210.131.4.188 (talk) |
→Your note: new section |
||
Line 279: | Line 279: | ||
| Thank you for your support in my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gaius Cornelius|request for adminship]], which '''succeeded''' with a final tally of '''38/1/0'''! I hope I can live up to the standards of adminship, and I will try my best to make Wikipedia a better place. [[User:Gaius Cornelius|Gaius Cornelius]] ([[User talk:Gaius Cornelius|talk]]) 18:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC) |
| Thank you for your support in my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gaius Cornelius|request for adminship]], which '''succeeded''' with a final tally of '''38/1/0'''! I hope I can live up to the standards of adminship, and I will try my best to make Wikipedia a better place. [[User:Gaius Cornelius|Gaius Cornelius]] ([[User talk:Gaius Cornelius|talk]]) 18:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC) |
||
|} |
|} |
||
== Your note == |
|||
Your [[WP:ABF|assumption of bad faith]] is duly noted, but was in this case quite wrong. Your post to !!'s talk was trollish and incivil, designed to inflame rather than bring calm to an already tense situation. Thank you for the warning, allow me to respond in kind: stop trolling or you may be blocked from editing. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 15:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:02, 24 November 2007
/Military history project dialogues |
contact userbox
This user is a contact for the Military history WikiProject. |
Peer review request for Attack on Sydney Harbour
There's a new peer review request for Attack on Sydney Harbour that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Wandalstouring 16:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Contribution
Hello. I am currently trying to contribute to a battle in respect to giving a reason why a Viking force had to withdraw from a native attack, which I think was instrumental to the article itself and since the person in question received her place in history for that act. Its my understanding that Wikipedia is meant for contributions, but the people at that region see fit to leave the situation vague. They have told me that I cannot simply copy and past from references and, in short order, I re-wrote the small addition in my own words. I don't see what the problem here is, however, they simply revert my edits and give me vague conclusion to why they have done so. The site is intended to be used for non-commercial reproduction so we have no problems in copyright infringement. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. InternetHero 23:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
David Lewis (politician) Good Article Review
Hi there:
I think all the copyedit work has been completed on the David Lewis (politician) article, thereby completing the last item on your to-do list before it can be reviewed again. So I was wondering if you could take a look at the article and give it your seal of approval? Thanks again for your insights, they did improve the article substantially. --Abebenjoe 14:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I apologize that I'm really busy this week and can't get to the article right now. I'll review it as soon as I have a chance. Cla68 21:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Cool, look forward to when you have the time. --Abebenjoe 03:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for passing it. I'll try fix up the remaining grammar errors and tidy-up some of the language. Again, your comments were most helpful in making this a better article. Best regards.--Abebenjoe 02:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Cool, look forward to when you have the time. --Abebenjoe 03:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Coordinator election
Congratulations! You have been elected to serve as a coordinator of the Military history WikiProject. When you get a chance, please stop by the coordinators' work area and take a look at the various open tasks and ongoing discussions there. Kirill 00:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Congrats!
Congrats on your election as an assistant coordinator. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. I wish you luck in the coming term. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Congrats to you on your election as an asst coordinator! I look forward to working with you in the future. LordAmeth 13:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Coordinator stuff
Just a note: please try to drop by the coordinator work area sometime soon if you haven't already. Thanks! :-) Kirill 15:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Re: Travel
Ok, no problem. Good luck on your trip. Kirill 23:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)
The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Delivered by grafikbot 09:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair use disputed for Image:Saldivar.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Saldivar.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
POTD notification
Hi Cla68,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:EnterpriseBurningHellcat.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on September 8, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-09-08. howcheng {chat} 16:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi there Cla. I have tried to address your concerns where I feel that they are applicable. Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
RfA
Hi Cla. Thank you for your words of support. As I mentioned to EliminatorJR, I do not intend to give up, as I do not wish to give the cliques who have opposed me the satisfaction. It will certainly be interesting to see if I can "claw back" enough support votes to come through! Number 57 14:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
POTD notification
Hi Cla68,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:U.S. Soldiers at Bougainville (Solomon Islands) March 1944.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 5, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-10-05. howcheng {chat} 23:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
What about being an admin?
