| Berean Hunter | Talk Page | Sandbox | Sandbox2 | | ![]() |
Sticky Note: Operation Brothers at War
@ | This user can be reached by email. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
Potential security concern
Nickholbrook (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC) hi, i'm seeking help about a robot correction of an edit--i added a note that my av software (avast!) popped up a malware warning about a link when i tried it* , which i've done before, but this time bot says i shouldn't--any idea why? thanks much for any assistance, nick holbrook
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nickholbrook) (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Name_Game&diff=prev&oldid=423090134)
(Revision as of 13:16, 3 April 2011 (edit) Yobot (talk | contribs) m (→Other uses: WP:CHECKWIKI error 61 fixes + general fixes, References after punctuation per WP:REFPUNC and WP:PAIC using AWB (7671)) ← Previous edit Revision as of 22:22, 8 April 2011 (edit) (undo) Nickholbrook (talk | contribs) (→External links: malware warning) Next edit → Line 51: Line 51:
External links
-
attacks procedure
Nickholbrook (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC) re: Both google and my Linux operating system flagged this as an attack page. My system refused to start a java applet threat embedded in the page. Best to ignore this page and make sure that you have your Avast updated. Additionally, you may want to use Spybot S&D (assuming you are using Windows). Best I can offer. :) ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
so we're not supposed to put warnings of threatening links? are we supposed to remove them?
ps my stepson and daughter in law live in durham !
Thank youuuuuuu :)
--Truth Mom (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. 8^D
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Please see this discussion Talk:Pasty#Recent revert, and add your thoughts, if so inclined. Thanks JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Edit summary
What do you mean by "the edit summary isn't amusing"? Waorca (talk) 05:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Your edit summary for this edit to the Vietnam War is "copy from American Civil War article" and you place the Mayaguez Incident in there. Where is anything about the Mayaguez incident written in the ACW article?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)- You misunderstood, or maybe I didn't say it clearly. What I mean is that I copied the way they wrote from the American Civil War article. See, the VNW and the ACW are the same at one point is that although there were official ending dates for the two wars, yet there're still extra shots/battles after that. The ACW official ended on Apr 6 1865, but one skirmish of the war occurred after that date involving the CSS Shenandoah. Same goes for the VNW, the conflict is official over on Apr 30 1975, yet one more clash still took place after that involving the SS Mayaguez. So, both war resembles each other at this point. I added the Mayaguez incident using the similar method from the ACW. I also feel sorry for the Mayaguez incident because it's always being left out. In the past, there were also some mentions about this incident in the intro paragraph and the inforbox, but the contents were removed, so I want to re-add it. I keep asking that the Mayaguez incident is considered part of the VNW, but why people keep deleting the mention about it? Waorca (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining the edit summary...I read that differently from what you stated above. On the Mayaguez incident, you might try placing that in the See also section where I think it may appropriate. It is different enough that it isn't properly part of the Vietnam War. The troops were called out of Okinawa and weren't seasoned vets of Vietnam...most were green. The conflict was really an unfortunate misunderstanding that snowballed out of control. Like you, I'm sympathetic to the vets in that conflict. I've been wearing an MIA bracelet for one of the lost marines for 25 years now and have letters from a now-deceased senator telling me to stay away from hunting remains on Koh Tang because the island is "filled with unexploded ordinance".
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining the edit summary...I read that differently from what you stated above. On the Mayaguez incident, you might try placing that in the See also section where I think it may appropriate. It is different enough that it isn't properly part of the Vietnam War. The troops were called out of Okinawa and weren't seasoned vets of Vietnam...most were green. The conflict was really an unfortunate misunderstanding that snowballed out of control. Like you, I'm sympathetic to the vets in that conflict. I've been wearing an MIA bracelet for one of the lost marines for 25 years now and have letters from a now-deceased senator telling me to stay away from hunting remains on Koh Tang because the island is "filled with unexploded ordinance".
- You misunderstood, or maybe I didn't say it clearly. What I mean is that I copied the way they wrote from the American Civil War article. See, the VNW and the ACW are the same at one point is that although there were official ending dates for the two wars, yet there're still extra shots/battles after that. The ACW official ended on Apr 6 1865, but one skirmish of the war occurred after that date involving the CSS Shenandoah. Same goes for the VNW, the conflict is official over on Apr 30 1975, yet one more clash still took place after that involving the SS Mayaguez. So, both war resembles each other at this point. I added the Mayaguez incident using the similar method from the ACW. I also feel sorry for the Mayaguez incident because it's always being left out. In the past, there were also some mentions about this incident in the intro paragraph and the inforbox, but the contents were removed, so I want to re-add it. I keep asking that the Mayaguez incident is considered part of the VNW, but why people keep deleting the mention about it? Waorca (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- I just added it to the See also section.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- I just added it to the See also section.
