Welcome roadfan |
---|
Welcome, roadfan!Hello, Otr500, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place If you are interested, there is already a community of users who are roadfans or who edit articles about roads, just like you! Stop by any of these WikiProjects — WP:HWY (worldwide), WP:CRWP (Canada), WP:INR (India), WP:UKRD (United Kingdom), or WP:USRD (United States) — and contribute. There is a wealth of information and resources for creating a great article. If you have questions about any of these WikiProjects, you can ask on each project's talk page, or you can ask me! If you like communicating through IRC, feel free to ask questions at #wikipedia-en-roads as well. Here, there are several editors who are willing to answer your questions. For more information, see WP:HWY/IRC. Again, welcome! Rschen7754 18:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
|
Edits to this page
I would like to ask that comments to this page conform to the following style as examples; First person to comment with no indentions.
- Second person to comment like this.
- Third person to comment like this.
- Fourth person to comment like this.
- Third person to comment like this.
- Second person with additional comments.
-
- Fourth person with additional comments.
-
- This provides a better flow in comments and extended comments do not end up against the right side. Otr500 (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
My take |
---|
My takeI have my beliefs just as everyone else. I am passionate concerning how and why I believe the way I do. Although lacking in formal education I believe my informal education, being somewhat equal to the lower echelon of the adequately papered intellectuals, except maybe lacking a little finesse, to be at least rounded enough to sustain my need to search for knowledge. I try to be thorough in research and my quest to obtain knowledge is only matched by my intentions to be productive in life. I do have the propensity to appear "dry" in my discussions but, as I am lighthearted in person, I strive to be dedicated to factual information. Any perceived "dryness" is unintentional but I will not hasten to be bold when called for.
|
Unblock |
---|
UNBLOCK -Please. Otr500 (talk) 02:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
|
Venting |
---|
Reasons some should not editBelow are examples of how not to have a NPOV;
|
ANI on Moses |
---|
ANI notice on MosesSince you commented on earlier discussions of this subject, you can hopefully add some input to this ANI on Moses. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
|
Duplication |
---|
DuplicationHi. I noticed a fair amount of duplication in this post you made. Would you mind refactoring it? Thanks! — Jeff G. ツ 17:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC) |
Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg |
---|
Claus Schenk Graf von StauffenbergIn Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg you removed the {{fictionrefs}} tag. Whoever put that tag in did so incorrectly as it is only to be used in wikiarticles about works of fiction. The more appropriate tag to have used would have been {{In popular culture}}, which reads:Do you think that, had that one been the one used, it might still apply? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 20:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
|
LSU Ambassador invitation |
---|
Wikipedia Campus Ambassadors wanted at LSUHi! I'm leaving you this message because you are listed as a Wikipedian in Louisiana. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors to help with Wikipedia assignments at Louisiana State University, which will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester. The role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students. Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus). If you live near Baton Rouge and you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador, or know someone else from the area who might be, please email me or leave a message on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
|
User page error |
---|
Re: your userpageHi there. Just stumbled onto your page in my Wayward Wikipedia Wandering ;). I noticed in the section titled "Interests" you mention being a "WikiInfant" and that you "made these words up". I found this amusing because (and you may be surprised at the coincidence) there already existed a page which mentions these same words and describes them tongue-in-cheek as various 'stages' in a Wikipedian's 'editing career'. Have a look at Wikipedia:Seven Ages of Wikipedians and see which you best classify as. ;) -- Ϫ 14:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
|
WPUS invitation |
---|
Invitation to join WikiProject United States--Kumioko (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
|
Claus Stauffenberg talk |
---|
Talkback: Claus von Stauffenberg
Hello, Otr500. You have new messages at Talk:Claus von Stauffenberg.
— SpikeToronto 06:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Message added 06:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC). You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. |
Find a Grave comments |
---|
Comments made about Find a Grave...Hi, I saw your notice that you were leaving but I am taking the chance that you will pop in to see this message. I was very impressed with your research and comments about this site. I have commented a couple times to what you have said but I would like to bring to your attentions specifically my last few comments here. I go on to suggest that we should go and try to have the site blacklisted. I am hoping you will see and be able to give some more input on what I am recommending. I hope to see you there and thank you for such a wonderful comments about what you found. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
|
Taken off talk page |
---|
}}
Please consider what your statements about the intent of people really mean...Taking this off the discussion page.... WP:NPA is a pretty important policy. You have made statements about the intent of people working on the Find-A-Grave project, claiming - just about - that they intend to do harm to Wikipedia. It'pretty hard to not read you as making statements about my intentions when I'm a major contributor on that project - statements that I feel are attacks on my integrity as a Wikipedian. Please - think carefully about what you're saying. And if it's what you intend to say .... we have a problem. --Alvestrand (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
|
WPUS newsletter |
---|
New WikiProject United States Newsletter: February 2011 editionStarting with the February 2011 issue WikiProject United States has established a newsletter to inform anyone interested in United States related topics of the latest changes. This newsletter will not only discuss issues relating to WikiProject United States but also:
You may read or assist in writing the newsletter, subscribe, unsubscribe or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following this link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page or the Newsletters talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC) |
Skivington |
---|
SkivingtonGood spot! That's probably been sitting there a while! GedUK 11:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC) |
Mileva Maric |
---|
Mileva Maric Talk page: Notes and referencesOtr500: I appreciate the point you make in the new section "Notes and references" on the Mileva Maric Talk page, but it involves quite a lot of work, especially for someone who has no idea (without researching the appropriate Wikipedia instructions) how to set about condensing repeated citations. Anyway, from a personal point of view, although I have contributed to the Mileva Maric page, at the moment I am too busy to take on this task. If you can't do it, we can only hope someone else will notice your new comment and take the appropriate action. Esterson (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC) |
John Rutledge |
---|
John RutledgeSo we are quite clear and there is no misunderstanding, I did WP:undo one of your prior versions, but I never "WP:reverted" it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC) |
Leaking spam |
---|
You're leaking spamSee what you did there. Palosirkka (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC) |
MFD on External links/Perennial websites |
---|
Please seePlease see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites. The essay has apparently been nominated for deletion in response to the long comment you posted there earlier this week. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
|
Suggested articles to edit | ||
---|---|---|
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotSuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping. If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
Preference changes |
---|
Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preferenceHello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled. On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note. Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
Find a Grave |
---|
Recent Find a Grave editsI just wanted to let you know that I reverted a couple of your recent edits of removing Find a Grave entries. The only ones I reverted either:
I also noticed a couple were B class or better and I will attempt to find a reference. If I cannot I will have to downgrade the articles due to a lack of sourcing of the information. Also, the link you provided on the External links talk page showed a list of articles with the Find a Grave link but there are a lot of images on that list as well. Is it your intention to submit these images for deletion since they are derived from what you perceive to be an "unreliable source"? Surprising as this might be I do not think we should be using images from Find a Grave so if that is your intention I might support you on that one. --Kumioko (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I saw the entry you made and replaced the information with the information available although it was via Find a Grave. I also appreciate you doing that research on the Medal of Honor recipients and getting the images of the graves would be great and it would be good to get them and add them to the articles but it still doesn't fix the sourcing problem. We can't, as far as I know, use an image as a source although we can use it as corroboration when we link to a site or source that contains the image. Even if we could I am not sure that it wouldn't breach the original research criteria. Adding it to the find a Grave site gets around that just as if an author added Original research to a book. --Kumioko (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Thats interesting I never knew about that one that might be an option. I'm not sure if everyone would interpret it that way and I'm still not sure it wouldn't constitute original research but its worth looking into thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Removal of find a graveI noticed that you removed Find a Grave from a couple of articles that were on my watchlist and wanted to let you know I just reverted a couple. If there is a better reference of the information then I agree, by all means replace the find a grave link but removing it from articles with only 2 links or causing an article to be unreferenced (though by it a weak reference) is not, IMO, a good way to improve the pedia. --Kumioko (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
|
Anthony T. Kahoʻohanohano
I noticed the cite check flag you dropped. could I ask which reference you are questioning so I can fix it? --Kumioko (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- I left a message on the talk page. Let me know if what you find is consistent with what I found. Otr500 (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to MILHIST
The Bugle 2011 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here. |
The Bugle 2012 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GOCE July 2012 (Bugle) Copy Edit Drive
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here. The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. |
The Bugle 2013 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. |
The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014
The Bugle: 2014 | |||
---|---|---|---|
The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. |
|||
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014
![]() |
Your Military History Newsletter
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux
|
NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CV, December 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle 2015 | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. The Bugle: Issue CVIII, March 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. |
2011 Newsletters for WikiProject United States |
---|
April 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United StatesThe April 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States 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. Talkback
Hello, Otr500. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 10.