Your cleanup tag
Could you explain what in the Skúli Þórsteinsson article you believe requires cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards? Haukur 18:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
copyediting
Hi! I noticed you had a ton of featured articles. I have two pages nominated for GA, would you mind taking a pass at them? They are 2007 Peruvian meteorite event and Joe Szwaja. Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen 23:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- I reviewed both articles and made some comments under "Peer review" on the talk pages for each. Great work on the articles. Cla68 00:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Cla! I'll start going back over them again. • Lawrence Cohen 03:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Request
I would love to see an article on Battle of Koromokina Lagoon. Could you create it? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 19:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll try to start a stub article on it this weekend. Cla68 22:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Great - yours and the projects work on WWII Pacific theatre is awesome -a pleasure to read. All the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 22:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Super work. Thanks!! Keep up the great work ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 09:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
ebird.afis.mil & Blackwater USA, military network only access?
Hi Cla, someone asked on Blackwater USA's talk what was going on with the external links to ebird.afis.mil, which it appears only viewers from a military network apparently? You added the first ones here. Please let us know on the article talk page? Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen 06:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5
To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)
The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Delivered by grafikbot 09:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Cactus AF
I wasn't suggesting it didn't influence deliveries to Guad, just that it wasn't that simple, & IJA's perceptions of Vandegrift's strength needs to be mentioned, IMO. Trekphiler 08:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep up the good work
We couldn;t do it without you. 129.108.206.206 21:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Two more quick reviews?
Would you mind taking a gander at Storm botnet and Ballard Carnegie Library? The Carnegie I submitted for GA, but I don't think Botnet is quite there yet. And, thanks to your help, 2007 Peruvian meteorite event passed GA! • Lawrence Cohen 05:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Tagging/Assessing
Hey, notice you're doing great work on adding the MILHIST tag to talkpages you're creating. Just wanted to pass on a thought- when I do that, I also delete the article from the Assessment Drive list- means that nobody has to come back to it for a while. Cheers Buckshot06 23:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Fishy
Have a look at the Tautog infobox? It's showing "struck" rather than "stricken", & won't accept a change to that without wiping out the section entirely. Nor will it accept an add "as built" without putting it in a weird place... Trekphiler 15:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- It appears that it's using a different infobox template than the other related submarine articles that uses "struck" instead of "stricken" and doesn't have an "as built" field. The infobox probably needs to be switched from the "Infobox Ship" to "Ship Table Header 01" as in the USS Thresher (SS-200) article. Cla68 20:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
RfC
Please do not edit the RfC statement in Talk:Gary Weiss. As originally drafted it contains neutral language. Please stop your POV pushing and please be aware of the three revert rule.--Samiharris 03:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- As originally drafted it doesn't contain neutral language. In fact, it implies that material from AntiSocialMedia.net is used in the section, when all of the text is resourced to NYTimes, NYPost, Bloomberg, and one of Weiss' books. Cla68 03:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- I changed it to "section on" rather than "material from." You should have simply raised the issue in talk, rather than used that as yet another opportunity to POV push.--Samiharris 03:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's more neutral. Thank you. Cla68 03:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- I changed it to "section on" rather than "material from." You should have simply raised the issue in talk, rather than used that as yet another opportunity to POV push.--Samiharris 03:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
24 hour block
This account has been blocked for 24 hours for WP:POINT at Talk:Gary Weiss after repeated warnings. DurovaCharge! 21:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Are the warnings on this page? I see no warnings. 69.143.236.33 16:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
24 hour block
Dissent will not be tolerated. --arkalochori |talk| 23:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, Violations of WP:POINT will not be tolerated. If you cannot tell the difference, take some time off to study the policy, and feel free to request mentoring from an expeienced editor. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Discussion is the preferred means for demonstrating the problem with policies or the way they are implemented. As a general rule, points are best expressed directly in discussion, without irony or subterfuge. Direct statements are the best way to garner respect, agreement and consensus.
