User talk:TrogdorPolitiks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:TrogdorPolitiks/Archive1

You misquoted Macbeth on your user page. The full quote is "Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player who struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Celsiana 16:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

LOLCelsiana 01:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 WWII Sandbox 2 Help with WWII 3 Matt Zavortink 4 Page count (re:Davis Wiki) 5 Thanks 6 Daniel Brandt edits 7 Might be interested

[edit] WWII Sandbox

I'd say the general style seems fine; I think breaking it up by campaigns is better than the way the current article is set up. Obviously, it's not done, but if we decide to replace the current article with this, I'll be more than happy to help refine it. This is a good start. Parsecboy 13:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. appreciate all your work. however one point which i'd like to make. not sure if you have already decided to omit the sections which dicuss the causes of the war. however, if you have, then sorry, but I do feel we should retain the general material on the causes of the war. thanks. --Sm8900 22:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help with WWII

Hi There, I am fixing up the WWII article and I could use your help.

Right Now I am fixing up the Eastern Front and then I will work on the Western and Pacific. I still have to work on fixing the Eastern Front (April 1941 - February 1943) section.

I could use your help in fixing up some sections of this article.

Especially:

Western Front (September 1940 - June 1944). This section covers the Strategic Bombing Campaign and the Battle of the Atlantic. This is very choppy and has no narrative flow. I don't know much about this section so I was hoping you could fix this. I will hopefully get the Eastern Front sections fixed soon. Also the Mediterranean Section which covers North Africa and Italy is also very choppy and needs to be fixed.

Thanks Mercenary2k 03:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Zavortink

A tag has been placed on Matt Zavortink, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. GringoInChile 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page count (re:Davis Wiki)

While page count is a flawed metric for determining wiki "size" (and especially for determining goodness!), it's worth noting that the stadtwiki has thousands of machine-generated pages, such as http://ka.stadtwiki.net/1414

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your kudos, it actually means quite a bit to me. I've made a lot of edits over the last 2-4 weeks that I haven't felt really sure about, and I've basically been waiting to get thrown overboard for rocking the boat too much. ;) Xaxafrad 21:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Brandt edits

Hi, this edit wasn't appropriate, as it is unsourced, inflammatory, and self-referential. Thanks, - Denny 06:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important that the article reflects this nature of the Wikipedia-Watch website. I understand that the fact could be inflammatory, but there is at least one page in the Wiki-Watch site that lists editors who have committed some sort of offense. I suppose that the line I added could have been worded better, but I think that the article should at least mention that Wikipedia-Watch displays information about wikipedia editors, as well as criticizing them for their individual conduct. Do you think it would be appropriate to add the note back in with better wording and a source, or are you opposed to even mentioning it? Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

Not completely, no, but given how heated it is, I would guess that a concensus on language like that should be reached. Besides his endless legal threats, my understanding from what I've learned... is he was blocked also for stalking/harassment tied into that stuff. Thats why I was thinking to slow down and see what the group concensus is for that. Check out the new thread on the talk page of his article about this. :) - Denny 13:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Might be interested

I noticed that you took part in State terrorism by United States of America discussion for deletion. After the article has survived many deletions, you may be interested that there is a user right now who is deleting large portions of the article. 69.150.209.15 17:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the article. Unfortunately Yaf has not stopped and is still reverting, now without even addressing the problems I've raised on the talk page. He seems to regard the anon ip editor as not a valid member of the community.Giovanni33 05:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Have been addressing the discussions on the talk page. Am also trying to improve the article, and take out the hackneyed phrases (sort of, some kind of, etc.) while also improving the factual accuracy and cited content of the article. Single purpose accounts created for the sole purpose of establishing "consensus", especially those that were created on the day of a dispute on the article, especially involving support of a user well known for considerable previous use of sock puppetry, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni33, are generally not given much credibility by the WP community. Intellectual honesty is all that I am asking for here. Thank you. Yaf 05:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)