Message added 19:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC). You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC) May 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United StatesThe May 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States 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. June 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United StatesThe June 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States 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. July 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United StatesThe July 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States 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. September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United StatesThe September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States 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. December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United StatesThe December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States 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. |
Problem edit
Hi, can you take another look at this edit it appears to have added some characters to the end of reference 3. Is it some code for the publication or just a slip of the finger? Keith D (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you so very much. I am still laughing at that slip. I was getting my grandson something to eat and the only thing I can figure is that he wanted to help edit. Otr500 (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
"African American" vs. "African-American" vs. "African–American"
The phrase "African American" (with no hyphen) is a noun. The phrase "African-American" (with a hyphen) is an adjective. In the past, there has been some confusion in terms of naming Wikipedia articles, but I think they've been straightened out for the most part.
Nobody should be confused by "African-American" (with a hyphen) into thinking it has anything to do with relations between Africa and America. That would be signified by "African–American" (with an en-dash).
If you have a problem with Wikipedia's long-standing naming convention concerning African Americans, please start a centralized discussion instead of leaving similar messages on the Talk pages of many articles. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply and advice. I do not have a problem with any naming convention of course I really didn't know there was one concerning African Americans. I guess it just takes some figuring out; "African-American naming convention", and "the naming convention concerning African Americans". So where would African American Civil War Memorial place in all of this?
- I have somewhat of a different view. I have Irish ancestry but regardless of that I am American. To me, no matter what the sentence placement, I prefer to use Irish-American when the need arises. Although only a vague hope it would be a monumental time when there would be less need (other than historic) to micro define ethnic groups, that are all considered American, and to eradicate ethnocentrism. Concerning your advice I will reply that there are several reasons I did what I did that is certainly acceptable by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I need not go any farther because your reply was sufficient to cover my questions and or concerns. There is a discussion going on at WP:Manual of Style#dash drafting. Otr500 (talk) 06:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
No solution
- Just when someone makes sense of something and appears to know what is going on a bomb is dropped. I thought what Shabazz said was valid, although there was no reference as to where the information was obtained, so I referenced this (here);
- Concerning titles please comment on these quotes;
-
- "The phrase "African American" (with no hyphen) is a noun. The phrase "African-American" (with a hyphen) is an adjective. In the past, there has been some confusion in terms of naming Wikipedia articles, but I think they've been straightened out for the most part."
- "Nobody should be confused by "African-American" (with a hyphen) into thinking it has anything to do with relations between Africa and America. That would be signified by "African–American" (with an en-dash)." Otr500 (talk) 8:54 am, 29 May 2011, Sunday (14 days ago) (UTC−5)
- This actually made sense but a reply indicates that it is false meaning the whole discussion was flawed especially since it appears not one person has a real idea what should be, or is an appropriate us of hyphen, en-dashes, or en-dashes. The reply was;
-
- Neither is discussing the English language as it actually exists anywhere. Both are efforts to create a dogmatic Newspeak, and if both are genuine quotes from our talk pages (neither shows up on searching), the editor responsible should be ignored until he goes to play on the Newspeak Wikipedia, with its much simpler Manual of Style: "Hyphens are ungood." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:44 pm, 29 May 2011, Sunday (13 days ago) (UTC−5)
- So much for figuring things out and certainly for "...but I think they've been straightened out for the most part." Otr500 (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Guy Gabledon
I just noticed the edit you made to Guy Gabeldon removing the retrieved as dates from the external links. I am not going to revert it but I do not think that this edit was helpful. Regardless of what the "Standard" is for external links I have found that it is frequently helpful to have the retireved date on links (citation or otherwise) especially when those links are using the archiveurl parameters and the rules do allow it. I also think that the comment you left on the talk page was meant for another article. Cheers and happy editing. --Kumioko (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Have to agree with Kumioko on this one. In regard to PFC Guy Gabledon MoH nomination, I can't understand it either, I believe that it is all politics. I have worked with various organizations to have his medal upgraded to the MoH, I even recently wrote to Pre. Obama, but nothing so far. Another case that comes to mind is that of Maj. Herman Bottcher. I once spoke to two former soldiers who served in different units with him and they both agreed that Bottcher was the bravest man that they ever knew. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I can see your point Kumioko. Would I be correct that these dates would have no actual importance to the casual reader? Using archiveurl parameters while still having some form of article consistency, and at the same time following guidelines that appear to have consensus since not being contested, could be accomplished using "hidden comments" that would suffice to satisfy all. We can go this route, unless you and Tony have valid reasoning in having these dates visible on the article page, in which case we can seek a guideline change. I added back the dates per above, if I did it correctly, so tell me what you think? Otr500 (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is actually the first article that I recall seeing this on. I don't intend on looking for articles formatted as such but if I run across any I may do this. You are right and it probably doesn't really hurt anything ----but---- it is in the guidelines. I realize that this may not be that important to some but it is just the way I am.
- When I make edits I look for potential improvements that will enhance the article. When there are guidelines I really try to observe them. Articles I start I have resolved to begin at start and not stub class when possible and I do not want to begin or even work on articles that I think are never going to be anything but a stub. This does not mean I will not make mistakes as that will be a given, but I really think, even though consensus can actually change daily, that some form of consistency does make a better encyclopedia. I do like "retrieval dates", and especially "access dates" that are somewhat current, as this means someone followed a link and this means it is obviously a good one. Otr500 (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
List of United States Military Academy alumni (Union Army)
Hello! In this edit to List of United States Military Academy alumni (Union Army), you added a ref name of "Chief of Ordnance" with two new entries on the list, but no source was included. Could you revisit the article and add the source you intended? Thanks~ - Salamurai (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, sorry for the delay but worked 107 hours so have been busy. If not called out I will look at this tomorrow because I do see I also need to correct the box. Otr500 (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
US National Archives collaboration
United States National Archives WikiProject | |
---|---|
|
Stub tags
When adding a stub tag to an article such as Populus heterophylla, please remember to put it at the end after everything except inter-wiki links (per WP:LAYOUT): it saves the time of the stub-sorter who otherwise has to move the tag to the right place while stub-sorting it. Thanks. PamD (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Luis Barbero
Hi Otr500. I've replied on the talkpage of Luis Barbero regarding the issues you raised. Hope this helps! Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks...