- Was the statement: "Most of us usually try to give some reasoning for any action, proposed action, or threatened action that we discuss on an article's talk page. Would you mind doing the same?" ironic? A lot [1] humanity has a problem understanding irony. Even Wikipedia has problems getting it right as the irony article states: "This article or section appears to contradict itself."
- I assume that the blocking administror suspected you were attempting the irony as infinite, absolute negativity type of irony: "While many reputable critics limit irony to something resembling Aristotle's definition, an influential set of texts insists that it be understood, not as a limited tool, but as a disruptive force with the power to undo texts and readers alike."
- The WP:POINT page is a mess - I'll fix it up later. I agree with Sjakkalle who stated: "Continuing to argue in a discussion which is to all respects over is bad form and shows excessive stubborness, but it is not a WP:POINT violation if the view you are arguing for is sincerely the one you hold." Uncle uncle uncle 07:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
block reduced to 6 hours
I almost never assign blocks shorter than 24 hours because they often do more harm than good, but this request comes from Jimbo. For the good of the project, please set the right example by coming back to the page with solid references and strictly topical discussion. DurovaCharge! 01:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with the above, don't blow it this time. VoL†ro/\/Force 05:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ummm, what do you mean by solid references? The four references cited in the text I proposed were: 1) New York Times, 2) New York Post, 3) Bloomberg (already cited in the article) and 4) one of Weiss's own books. The validity of the sources wasn't one of the issues in the discussion, it was WP:NPF. Did you read the article discussion? Cla68 11:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- See User:Durova/Recusal. Plenty of good editors have one hot button where they just aren't good at collaborating. 9/11 and World Trade Center are mine; this is yours. I realized my shortcoming very early and adjusted my editing accordingly. If you had done the same - to read your RFA - you'd be sysopped by now. You really are an excellent editor on most points and I hope to vote for you someday. I'm not sure why you've followed this course on this topic, but it really undermines what ought to be a sterling reputation on the project. Rather than address particular minutiae, step back and look at that larger picture. DurovaCharge! 17:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think you're being completely honest here, because some comments that you've made on IRC appear to indicate that your motivation for your actions is different than what you've stated above and elsewhere in Wikipedia [2]. Implying that all the anti-BADSITES editors are united in some menacing conspiracy against you and this project is not only insulting, it's dishonest. Cla68 03:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- First, a quick FYI: I never do admin channel IRC. I see you actually mean the mailing list, and yes. Bear in mind I referred to a group of people in aggregate, most of whom have done far less for Wikipedia than you have. As someone who knows you only from your contributions, it seems almost like reading two different people looking on, say, the military history side in comparison to this. So I suppose if I'd hung around my hot button area I could have made a similar set of mistakes. I certainly regard you as a quality editor overall. And maybe you're ideally positioned to set the right tone if you keep editing Gary Weiss and related articles. Either way, I mean what I said about hoping to support you at RFA after this is behind you. I've given barnstars to people I've brought back from sitebans. My trust can be earned. Best, DurovaCharge! 05:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- My mistake on calling it by the wrong name. Glad to hear you keep you don't participate in the admin IRC. See you around the project, hopefully under happier circumstances. Cla68 06:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- First, a quick FYI: I never do admin channel IRC. I see you actually mean the mailing list, and yes. Bear in mind I referred to a group of people in aggregate, most of whom have done far less for Wikipedia than you have. As someone who knows you only from your contributions, it seems almost like reading two different people looking on, say, the military history side in comparison to this. So I suppose if I'd hung around my hot button area I could have made a similar set of mistakes. I certainly regard you as a quality editor overall. And maybe you're ideally positioned to set the right tone if you keep editing Gary Weiss and related articles. Either way, I mean what I said about hoping to support you at RFA after this is behind you. I've given barnstars to people I've brought back from sitebans. My trust can be earned. Best, DurovaCharge! 05:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think you're being completely honest here, because some comments that you've made on IRC appear to indicate that your motivation for your actions is different than what you've stated above and elsewhere in Wikipedia [2]. Implying that all the anti-BADSITES editors are united in some menacing conspiracy against you and this project is not only insulting, it's dishonest. Cla68 03:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- See User:Durova/Recusal. Plenty of good editors have one hot button where they just aren't good at collaborating. 9/11 and World Trade Center are mine; this is yours. I realized my shortcoming very early and adjusted my editing accordingly. If you had done the same - to read your RFA - you'd be sysopped by now. You really are an excellent editor on most points and I hope to vote for you someday. I'm not sure why you've followed this course on this topic, but it really undermines what ought to be a sterling reputation on the project. Rather than address particular minutiae, step back and look at that larger picture. DurovaCharge! 17:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ummm, what do you mean by solid references? The four references cited in the text I proposed were: 1) New York Times, 2) New York Post, 3) Bloomberg (already cited in the article) and 4) one of Weiss's own books. The validity of the sources wasn't one of the issues in the discussion, it was WP:NPF. Did you read the article discussion? Cla68 11:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Veropedia
