ask an Administrator.

Thank you. AlistairMcMillan 05:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, no probs, thank you for pointing that out. Ex nihil 08:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this AFD was listed improperly, so I fixed it. However, when I went into the history, it says that you actually created the page with your keep vote, and added in the deletion reasoning later. However, it seems like you put someone else's name on it. Does User:JWSchmidt actually have anything to do with this? It's not really cool to put someone's name on an edit they didn't make. GlassCobra 19:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for fixing the AfD. JWSchmidt did actually AfD it but I don't think it was done correctly, it included a rather abrupt template that said it would be automatically up for deletion in five days if there was no response. I thought it needed some discussion and I changed the template, this also semed to delete the AfD. I was trying to acheive something I did not really know how to do properly, I still don't know how to do it properly but I know more than I did. My apologies. Ex nihil 08:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, blackout is one of the stages before loss of consciousness.

The stages go, greyout, tunnel vision, black out, g-loc. You also have redout under negative g situations.

The use of the term blackout to mean g-loc or simple loss of consciousness is a misuse of the term, but it's commonly done and can doubtless be found in dictionaries.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Lieutenant Gastão Salsinha requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Steve Crossin (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your post to my talkpage. Do you have any independent, verifiable reliable sources to back up your claims? Without sources, this article doesn't stand a chance. Please ask if you need assistance in citing sources. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have now provided a number of references and crosslinked to references to his name already in a number of other articles. Ex nihil (talk) 04:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your corrections to the Cabin pressurization page. Cleaning up the unverified claims of "instantaneous decompression" and "supersonic squeals" was a service.

Mikepurves (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that in order to cite where the show is produced, post-produced, and written (not just where Beyond is located), you should have an actual article or link showing (directly when you goto the link, not just somewhere on the site) that those processes of the show are done in that location. I know from videos that Beyond/MyBu have some staff in house at M5, including some production and research staff. Writing is almost certainly partly done there as well (in terms of Adam and Jamie - maybe not the narration - but without a specific source, it shouldn't even be in the article really. I'm just giving it some time to see if a good source actually does pop up. Cheers. TheHYPO (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There probably isn't a source, and there would not be. I have just been talking to the program manager in Artamon, NSW. Beyond create content with a view to selling into the international market and produce different version of Mythbusters for the USA, Australian, UK and European market. For a program of this type the Discovery Channel was an obvious client, but it is just a client. The Science Show episode mentioned above covered it in some deatil but one can't source that anymore. Ex nihil (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very elegant, well done. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please (re)insert the {{disambig}} tags to Tao (disambiguation), Shot, Cap (disambiguation), and any other dabs you found or edited. When a page is tagged with {{disambig-cleanup}}, only the part where it says "-cleanup" is removed, not the full thing. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I actually restored the one at the Tao dab earlier today, but I trust you can get to the others. Can I rely on that? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, sorry about that. Learnt something. Ex nihil (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WikiProject Medicine!

I noticed you recently added yourself to our Participants' list, and I wanted to welcome you to our project. Our goal is to facilitate collaboration on medicine-related articles, and everyone is welcome to join (regardless of medical qualifications!). Here are some suggested activities:

• Read our Manual of Style for medical articles and guide to Reliable medical sources
• Join in editing our collaboration of the week (the current one is Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease)
• Discuss with other members in the doctor's mess
• Have a look at some related WikiProjects
• Have a look at the collaboration dashboard

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, or feel free to ask me on my talk page.

Again, welcome!  --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 08:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What tag does it lack? I put a tag on the category itself, it says it was misplaced and should be on the talkpage. Thanks. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It lacks the Move proposal tag on the talk page of the article. You started the discussion just fine but did not put a tag. It's OK because I have put the tag in, have a look now Ex nihil (talk) 02:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it had been removed by another editor and I did not see that he had done so. Thanks! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think that a disambig. for two items is a bit much and I believe a "See Also" link should be reserved for similar articles (in this case a condition similar to or including Syncope). I believe the way I went about it was the proper way to do it. Faint redirects there and the song has nothing to do with Syncope so a See Also page is inappropriate and I know the redirect at the top makes life easier for all of us who are actually looking for the song. Just my thoughts on it, though. Maverick Leonhart (Talk | Contribs) 01:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the See also use, that's not the right way. I still think that a hatnote redirect should be reserved for major items commonly be mistaken for each other, this isn't the case. I think a disambig at Faint might be useful even with 2 items but I think there would be more. It might be useful to also add Feint as well. A disambig may contain a number of songs of that title that may emerge. What think you? Ex nihil (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that does work, but I still believe that it should have the link to the song in that article for now (at least until more terms surface that include Faint in their names). From my experience on Wikipedia, it is usually best to put a link in the "{{redirect|redirected to this page|other use}}" format on top of the page if there is only one or two articles that have a similar title or could hold a given redirect I find a good example of that here. That's the way I see it happen most of the time, anyway. Maverick Leonhart (Talk | Contribs) 02:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, we cross edited. I made a disambig anyway. Have a look. I think it works quite nicely, RV if you hate it. Do what you want, I won't get upset. Got to leave this now. Bye Ex nihil (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having read over [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Flag_of_Ireland_2 the discussion] on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland on the recent move and the concerns expressed, I have begun a move request on the flag. Your comments would be welcome here.--Domer48_'fenian' 19:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message as you took part is a past move request at Flag of Ireland . This message is to inform you that their a new move has been requested GnevinAWB (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ex nihil, the article is about g-force. That’s it’s title. If you want to edit an article on the unit g, then I suggest you create a new article on that subject. Greg L (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• BTW, I do plan on adding a new section to the g-force article that specifically addresses and expands upon the subject of “force” as it applies to accelerations. This is a subject that seems to be central to what readers (and some editors) don’t understand about inertial and gravitational accelerations. Greg L (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I know that. But the article title is about g-force. So it 1) is much more natural to make the first words consistent with a discussion of g-force, and 2) to not begin a sentence with a lowercase g. There is nothing incorrect at all and it simply reads and looks better that way. What would be really helpful is if you could help me convince Wolfkeeper on an important point. He has been on a crusade that accelerometers don’t measure gravitational acceleration; only inertial accelerations. Greg L (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I e-mailed you. Hope to see you there. Greg L (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • OK I'll pick up the email. Re previous: That's good, I think it's the right approach but that opening para has got to go sometime or most people's reactions on reading are going to be "huh?". I note Wolfkeeper's efforts but I shall try to stay out of the technical debate I'll just concentrate on making it readable. Regarding little g at the beginning of the sentence I have no problem with that grammatically, or in the title, so long as it is a symbol. With the big G, well I note the references, frankly I think those guys in NASA were either just being sloppy that day or it was rewritten by their marketing staff. I remember my physics teacher drilling this into our minds so we did not confuse g with grams (g) or Gravity (G). I know Wiki just reports common usage but it is so widely referenced that it must also have some responsibility for actual truth. Right now we probably have 200,000 physics teachers tearing their hair out and telling their students Wiki ain't the gospel.