...for updating the EOBR article. I was planning on expanding it but I started driving local and got burnt out on article editing and as you can see it has been sitting around for years with no work. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 00:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well thank you. I plan to do more on several others but worked 89 hours last week. After 17 years I sort of went local, in the oilfield industry, but actually get paid more when I don't drive. Stand-by time, with oilfield exemptions and a 24 hour restart, make it nice. Otr500 (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notifications |
---|
Disambiguation link notificationHi. When you recently edited Riverstone Holdings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Desert, California (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notificationHi. When you recently edited Will Rogers Shrine of the Sun, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cripple Creek and Native American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for Jan 2012Hi. When you recently edited Norris-Penrose Event Center, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for Feb 2012Hi. When you recently edited Hualapai people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Hardy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for Mar 2, 2012Hi. When you recently edited Canon de 105 mle 1913 Schneider, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ansaldo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for August 20, 2012Hi. When you recently edited Transportation Security Administration, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Young Turks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for August 28, 2012Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Transportation Security Administration, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Japanese and Federal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for April 23, 2013Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited El Camino Real de los Tejas National Historic Trail, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sabine River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for May 5Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States Lighthouse Service, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Treasury (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for August 4Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chuck Connors, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kamala Devi and Branded (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for September 14Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USRC Woodbury (1837), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Veracruz, Mexico (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 21Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sabine Pass, Port Arthur, Texas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Jacinto (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 5Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 12Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Constitution of Louisiana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Louisiana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 30Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Livonia, Louisiana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 22Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Lacassane Company, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Conservation and Casitas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 25Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cajun cuisine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sage. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 29Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crescent Plantation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santa Gertrudis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 27Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pembina Territory, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages British, Treaty of Washington and Northern. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for January 13Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard H. Keith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Bowman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 30Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kissel Motor Car Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Ruger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 8Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ashland Plantation, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gonzales and Alexander Stewart (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 15Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
|
Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.
Reliable Source Response |
---|
Reliable Source ResponseI wanted to personally thank you for responding to my message on the reliable source noticeboard. I'm new to Wikipedia, and I'll take your suggestions to heart as I learn the ropes. I do contend that the value of International Futures is beyond a mere interesting bit of trivia. Policy is made through calculated analysis of potential futures, and this model is the largest integrated model in the world, spanning more issue areas than any other in the world. That being said, I appreciate your opinion. I do have one further question that you may be able to help with. As I mentioned in my first message, I was directed to the noticeboard to seek consensus at the suggestion of another seasoned veteran of Wikipedia. Ultimately, is there a listing of reliable sources if the source does achieve consensus? Is there a next step? Thanks again for taking the time to work with me. (Shredder2012 (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC))
|
USRD WikiProject Newsletter, Winter 2012
Volume 5, Issue 1 • Winter 2011 • About the Newsletter | ||
This edition is going out to all USRD WikiProject members (current, former, or potential) in addition to other subscribers as part of a roll call to update the participants list. Anyone that would like to continue to receive this newsletter in the future needs to update the subscription list if they are not already subscribed. | ||
|
|
|
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS |
- —Imzadi 1979 → 22:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Military history coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle
Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited |
|
---|---|
Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC) |
On names of US lighthouses
Lighthouses in the US are invariably named "placename Light", not "Lighthouse", by the governing authorities. Please at least discuss this with others before overriding this convention. Also, the cut-and-paste move of Sabine Pass Light creates a disruption in the article history. If you cannot accomplish a proper move yourself, use Wikipedia:Requested moves to ask an administrator to do it for you. Thank you for your work. Mangoe (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC) I answered at Talk:List of lighthouses in the United States. Otr500 (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!
Center Line: US roads | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The Center Line: U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter, Winter 2013
The Center Line: Spring 2013
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hi Otr500! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC) |
The Centerline: Summer 2013 | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The Center Line: Summer 2013
|
Kurdish separatism in Iran campaignbox
Hello Zirguezi, since you were active on the Kurdish Iranian topic in the past - i would like to notify you the following: Recently an article Kurdish separatism in Iran was forced a split into new Rebellions in Iranian Kurdistan; In addition, the campaignbox was as well split [1]: from template:Campaignbox Kurdish separatism in Iran into the new template:Campaignbox Kurdish–Iranian conflict . I proposed to remerge the campaignboxes via a community consensus, with the rationale that the split of articles was made artificially and without any real need (the user who did it, had wanted to rename the Kurdish separatism in Iran article, but when failed - he started a "competitive" article). You are welcome to express your opinion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_3#Template:Campaignbox_Kurdish.E2.80.93Iranian_conflict.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 16:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Center Line: Winter 2013 | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The Center Line: Winter 2013
|
Reasons for lack of editing
I have slowed down editing on Wikipedia as lack of edits will show. The reasons are what can be referred to as "mythical":
- 1)- Guardian editors; These are mythical editors with good intentions but if they alone do not like something in an article, even if relevant and sourced, it will be reverted, resulting in unnecessary complications.
- 2)- What I call a Cabal even if I am assured they do not exist so are mythical. I have had the displeasure of meeting such a mythical group (I may have only been dreaming) that I (my personal opinion) feel can be humorously referred to as "The Knights of NPOV Cabal" or "The Never Finishes an Article Cabal". It is my opinion, and with considerable proof, they (if they were to exist) rename articles in violation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, only creating a majority of stub articles with many being misnamed. Pages of evidence to the contrary will result in pages of verbiage, and any attempt to change this will be a battle. Some editors just want to edit. Sure, knowing there is irrefutable evidence, I "could" battle through the process but finding the Wikipedia mythical room is complicated.
- If you are some of these editors, that belong to the mythical secret project Cabal that does not exist, you know who you are. I know, that you know, that you are wrong. "If" I were to get the time and will to "do battle", I would even try to expose these editors if only you were not so mythical. This would only be after enough editors (OMG would that also be a Cabal?) have had enough of something that is presented as not being actual, while in reality really is, yet is referred to as mythical because Wikipedia protocol is to deny it, and attempts to do something about it is complicated. There is not even a real Wikipedia protocol to attempt to deal with naming conventions of projects gone awry, that blatantly disregard Wikipedia even in article naming (as a group), to try to address this without a long term battle. If something is wrong it should not be so hard to correct without mythical editorial bloodshed.
- See; Even trying to explain it is comical so there is really nothing short of confrontation that can resolve it. I may not be editing articles but I feel better. "IF" someone takes offense at any of this, or tries to make an issue of any, OR becomes tired of some of the same things and would like a change, let me know (tag it) or join in, as I can provide links to substantiate any of the above "mythical" information. If you are one of the "mythical" editors misnaming articles all over Wikipedia, and would like to report me, this would be a good reason to "do battle" to expose you. Since you are "mythical" I can not imagine how you could possibly be insulted. My mythical thanks, Otr500 (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Beauregard Parish Jail caption2.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Center Line: Spring 2014 | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The Center Line: Spring 2014
|
Extended content |
---|
top The Center Line: Fall 2013
|
The Center Line: Fall 2013
Volume 6, Issue 4 • Fall 2013 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS |
- —EdwardsBot (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The Center Line: Spring 2014
Volume 7, Issue 2 • Spring 2014 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS |
- —MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of Imzadi1979
Request for comment
Hello Otr500, I'm here onbehalf of WP:ORPHAN in which you are also a participant. So, we want your opinion to a WP:ORPHAN related matter. It is a proposal by Technical 13. Please have a look here. Your opinion (i.e support, oppose etc) are very much appreciated there. Thank you. By Jim Cartar through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Backlog drive
Hello Otr500,
WikiProject Orphanage is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive to de-orphan articles which have orphan tags!
The goal is to eliminate the backlog of orphan articles. There are currently 146231 articles which have orphan tags. The drive is running from April 12, 2014 to May 12, 2014.
Awards will be given out for all editors participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive. To add your name in the participants list click here.
