User talk:Anonymous Dissident/February
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2007
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 13:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Unterseeboot articles
I've seen you're doing a great job with adding articles about Unterseeboots and similar subjects. To make the articles even better you should consider using an Infobox on the pages and make the article text a bit more fluent and with more links for e.g. u-boat commander, flotillas, other u-boats, locations, dates, and so forth. The infobox should be from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, which I can see you are part of. Take a look at the articles Unterseeboot 47 (1938) and Unterseeboot 66 (1941) and Unterseeboot 96 (1940). I hope you can get some new ideas about making the articles even better. Keep up the good work. Keallu 18:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Greetings fellow Military historian! You've learnt a lot even in a month so just keep up the good work. Regarding the infobox I can recommend you to see Template:Infobox_Military_Submarine. Here a explaination of how to use the infobox. The best to do is to take an existing article with a infobox e.g. Unterseeboot 47 (1938),Unterseeboot 66 (1941) and Unterseeboot 96 (1940) and copy the infobox from here and then replace the text after the "=" sign. Thats all you have to do. If you don't have the information just don't enter any text for that field. Then it will automatically be removed. Always remember to use the "Show preview" button when working with articles. I assume you are using uboat.net as primary source of info. Try using ubootwaffe.net as well. Here you will find order date etc. as well as Yard number and Fieldpost number. Simply lots of info from here as well. About the fluent thing just remember to link more words in your article such as dates, locations etc. but only the first time the occur in the article, not multiple times. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style for more information about this. If you have any questions, just ask! Keallu 23:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- No problem. You're welcome :-) Keallu 23:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I've looke through your new article Unterseeboot 777 and do have some comments. First of all you are using the wrong infobox! The red one should not be used any more since it is not covered by MILHIST design and doesn't contain all details. So far you should use Template:Infobox_Military_Submarine but a discussion is currently taking place about the possible merging into the very standardized Ship infobox. Look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Submarines and put your comment if you want to. It would be nice with comments.
So change the infobox first of all. Next remember to link all dates such as March 25. Remember the reverse date order. Alway month first and then day. That has been decided for en.wikipedia.org. Also remember to check the link for the type of u-boat. For this specific u-boat the link should be Type VII. Always use [[Category:U-boat]] for references and/or other articles. Likewise with the flotillas. See [[Category:List of u-boat flotillas]]. Also names of important persons, like the commanders should be linked. Remember to write som text to your references/external links. References are for litterature and External links for e.g. uboat.net and ubootwaffe.net. You should deep link for the specific webpage about the u-boat on these sites.
Finally remember the categories in the bottom! You should always include if appropriate:
[[Category:Type VII U-boats|UXXXX]] [[Category:U-boats commissioned in 1941|UXXXX]] [[Category:U-boats sunk in 1943|UXXXX]] [[Category:U-boats of World War II|UXXXX]]
See other categories on [[Category:U-boat]]. Of course without the nowiki tag :-)
Categorizing is very important for other people to easy find the u-boat without the proper designation.
My best advice is to use an existing article and copy the text and everything from there and simply reuse it. Then you won't forget important elements of an article. You can use Unterseeboot 20 (1936) and a very good example! Keallu 17:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Just a note on the date format: day then month is fine, see WP:MOSDATE#Incorrect_date_formats for the range of correct and incorrect date formats. Yomanganitalk 17:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
it's
Um, it might turn up on your watchlist that I've gone through your contributions looking for misspelled instances of the possessive "its". Just to be clear, I don't mean any offense, and I think you're doing a great job overall! Melchoir 16:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
2008
Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 01:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Random message to get your talk page layout into whack
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. .
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. .
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. .seresin | wasn't he just...? 00:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)
The January 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
|
||
Volume 4, Issue 6 | 4 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
|
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Kubura
Thanks for responding to Kubura. I thought you might be interested in knowing that I've started an ANI complaint against him. So far he's used the same reasoning on 6 RFA's. If I wasn't the nominator of one of those six, I would scratch his !votes.Balloonman (talk) 08:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that. His rationale is ridiculous. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Calling someone troll is heavy accusation. Also is calling someone's rationalizing as ridiculous. This is etiquetting. Please, read WP:ETIQUETTE.