Just dumping some of my own text in here for the record:

• • g and g-force are synonymous, it doesn't need another article but this one does use very confused English. By comparison look at this children's encylopedia opening para for clarity. We need to get somewhere like this:

g (also gee, g-force or g-load) is a unit of acceleration defined as exactly 9.806 65 m/s2, approximately equal to the acceleration due to gravity on the Earth's surface. Gravity due to the earth is experienced the same as being accelerated upward with an acceleration of 1 g. The total g-force is found by vector addition of the opposite of the actual acceleration (in the sense of rate of change of velocity) and a vector of 1 g downward for the ordinary gravity (or in space, the gravity there). Weightlessness means a zero g-force, which is the result when acceleration due to movement is equal to that due to gravity. The symbol g is always written in lowercase, to distinguish it from the symbol G, the gravitational constant, which is always written in uppercase. Ex nihil (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiology task force is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Cardiology on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of participants at Cardiology task force Participants. ECG Unit (Welcome!)

-- Addbot (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maen. K. A. (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, It is because I think "Tao" do not have the meaning of the Tao Te Ching. Matthew 百家姓之四 Discussion 討論 12:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Ah! OK, I think for us less educated westerners it is probably helpful to have it in there in case we don't really understand what it is we are looking for. Ex nihil (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aha, I see. ^_^ Matthew 百家姓之四 Discussion 討論 10:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We got some help from Doctor's Mess, so I think Decompression sickness must be close to being a Good Article now. Once we've got a few more items in History, I think it will be time to list it at WP:GAN. As you've done a lot of the work in bringing it up to standard (as well as sorting out DCI), will you do the nomination when you think it's ready? I know Gene and I will be on hand to help field any suggestions that come out of the review, so it would be a nice collaboration. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I deserve much credit for this, it's mostly you and Gene. Anyway, I'm happy to nominate it in due course, a little way to go yet. Ex nihil (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just created this article Don (Vilaine). Markussep ^Talk 17:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Anthony is going to insist on keeping groupers on the hazards list, perhaps we should include "getting scooped up by a firefighter's plane and dumped onto flames" as I could at least find a cite for that (in Urban Legends) :) {Seriously no, we'd be banned for WP:POINT). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction. I would like to note that it would be correct for me to make the correction in American items such as a center in hockey; whereas I should probably keep a Canadian as centre. Either way, I appreciate your help.keystoneridin! (talk) 05:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [1] --Stefan ^talk 03:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this, which cites this 5 July 2009 story about the identification of the Swedish woman, resident in Brasil, travelling with her 5 year old son (his nationality is not stated). Her husband and daughter took a different flight.LeadSongDog come howl 04:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a problem with dual citizenship and the passport used when checking in with Air France. The current list matches the Air France official list with the exception of one pilot listed here as Argentinian wheras AF thinks he is French. If you add the Swede you need to: 1. reconcile this with AF's list, 2. recalculate the totals at the end of the row and 3. make sure the last column still adds up to the total number on board. As it was the numbers didn't add up, somebody needs to be removed elsewhere. The all up total nobody questions and cannot be changed. Ex nihil (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It is valid and useful to say my airplane is certified to +6g/-3g, it's even got a g recorder to measure it. "

Saying an aircraft is certified to 6g's has absolutely nothing to do with g-force. RHB100 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Please explain. 6g means 6x the force of gravity, a g-force of 6 Ex nihil (talk) 01:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Aagaard NTLA Speaker.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have uploaded a free version to Commons Ex nihil (talk) 02:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message.

Actually the reason I wanted to make changes to the diagram was that I found it very difficult to understand. The area behind the graph was divided into four regions: Normal breathing, dive, blackout zone and an unlabeled white region. The reason I found this very confusing was that the meaning of the background color varied: in the case of the "normal breathing" box, it signifies a temporal phase of the dive. The box labeled "dive" should, I thought, should signify a temporal phase of the dive too, though for some reason it is delimited to the top of the diagram. The "blackout zone" on the bottom, on the other hand, signifies a range of values for the O₂ level and it has no significance in relation to the CO₂ level, nor does it have anything to do with time, which took me a while to get. (The CO₂ line, for example passes through the "normal breathing" box, then into the "blackout region" box, then the "dive" box, then the unlabeled region and finally comes back into the "blackout zone" box. An interpreter of the diagram has to realize to dismiss this as meaningless.)

Hence, I believed the following distinctions would help make the diagram more understandable:

• Labeled (or colored) regions of the diagram signify temporal phases of the dive
• Labeled dashed lines signify threshold values for the O₂ or CO₂ values (colored correspondingly)

The CO₂ trigger threshold does not have a label because I thought it would have been very difficult to fit it into the diagram. I thought, though, that the color of the line associated it with CO₂ and the point on the plot and the labeled arrow would avail the meaning to the reader.

The reason why I felt it was unnecessary to color the regions was perhaps my graphic design roots: Large labels and textured backgrounds tend to give an unprofessional touch. I do agree, though, that a blue color intuitively suggests "water" or "dive".

Tell me what you think in light of these comments and let's find a way to improve the diagram. – Acdx (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The diagram is hard to get right, I have wrestled with it myself. It started out because people seemed to struggle visualising what is actually going on and the diagram helped a lot, the supressed CO₂ response is not particlarly intuitive. The original base article I wrote for the Australian Surf Life Saving Association following a number of SWB deaths in the Northern Territory and when they gave it to a newspaper the newspaper editors reduced it effectively to... if you hold your breath underwater too long you might black out, which entirely misses the point, either the editors didn't get it or, more likley, they shrewdly realised that their readership wasn't going to get it, so I did the diagram and people seem to respond well to it, I saw it stuck on the wall of my local swimming pool a while back after they had a near drowning.

  I agree with your points: the diagram needs to be as clean and simple as is possible, but notwithstanding this the temporal underwater phase would be helped if shaded blue if ever so subtlely and...; somehow the dashed lines need to show clearly that anything above ↑ the CO₂ line induces breathing and anything below ↓ the O₂ line means unconciousness (that was the purpose of the blackout box - the RSLSA version I did had a skull and crossbones in it but I know you wouldn't like that, gets attention 'though). I toyed with putting CO₂ & O₂ partial pressure gas scales to the left and right in matching colours and labelling the x axis TIME but I thought this would just lose everybody and actually when you go into detail the pps are really complex because the dive alters these scales in complex ways. Keep playing with diagrams, the idea they communicate have and will continue to save lives. Ex nihil (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with your suggestions… I'll play with the diagram and get back to you. – Acdx (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I now played around with the diagram:

Click to show:
This layout is somewhat pleasing to the eye, but can't really be extended to the second diagram.