So start de-orphaning articles! Click here to see the list of articles need de-orphaning.
Visit Suggestions for how to de-orphan an article to know more!
Added name to list.
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
Barnstar for de-orphaning articles |
Thank you for your efforts to de-orphan articles, Although we are unsuccessful to make a dent on the huge backlog, but your efforts to de-orphan articles are very much appreciated. Happy editing! -- From: Jim Carter onbehalf of WikiProject Orphanage through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC) |
- My first barnstar: Thanks.
Redirect
Hello. I've undid your blanking of Magnolia Lane Plantation because you didn't give a valid reason in the edit summary. If you wish to delete the redirect, please nominate the redirect under one of the speedy deletion criterion or nominate the article at RfD. Also, you don't have to sign your edit summaries with four ~s. Thanks. KJ «Click Here» 07:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you as I did not intend to leave a blanked page but fell asleep while adding content to the article. I removed the redirect again but not in contest of your edit but in order to add content and correctly list the article. I did not know about not signing the edit summary as there is insufficient liking on this information and I just never saw it so thanks again. Otr500 (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Playboy |
---|
Deletion of "List of Playboy Playmates of X"Regarding your comments ending with [2]: I really don't understand the details and extent of your concerns. I'm starting to put together the AfD. I wish you could explain yourself more clearly so I could determine what, if anything, should be added. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
|
Proposed deletion of The Lacassane Company
![Ambox warning yellow.svg](https://web.archive.org/web/20170408000158im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article The Lacassane Company has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Is this company notable?
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Plantdrew (talk) 04:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carter Plantation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spanish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pillow Place, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clifton Place. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)\
: Done
Talk:Sabine Pass Light
In Talk:Sabine Pass Light you have made a move request with an initial edit of 9,264 bytes (which can be seen as an addition to your contributions to last years request where you contributed over 16,000 bytes). Which means that you have contributed over 20,000 characters (at 80 characters a line that is about 250 lines), about 10 pages worth of A4, to the question of what is the best name for the article.
Given the above, I think you should consider if your most recent posting to the page, which at 4,007 bytes (about 8 times the size of the posting by Nyttend) was on reflection a wise course of action. Do you think that reply of about 2 pages of A4 was necessary or helpful (as a closing conscientious admin is expected to read it). Perhaps in future you will consider the advise in WP:TALK "Be concise", as very long answers tend to be counter-productive.
-- PBS (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your advice. It probably won't matter but: You might have noticed that in the initial request, after I posted intent and waited 7 days to change the name (I screwed it up), I changed the name. I worked on an article that sat since 2006 and the name was changed back because a project chose another name. An RM was started, I had stated my case, another edited did a better job even with additional persuasive comments, and 6 opposes after that is when I began to wonder what in the world was going on. I still edited the article and made improvements and, it appeared to me, to show me who could and couldn't edit on Wikipedia, my edits were reverted and incorporated as a glorified stub. That was enough. I had edits revered (changed), was told there was a not a snowball chance the name would be changed, and so I waited over a year. I thought I would try again so I presented my case. The RM said not to be vague so I put a lot into trying to be persuasive the first time. My one reply (oppose) was like the last--- "If you disagree with the naming convention, try to get the convention changed.".
- I know that "votes" are not suppose to be counted, just what evidence is presented, but in the real world it seems they are related. This time (day 7) is 1 with support and one against, = no consensus.
- To tell you the truth I just figured, since nobody had taken interest in 6 days (now 7), I had listed the RM in several places in accordance to Wikipedia policy, and I was going to be working all day with the last RM was closed the way it was anyway, that there was not going to be any chance of it going through. The one case I saw where a name change was allowed it was noted this was an exception. I had resigned to continue not to work on lighthouse articles so just vented.
- What I didn't know, and just found out, was that one "proof of name" that is accepted according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) was the GNIS that lists Sabine Pass Lighthouse (historical) (1980 and 1983) here as a consistent past and present name. All I presented, and I didn't find this information. Go figure right?
- Anyway I do not plan to edit lighthouse articles now, and maybe not in the future, so they (the lighthouse project) can name everything "light" if they want to. I "had" interest in all lighthouses but to have to battle so much for something so simple and clear on one article, it is just not worth it. Wikipedia can just have 20 year old stub "light" articles and I will just work on other NRHP, and history articles.
- I do so appreciate your investment of time and advice. Otr500 (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Ordinals in USAF articles
Since you have participated in past discussions on the use of ordinals in U.S. military articles, you may be interested in the move request I started at Talk:132d Fighter Wing. —innotata 04:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
On making military unit articles more consistent
Here's an expansion on my reply at Talk:132d Fighter Wing, with some stuff about what I'm working on. First, you've been able to describe why we should use what happen to be the common names, and how we follow or don't quite follow official usage quite well. I definitely agree with you that we can make improvements as we go. I also am not for making standardising moves on a blanket basis, so I'd support doing this with classes of articles or individual articles (hence my current move request for Fighter Wings only, all of which I checked). And ordinals aren't the only renames some need, I'm sure. Anyway, as SchreiberBike, who has done a lot of work on standardising style in the past, has expressed interest in working on ordinals in U.S. military units, I'll probably keep track of discussions on U.S. military units, but step out myself. Actually, I came across this matter while working on standardising and correcting articles on other countries' militaries, which I'm more interested in contributing to, since there's less about them on Wikipedia. I started this effort because I'd like to start expanding our coverage of units, formations, and personnel in countries like Afghanistan and Ukraine, which I hope will be useful for rather obvious reasons. I've learned about military organisation and how to write about military topics, corrected plenty of misinformation, expanded and created articles with the basics, and so on; I found out about the incredible story of Irene Morales while improving categorisation (and take a look at the article I wrote on her), as well as creating Sikkim Scouts, and (earlier) 2nd Dragoon Regiment (France). So that's exactly what I'm doing. Anyway, thank you for all your work on style but more importantly on content. —innotata 06:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- I hope you can take a little time (or SchreiberBike) to insert content and some of the references you listed in the 132d Fighter Wing article.
- The "vote" (if you will) is not in yet and does not have to go the way of logic. I have seen closures that use the rationale that references do point out the reasoning to allow a move. I "just" found out I have an early call to work in the morning and may--or may not-- get back early. If I do I will look at that article next. Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Copying from U.S. military sites
I thought I'd let you know it is allowed to copy or closely paraphrase text from U.S. military websites and publications, as long as you attribute it (see Template:Citation-attribution). U.S. federal government works have no copyright so the only issue is plagiarism. That said, it probably isn't the best idea in most circumstances, due to neutrality and the different style of writing, etc. So, you can choose to add attribution, or remove the text where you see it. I leave it to your judgment, just letting you know this choice exists. —innotata 02:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes--and attribution should be clear. Copy/paste is actually direct plagiarism (word-for-word) in the absence of copyvio or attribution and not good editing. To swap mid-sentence from normal practices of editing to copying or copy/pasting text just should not be done. An editor (my beliefs) should not "mix it up" within a sentence, as this allows a lot of latitude to creep in OR. Reality is that all content on Wikipedia is a form of plagiarism as it is OR if not referenced somewhere. The difference is to use content not "directly" copied word-for-word from a source to blatantly show direct plagiarism.
- Using This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the Air Force Historical Research Agency, in the reference section is not a blanket authorization to copy/paste right?. The template you referenced can be placed at the end of a sentence, lacking any other "source specific template", to show "sentences or a paragraph that incorporates text from a source that is not under copyright". It can, and I think should be, placed within ref tags.