Remember, I haven't etiquetted anyone. Please, remain WP:CIVIL. Kubura (talk) 08:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Opposing someone without evaluating their contribs is ridiculous by community standards., There is no two ways. Opposing six candidates without evaluating their contribs becomes trollish. I become a little irrate with that kind of behaviour, as do many others, so please do not lecture me about policies. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- "..this is actually an encyclopedia made up of people who have the facility for common sensical behaviour, not comprised of robots whose only programming consists of adhering to vague policy..."+"...That kind of action here is widely frowned upon, based on some of our core policy..." = irremediable inconsistency. Relata refero (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is, isn't it, when you deliberately misquote by not continuing the former... -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- "..that should be consulted as a ledger of common practice (which, in itself, is often seen to be wrong in certain cases when one does apply the aforementioned common sense)" only makes the inconsistency worse, actually. I was trying to spare you the humiliation. Relata refero (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Did I ever say policy was "wrong", and did I ever insert the words "core policies"? I also refer to common community practice in the former, which proves the point about common sense, and which is enforced by "widely frowned upon". Plus, I dont believe consistency is required in situations of varying context and differed discussion. No, your mis-interpretation is where it all falls down. Also, please, in future, don't bother to spare me the humiliation, as I won't when I reject your arguments. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Misquoting earlier, misinterpretation now? I'm pleased to see that I improve. Even though you were referring to the same action.
- You say ledger of common practice=policy. And I'd be absolutely fascinated to know which core policy is not part of common practice; and what policy is not a "core policy" and why it makes a difference; and what policy these robots of yours apparently adhere to programmatically - which is bad - and also use to "frown upon" - which is good; is it vague policy, but not core policy? Either is OK, because its moderated by common sense, or perhaps common community practice, which are apparently the same thing, in spite of the fact that the ledger of common practice is wrong (no, "seen to be" wrong, since you object to "wrong") when common sense is applied....Lovely.
- Of course, consistency isn't required, but its usually useful within a single discussion.
- Oh, and believe me, 'rejecting' rather than answering arguments is hardly humiliating. Relata refero (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Some people do have some odd hobbies, but I have never heard of anyone who enjoys spending a Thurday evening correcting semantics and playing word games. That's waht we're doing right now. Let me instead rephrase what I have said, to make it more clear, so that I won't have to drag myself out of bed again to respond to your pointless posts. Opposing a candidate without even glancing at user contribs is widely frowned upon in the community, as we have seen. The policies that bind this community, while often helpful, should not turn people into process-wonked robots. Lastly, and this may serve to conjoin the two apparently paradoxical phrases, I use the term "core-policy" very loosely to refer to the core community spirit. This was a mistake on my part, as these things are very different. Get over it. I believe that brings it full circle. Good night, sir. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- And if you'd said precisely that, in precisely that measured tone, we wouldn't be having this discussion and that unfortunate boy's RfA wouldn't be suddenly under scrutiny from thrice as many people as normal.
- Don't get out of bed. I hope to run into you in better circumstances at some point in the future. Good night. Relata refero (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Some people do have some odd hobbies, but I have never heard of anyone who enjoys spending a Thurday evening correcting semantics and playing word games. That's waht we're doing right now. Let me instead rephrase what I have said, to make it more clear, so that I won't have to drag myself out of bed again to respond to your pointless posts. Opposing a candidate without even glancing at user contribs is widely frowned upon in the community, as we have seen. The policies that bind this community, while often helpful, should not turn people into process-wonked robots. Lastly, and this may serve to conjoin the two apparently paradoxical phrases, I use the term "core-policy" very loosely to refer to the core community spirit. This was a mistake on my part, as these things are very different. Get over it. I believe that brings it full circle. Good night, sir. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Did I ever say policy was "wrong", and did I ever insert the words "core policies"? I also refer to common community practice in the former, which proves the point about common sense, and which is enforced by "widely frowned upon". Plus, I dont believe consistency is required in situations of varying context and differed discussion. No, your mis-interpretation is where it all falls down. Also, please, in future, don't bother to spare me the humiliation, as I won't when I reject your arguments. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- "..that should be consulted as a ledger of common practice (which, in itself, is often seen to be wrong in certain cases when one does apply the aforementioned common sense)" only makes the inconsistency worse, actually. I was trying to spare you the humiliation. Relata refero (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is, isn't it, when you deliberately misquote by not continuing the former... -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- "..this is actually an encyclopedia made up of people who have the facility for common sensical behaviour, not comprised of robots whose only programming consists of adhering to vague policy..."+"...That kind of action here is widely frowned upon, based on some of our core policy..." = irremediable inconsistency. Relata refero (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Ocasaide