Changes include:

• Blackout zone is now a region. It is colored red and labeled "O₂ blackout zone" to associate it with oxygen levels.
• Dive region is colored blue.
• The CO₂ trigger threshold is labeled.

Comments appreciated. – Acdx (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, let's go with 1 & 2. I'll know who to come to if I need diagrams in future! Ex nihil (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bearing with my stubbornness. :) – Acdx (talk) 02:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for pointing the issue with Form (disambiguation) out rather than just reverting it. My edit was actually intentional. The intended link was to the dab page for 'form' not a specific page; by adding '(disambiguation)' the page can easily be dismissed in future searches for pages with disambiguation links. I should have, however, added a | so it will display as Form, it's now fixed. J04n(talk page) 02:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your writeup about stressed skin and you seem quite knowledgable. I made a video about the latest (c6) Corvette ZO6 regarding its chassis as a ladder frame. or perimeter-ladder. It clearly meets the definition in wiki. I got a lot of wrath from fanboys stating that its a spaceframe. It does not meet wikis definition for spaceframe in any way even if you stretch the term. Although everyone seems to call it that maybe because its a cool sounding word. The guy who designed the car states its a backbone-spaceframe hybrid. But it looks like he's mistaken the torque tube for a load bearing member which are completely different things. But he designed the car so hes not stupid. Maybe he's just talking up his product. Further, the Corvette does not meet monocoque or unibody definitions. Nor is it claimed by anyone. Clearly, the Corvette has reinforcements But the way it channels loads to the wheels can best be described as a classic Ladder. Many corporations (GM, Dana, Alcoa) calling it a spaceframe have a dog in the race and the zealots see Ladder as a negative connotation so theres little consensus in the world. Do you have any scientific input on the ladder frame? Is there a test for it? thanks Scott espritzen@aol.com

p.s. Do you drive a Chevrolet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.144.102 (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably I do not drive a Chevrolet and I haven't had a chance to look under the skin. If I did I would be looking to see how the principal loads were carried and I might do this with an oxy torch. First, I'd cut the shell off and if the car didn't crumble into a heap I'd know it wasn't a monocoque. With the skin off I'd then torch through most of the smaller supporting struts and bits and pieces and if the thing could still be made to drive then it wasn't a spaceframe. Next, if I saw a very few major members still left that looked important and appeared to be acting as beams and if I then cut them and the car broke then it was a chassis all along, ladder or otherwise. One feature of the space frame is that the members act in concert and the loads in each member are often mathematically indeterminate; cutting the odd member out reroutes the loads and should still leave a viable structure, will your Chevy allow this? Having said that, I am but an architect, admittedly where space frames came from, but I don't presume to be a mechanical engineer. PS, if you feel moved to lend me your Corvette for further analysis I promise not to cut it up but I think it would enjoy a run on our Northern Territory roads where there is no speed limit. Ex nihil ^(talk) 01:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added + rollbacker + confirmed user + autoreviewer for you. -- Samir 06:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Congrats on getting rollback. Hope it helps out.--Coldplay Expert 18:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right we need some editing. I would appreciate you can guide me to edit.. the article.. Thank you indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.249.141 (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Haamed, I will reply by email. Ex nihil ^(talk) 02:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for considering help us to straighten the article for this renowned sufi saint of India.

Please do the needful. You may send message

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.249.141 (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent an email to you about this to your hotmail address, reply my email. Better that way. Ex nihil ^(talk) 02:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ex nihil !

Have seen some of your contributions in the past and looked at your talk page.

It is kind of you to have improved the quality of the Caudron G.3 image I put in the Wikipedia article. Yes - my little camera's flash was not strong enough! Have since learned how to improve my images, but had not reworked that one.

If you would email it to me at xxx, I would try to replace the existing image with your improved version - but I also have problems sometimes with Wiki Commons!

RuthAS (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Emailed Saturday 7 Nov. Ex nihil ^(talk) 02:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my Userpage. :) Crafty (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, there are some strange people around Ex nihil ^(talk) 03:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just warned by you to stop making edits to Wikipedia. As the other two were unconstructive, this last one, to Ron Jeremy was not. That is FACTUAL information and I would appreciate it if you would watch what you "revert". Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.114.156 (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may or may not be factual but your edits to Prison Break and Female Ejaculation, which were also reverted by others did not inspire confidence in any edits that you might make subsequently. If you want your edits to stick it would be good if you could build a reputation for making constructive edits. It would also help your credibility if you could make an account and edit under a username. Please feel free to continue editing but make your edits count for something, vandalism is too ordinary. Ex nihil ^(talk) 04:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although my two previous posts were unconstructive ( I could sit here and type what happened, but it really would not matter ), previous posts should not have anything to do with current or future posts. You "reverting" something because you placed a judgment on me is discrimination. Does Wikipedia promote discrimination? I would appreciate it if you would kindly replace my edit to Ron Jeremy. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.114.156 (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't replace it because there is still no citation and I feel the rv was legitimate but feel free to put it back yourself and see what others think of it, your edits are likely to be monitored by others because of your track record. I won't be monitoring it myself. Ex nihil ^(talk) 02:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this show? They have ruined a beloved franchise, and everyone knows it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.4.74 (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't watched the show. Maybe if I had I would agree with your assessment, unfortunately it would still be just an opinion and it would still have to be reverted. To make the edits stick you need to find a third party source that can be quited, which makes the claim. Ex nihil ^(talk) 03:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is a metacritic.com user score of less than 5.0 good enough? There are very few shows, with a good number of reviews, that do that poorly among the general public. Case in point, I couldn't find one current show with a lower user score.

Maybe, but you could only say, "It declined from x - 5.0" or "it had a score of 5.0" or "Magazine Y said...." Stick to verifiable facts, it's an encyclopedia not a chat session. Ex nihil ^(talk) 03:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That section is still pretty bad. If you ask me the main problem is that the article mysteriously concentrates on the different passages in the rules of the different rules bodies instead of just explaining what the rules are trying to accomplish, which is to punish teams for burning rocks and minimize the impact on the outcome of the game otherwise. Those minor differences in rules don't really belong in that section or probably anywhere in wikipedia.Bollinger (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I totally agree. I have been trying to tighten up the whole article but I have stopped short of actually removing whole sections. The rulke details don't really belong in Wikipedia. Why don't you try to rewrite it once again? But you get "burned" by somewbody who likes it that way. Ex nihil ^(talk) 03:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've looked at your message that you've left on the Airbus page, and answered it. I hope it helps. Kind regards--DragonFly31 (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you added a word to [this page], and your justification was that the B-777 didn't have the same kind of engine bleed air system, to supply cabin pressurization, as other aircraft. Unfortunately, that is incorrect. It does have the same kind of high/low pressure bleed air system, as other airliners. See this link: [2] EditorASC (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Retired B-777 Capt.)[reply]

• Of course, you are right. I meant the 787, which has bleedless turbofans and electrical air compressors.