- I do have a method to my madness. Content on many of these article were added to by an editor that has been banned and some not active, thus comments on the talk page will go unanswered. I do not have time to stop, investigate these things to determine this, correct every instance, then take the next step of contacting the editor, so I hid the content, in lieu of sending it to the talk page, so I can look at it later. I hope I clarified my actions and I do appreciate your comments. Otr500 (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- You can either have attribution at the end of an article incorporating some copied text, or after each sentence that has some elements copied. Personally I prefer the second, but giving attribution once is more popular and some people prefer that; it's customary for the USAF HRA and such sources we've copied from a lot before. I totally agree, I just wanted to point out that it would work to keep some of the copied text if you decide to. —innotata 04:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Gotcha. Otr500 (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- IF that works without being contested thus far I can use the time to look at other areas and come back to any "direct" copying as I do not like it even if it is easier. Night-- Otr500 (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
September 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Richard Norton (actor) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- ] in 1993, and with [[Jackie Chan]] in 1997, [[Inside Kung Fu]], MA Training published 1988 to 2000), Martial Arts & Combat Sports (published 1999 to 2002), and Martial Arts & Combat Sports.<
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
The Center Line: Summer 2014
Volume 7, Issue 3 • Summer 2014 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS |
- —MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979, 21:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Interview for The Signpost
- This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Orphanage
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Orphanage for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (interview) @ 18:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
RM notice
You might be interested in the 12-article move discussion at Talk:Aspromonte (goat)#Requested move 07 November 2014, since it raises the same question on which you had previously given a fact- and policy-based rationale in very similar requested moves discussions. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Italian goat breeds
Hi! I see you've made a change in a large number of articles to the number of Italian goat breeds of limited distribution for which the Associazione Nazionale della Pastorizia maintains a registro anagrafico, or non-genealogical herd book. Unfortunately you seem to have miscounted them. There are forty-three, as can be clearly seen in this document, which lists them along with the eight national breeds for which it maintains a stricter genealogical herdbook. Would you be kind enough to fix those articles? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hello, Thanks for the message. I will not make any more changes until a determination can be reached. I will list my reasoning and we can go from there. The reference I was going by, and the one you referenced, Associazione Nazionale della Pastorizia, states: It maintains genealogical herdbooks for seventeen principal indigenous breeds of sheep and eight goat breeds, and also maintains less stringent herdbooks for forty-two autochthonous sheep breeds and thirty-three goat breeds of limited distribution.. There is a goat count in a reference that is in conflict with a direct link that states thirty-three, there may be a reason why the total number wasn't used. I went by the information on a link, that appears to be the authority that maintains the registry, and the provided inline link in the article. What is plainly stated without adding anything up is the number thirty-three. In other words the count is plainly stated. There is a list and the count does add up to forty-three. Questions would be:
- Why does the Wikipedia article, that makes it appear to be of authority, use thirty-three when there are plainly a count of forty-three breeds listed?
- Is minor breeds not counted or is there some breeds that are extinct?
- Is the information in that link that is on the article and now that you and I have referenced again (the authority on the subject) wrong?
- Is the information on that link from them or has some editor corrupted Wikipedia with false information?
- I will look at this, and I hope you will also, but unless you are stating the authority that is listed as an in-line link is flawed, or they can't count, we need to come to a conclusion before we make any changes or revert what is stated so very much plainly in the registry authority.
- I am going down the list and as you can see I am adding alternate names, any synonyms I can find, other common names, moving names up to the beginning of the lead, and looking for other references. Maybe we can determine why the count of the breeds listed does not agree with the number as stated in the registry authority.
- NOTE: Some of the names listed in the link you provided might (possibly) be duplicates or alternate names. My rationale for this would be the breed Valgerola listed in the reference. According to the article Orobica (one of the eight) they are the same. If that is true then the bottle of beers on the wall has just dropped to 42.
-
- IF** what is stated at that link is wrong then that MUST be corrected as it is very VERY misleading and is very much splattered on pretty much EVERY single article about Italian goats. We need another link (or more) to clarify this. I am sure you will agree about this? I trust you will look into this and help me straighten it out. Otr500 (talk) 08:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- Maybe we need to bring this discussion to a central location such as talk:Associazione Nazionale della Pastorizia so a solution can be reached? Otr500 (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Toggenburg (goat), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Werdenberg. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
December 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bryde's whale may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- '''Bryde's whale''' or '''Bryde's whale complex''' ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|b|r|uː|d|ə}{{respell|BREW|də}}) putatively comprises two species of [[rorqual]] [[baleen
: Done
- in Bryde's whales from the central western North Pacific and Baja California Peninsula. SC/56/PF15). ''Unpublished report to the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission''.</ref>
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Jens Voigt
Thanks for picking it up on GA, take your time and Merry Christmas :) Mattsnow81 (Talk) 00:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- You are welcome. are you and/or any other editor(s) going to be available for any discussion or do you just want a decision and deal with it then? Otr500 (talk) 10:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'll be available for discussion :) I think Lugnuts and User:7&6=thirteen will be interested as well. Where will the discussion take place? (I'm new to GA) Mattsnow81 (Talk) 17:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- I suppose Talk:Jens Voigt would be more appropriate so I will reply there. Otr500 (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- I read your critique so far, very good thanks, I'll bring the changes necessary in a few days, I'm pretty busy at the moment :) Mattsnow81 (Talk) 03:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- I understand and there is Christmas around the corner. Otr500 (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry for being so slow! I'm moving at snail pace, I have a hectic schedule right now. I should be more available after 1st January. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 05:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'll be taking a wikibreak, I think you'd better make a decision whether it is a good article or not, as nobody else is stepping in to help. Happy New Year :) Mattsnow81 (Talk) 07:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. If you agree with concerns I listed you could have just removed the nomination and I would have closed it as withdrawn. I will close it later today. Otr500 (talk) 08:58, 6 Janua
The Center Line: Fourth Quarter 2014
Volume 7, Issue 4 • Fourth Quarter 2014 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS |
- —MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 10:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paterson, New Jersey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
: Repaired by User:Niceguyedc. Otr500 (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
The Center Line: Winter 2015
Volume 8, Issue 1 • Winter 2015 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS |
- —MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 18:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
deOrphaning script
Hello everyone! I was just working on responding to a couple bug reports for a script that I worked up as part of a request from this project, and I noticed that only a couple people (who weren't even on this mailing list) are actually using the script. A little history on the script: In March of 2014, Jim Cartar came to my user talk page and said he needed some help in acquiring a script for a backlog drive that he was working on that could keep track of and score deOrphanings for a scored backlog drive. I took that request to the project's talk page (BackLog Drive "DO" (De-Orphaning) script proposal) and there was near unanimous support for this. I thought about the proposal and decided the best way to do it was to build a new script (which is still no where near as comprehensive as Manishearth's OrphanTabs) and build into it a mechanism that will make BLD scoring easy.
What I'm wondering at this point is, since there appears to be only two people using the script, should I continue to develop this script with a goal of using it for scoring BLDs or just debug the existing script and leave it at that. Thanks for any replies or comments.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
- This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of —
{{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)
14:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)- Thanks for the info. This reply is to give you some un-technical information. I have been editing a while and it appears there are two specific types of editors; computer literate and those in my class then there are those new to the project. When I research a topic I think that links to other articles are fundamental to being afforded the best possible experience in assisting that research and to me a problem with orphan articles is it produces a stumbling block. I did not know about the script and don't really know how to use them. This does not mean I will not try to learn to use something that is helpful. You stated that only two were using it and I see in a reply that it was being inquired about. Debugging (I hate bugs) and testing sounds good but not many will use it if it can not be found.