I know nothing, and don't want to know anything, about the above pairing. However, I thought you may be interested to have the following edits brought to your attention: [1]; [2]. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. I've watchlisted the Silver Star article and hopefully this individual will engage in a discussion before doing these actions again. Blithe's DA-638 Recommendation for Award lists the Silver Star, 3 Bronze Stars, and 3 Purple Hearts. I will try to keep watch, Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
MoMK
Generally, the proper procedure would be to boldly insert something, have it reverted, and then discuss it. I followed this procedure. I find your warning and your tone highly and unnecessarily inflamatory.LedRush (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I have asked you to revert your reversion not just because it is proper procedure, but also because I have serious BLP concerns about the picture.LedRush (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- When you opened the thread initially, I must have missed it...wasn't trying to evade.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)- I didn't accuse of evasion. I accused you of being unnecessarily inflammatory in both your tone (your warning of me) and your actions (your revert in contradiction of WP policy).LedRush (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Floor Plan on MoMK
Am I missing something, John? How does that edit difference pertain to this discussion?LedRush (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC) (this comment was made when John inadvertently put it in the wrong section of this talk page. The comments have been moved to this section)LedRush (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)- In the edit summary, BH claims there is consensus to use the amateurish image with the "frig" and the disclaimers on the article. I strongly dispute that such a consensus exists. It is also a misuse of the tool to revert it. --John (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- There was obvious consensus and even if there weren't it wouldn't be a misuse of the tool to revert (though it would be to revert again without discussion). Anyway, it seems clear that Berean just thought that Hipocrite was talking about the image that everyone else was talking about at the time. No harm, no foul.LedRush (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- In the edit summary, BH claims there is consensus to use the amateurish image with the "frig" and the disclaimers on the article. I strongly dispute that such a consensus exists. It is also a misuse of the tool to revert it. --John (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
DYK submission
Hello! Your submission of La Maison de la Magie Robert-Houdin at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Benea (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikid77 talkpage
I just saw your comment on there. First; thanks for your kind words r.e. my interaction, I've been a little snappish at times but I am glad it hasn't always come across as awkward :) It's a pretty damn constructive talkpage compared to some. Secondly; r.e. asking Wikid77 to strike his comment, there's no need. I have always been happy for people to vent at me - whether it is justified (and given the effort put into this image, there is some justification) or not.
My reply to him was probably not the most helpful response.. we all have our off days. I posted a new one today to expand on my thinking.
Anyways :) thanks for the thoughts. You reminded me that stuff that seems "simple and logical" might frustrate the people who worked really hard on the content being replaced. I constantly forget that. It is a crucial weakness. --Errant (chat!) 21:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I'm hoping to help maintain peace and keep the working environment from going awry. It seems as if some progress has been made and it looks hopeful. People not understanding other peoples' motives or assuming that they do when they don't appears to be some of the problems there...but if we are lucky, things will keep improving. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Your "hat" at AN/I
Hi. I have no doubt that you meant well, but I've manually reverted this edit, in which you "hatted" (closed and collapsed) a thread at AN/I after shortly after two users, an IP and user DeCausa indicated their interest in pursuing the discussion.
"Hatting" or "closing" a thread to prohibit further discussion is a form of talk page refactoring, and our policy about that says, among other things,
- Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted.
The assumption of good faith is often pretty thin on the ground at AN/I, and discussions there are often "heated". I'd suggest that since this is the case that you generally refrain from hatting threads there in the future, for those reasons, and especially when others have already made it clear that they wish the discussion to proceed. Again, I recognize that your intentions were well-meant; I just object to the result, is all. If you wish to reply, you can do so here, as I've temporarily watchlisted this page. Best regards, – OhioStandard (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, why let wisdom prevail? Unless you are there to beat a dead horse, it was very non-constructive to reopen a "let's trash an admin" thread.
- The thread was not intended to become a pile-on Jamie thread (or was it?). The correct thread for dealing with Jamie's actions was/is at AN3. You shouldn't tell me not to hat a thread ...it should be done by someone not involved, right? I quote, "This template should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors." ...I've seen plenty of threads shut down there in the same way (usually, when the pitchforks and torches have been gathered). You attempting to tell me to never do it again will be ignored...I view that as rude. Do you tell everyone who closes a thread there by hatting the same thing? I don't mind being reverted if someone has something productive to add...
- Unless someone begins to show a pattern of abuse on Jamie's part using actual diffs then it is a waste of time...but let it roll. I see you've brought out the D-word without any other proof outside of the immediate event. Saltwater for wounds, nice. The wisdom of reopening the thread remains to be seen.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)