Hi Cla68. I have sent you an email in response to your Veropedia inquiry. We would love to have you on board. If you do not use IRC, please send me another email and we can get things done that way. Danny 18:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou for your support at the above successful FAC.--Jackyd101 18:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi could you expand Mariana and Palau Islands campaign a bit cheers ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done. Cla68 13:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Your're terrific!!! thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Preity Zinta FA
Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Click "show" to see my message.
|
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)
The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Delivered by grafikbot 13:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
In Remembrance...
--nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 01:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks and a request...
Hi Cla68, thanks for providing "references" to articles, but I'm worried that such an addition is misleading. Don't get me wrong, it's good to have the information put in there (assuming they are indeed reliable sources), but I fell it's important we are careful not to give people the impression they were used to actually write the article. They are kind of link additional material that may contain some of the info in the article, but not all, and may contain additional.
Please continue to add the sources, but, please put them either as a (general) "Further Reading" section, or if you can link them to specific info, it's even better if you can add them as in-line cites.
I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on this. thanks --Merbabu 09:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- I understand what you're saying. Books that aren't actually used for the article should be in a "further reading" section. The thing is, a lot of those articles are so undeveloped that by putting the book in the "references" section, I'm indirectly advocating that whoever decides to improve that article should really consider using that book. If I'm the one who ever decides to improve the article, usually with FA as the goal, then I'll probably use that book as one of the references. Of course, that doesn't mean that the book can't be listed at first in the "further reading" section and then moved to the references section at a later time. Cla68 22:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
USS Illinois (BB65)
I found the citation you request on the A-class review page for USS Illinois (BB-65), would you reconsider your poistion on the article? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Not acceptable
This [3] is absolutely unacceptable. The incident is long past, well and truly dead and buried, and has been explained to the satisfaction of all concerned. If you repeat this nonsense you may be blocked from editing for harassment, because that is what it is. Guy (Help!) 13:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- It has been explained? If so, please show me where it is so I can read the explanation. Cla68 (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Yamashita's gold
Can you do me a favour and take a look at Talk:Yamashita's gold? Thanks. Grant | Talk 08:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know anything about the subject but it looks like you're correct in your position on the article's content. I'll help you out if you need it. Cla68 (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
VNQDD and Bazin
Done, thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
ErgoEgo perma blocked by "Sarah" and JzG.
It appears they are one in the same? Time stamps of block are somewhat curious. Here is what I wrote on my talk page; it will likely be reverted: "Good questionCla68. I will discuss this when I am back in the U.S. Right now, I have been blocked by "Sarah" / JzG. It appears by the time stamps that they are on a team?" 68.192.34.33 (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe you should try to be a bit less conspicuous when you evade your indefinite block Lee...--Isotope23 talk 14:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
My RfA - thanks
Thank you for your support in my request for adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of 38/1/0! I hope I can live up to the standards of adminship, and I will try my best to make Wikipedia a better place. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC) |
Your note
Your assumption of bad faith is duly noted, but was in this case quite wrong. Your post to !!'s talk was trollish and incivil, designed to inflame rather than bring calm to an already tense situation. Thank you for the warning, allow me to respond in kind: stop trolling or you may be blocked from editing. Guy (Help!) 15:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)