User talk:Hires an editor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Hires an editor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Mak (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

When adding a question for a user, like Thames, put it on their talk page, not on their user page, so that they can see that they have new messages. =) Happy editing! –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 18:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome - don't hesitate to ask if you have any more questions - I'm always here to help. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 19:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Portal_talk:Business_and_Economics

Hey, I responded to your comments on Portal_talk:Business_and_Economics#Capitalism_Sub-portal. Check it out, and tell me what you think asap. --Nishkid64 00:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About spam

Yes. I have sent some wikipedia mails to some editors and technically they may be contrued to be spam. However, my purpose was to watch the development and emergence of online community, and I had made this clear in my mail. If you feel aggrieved then I express my apology. However, I still feel that we should participate in emerging online communities to learn more about the phenomenon at its nascent stage, and to apply the lessons to wikipedia if possible. Still I respect your right to feel aggrieved and I would request to treat the matter in this light. I also think that (though may have all the right to think differently) this issue has nothing to do with my position as an administrator here, and it was done in my personal capacity. In case, people feel otherwise, I shall send any one any mail only after asking the editor concerned as regards his/ her intention to receive any mail from me outside anything connected with wikipedia. Sometimes, people surely send mails not connected with wikipedia and it should not be construed as a misconduct on the part of any editor or administrator. However, at the second thought I think that you people are right in your judgment in commenting about my action. As wished by you, I am also posting this at the ANI. Regards. --Bhadani 02:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I thank you all for guiding me in the matter. This spirit shows the resilience of wikipedia community - I now understand better the level of collective maturity of the wikipedians, and any other wiki should draw inspiration from such level of maturity to deal with the matters. Regards. --Bhadani 16:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
For my future reference. --Bhadani 16:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map

I have no quick resolution, hopefully we can sort it out through discussion eventually.Ultramarine 20:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your deletion of my mini-essay in the Cold War article

You're very right; it scarcely fits in there, but I would be filled with boundless odium if I were to see all of that work go to waste. Perhaps you could be so kind as to adapt it to a more suitable article for me? Cheers, Robertson-Glasgow 09:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I wrote it, based on my construal of what I learnt in Grade Twelve history class this year. It's more of an interpretation than something from which a source can be cited, but I suppose that the title of the notes that we were given, "Hall, John: International Relations: 1945-1970 (Krugersdorp High School, 2007)", would do the trick. Cheers, Robertson-Glasgow 15:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cold War project

Actually, all I pretty much did was move the project page and place it on the Wikipedia:Community portal as a new project. Right now I am in the process of reassessing all the Saints articles and trying to update the Project Directory, which is taking up rather a lot of time. My primary work is with the Saints project, but I will at least try to work on the assessments and maybe project article list upon completion of those two tasks. Sorry for any delay. Be seeing you. John Carter 17:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Cahokia Plaque 2.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Cahokia Plaque 2.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cold War

Hi Hires. I am not planning to add any additional information to the origins of the term. Maybe I will do some minor rewording, and on whim I might do some further research, but not for now. I believe the origins of the term in a generic sense and its more specific sense have been well covered, but of course one can always add more depth, and if this is done, perhaps it should then have its own article.

One thing to help with length. I did the first several paragraphs of this section. The paragraph that begins "There was never a direct military...." and the paragraph after this was not my contribution. While informative, I don't think these paragraphs fit well in the "Origins of the term" section. So you can move them or do whatever you think is best. This would help keep the origins of the term section length more balanced with the rest of the article. Thank you. WordsExpert 21:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Size of an article

Well, you should be able to determine how big an article is by copying it, in the edit this page tab, pasting it in Word, or an equivilent program, and finding out how many words are in it, if there are 4 586, it is about 38 Kilobytes. That is one of the ways to tell. If it doesn't say at the top, I believe tht that is one of the few ways to check for size. Dreamy \*/!$! 20:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Cold War Culture

Thanks for your note. I'd love to check it out, but I'm quite busy right now. In addition, I'm not all that familiar with culture as it specifically relates to the Cold War, so I'm not sure I'd be the best person to contribute on the matter. If and when I get the chance, I'll gladly take a look, but I wanted to contact you just so you didn't think I was ignoring you or uninterested. SpiderMMB 21:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:AllenGardiner.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AllenGardiner.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United States presidential elections

Hello. We worked together for a brief period of time on the Cold War article. I'm contacting you because, as someone interested in American politics, I would like your opinion. I'm currently taking issue with the format for the U.S. presidential elections pages. I'd appreciate if you participated in the discussion on the 2004 talk page. As the changes in question have occurred to all the election pages it's hard to centralize the discussion, so the most recent election page seems like the best place to start. Here's my comment, thanks! SpiderMMB 04:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Winner/Runner-up

I have to voice my concern that this format is hurting the article. I will post this on a few notable election pages and hope that it's noticed. I have to admire the determination of whoever came up with this idea (it's apparently on every page) but ultimately, I think it should go. I think that having "winner/runner-up" displayed so prominently in the infobox overshadows the importance of the election. Some of these elections were not mere contests, but were epic events in American history where a variety of important viewpoints were symbolically represented and voted upon. Just in the last 50 years, the notable political climates of 1968 and 2004 came to a boiling point around election time. We should not be placing so much emphasis on the "winner" and the "runner-up" -- this is not a spelling bee. If we condense this into who "won" we are doing a disservice to the issues that drove these elections. SpiderMMB 23:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to comment on the Template page, and on Talk: Philip Stevens as he's the one who created the template. SpiderMMB 19:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Literacy template

Hi, Hires an editor. Thanks for your message.

Sure, I'd be glad to help.

I haven't done more with the template because there is another navigational template that represents what is sometimes called an Article Series. This template is specifically about Reading, which is related but slightly different from Literacy.

It's not clear to me where the line should be between these two templates and what their relationship should be, if any.

Would you take a look at the other template and share your thoughts? Here t'is:

Template:Reading

Best,

Rosmoran 14:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Notable Economists

Template:Notable Economists has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Skomorokh incite 14:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cold War Montage

I'm sorry if I added the montage and infobox on the Cold War without consent but I thought that it would make the Cold War article very interesting. I present two arguements for this:

  • It seems to me strange that, for example, on the Vietnam War, the infobox says "Part of The Cold War", but then you go to the Cold War and find no infobox, it seems very too dull.
  • I would also like to say that when I say the word 'dull' I mean that it is too uninteresting and if it had an infobox and image montage it makes the article stand out and look more interesting due to the imagery shown (this is, of course, in the eye of the beholder). For example, when I first heard about World War I and World War II (and the American Civil War), I thought nothing interesting, but when I turned to the article I saw the imagery, it really makes the article enjoyable - especially to a person that doesn't know anything about the subject - including myself because I had no interest in WWI or WWII, but when I saw the montage and infobox, it truely summarizes the events and gives visual imagery, which is very appealing. So I ask of you what you think on the subject, because even though the two countries of the United States and the Soviet Union never directly went to war, it seems appropriate that an infobox and montage such as the ones in the World War I and World War II articles.

Please tell me what your contradictions might be.

Chris Iz Cali (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You have been blocked from editing

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring at Cold War. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia - please bear this in mind.

Kind regards,
Anthøny 16:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by
adding the text "{{unblock|your reason here}}" below this text, or contact me.