Thanks for the super-quick reply. Do you mind if I rephrase it to say something like: "With the exception of the new Boeing 787, the air in a jet or turboprop aircraft cabin is supplied by bleed air from the aircraft’s engines."  ? EditorASC (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, go for it. Ex nihil ^(talk) 03:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:SWB1b.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tim1357 ^talk 19:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:SWB2b.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tim1357 ^talk 05:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Article Incubator Candidate Habibi Silsila has been tagged for deletion, due to inactivity. If you object, please add a message on the Talk page. Thanks.     Eclipsed   ¤     19:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, let it go. I don't think I'll ever have the luxury of timee for this. Ex nihil ^(talk) 22:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have any objection to me moving Black Out (music) to Black Out (The Good Life album)? This would follow the pattern used by other albums on the disambiguation page. Black Out (album) already redirects there. Nick Number (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	Melbourne Meetup v t e Next: Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne/46 - Tuesday 13 August, 2024 (watch) Last: 18 February 2023
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup at North Melbourne this Saturday (23 July). Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 16 Hope to see you there! JVbot (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC) (this automated message was delivered to all users at Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne/Participants)[reply]

Your edit to American and British English today is inaccurate, unfortunately our corporate firewall is preventing me from reverting it, so I'll make do with an explanation here and ask you to review your change!

A principality is an area governed by a prince. Sovereign principalities such as Andorra are countries in their own right, just that historically the ruler has been a prince rather than a king. Non-sovereign principalities also exist from which either practically or purely notionally a prince takes his title.

A country is a geographical region, commonly associated with a sovereign state. Probably the most obvious exception to the common usage is the United Kingdom which as a sovereign state encompasses the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Of these four only Wales is ever referred to as a principality, and that as a customary not constitutional usage.

May I recommend Principality and Country to you? They explain the position fairly clearly. Is you require additioinal help on this, please feel free to contact me via my talk page. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is a very American view. I know England is not a country because I am English but then I am 60 years old so just in case I have become out of touch with recent usage I asked the British High Commissioner for the Solomon islands (I am in Honiara at the moment) "Is England a country?" and he said of course not, the country is the UK. I doubt if anybody in the UK would see England Scotland and Wales as countries, very strange idea. Is Hawai'i a country? If it is, I shall concede the point. Ex nihil ^(talk) 22:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm afraid the BHC is making the common mistake of confusing a sovereign state with a country. England has not been a sovereign state since the Act of Union, but is certainly still an identifiable country with a distinct legal system from Scotland. I'm not sure why you refer to "a very American view", the USA is a sovereign state consisting of a federation of non-sovereign states. You might well call the individual states "countries", but AFAIK it has never been US practice to do so. The case of Hawaii is interesting, it was a sovereign state until 1898 (monarchy until 1893, republic thereafter) when the USA annexed it as a territory. So is it a country? Perhaps, you'd need to ask a Hawaiian about their current preferred usage. I'm afraid that your assertion that "I doubt .. as countries" is just plain wrong. Whilst many Englishmen seem to be uncertain about country, I can assure you that the Welsh, and even more so, Scots definitely are not! Finally, do remember that country can be used in a looser context: The Black Country or the North Country for example. Oh, and in case it is relevant, I'm a Yorkshireman who has lived all his life in England, though with relatives in Scotland whom I visit regularly.

I'll concede the point, I suppose the meaning has drifted over my lifetime. I'll go with the flow, Wikiwise, but personally I think I'll stick to A country as a sovereign state and country as a piece of land, Kent is beautiful country but it certainly isn't a country. Safer that way, I work in developing countries, if I start referring to Irian Jaya as a country I might end up in an Indonesian jail! Ex nihil ^(talk) 22:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that there is a new freely accessible medical resource, MedMerits (to which I'm a medical advisor) on neurologic disorders. A discussion on ELs to MedMerits and medical ELs in general is currently in progress ("Wikipedia and its relationship to the outside world"). I posted this message becasue of your interest in -baric disorders. [Here] are some altitude-related disorders. Presto54 (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your inquiry [here] 66.81.52.253 (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, At last month's June meetup we discussed the idea of setting up a Training Course at a University of the Third Age (U3A) to be held in 2013 and named Becoming a Wikipedia editor. In order to get this course up and running we are calling for volunteers to help develop the idea, and either tutor part of the course, or provide one on one help to students in the class. All local Wikipedians are welcome to discuss this at our 11am meetup to be held this Sunday on 22 July. Please add your name to the attending list at Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 23. Food and beverages are provided. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice idea, but I am in the Solomon Islands. Hope ii goes well. Ex nihil ^(talk) 00:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation and suggestions. I will contribute a page on CIR (Citizens Initiated Referenda/Referendum) and link that to the disambiguation page in accord with the online style guidance. I'm puzzled and surprised by the alacrity with which you have taken it upon yourself to remove my contribution twice, especially when other entries on the same disambiguation page do not meet the style criteria you have invoked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.148.105.64 (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I agree some of the remaining ones are non-compliant but they are all much better than they were. We did a big cleanup of them all a long time ago but don't always correct everything; it was just that this one was a new entry and was worth sorting at inception. Sorry if you thought it harsh. Feel free to improve those other entries. Good luck with starting the new page, being a new page you will find it heavily scrutinised. Compose it offline, making sure it meets the MOS requirements has good citations before you post it or it will just get ripped down in about 20 minutes. If it lasts a week it will probably survive. It's hard to start a page and get it to stick. Ex nihil ^(talk) 00:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the way to go here? Over such a small change? Let me remind you that at least in England, "anorak" is basically offensive as an insult. Only third or fourth definition has it defined as a parka coat. You find and cite a source that people say "anorak" when they mean "parka"--go ahead, find some citations that state that. Certainly people may use a term in other parts of the world, and those particular Natives who invented it might still use that term--but in WP articles, we use the term that is most common in the West.~©Djathinkimacowboy 00:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it is mildly offensive in the UK but only if you find 'nerdy' or a train spotter derogatory. The main understanding of the word is still the garment, which is readily available in shops advertised and bought under that name. I am British but live in Australia, where we would call it by the American, a parka, and not many would really understand what calling a person an anorak meant. No big deal either way. Like the rest of the edits, always good to reduce bloated articles. Ex nihil ^(talk) 04:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like you to consider this quote from the article's lead: 'The words anorak and parka have possibly been used interchangeably, but they are somewhat different garments. Strictly speaking, an anorak is a waterproof, hooded, pull-over jacket without a front opening, and sometimes drawstrings at the waist and cuffs, and a parka is a knee-length cold-weather jacket or coat; typically stuffed with down or very warm synthetic fiber, and with a fur-lined hood.' There's your answer as to why this article should be called PARKA, with a section on the anorak. That article is one of the less than impressive things I've ever seen on WP. And when you reverted me, your edit summary simply proves further that there ought to be two articles, one for each garment.~©Djathinkimacowboy 05:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)--striking anachronistic post.~©Djathinkimacowboy 14:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, why is that article apparently one and the same as Amauti? That is just wrong. Considering I tried editing and ended up at Amauti, in which I had practically no interest but why would I end there when I started editing at Anorak?~©Djathinkimacowboy 00:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)--striking obsolete post. Sorry. It is no longer a problem.~©Djathinkimacowboy 10:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page.

Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.

Hope to see you there! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC) Noted thank you Ex nihil ^(talk) 23:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since production of the entire A340 line ceased 2011, there is no more assembly for it actually... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romczyk (talk • contribs) 07:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's fairly convincing. Ex nihil ^(talk) 10:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I'll let you know. :) Aridd (talk) 09:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ò== Move discussion at Talk:Jetliner (disambiguation) ==

Hello Ex nihil. If you believe that Jetliner should no longer redirect to Jet airliner, please give your argument in the above discussion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 06:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Have done so. Ex nihil ^(talk) 01:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library (talk | edit) Get free access to research! Research tools and services Resource Exchange Reference Desk Discover open access Free Resource Guides Book Sources Journal Sources Bibliographies Free newspaper sources Online archives Find Your Local Library tips Find Your Source tips How to find sources Citation tools guide Outreach The Wikipedia Library Bookshelf (meta) Universities and Libraries Archivists Publishers Wikipedia Loves Libraries Wikidata source metadata Get involved Get free access to sources Read the Books & Bytes newsletter Help disambiguate authors of scholarly papers Be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar Teach Library Interns Become a Coordinator Learn about TWL ...Support Open Access...

The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.

• Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
• Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
• If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not registering, not because I am disinterested but because, if there are to be just one hundred, then I am sure there are more worthy recipients than me. Ex nihil ^(talk) 01:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I just want to say you beautifully rewrote the paragraph.

Congratulations!

--Gurglin (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 02:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• in competitive matches by high-profile players including [[Ricky Ponting]] and [[Michael Hussey]]). The carbon fiber was claimed merely to increase the durability of the bats but were banned from

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks bot! Ex nihil ^(talk) 05:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your attention to Modified pages of wikipedia, there are many reasons and justification for using Persian Gulf instead of a false name,valid reasons such as old maps, which will confirm the name of Persian Gulf,Wikipedia is an professionals encyclopedia so for keep this title should not believe the lies and the deceit without evidence! Thanks for your efforts With best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.150.209.164 (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have every sympathy with your situation. When I was at school, a long time ago, it was always the Persian Gulf to us, but we go with what people want to call it now. The problem is that the organisation is actually called The Arabian Gulf League. Before we can change the page we would have to actually convince the organisation to change its name and then, afterwards, change the name of the Wiki page. Best of luck with that one. Ex nihil ^(talk) 04:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hello, why cant you keep my edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.62.130 (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to what page? Also you are an IP, and did not sign off, so I cannot respond. Ex nihil ^(talk) 11:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ex nihil, I added the disambiguation to air embolism because air injection redirects to it. I figured that would be a simpler solution than turning air injection into a disambiguation page. Regards, VX1NG (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I just undid myself. Carry on the good work. Ex nihil ^(talk) 14:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ex nihil! VX1NG (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.

The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the {{User WPMed}} template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.[reply]

Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Wikipedia Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: Wikipedia:BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of Solomon Islands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bougainville (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Quite right, link now moved from Bougainville to Bougainville Island. Ex nihil ^(talk) 09:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tamak waypoint ABSOLUTEY IS on the border. It is the Malaysia Airlines statement that is inconsistent. I raised this point some time back but wasn't allowed to point this out as it was considered OR. Please put this back to how it was. Montenegroman (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the entire Malaysia Airlines statement doesn't stack up actually - but because it's considered a 'reliable source' it seems we have to use it. Montenegroman (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The times are all wrong and the locations confused; with time and energy perhaps it could be sorted. I looked up TAMAK and located it in GE, and actually it is almost exactly 20km from the border on the Ukraine side, so it can indeed be 30km from TAMAK and 50km from the border. However, I believe that it is the handover point to Russian ATC, so it is on a border in a sense, MH17 would have been under Russian control in 30kms. Ex nihil ^(talk) 09:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although long-since archived on the talk page, the problem (as I understand it) was that this was what Malaysian Airways actually said. Personally, I can understand how (with the pressure to deliver a statement) mistakes could have been made. But (again: as I understand it) we should not report what a source SHOULD have said. I was also told not to comment on the discrepancy in the article itself - fair enough.

PS: have a look at: http://skyvector.com/?ll=47.859,38.2143&chart=302&zoom=3 Is TAMAK not actually ON the border?

The OpenNav data puts it 400m inside Ukraine https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=47.856667,39.218333&q=47.856667,39.218333&hl=en&t=m&z=15

