User talk:Badgerpatrol
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
| 1 2 |
Contents |
[edit] Please subst templates :)
Hi Badgerpatrol! I've noticed that occasionally you do not subst: welcome or user warning templates. The way to do this is to include the word subst: between the opening braces ({{) and the template name. This expands the entire template text into the page, reducing server load should the template be changed. For more information, see WP:SUBST.
Examples include:
{{subst:Welcome}}{{subst:uw-test3}}
Cheers! Yuser31415 04:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WWII France
I can't see a real majority for anything. However, until now in no article has the inclusion of major combatants been objected (see WWI, etc. there were far more allies), so this proposal is a rather unconventional solution without any precendence. The whole discussion itself is a bit insane and too France-focused (what about Italy?). Besides writing axis and allies just moves the problem from one page to another and reduces the information provided in the WWII infobox. Wandalstouring 05:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Could you write the articles you want to link? It may help in the discussion. My problem is not that I can't live with a simple name for the alliances (or any other solution if it is done on a reasonable bases, for example if we make the inclusion based on merit it is likely USSR, UK, USA and China vs Germany and Japan - excluding Italy and France), but there are hardly any other military infobox using this style. Perhaps Peloponnesian War could be seen as a kind of precedence, but its really neath. Wandalstouring 14:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- The allies article is a joke. It needs substantial buildup before it can be used for the purpose. Currently not a single ally is lsted there. Allies of WWII might be a better location for this purpose. I know that we have no guidelines on the subject, but we do try to keep wikipedia consistent as far as common sense permits. Choosing major combatants has hardly been a problem for other wars, but in case of WWII it is rather a France focused POV issue in the Anglo-Saxon world (As far as I could find out, the English version is the only wikipedia where it is considered to exclude France from the group of major allies). The poll did highlight that both sides are not minority opinions and as a result is very substantial for any progress. Wandalstouring 18:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Eton College
Hey, thanks for looking out for the article. I reverted the compromise, seeing as it seems rather convoluted, and the initial, cited consensus statement was a compromise from "is the most famous school" in its own right. Have a nice day. Yanksta x 10:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Dorset Conservative Future
Yes, no problem whatsoever. Thank you for the prior notification. Richardbooth 13:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] World War II Mediation Case
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/World War II, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. —Krellis (Talk) 21:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] University of Portsmouth
I notice that you asked for a citation for the university motto. I have added a relevant comment to Talk:University of Portsmouth which may interest you. It needs a little more work by someone. SMeeds 14:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Maelstrom
Please read up as to what a personal attack is, and do not remove messages without consent from the submitter. Thanks. Matthew 10:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- You may wish to get a definition ("A word used sarcastically. Generally to someone who is looking for sympathy or pity."), none the less it's you prerogative to believe it is a personal attack or not, though I say it is not, HTH. Matthew 11:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] University of Portsmouth
I have just made an update to this article, reordering the "Notable Alumni" section and removing what I considered superfluous detail recently added. I have explained the latter here. I have also noted your comment at the top of the talk page about "notable academics". I do not know whether you or anyone else other than the previous contributor would consider this academic to be notable - you may want to contribute to any debate. SMeeds 09:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I see you have now deleted the entry; a good call I think, especially since no one tried to defend it. SMeeds 10:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Arkell v. Pressdram
An article that you have been involved in editing, Arkell v. Pressdram, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arkell v. Pressdram. Thank you. - Iridescenti 20:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject University of Oxford
 |
As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the University of Oxford. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! Casper Gutman 15:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC) |
[edit] decades
Regarding this, 1970s says its from 1970 to 1979, inclusive. Truth be told, the "one per decade" limit is entirely arbitrary, but serves as a check to keep people from adding what would essentially be a list of the movies and games that have come out in the past two years. Cheers, BanyanTree 19:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup templates
Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "unreferenced", "fact", "cleanup" etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 10:43 5 April 2007 (GMT).