-
- Recognition is a good thing (as seen above) and my first and thus far only Barnstar is for de-orphaning articles. I think you deserve one for your efforts in trying to improve the Wikipedia experience for editors. From the comment I saw you "may" have a third user so I would also suggest debugging but also "continue to develop" as BLD scoring seems a good idea.
- Can these "scripts" not be placed somewhere on the project page in a "Scripts" section so editors can find them? Otr500 (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The Center Line: Spring 2015
Volume 8, Issue 2 • Spring 2015 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS |
- —MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 12:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Psychological resilience
Hi, I saw the comments you made on Talk:Psychological resilience and I have made some major changes to the article. I am inviting you to review my changes and see what I can do further. Thanks, My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 17:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, I will look at it in the next couple of days. I have been working extremely long hours and want to be able to be refreshed. Otr500 (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations
There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Cuckolds Light, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page First-order (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Done
Please take a look at ...
Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#Support_or_oppose and just above it. It concerns the bold edit you made to WP:Harass.
BTW, nice to meet you. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, and nice to meet you as well. I have been working 12 hour days this week but will likely be off this weekend and will be able to look things over more closely. Otr500 (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
High drive?
Hi, can you help clear up a few things about high drive tractors?
- Is this a Caterpillar thing or now shared with other makers? The Continuous track and Caterpillar_D10#High_Drive_system articles seem contradictory. Do they have to license it from Caterpillar?
- Why is the drive sprocket forward of the rear idler? I see the advantage of lifting the ground-running sprocket up off the ground shocks, but this was long established for military chassis with either front or rear drive. Why did Caterpillar move it towards the middle? Is that a defining part of high drive?
Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 13:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
-
- Hello Andy, Thanks for your message. I had to stop and save where I was at because I had not cleared my cache in a long time and had too many browsers and tabs open, even for my gaming laptop, and it was freezing up. I just got logged back on.
- Can you be specific of the apparent conflict so we will be on the same page? The high drive was specific to Caterpillar, inherited from both the companies that merged with it's debut, and I imagine that (haven't looked yet) under the United States patent law at the time (changed in 1994) that would have been 17 years. Until I find different any "crawler" tractors that "might" have been built with high drive before around 1990-1992? (would have to look at the high drive patent date) would have to have been under some patent agreement. There are "many" manufactures running high drive now. Now that I am back on I will look at both articles, and research some more. Thanks for your comments, --- Otr500 (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Leo Frank GA
Hi there, just want to let you know that I finally got the Leo Frank article to a GA review. Although it's after the centennial of his lynching, I thought it would be good to get a review in. Here's the review page: Talk:Leo_Frank/GA2. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The Center Line: Summer 2015
Volume 8, Issue 3 • Summer 2015 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS |
- —MediaWiki message delivery (talk) delivered on behalf of Imzadi1979 05:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXIV, September 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
September 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Germanic peoples may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- or the Egg|talk page]])|url=http://www.imperialteutonicorder.com/id43.html|date= September 2015)}}.{{About|Germanic peoples as an ethno-linguistic group|the term Germanic as used in reference to
- does the vowel length (contrast with inscriptional ''Garmangabi'' (UK) and ''Garma'' Alise, G-257)). Others have proposed a Germanic etymology *''gēr''-''manni'', "spear men", cf. [[Middle Dutch]] ''
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Robert Dollar
Under Construction since 3:38 pm, 25 September 2010, Saturday (4 years, 11 months, 29 days ago) ~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The Center Line: September 2015
Volume 8, Issue S1 • September 2015 • About the Newsletter
- Happy 10th Anniversary!
- —delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk) on 23:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Drafted article: Pembina Territory restored as Pembina Region
- I became involved in a deletion discussion of "Pembina Territory" that was deleted but moved to my draft.
- When the deletion discussion began the article appeared to be a stub that likely could (or would) not be improved, titled under the wrong name, and if I remember correctly not sourced. I expanded the article to at least "start class", referenced it far better than hundreds of other articles, presented evidence that the information was historical, encyclopedic, and therefore warranted on Wikipedia. I did not know (but found out) that I could appeal the decision but it was moved to draft and that seems a viable alternative as I was rushed to make improvements in a short time. I do think I did a pretty good job, and felt that would have been considered in the decision. The only other editor responding (after improvements) agreed (seemed to me) but had concerns over the capitalizing of "Region". I didn't get to discuss that with the editor (with reasoning I presented concerning other like articles) as the article was drafted and redirected.
- Information:
- The region was part of an area that belonged to what became Canada then Minnesota. The Treaty of 1818 solved the Canada issue but all that did was separate the history. When Minnesota became a state the area was again thrown into unincorporated status and this was not solved until North and South Dakota became states. Pembina, ND was considered the administrative seat of the area but after 1818 (until 1823) it was considered to be in Canada which left the area without even a town. The issue was not solved until March 2, 1861 with the creation of the Dakota Territory. This means that from 1818 (the time from when the Brisish/Canadian history became separated, until the time from March 3, 1849, until May 11, 1858 (the Minnesota Territory]] and then until 1861, the area was populated but not represented and this would be 34 years. The history did not stop so it should be covered.
- This does not even account for the fact that the region, from a geographical point of view (to be addressed), never failed to exist but was politically separated between two countries.
- Aside from all the above I can show where other articles; Republic of Indian Stream (unsourced but I will look into it), Oregon Country, and Provisional Government of Oregon exists and so should this article. The "Treaty of 1818" is far too broad to try to include specific information from this article and will just likely result in article content battles.
- Add to that the fact that the other editors that weighed in on the deletion discussion did so at the beginning, before I became involved, and only editor replied after the fact.
- The "Pembina Region" of the US, actually unlike the Pacific Northwest ("Though no agreed boundary exists") is defined with boundaries.
- The bottom line is I became involved to decide if an article should be deleted or not. Instead of just looking at what was evident (there at the time) I looked more closely and made improvements. I would actually have thought that would have been enough to stop the request with a move to the discussed name. In a short time the article was improved and had more references than the "Treaty of 1818", that the article it was redirected to.
- I changed the article name and moved the article to main-space. This may not have been the correct approach so I am recording this for any future discussion. Otr500 (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXV, October 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frawley Ranch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CVC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Done.
Thank you...
...for silently placing those two barnstars on my page :) My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 13:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2005 Gujarat Flood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anand (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Done.
The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The Center Line: November 2015
Volume 8, Issue 4 • November 2015 • About the Newsletter
|
|
- —delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk) on 22:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXVII, December 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Demographics of Europe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Done.
MfD nomination of User:Otr500/new article name here
User:Otr500/new article name here, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Otr500/new article name here and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Otr500/new article name here during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. North America1000 05:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Johnstown flood of 1977, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mineral Point (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Already done
Disambiguation link notification for January 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Victor Heiser, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plague (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Done.
RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes
There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what What should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
1997 Red River flood listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 1997 Red River flood. Since you had some involvement with the 1997 Red River flood redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Anomalocaris (talk) 09:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Articulated hauler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Komatsu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Done.