Montenegroman (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you're right. TAMAK is on the border, or 360m inside it. Because there is a clear conflict here and something has to give way I put a reference to the TAMAK location in there and suppressed the 50km statement. I won't be surprised if I get ORed, but it is more accurate. Ex nihil ^(talk) 11:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My reference linked to an official statement by Airbus on their corporate press page noting they have cancelled the sales contract with Skymark, so I am confused as to why this is not considered an Airbus announcement per your reversion of my revision. If policy is to wait for Airbus to update their Orders and Deliveries spreadsheet at the end of each month, that is fine, but that should have been the states reason so as to prevent confusion and ambiguity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiskaloo (talk • contribs) 15:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kiskaloo, I know the press release says -6 A380s, and probably that will happen but please, please don't edit the orders and deliveries on the basis of news releases, it leads to chaos. There is an editing note in the text explaining how it's done without getting into chaos. We use only the monthly Airbus O&D sheet, July is due out soon, so please be patient. The news releases are pretty meaningless, we got into deep chaos with people doing O&Ds on press releases and somebody has to then sort it out. Probably July will show -6 A380s, just wait. There are many, many press releases that can be construed as either new orders or new cancellations but they rarely add up to the real net amounts. When the July O&Ds come out, it is then quite a big job updating all the figures across multiple pages and finding them all in conflict or mixed up makes updating back to reality a chore we would like to avoid. Ex nihil ^(talk) 10:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ex nihil. Could I possibly ask you to stop removing "the" from the Solomon Islands name? It's perfectly acceptable (and normal) to refer to the country in this way, and not having it there looks awkward. Thanks, Number 57 17:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern but we have about 90% consistent usage as Solomon Islands for the nation and The Solomon Islands for the archipelago, which covers a different geopolitical area. The removal of the the is trying to make the usage consistent. The actual gazetted name of the country is without the the. There tends to be a traditional use by the British with the the because until 1978 it was protectorate and this was correct. It is now confusing. Generally, all official sources such as any diplomatic source, the UN, ADB, Olympics, RAMSI are careful to use the correct name, so maybe we had better. It feels a bit odd to some Brits but they chose to 'Solomon Islands'not 'The Solomon Islands' Ex nihil ^(talk) 18:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "gazetted name"? And why should this (and the official name) override WP:COMMONNAME? Number 57 18:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it doesn't overide WP:COMMONNAME. The starting point was that there was an inconsistency in usage which needed cleaning up. The Solomon Islands (archipelago) and the nation Solomon Islands are different things and cover different areas and the WP articles themselves are very confused about which is being referred to, in some cases significantly misguiding the reader. All WP pages relating to the archipelago correctly referred to "the Solomon Islands", such as the List of birds of the Solomon Islands, and included everything under the British Solomon Islands Protectorate and the many Solomon Islands campaign related pages and the many flora and flora pages relating to the islands not the nation. These all need a 'the', and actually, over time, I have added quite a few 'the's where the context referred to the archipelago not the nation. Meanwhile, almost all, but not quite all, pages relating to the sovereign state correctly use "Solomon Islands", e.g. Solomon Islands itself Central Bank of Solomon Islands etc. Inside the sovereign state articles there is a mix with probably 70-80% correctly dropping the 'the' such as Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands and some having it both ways. Outside of WP it is hard to tell because in many cases the words Solomon Islands are used as an adjective or qualifier to a noun that deserves a 'the', like The Solomon Islands Visitors Bureau. However, discounting those instances, probably most reputable Google hits find the state without the article such as Government of UK who claim that The High Commission in Honiara represents the British Government’s interests in Solomon Islands etc. Wikitravel refers to the country as Solomon Islands and the archipelago as the Solomon Islands or try Australian Government, DFAT. The actual name, as per the constitution purposely drops the definite article so as to avoid a problem in staking a claim on all of the Solomon Islands archipelago, which includes islands such a Bougainville that belong to another country. What I called the gazetted name is the official English language name as registered with the UN, which is Solomon Islands and is the reason all the diplomatic sites use that name, so, there is an objective truth sitting behind the otherwise laudable WP democratic consensual approach. Now, all this probably doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but since I am an expat working in Solomon Islands and have cause to go to these pages from to time I started redirecting inappropriate links to the archipelago and the nation and now, when I come across them, tend to add or subtract 'the's to clarify what is being referred to. For example, the WW2 campaign articles were almost all incorrectly linked to Solomon Islands and then these articles go on to talk about Bougainville, which is not in Solomon Islands or made it look as if the campaign was restricted to the area covered by the nation state, whereas the state did not even exist then, covers a different area and the campaign ranged far, far further across the Solomon Islands (archipelago). If I happen to hit some text where the readers need to be guided towards either the nation or the archipelago I shall probably still provide that guidance, but I won't be 'the' hunting. Ex nihil ^(talk) 11:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Culture of the Solomon Islands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bougainville. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Ex nihil ^(talk) 09:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have inserted the following Myths in the article that were reverted and marked unsourced by you. For the first myth i.e. "Yogi’s physical body requires no external care during Samadhi" i have provided two references to the books published by Ramkrishna Mission

For "All Samadhis are the same" it is just the summary of all the data that is already available in the article which is very well referenced. Regards 59.180.34.9 (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I would strongly recommend that you make an account rather than edit under an IP address. This way you can build up a reputation for reliable edits and you can be contacted. Ex nihil ^(talk) 08:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, i have re inserted the information with proper references. I will definitely create an account as you suggested. Currently i am just going through the documentation available on the site. You seems to be an experienced editor, could you please refer me some good reading material before i start contributing to other articles. Regards 59.180.1.101 (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow response, I was away from the internet for a while. Most of what you need is probably found at WP:WELCOME, which contains many useful links and advice. When you create an account you will automatically be sent a welcome message with useful links in it like the one below. I am replying here in my talk page because you are editing under an IP address, which changes so you may not ever see it. However, I will copy-post this to your IP address too. When you have an account, if you let me know what it is here, I can reply to you better. Best wishes for your Wikipedia editing career.

Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes. - Ex nihil ^(talk) 10:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you have previously indicated that you would be interested in attending Melbourne meetups. A meetup will be held on Wednesday August 12, 2015 6-8pm. Please check out Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 29 for details and add your name to the list if you think you can attend. --Michael Billington (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Great Culverden Park history.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have responded at File:Great Culverden Park history.pdf. Ex nihil ^(talk) 00:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
I read WP:DABABBREV and Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links after your 2nd reversion of the above. I'm somewhat surprised, because in my experience I was able to use Wikipedia to work out any TLA. In fact, I recall disambiguation lines without links, or red links, and believed an entry doesn't have to necessarily link to an article, But then Wikipedia is, well, encyclopedic, so that almost any "real" TLA has an article, so I might have been wrong. Or is that a new policy?

A web surfer may stumble upon RPF, for example here. Actually, the acronym is spelled out at the beginning of the article, but that may as well be overlooked. Googling for RPF brings the surfer to Wikipedia, where he or she gets disappointed not finding it —that's how I added the entry the first time.

Now, RPF is a milter. It is neither conceptually innovative nor very popular (not on Debian, e.g.). Given the current status of email filtering pages, RPF might be mentioned in Anti-spam techniques#Rule-based filtering after some other, more relevant stuff will have been mentioned in turn. By that time, I will have forgotten about it. Hence, this policy somehow hampers expansion. If you are sure about it, please word it better in Template:Disambig editintro. A link to Acronym Finder wouldn't hurt (I just added RPF there).

ale (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ale2006, I understand your frustration and appreciate your good faith edits. The general principles regarding DISAMBIG have been the same for years now. The purpose of the page is to navigate users to the page the need, so redlinks don't help. The page is not there to decipher acronyms, that's the job of the acronym If there is no actual article about the subject then the article must at least contain a reference to it. You could, I suppose, edit the target to include a discussion of RPF, that would be fine, but if you have trouble fitting it meaningfully into the article then take that as a sign that the link shouldn't really be there. Ex nihil ^(talk) 20:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ex nihil. An edit made by you on 11 December (diff) is the subject of a new thread at Talk:Cabin pressurization. See diff. I have responded to that new thread, and in doing so I mentioned your edit - see my diff. Regards, Dolphin (t) 06:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Monarchy of the Solomon Islands. Thanks. Neve-selbert 09:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grain cradle, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Thresh and Sheaf. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Bentwood into Steam bending. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Dianna, I should have done that. Ex nihil ^(talk) 09:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ex nihil, let me know when you are finished cleaning up at Dry suit. I noticed that a few points seem to have been lost in the rebuild. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for asking Peter (Southwood). Yes, by all means reinstate anything I may have lost; I did take a few liberties with it. I was trying to keep the same content while rewriting what seemed to be a series of accretions over time. Ex nihil ^(talk) 22:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • I could see that, and it has benefited by the work, but surface supplied divers also use dry suits, as can be seen in the lead photo. Some of the text is specific to scuba but now does not say so, and some that now refers to scuba is general. I will clarify. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TheUltimateWarrior1234 (talk) 10:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)== Edits A380 ==[reply]

