Bambuway

bambuway's talk page

England images

I was going to ask the same. Red double deckers are a more famous symbol of England than eurostar trains. Also you tried to put references on another image (economy) and it just came up as three red link errors. You have to put a link into a reference for it to show up, its not automatic. If you're new this may be helpful Wikipedia:REF#How_to_format_citations, thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Strategic Barnstar

This editor has been awarded the Strategic Barnstar for creating or editing strategic deterrent related articles.

To: Wikipedia User:Bambuway

Subject: The awarding of the Strategic Barnstar

Citation: For your hard work and due diligence creating or editing strategic deterrent related articles or Fleet Ballistic Missile submarine related pages. Specifically, your edits of Ballistic missile submarine, Nuclear triad, Ballistic missile, Ballistic missile submarine, Submarine-launched ballistic missile, and Trident (missile) is appreciated by readers and your fellow editors. Legohead1 (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Superpowers in 1945.png

A tag has been placed on File:Superpowers in 1945.png 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), 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. --Rrburke^(talk) 19:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Great power

Nice input about the G8, Bambuway. Right now the placement of the G8 pic is a contested question. Maybe you want to clarify where and why the pic has to be at that article. Have a nice weekend. KJohansson (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Great power & G8

As you have posted on the subject recently I was wondering if I could get your input on if there is a sufficient source for the addition of the G8 image to the Great power article or if it is WP:OR. Follow the link to the relevant conversation Talk:Great power#G8 Solution x2. Thanks -- Phoenix (talk) 11:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bambuway, would you mind just briefly post your point of view about the inclusion of G8 infos at the Great power article here once again. The dispute has not been settled yet. Thanks KJohansson (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland - European Parliament

There was brief discussion about this and no one objected to it. I have therefore reinstated it and if you are not content you should raise it on the talk page. Leaky Caldron 18:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Before removing this AGAIN I would ask that you consider that this article has dozens of watchers and the content was added during a major dispute about other aspects of the lead. If any of those subject matter expert editors had been concerned I'm certain they would have raised it at the time. Leaky Caldron 21:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Rounding at EU

Could you explain this edit to me or to the talk page of this article. If you follow the figures linked, the percentage does not round up to 23%, but either to 22 or 21%. Were just playing around (i.e., vandalizing the article) or what has happened. Tomeasy _{T C} 06:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

South Georgia

I suggest you take some time to read up on the History of South Georgia before you changed cited information again. Your edits have introduced factual errors. May I also suggest you review WP:BRD. Justin talk 00:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I really do suggest you take the time to do some research before editing the article again. The information you're adding is incorrect. It also would appear to be POV driven. Wikipedia has a number of key policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V. I really would urge you to read them and again the essay WP:BRD is helpful in avoiding conflict. Please don't revert again because you'll be violating a key wikipedia policy which is WP:3RR. Regards, Justin talk 01:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Its late, I'm tired and it would appear that you don't see where I'm coming from. I've started a thread on AN/I here, hopefully someone there can explain it better than I. Justin talk 01:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Napoleonic Wars

Reading the other comments here this is certainly in character with the rest. The comments placed were fairly POV in a pro British way and as such needs to be refrained from in the future. It was neither well researched nor supported by citation an another editor has reverted your changes. Please consider your edits before putting down such issues in the future. History articles are not the place for opinions. Tirronan (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah so I see, I am not in agreement with your comments and expect revision soon.Tirronan (talk) 07:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Stock Exchange Flag

Okay, okay. If it is so vitally important to you, keep the massive flag!

You know, people used to tell me that Wikipedia should be called 'Ameripedia' or 'Yankpedia' and I used to say no, it is an international phenomenon with contributions from many countries, and it represents all nations.
But over time I see they were right.
What a pity.

B. Fairbairn (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

stop

please can you stop reverting my edits all the time ? china is TODAY the largest exporter. See on google. thanks Polylepsis (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Mexico

Sorry but it does not matter what editors say, but what the source indicates. You can't go around Wikipedia selecting what "suits the opinion of a certain group of editors". That's why the rules are very clear: if there's a source it can be included. No source? No publication. It is interesting how you downplay now the role of sources. First indicating that a journal is not a "reliable source" when Wikipedia clearly states the opposite. Now you talk about "academic" sources. Well sorry but Wikipedia just makes clear that a journal IS a reliable source. And again, you're missing the whole poing here. NOBODY is saying that Mexico is great power, but an emerging world power, as indicated by the source. The source doesn't categorize Mexico as a "great power". AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Russia. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Please provide the edit summary before saving your edits. Thank you very much!
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  21:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. (blocked by –MuZemike 03:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC))
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bambuway (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

On what grounds has my account been blocked?

Decline reason:

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Signsolid/Archive. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.