The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bulldozer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Komatsu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
DAB
Just FYI, it's unlikely that your extended comment at WP:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Disambiguation and inherently ambiguous titles will be noticed and "counted" if you don't also add a short keep or delete !vote to the !voting section at WP:Village pump (policy)#Responses (disambiguation). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Thanks---for the reminder. My sister had a water leak pouring water under a new $6000.00 floating floor --and on a weekend --so I had to go---and I just got back. Otr500 (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of lighthouses in China, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Qingyi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
PB articles
If you ever PROD / AfD any Playboy Bunny articles, please ping me -- I'd be happy to vote "delete". If every one of them has an article, that's ridiculous non-encyclopedic. This is not the space I track myself, but would support any trimming there for sure. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Two years ago there was a mess there. I was accused having moral issues on an encyclopedia that is uncensored, and attacked for attempting to make improvements. I did have problems but it was that there was so much over-coverage, redundant coverage, and circular coverage that it is ludicrous, and the articles were screwed up. There were arguments that because there were no actual articles but lists that BLP didn't apply. There are List of Playboy models, List of Playboy Playmates by birthplace, by month, by year, by decade, List of Playboy models, List of Playboy videos with zero references, Lists of women#Swimsuits and nudes where the lists are listed all over again, and Category:Playboy lists placed in "See also" sections.
- The main problems I had (have) were 1)- Articles were blue links but were redirects to lists that would redirect to other lists so were circular, 2)- Lists would have 12 entries, with an "External links" section in the body of the article under each entry, and an "External links" section at the end. When I started cleaning these up per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout I was hit with "Removing valid references, whether in an EL section or otherwise, is almost always a bad idea.". After I deleted EL links in the article body it was reverted with the summary "Nothing there justifies your removal of ALL external links here.", but another editor didn't think I was wrong.
- Articles have the lists of lists in "See also" sections. Many of these have been corrected but with hundreds of links there are still many not corrected.
- I would like to think I helped effect some changes but it was a battle and still not finished but at least better. Otr500 (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Military history WikiProject coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Caste/clan lists
Talk:Dantusliya#AFD - do not do this, please. You appear to be enthusiastic but lacking in clue when it comes to caste stuff and it will be a disaster. It has been tried before and invariably just creates a shedload of problems. - Sitush (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I also refer you to Talk:Birring#Notability, which is a section you seem to have been creating all over the shop. I think you are going through a list of articles mentioned in a recently closed mass-nomination AfD. It isn't particularly helpful: fix it, tag it or nominate it. Many of us have hundreds of these articles watched and it becomes repetitive to check in and see the same truism. - Sitush (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- I extended you a damn courtesy, and you reply being a friggin jerk. Jeesh, think you are doing a good thing and some bottom feeder just has to be an ass. I don't have all these articles watched and was looking at them. If there was some substances fine, AND--- but I thought I would be courteous. I can see where that got me.
- You just want the crappy one line, non-referenced junk on Wikipedia no matter what. A procedural close was granted and it is now very plainly obvious you just wanted to sweep things under the rug. I was looking over the articles to see what was what, what might be needed, and maybe find someone that might be interested in collaborating on suggestions. Now you can just defend them or fix them yourself. Hell dude, if you are being bothered then unwatch the damn things, simple as that. You don't have to worry, I will not ping you again.
- PS: I don't have to know a damn thing about castes, tribes, sub-castes, Upajati's or anything else. That is the reason to have good quality articles, notable as shown by multiple reliable sources, and when that is not provided, look at other options. I am actually against mass nominations but now I think I may explore this option. You have a nice day since I am not going to let you mess mine up. Please just reply to the forthcoming AFD's as you will almost surely not provide anything worthwhile, and you defending one line, one sentence articles tagged since 2011 with no references, as notable, should be interesting. Otr500 (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- Er, you have just demonstrated that you really don't know much about the subject area or, indeed, me. We all have to start somewhere, sure, but nowhere was I acting like a "jerk". You will need a much, much thicker skin if you're going to be involved in such articles, and if you do something retaliatory now then beware of WP:POINT. - Sitush (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attri clan
Please sign your comment at the AfD discussion. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert
![]() |
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Bishonen | talk 16:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC). |
The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Article class assessment
- I have seen far too many articles artificially elevated in class assessment. I saw there is a bot, and was involved in some communication, concerning automation of this, sort of class project matching, to "B-class". I have decided this is a detriment to the entire classification system. I realize I will likely be in some minority, as this will more than likely just be a "new direction", but I can now see absolutely no advantages.
- I suppose many editors just don't get involved in article classifications but any editor that looks at a "Start class" article, or possibly "C-class", artificially elevated to B-class" should leave a note on the talk page, reassess the article, or start a discussion on the article talk page or the project(s) page. Otr500 (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Higher promotions
I recently ran into higher elevated articles, some A-class and some FA class, that are being force-fed into promotions. These articles have found a following that does not care about silly policies and guidelines, nor valid criticism. FA class is reputedly the "best-of-the-best" Wikipedia has to offer and would arguably, and in actuality, be hard pressed to be a good candidate for "B-class". If any list article is found to be "A or FA-class" with critical issues, just leave them alone because there is an agenda to promote certain articles regardless of the state. Otr500 (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.
The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Blast from the past
I concur with your assessment that graveyard sites are not reliable sources, other than to confirm birth and death dates, and as stub class material to initiate research.
I have stumbled on your five year old tags at James Barbour (lawyer) in my linking names of the Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1850 Chart of Delegates to biography articles. Where none exist I have been creating start articles on delegates who were also members of the General Assembly, or elected to another Convention, whether Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1829-1830 or the Virginia Secession Convention of 1861.
As I add additional information to the James Barbour (lawyer) article from my David Lloyd Pulliam source, “Constitutional Conventions of Virginia”, I wonder if I might simply remove the genealogy list information from the article as encyclopedic as a matter of wp:mos? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, I actually tagged the article with plans of returning. Somehow it fell off the radar with other things going on. I would suggest that you use your editorial discretion in making article improvements. I will not object and if I see something of concern will comment on it. I do have some suggestions. "IF" you plan to remove any content I would make sure it is not covered "somewhere" in a reliable source first, or some assurance that a search is exhaustive. Certain information on some of the sites we do not deem "reliable" are not necessarily false, or even inaccurate, it is just that the information is from sites not properly vetted, or with user supplied information considered not reliable by consensus, and just "may" be inaccurate. When there is a possibility of inaccurate information, because of questioning of the source, I would tend to see if content exclusion can be implemented without article harm. If this happens I would place the material and source in a section on the talk page for future checking and use a good edit summary for the reasoning along with "See talk".
- I am not a deletionist by nature but like to see "accurate" information since this is an encyclopedia right? When you have an acceptable source you can move "Find a Grave" to an "External links" section, because that is where it belongs, as well as any other links not considered "reliable", if you don't mind. The link to the Beckham Family Tree should not be in the body of the article at all. I think it is far better to have less "reliably sourced" information than clearly possibly wrong, distorted, or mistaken information. If you are not sure of content that "may" be accurate, or covered somewhere, tag it as "citation needed" if moving or remove a source would leave content unsourced.
- As a note: I glanced at your profile and am impressed. Since you are a teacher I can appreciate that you apparently have a love for books. I had a lot of books (nowhere near 500) that were lost in a house fire. Some of them like Harper's Encyclopedia of United States History, or the 22 volume 1960 World Book Encyclopedia, may not be replaceable. I kept that on a shelf in the front room. It looked good and was great for comparing information now as opposed to then. Editorial bias can sometimes clearly be seen because of political, religious, or even just changing perceptions. It was disheartening and I never started rebuilding. If I had so many as to be a concern (to my wife) I would spend an allotment on a controlled climate storage room (just a thought), then you would not have to "lose" any by upgrading or considering them an excess over a limit, unless you are attempting to control some "collection abuse syndrome", sometimes referred to as hoarding by some people, --LOL. Anyway, good luck and have a blast, Otr500 (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Good Article review?