Hello,

The image has been changed and updated to a more definitive one. And with regards to the largest A380 fleets, Emirates possesses 82 A380 aircraft, which is the largest in the world to this day. This is from all credible sources including A380 website. So this contribution to the article is significant and credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheUltimateWarrior1234 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have deleted my content again without giving proper reason. I have given a clear and definitive image this time and I have also provided credible sources for my comment on the "largest A380 fleet in the world". So I think there should be no reason for you to delete this content which I took an awful amount of time to research and put it there. Please discuss before you delete again.TheUltimateWarrior1234 (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I gave my reasons for the revert in some details on your Talk page because there just wan't room to do justice to five reverts on the page itself. I hope that you have read the reasons and can see that there were legitimate treason for each revert. IF you can address those reasons by all means fell free to contribute to the page. I will have a look at what you have done since. Ex nihil ^(talk) 09:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ex nihil. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please change the title of the article to reflect the lack of "the"? Otherwise, the disjunct is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.220.155 (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ex nihil. When you changed M/s from a redirect into a disambiguation page, you may not have been aware of WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:

When creating disambiguation pages, fix all resulting mis-directed links.

Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "M/s" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm... I'll try. My assumption was that no article should be linked to a redirect anyway and that if it did then linking to the disambig would just assist those article editors to choose an appropriate page when they see it goes to a disambig. Ex

Hi Ex nihil, I wrote a new article Physiology of underwater diving as a response to a suggestion for expanding Underwater diving in preparation for FAC. As this seems to be in your field of interest, I am letting you know it is there in case you find the time to take a look and see if there is anything significant that you think should be added, removed, or changed in any other way. It is basically a summary of all the other physiology articles relating to diving. I was initially thinking of writing another article on Physiology of breathhold diving, but now think that Physiology of underwater diving is sufficient. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good at first glance. Will check it out in more detail later. Well done. Ex nihil ^(talk) 22:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all those conversions on Altitude diving. You might be interested in a feature of {{convert}} that saves effort when we want the units in reverse order for consistency:

• {{convert|19300|ft|m|disp=flip}} → 5,900 metres (19,300 ft)

It's very handy when one unit is the one we find in the sources, but we want its conversion to display first. Regards --RexxS (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thank you RexxS, very handy. Ex nihil ^(talk) 23:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is the UniPers transcription. —Ninjoust (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I made a reference to that at Mazar-i-Sharif. Correct me if it is wrong. Ex nihil ^(talk) 03:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hello, Ex nihil. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Ex nihil|E]][[User:Ex nihil|<font color="red">x </font>]][[User:Ex nihil|nihil ]]<small><sup><i>([[User_talk:Ex nihil|talk]])</i></sup></small> : Ex nihil ^(talk)

to

[[User:Ex nihil|E]][[User:Ex nihil|<span style="color: red;">x </span>]][[User:Ex nihil|nihil ]]<small><sup><i>([[User_talk:Ex nihil|talk]])</i></sup></small> : Ex nihil ^(talk)

—Anomalocaris (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ex Nihilo,

I'm a journalist writing a piece about Curling's Wikipedia entry for Vice Sports. Since you are one of the main contributors to the page, I wanted to ask your opinion and inquire why it's important to you. Do you think it's quality description of the sport? Do you think it inaccurately categorizes Curling as a sport instead of a game?

Would love to hear from you soon if possible by email (stephenbharrison@gmail.com). The article comes out this Friday!Stephenbharrison (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	Melbourne Meetup v t e Next: Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne (watch)
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

Hi, I've just made a doodle poll to vote on the best date for the next Wikimeetup in Melbourne (Beer Deluxe, Fed Square). Would be great to see you there. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 12:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Date of next Melbourne meetup decided:

• When: 6-8pm, Sunday 8 July 2018
• Where: Beer DeLuxe, Flinders St

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a contributor to Talk:Tham Luang cave rescue#Saman Kunan article you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saman Kunan. Regards, WWGB (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Solomon Islands (archipelago), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bougainville (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, thanks bot, I've now fixed this. You're a useful bot. Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

