User talk:ALR
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 12:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 16:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] MI5
Hi there,
Just to say that I invited a couple of people who have edited the article in the past (but haven't given an opinion on the name) to join the discussion. If you can think of anyone who might be interested in giving their "two cents" then the more the merrier, obviously. ConDemTalk 09:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi again ALR, just wanted to let you know that I'm requesting a move under WP:RM to induce more debate on the matter. So far we've only had our views on the article title, and one other (who I invited to join the debate). I will obviously be happy to accept the result of a debate in which more than just a couple of editors take part, but I think requesting a move properly will mean that some objective views are heard. ConDemTalk 15:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Logging out and using an IP address doesn't excuse you from 3RR
Please, lay off of his talk page. Any admin reviewing the block is going to look back at the history ... and no admin is likely to touch it until Blnguyen gets back and reviews the request. Please find a better way to spend your time than bothering a blocked user. Thank you. --BigDT 00:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Blue-water navy
It's my favorite article again. Someone wants to upgrade his navy and give us pseudomilitary info. Could you check the article? I marked the questionable clause with a fact template. If you think the claims there are not sourceable or possibly wrong, remove it becaus eit is old content that had already once been removed (some people think that wikipedia is the right place to make people believe their ideas). Wandalstouring 17:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
That section
While a blue-water navy can project sea control power into another nation's littoral, it remains susceptible to threats from less capable forces. Sustainment and logistics at range yield high costs and there may be a saturation advantage over a deployed force through the use of land-based air or Surface to Surface Missile assets, diesel-electric submarines, or asymmetric tactics such as Fast Inshore Attack Craft. An example of this vulnerability is the attack on the USS Cole in Aden during 2000.
Wandalstouring 19:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] FYI
I'm sure you have allready spotted it, but in cause you haven't you might want to look here. WegianWarrior 19:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I kinda hope so - I feel kinda left out of the cabal lately ;) WegianWarrior 20:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Black helicopter? I thought we used flying saucers (link is SFW, but may result in loud laughter ;) ). WegianWarrior 03:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Military History elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!
Delivered by grafikbot 13:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Obligations
Found a few US sources (see talk page) ... probably not enough to satify. Emulation? Blueboar 18:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WP:ATT and WP:RS
I think we are about to get another round of "let's scrap WP:RS and substitute WP:ATT"... The attempt to tag the examples page was just the opening salvo. The clique is also pushing ATT at the village pump. Don't really care overall (ATT isn't that bad acutally), but their motivations are suspect in my eyes (I think several of the people editing at ATT are essentially thinking: "I don't like some of the things that are said on RS, but when I try to change the guideline I am overruled... so I will do an end run around it by proposing a new policy that pre-empts it.") Blueboar 19:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
for the welcome. Handy references. DistractionActivity 20:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] coordinator
Hi ALR, sorry that you didn't succeed in becoming a coordinator, however narrow the decision was. I strongly urge you to run again next election. Greetings Wandalstouring 00:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Team effort
In the spirit of reducing the amount of Wikipolicies and obviating confusion (see WP:LAP), drafts are in progress for a unified deletion policy here, and a unified protection policy here. These should really be team efforts, so since you commented on the matter earlier I would like to ask your help. The intent is not to change policy, merely to clarify and remove reduncancy; thus, anything that inadvertently changes the meaning should be fixed. We should be ready to move the drafts over the existing policies soon, but this needs more feedback and consensus, otherwise it'll just get reverted by people who "like the old thing better". Thank you for your time. >Radiant< 13:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Military history/Coordinators
 |
Hello ALR. Thanks for your support at the Military history taskforce. I am now a coordinator. Please feel free to approach me if you need any help. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 13:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC) |
[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jahbulon (3rd nomination)
Was there a checkuser or other proof that there were sockpuppetry problems in this AFD? I can't seem to find anything definitive, and I'm not sure a deletion review would result in the decision being overturned. --Coredesat 14:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- In this case it may be worth relisting (again) - try deletion review. --Coredesat 15:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] For the Record
If you are going to criticise me can you at least take the time to find out what exactly it was that I was originally changing? I'm sick of defending myself over and over. I'm sick of defending my defense as well.RWgirl 01:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean for you to take the above as an attack. I was quite simply pointing out that you are jumping in on a discussion that has little relevance to the original edit. On the equipment list after oxygen it said "(used above 12,000 feet)" which lends the impression to a reader with no knowledge of the subject that HALO jumps are any jump that occurs above 12K. Also, I thought it would be better to specify that there are two different kinds of oxygen used: On board and bailout. I deated the 12K reference because of what it implied in context and because it wasn't cited. There is no source to show that any military uses this altitude anywhere in the world. I really think the O2 requirements should have been discussed in the thrust of the article and not as some obscure fact in the equipment list.RWgirl 19:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007
The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Delivered by grafikbot 14:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 'free edits'
Hi ALR,
I have been thinking about possibilities of helping users in countries where only proxies are possible to contribute to wikipedia: Wikipedia talk:No open proxies
My idea is to create a possibility (like a talk page), perhaps not as part of wikipedia, where you can edit using a proxy (with edit restrictions to make it difficult for vandals, for example need login and it takes some time until you are switched free to edit) and this information can be used to improve wikipedia (information needs verifiable sources, etc.). It would be a good thing if we could link specific information directly to the talk pages of respective articles and vice versa, possibly via a wikiproject against censorship or the like (It would only be a bibliography help, nothing today's projects don't do). I thought about you, because I lack the resources for realizing the plan and you might have better connections or ideas. Wandalstouring 14:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Operatives?