I reverted your reversion of that user's edit of the off-roading article. I cleaned up the tone of the edit but felt the most of the content of the edit was reasonable. If you know the topic real well, feel free to revert my edit if it introduced errors. I also commented on the user's talk page that I felt you low level warning was misplaced. Royalbroil 02:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The revert was reasonable, considering the content of the last few sentences. My warning was also reasonable. Your reversion was probably not the best move, also, as you should have instead taken the useful content and inserted it. Cheers. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for the input/advice. Royalbroil 13:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
DYK
AD, are you active ATM? DYK is late and we have something of a backlog right now. I'd let to get this one out so I can start on the new one. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Natalie Gauci
I don't know if you care, but you edited the Natalie Gauci article so maybe you do. There is right now quite a lot of inaccurate information being added to the article (things like "Everyone loves Natalie" and "She is so perfect there is no fault - the whole of Malta loves her") and on top of that there is extreme levels of bias to the point where regardless of how well sourced something negative is, they refuse to allow it to be included. For example, the various news reports about Mark Holden's favouring of Natalie, and of his bullying of eventual runner up Matt Corby, and as a second example the fact that the debut single is the worst selling debut single by an Australian Idol singer in history - as is the album. They refuse to mention it, or hint of it, yet these are well documented facts that are very important and well discussed. I understand WP:BLP means that we have to be careful about saying negative things, but these are well sourced, relevant and important. There seems to be a lot of violations of WP:OWN and WP:NPOV going on, not to mention WP:VANDAL. I don't know if you care, but I am quitting the article now. Its just not worth it to go up against a group of who are controlling the article through an external web forum. Natalie Gauci fan forum I believe. I am sure you can find a link if you need to. Dyinghappy (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
RFA thanks
Speedy deletion of Template:Monthyeardate
A tag has been placed on Template:Monthyeardate requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted, thanks for that. You need not have templated me, by the way, you could have just posted a friendly message. And the speedy tag was just not required. Thanks anyway. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 20:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
|
||
Volume 4, Issue 7 | 11 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
|
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
IP User 202.0.58.194.
You had another visit from his user. i wasn't quuick enough to revert but poste an AIV report. You are safe for the next six months now! :-)) Mjroots (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Nousernamesleft
Hi, Anonymous Dissident, thanks for voting in my RfA, which passed with 47 supports (I hoped for a perfect square, but two away is close enough!), 3 opposes (the first odd prime), and 0 neutrals. I'm glad the community has decided to trust me with the mop and bucket (the flamethrower isn't supported). Of course, special thanks goes to my nominators Auawise and that one guy who buried stuff (not that the thanks I give to the you isn't special!). If you ever need a hand with something, or just want to say hello, |
RfAr statement
Thank you very much for that statement in the RfAr review. Everyking (talk) 04:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, I just felt the need to voice my stance. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
OhanaUnited's RFA
Speedy deletion of Template:User History of Science
A tag has been placed on Template:User History of Science requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Various additions
I've made various additions to the List of Maltese People and edited the Jason Bateman/Justine Bateman articles to reflect their Maltese heritage (ommom maltija). I've also added a picture to the Dun Karm article and inserted a reference to the 'ajn' on the ayin page. These are the first contributions I've made to wikiproject Malta and feedback would be appreciated.
- Update: I just created an article for Francesco Maltese but couldn't find much about him.
Kalindoscopy (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Not vandalising
I am not vandalising the pages am I editing, I am avoiding the redirect by changing the link to read "Shit on the Radio (Remember the Days)" instead of "...On the Radio (Remember the Days)". 210.50.189.12 (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge Proposal
As you are a recent editor of the articles in question, please see my merge proposal of Hugh Nibley and Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon - thanks. --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- After discussion and a second look, I am changing my proposal to merge with Linguistics and the Book of Mormon#Egyptian names. That is a much more natural fit for the content of Egyptian Names in the Book of Mormon. See the new discussion here. --Descartes1979 (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
|
||
Volume 4, Issue 8 | 18 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
Volume 4, Issue 9 | 25 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
|
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Signature
Oh, I love the font on your sig! Am I able to put any font type I want on my sig? Ctjf83talk 06:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you, Anonymous Dissident, for your support in my RfB. I appreciate your trust. Acalamari 22:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)