under water

Thank you for quality articles, new and improved, around under-water, such as swimming, diving, decompression sickness and shallow water blackout, uploading images for good illustrations, for sticking to old-fashioned values, for polite warnings such as " If you want your edits to stick it would be good if you could build a reputation for making constructive edits", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 2015 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At Bombardier Aerospace you added a bunch of text including a ref named "AvWeek16Oct2017". But the ref with that name has no content defined. Do you remember what it was supposed to be? Hairy Dude (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry mate. I went back and tried to unravel what was going on with those edits and just managed to confuse myself. The only ref data that I edited ends up with a server error, but it wasn't my target, it pre-existed. https://www.thestar.com/business/2017/10/16/bombardier-looking-to-sell-q400-business-report.html Hope it wasn't me that broke it. Thanks for trying to sort these things. Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ex nihil. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of cities, towns and villages in Solomon Islands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bougainville (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed, mea culpa. Fixed. Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 10:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Honiara International Airport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western Province (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ex nihil. Where is this consensus to rename articles related to the Solomon Islands? I looked on the talk page, and there is nothing on there that appears to be a consensus (I wondered whether it might be this discussion, but that doesn't appear to end with anything clear enough to result in moves/edits you're making). Number 57 15:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• See Talk:Solomon Islands#Official name although this one doesn't seem to have been actually closed it's been around for along time. Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the amount of changes you are making, including article moves, I think you need to do an RfC that would be formally closed and legitimise it. Number 57 15:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. All edits and page moves should be reverted until a broad consensus is reached. --John B123 (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You asked my reasoning for the self-revert on this edit. I self reverted because the reference being used to support the number of incidents has 3 incidents listed , see the reference page. While Wikipedia only has 2 items called out there does appear to have been 3 incidents. My first reaction was the same as yours, it wasn't until I looked into the references I realised the previous editor was actually correct on what the reference states. Canterbury Tail talk 13:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do remember a third incident but it was deleted after discussion by others as not being significant. It was something along the lines of another engine failure and these happen fairly frequently to all airliners. Or a nosewheel collapse while being serviced in a hangar. Can't remember. I think that if we only have two, it's OK to say two, otherwise it's going to confuse everybody. Maybe a different citation is in order. Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Looking into it in more detail it was a nose wheel retraction and since it didn't result in a hull loss, loss of life or major change to procedures it fails WP:AIRCRASH so you're quite right. Canterbury Tail talk 17:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank you for your follow through on your suggestions to Thunberg's Wiki-page's honors and awards section. As you are well aware, Thunberg's activism has woken nearly everyone: climate change activism and its supporters and critics, and the disengaged politicians and public. Your suggestions and edits serve as a perfect compromise and excellent balance between fandom and facts. Her fans and critics alike, along with everyone else, will now have no basis for taking exception with how the honors and awards section is constructed. Johnrichardhall (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ex nihil, I saw a cite error when reading the "Airbus A320 family" article. I could remove this error by changing the template you created. But I am not sure whether I solved the problem in a good way. I think it would help if you check if the template is doing what you want it to do. --Kallichore (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kallichore, that seems to be fine. I was having a problem working out why that item didn’t work but what you have done is a fix. If someone really wants the cite back in, I expect it will reappear. It works without anyway. Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emigree. Thank you for introducing this section. The section is valid and important but it probably still has a ways to go. I have attempted to make a first cut at reducing the volume, eliminating repetitions and bringing it more into line with Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia instead of rather racy journalism. Several of the references need firming up. Let’s see what others make of it over the next few days. This issue certainly has a place, and you have done a lot of work in your contribution but it needs to settle down. Regarding the OW, we also need to read through each of the references and establish what was actually said and whether the text can be supported by them. Ex nihil ^(talk) 21:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening,
Thank you for editing my entry on this touchy but actual and important issue in many instances.
Not sure to understand when you write: "Still a mess, in two minds whether OR."
what do you mean with this sentence?
Also, with your editing work, I believe the heading "This section has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This section needs editing for compliance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. (March 2020) This section possibly contains original research. (March 2020)" should now be deleted or at least amended.
Also because all required sources have been added. even if some additional sources will also be welcome. cheers
--Emigré55 (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ex nihil,

I'm the wikieditor who inserted the volume of the Mariana Trench in Megalodon equivalents. You removed the edits as they were not supported by citations, but I wonder if I could provide the calculations as a file to support the calculations then would this edit be acceptable? I did these calculations with a friend's child as they are interested in science, and because they are correct and not harmful, I'd ask that the edits be reinserted. I've attached a copy of the calculations below and will wait for your response and suggestions as to how and where it might be included.

Cheers, Nathan English 02:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Nenglish

Biggest female megalodon (Volume ellipsoid, estimated measurements from Wikipedia) length radius = 17 * 0.5 = 8.5 width radius = 3 * 0.5 = 1.5 height radius = 3 * 0.5 = 1.5

Biggest female megalodon volume = 19m3

Marianas trench volume L H W / 2 (volume right angle prism, estimated measurements from Wikipedia)

H = 10,984m (depth Challenger deep) - 3,688 m (average sea floor depth) = 7,296m
L = 2550km = 2550km * 1000m/km = 2,550,000m
W = 69km = 69,000m	

Marianas Trench volume = 1,283,730,000,000,000 m3 / 2 = 641,866,000,000,000 m3

641,866,000,000,000 m3 / 19m3 = 33,782,400,000,000 megalodons fit in the Marianas Trench — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenglish (talk • contribs) 02:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear Nenglish. The Magalodon calculation is an interesting proposition for a quizz night but not for an encyclopedia. Two reasons it doesn't belong in here:

1. Citations must be independent, published sources. Original research is not permitted. For more on this look at WP:OR.
2. The volume in magalodons is not important, conveys no useful information to readers needing to understand the volume of the trench, the choice of megalodon is arcane and arbitrary, the volume of a megaladon is not common knowledge and the concept provides no useful assistance in visualising a volume of this size. Ex nihil ^(talk) 18:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Delta Air Lines article, go to Accidents and Incidents section, August 23, 1995 entry, go to Uninjured column. Can you please change 236 to All in keeping with the format with the rest of the table? Entry is valid, just that should be changed. Thank you for your time.2601:581:8402:1EE0:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I suggest that you create a Wiki account; editing under an IP address may allow some to assume you work for Delta. Keeps everything transparent. Ex nihil ^(talk) 19:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I won't create an account. I can edit from an IP without any problem, thank you. Airbus SE is a Dutch company organized as 'Societas Europeas' (100% under Dutch Law), and so it is a Dutch company, equivalent to the NV but with European scope. There is no European Union nationality either for Companies or Individuals. Societas Europeas is a kind of company organization, no a nationality.

On the other hand, the French company Airbus SAS [subsiadiry (95%) of Airbus SE] is still kicking and alive, and it is still the company running the commercial aircraft business. You only need to read the company incorporation articles, legal disclaimers or annual report to acknowledge it. Airbus SE and Airbus SAS are to separate companies, but the memebers of the executive committee are the same in both of them, so they are managed together, but on paper, they are independent. Before making any more reversions, please read the actual legal documents from the company. Regards. 194.69.224.14 (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree. The intention is that SE companies are considered European rather than wherever they happen to be incorporated. Same as Boeing is American, not a Delaware company. In the fullness of time people will get used to the idea of SE. Europe is actually a political entity with an elected parliament etc etc. Americans in particular have trouble with recognising C21st Europe. Dutch laws are invoked by the registration as bedrock but there are actually many more European and SE laws that Airbus works to in practice, just that if you want to take them to court you do so in Netherlands. Regarding editing as an IP, you can do this of course but there are advantages to you and the Wiki community of having an account. To you because you build a reputation that removes you from scrutiny, reduces chances of reverts and earns you freedoms. ALL IP edits are read and approved by somebody using systems such as Hubble. All your records will vanish each time your IP address changes and your reputation is busted back to a high school student using a school IP. To the Wiki community because it allows people to communicate with you better, keeps a record of discussions and allows you to vote. IPs are a bit unprofessional for somebody doing as much editing as you. It makes it look as if you hiding after you have done a lot of editing. A lot of Wikipedians would like to exclude IPs because they create a deal of work to scrutinise, but it’s a very deeply entrenched policy. Ex nihil ^(talk) 12:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Two years!

I enjoyed having the TFA yesterday, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea there was actually a name for that. Thank you for contributing to my vocabulary. Kuru (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gerda. Makes me happy in trying times. Ex nihil ^(talk) 09:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Airbus A320 vs Boeing 737 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find the discussion on this. Where is the arguement given for doing this located? It may be reasonable but since each template serves multiple pages it is hard to see how this will work. Ex nihil ^(talk) 00:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]