You mention in your draft page UK only, though operative only Craft Lodges do exist in the US regarding the Operatives. This is the first I have heard of an operative only Craft Lodge, that is not part of the Operatives group. What more can you tell me about them, where can you point me for more information?--Vidkun 14:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Steamrolling complete
Well, the steamroll has completed itself (I think)... WP:RS is now redirected to ATT. Discouraging, I know... but we saw it coming. The good news is that several members of the "clique" seem to agree that their FAQ page should be reworked - as an "advice" page to discuss reliability issues without being a "rules" page. Sounds a lot like what we were trying to achieve with the re-write of RS doesn't it. They are even talking about eventually making it a quideline! Hope you will participate. Blueboar 19:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- WOW... Jimbo Wales has opined on ATT and all hell is breaking loose. We could end up with RS back (and promoted to policy). Blueboar 18:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Need to buy some new regalia...
congrats. Blueboar 14:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Aha! I think I now see the reason why nobody outside America likes American Masonry. We don't have to buy our own stuff. :) MSJapan 17:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Credentials
Replied Blueboar 13:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rewrite WP:RS to make it more consistent with WP:NPOV?
Hi! I am not sure if this is a good idea or not, so I guess I need a reality check.
So for a long time, WP:RS has been disputed by people who feel reliability is binary, and those who feel reliability is a matter of degrees. The compromise between those two views resulted in a page that was self-inconsistent, which some didn't like.
The merge into WP:ATT seemed to me to bring WP:RS more to the binary side. As in, the material must be attributable to / verified by a source, and furthermore, that source must be reliable. Hence, it is either reliable and worthy of inclusion, or it is not.
WP:NPOV, on the other hand, discusses undue weight. If we use the reliability of sources as a measure of weight, we get degrees of reliability. This makes more sense, in my opinion. After all, any opinion can be converted into a fact by rephrasing it as an indirect statement. (See WP:NPOV#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements.) However, most people's opinions deserve no weight on Wikipedia.
So, I was thinking, would it be a good idea to write a version of WP:RS that was consistent with the spirit of WP:NPOV? As an essay or proposal, of course. We could call it Undue weight (sources), maybe.
What do you think? Is it worth trying, or am I being crazy?
Thanks,
Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 20:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently someone liked the idea. : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 15:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, the link was supposed to go here. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 16:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks!
Thanks for catching my gaff as regards what the commodore on the Cornwall was incharge of. Musta got commanding TF158 and part of Devenport Flotilla mixed up there. Narson 21:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the navy was never really my thing :) Always preferred army and air force apart from the odd passing story. Narson 13:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007
The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 18:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RN/RM personnel and Iran/RN branches
LAR,you probably understand the background much better than me, but the sense I get from the exisiting articles Leading Rating and Royal Navy enlisted rank insignia is that only someone witht he trade "seaman" would actually be described as a Leading Seaman, rather than as a Leading <whatever>, or generically as a leading rating, so saying Leading Seaman (seaman) is redundant, or is sufficient by itself to determine Coe's branch. I'm quite happy to be told I'm wrong, but it would be good if the articles could reflect actual practice. David Underdown 13:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Freemasonry FAC
See the article talk page for details. MSJapan 04:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