Is there any way I could persuade you to take on the Good Article review for Virginia Conventions? The nine constitutional conventions and four revolutionary conventions are daughter articles to that main article, and the start bios I've been writing are links supporting each Chart of delegates. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I have only reviewed one article thus far and yesterday I was presented with a challenge. My gaming laptop went on the blink and I am temporarily using a smaller, slower (much slower), and aged laptop, until I arrive at a solution of repairing or replacement. With the addition that I am working 60 hour weeks this presents me with additional challenges.
- As I weigh my options I will take a cursory look at the article and let you know. Otr500 (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Infectious Diseases Society of America copyright problem
I have paraphrased content you added to the above article, as it appears to have been copied from http://www.idsociety.org/Forming_the_Society/?id=32212254910, a copyright web page. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Red links in FLCs
Dunno what you have against redlinks in Featured-level articles and lists, but there's nothing in the criteria for either that bans them and WP:REDLINKS actively encourages them in all articles. That said I do agree with you that the circular redlinks in the recent KC winners list promoted to FLC should have been fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. My issue arises when links are placed in an article without any future plans for a possible article (notable) with little or no reliable sources. When a majority of names in a list contain circular blue links back to the same page, and 13% are red linked (from one of the featured list articles), and a search does not show notability, that is overdoing it and should be questioned. I do use red links sparingly, especially if the name shows reliable sources and looks promising for a future article (or I consider creating one), but I do not advocate using many of these, or fill up a page with them, as more than a few does not look good or serve a purpose. At the very least, in a discussion for any article for promotion, this should be considered and discussed.
- A quick look for an example would be List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (G) (a randomly picked A-class article), that states 380 awards made to servicemen whose last name starts with "G", and of those in the list what I counted (counted one time and subject to error) was 240 red linked which is better than 60%. These red links are subject to editorial decisions, but should be used for "links that will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable".
- There are 57 names (counted one time and subject to error) that are blue links that link back to the article. That amounts to over linking in one instance and improper linking (didn't look if there might be some exceptions) in the other, of around of 297 names which is a whopping 78%. It probably doesn't matter on C-class and below, However, at a point in the promotion of an article to higher classes, this should be considered during reviews, as it is certainly part of the Manual of Style concerning overlinking of both blue and red links. Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 06:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- The only time that redlinks actively count against an editor nominating an article or list is for Featured/Good topics where the whole idea is focused on complete coverage of said topic. And that's only for articles that should be included in the topic, not for redlinks inside the individual articles. Otherwise, you're telling an editor to assume responsibility for creating new articles to turn redlinks into bluelinks anytime they want an article promoted above B class, which is placing far too much weight on redlinks as a negative thing when they're actually WAD. I really don't care if a Featured list or article is studded with redlinks or not as they're a reminder that they're missing articles that are probably worth adding. I think that studies have found that readers are more likely to start editing when they see a redlink that they can start than to expand an existing article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- WOW! And to think there are actually editors that support those silly policies and guidelines. I wonder why they don't just do away will all of them then there wouldn't be a need for editors to attempt to defend them or spend time following them. Otr500 (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- WOW!! To think that there are actually editors who disagree with Wiki policies and guidelines!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
March Madness 2017
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:
- tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
- updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
- creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.
For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dewey W. Wills Wildlife Management Area, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 2017
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- List of Louisiana Natural and Scenic Rivers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Spring Creek, Blind River, Trout Creek and Ten Mile Creek
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Paige Brooks
Thanks for your very concise summary at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paige Brooks, I'd left a similar but much more poorly worded request for an explanation on the talk page of the relister. User:missalusa has actually been blocked as a sock or meat puppet but not sure if it was appropriate to raise that in the discussion. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
All article titles and content
- Your welcome. Sometimes editors that might be passionate about a subject or article seem to advance either "I can't here you", or "I can't understand what you mean" or give a straw man reply. In many discussions I have seen many debates where an editor staunchly defends a position totally against several policies and guidelines and clear consensus. Sometimes editors seems to want to get into discussions just to test community consensus. Local consensus or project consensus does not over-ride broad community consensus.
- I was guilty of misunderstanding on an article title I spent a lot of research time on and put in verifiable content that was thrown out by a title change concerning a silly little "rule" about being concise over the persons real name. Wikipedia sometimes uses concise to create a Wikipedia given name and I didn't understand this. Now that I do have more understanding I still have to battle sometimes because editors want to rename articles too precise that creates vagueness, and are passionate about it, or use and overuse parenthetical disambiguation. Even seasoned editors should re-read Simplified ruleset now and again.
- When we (editors) debate an issue it seems a guarantee that someone will play the Other stuff exists card (also other content exists that is actually listed as arguments to avoid in deletion discussions). This is actually a good essay that gets stretched to the other realm for arguing "inherent notability" that is also "arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". Sometimes "other stuff exists", especially in the context of inherent notability, simply because of consensus by silence. This form of consensus is only valid until someone objects and inherent notability exists at the pleasure of consensus, provided there are independent reliable sources, which will determine if there is notability by association. The key words here are "independent" and "reliable sources" and all articles require this criteria for both subject title and content. "Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), and No original research (NOR)" are core content policies (along with being bold) that are just as important for article titles. Then there is the the often used Ignore all rules. This is a simple "rule" (policy), if you will, that is often misunderstood, and attempts to misuse it are abundant even when good faith is evident. In simplistic form it would seem to entice chaos. It is however, constrained by consensus. This is a word with a previously undefined meaning (an attempt at defining), many times misunderstood (or "wikilawyered") to just mean the larger "count". Wikilawyering is a term often associated with attempts at disrupting Wikipedia. This is actually only true when such tactics are generally applied with an apparent lack of good faith and, sometimes using the Wikipedia undefined "smoke screen" tactic. Almost all editors might use a form of Wikilawyering, that may involve sincere good faith, to try to "win" a debate or argument. The bottom line is that consensus determines inclusion and local or project consensus has been found not to over-ride community consensus.
- A reason for the "hard fighting" to keep many of these non-notable subjects is because broad community consensus has in fact limited what is perceived as "inherent notability", with many of these not surviving deletion discussions, but there are exceptions, and this is just not one of them as evidenced by a lack of reliable sources.
Blocked editor
The blocked editor is not of importance, as the fact that his (or her) name is stricken out is proof, and his comments will be ignored.
Consensus
An editor that makes a drop-in or "flyby" !vote, especially when comments are questioned by other editors with no reply, are just as likely not to be counted. Trying to throw out a "smoke screen" that certain editors comments be discounted, because policy was not pointed out, when that editor has used per such and such editor, or used a non-link reference to a policy, will just as likely be counted. It would be much easier if policy was linked to, even if it was redundant, to stop the Wikilawyering on that point.
A note
The community has largely agreed that certain subjects, concerning beauty pageant contestants that have won national titles, does earn a spot for article title consideration, that is still very much dependent on reliable sources. The contested WP:BIO1E criteria, that is often argued against as not relevant when there are two to several non-notable or trivial bit-parts, commercials, or other such things such as local baby diaper contests, of which I do not count towards notability nor do many other editors, can only really be used to disclaim BIO1E if consensus determines some such trivial mention or multiple mentions in aggregate does add to notability. This is where Wikilawyering is used the most, adding up a high school or regional local win, add a totally non-notable bit-part in a commercial, or even movie, or that the subject has traveled with some local coverage to another location, and present that this is proof that BIO1E is not relevant. If something is non-notable it should not be counted. This is why other editors, including me, state that when there is one regional win, mostly subjected to only local coverage, and a laundry-list of "nothing notable", or even one national win preceded by a regional win, there is still only one instance of notability. We must also remember that notability is not fleeting, or easily lost in time, and one instance of notability will simply be a "one hit wonder". Otr500 (talk) 10:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)