(→Heyo) |
(putting this behind) |
||
Line 166: | Line 166: | ||
Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{tls|WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message.</div><!-- Template:WikiPint --> |
Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{tls|WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message.</div><!-- Template:WikiPint --> |
||
== dickiness == |
|||
You are right, I was being overly dickish on that page. You pissed me off a few times and I let it get to me. I apologize. Though if you do actually want to do some reading about the ICRC, its history and reputation, you can start [http://books.google.com/books?id=cen4kujyjtYC&printsec=frontcover here] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=-2FPAAllJEMC&printsec=frontcover here]. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 22:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)</font></small> |
|||
:Don't forget to read up how they refused to accept [[Magen David Adom]] as a member for decades over a technicality and wouldn't budge until their financials were threatened. |
|||
:There are also questions regarding the amount of effort and PR they put into achieving rights for Israeli prisoners held by Arab groups/countries compared to Arab prisoners held by Israel. |
|||
:Then there's the issue of how they dealt with civilians in concentration camps during WWII. |
|||
:So yes, do some reading about the history and reputation of the ICRC. Your assertion that they're biased is not entirely without foundation like some people would have you think. [[User:No More Mr Nice Guy|No More Mr Nice Guy]] ([[User talk:No More Mr Nice Guy|talk]]) 16:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Heyo == |
|||
What are your thoughts about my concerns regarding the edit-war Nableezy started on [[Avigdor Lieberman]] at the very end of his 2 month ban? I'm conflicted if it merits some administrative attention or possibly, that our mention of it would give enough effect to correct the poor conduct. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">[[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]''</sup></font></b> 08:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi Cptnono. I read your response to this query by Jaakobou on his talk page. It concerns me that you see no problem with Jaakobou reverting three times at that page, while you feel comfortable expressing concern over Nableezy's one revert to that page. Is it that you did not review the history of the article? Or ... ? [[User:Tiamut|<b><font color="#B93B8F">T</font><font color="#800000">i</font><font color="#B93B8F">a</font><font color="#800000">m</font><font color="#B93B8F">u</font><font color="#800000">t</font></b>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Tiamut|talk]]</sup> 17:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:12, 2 January 2010
Template:Archive box collapsible
- This isn't a forum so this is a call to work on the article Heavy Metal in Baghdad. To do this, it would be helpful if you saw it. So see it.
Yeah.. nothing about Qwest (sorry) :) but if you have a spare sec, plz take a look at recent edits at eco-terrorism and see if you detect any blatent POV pushes. Peace and happy editing. --0nonanon0 (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Qwest Field FAC
Here is how I like to resolve FAC issues and what is standard. After each line of concern you respond by indenting one space. If it is not resolved I reply by indenting two spaces. If it is resolved I strike. Thus, each concern is followed by its action. It is going to take me too much work if you don't respond to my concerns like that. I would prefer to respond after you rearrange your responses so I can more easily follow what you have done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Now I have no valid excuse for being slow with my review other than that I am slow with reviews. Sorry, I am having fun researching encyclopedic content, which is what I like to do.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am sort of waiting for a response on those last two issues so I can support. What is going on?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Stay with it. If necessary go to WP:PR again. This is a very different article than was there before.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am sort of waiting for a response on those last two issues so I can support. What is going on?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Status
Require a change of status of the ship to fitting out in both the Arihant class sub and INS Arihant page.Bcs09 (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- I do not understand why you changed the status to unknown. A google search provides the following results.
- Arihant submarine float-out gives 3,340 and Arihant submarine launched gives 17,000 and Arihant submarine launch to about 56,700. So I do belive that there must not be an issue in recognizing the already completed process of Ship_naming_and_launching.Bcs09 (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
RE: Democratic Left Movement (Lebanon)
Hmmm.... You "completely disagree with me politically" and you feel compelled to name call? That figures! :P
In all seriousness, thanks so much for the barnstar. It's the first I've ever received, and it feels good to get some recognition! Mnation2 (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
re Beck v. Eiland-Hall
Thanks very much! :) Could you suggest any particular secondary sources to use, to implement your suggestion to add a couple more lines saying Beck's point of view? Cirt (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Bad Luck....
overtime.....! Leaky Caldron 23:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Sounders FC up for FA review
FYI... the peer review finally ended so I've nominated it for FA review. It's been a pleasure working with you on the article and I look forward to working together toward a successful FA review. Thanks! --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 17:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
AE MUA
Hey Cptnono, long time no speak. That AE claim that I filed against MUA seems to have disappeared from the AE boards. You have any idea why and where I can retrieve it? Thanks.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Do u know why it would be archived when the matter is still pending? Tough break for Stellar. Loss of a damn good editor who's made some excellent contributions.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hello, why so quiet? You retired?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Glad ur still with us. Y'know Wiki is like heroin. Sucks u in and doesn't let go. In a strange way, MUA is lucky to go into "forced retirement." Gaza War is on lock down so I'm attempting to collaborate with another editor (with a slightly different POV than mine) on the Yom Kippur War.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Not like the Gaza war but there's still some POV pushing. I'm hoping for civil discourse and compromise. I've actually read five books on the subject and visted all the battle scenes first hand so I know a little about the subject matter.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Glad ur still with us. Y'know Wiki is like heroin. Sucks u in and doesn't let go. In a strange way, MUA is lucky to go into "forced retirement." Gaza War is on lock down so I'm attempting to collaborate with another editor (with a slightly different POV than mine) on the Yom Kippur War.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hello, why so quiet? You retired?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Cato June
As a sports fan, I would appreciate some comments on my Cato June FAC which is just above yours on the WP:FAC page, if you have time.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for contributing your time to this article. I have responded to your concerns. Strikes and replies are welcome as of course, would be any support you might show.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your efficiency. You are obviously a much faster reader and thinker than I. I have responded to your three remaining concerns and also replied to your general comment at the end.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- The problematic server seems to be back up.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your efficiency. You are obviously a much faster reader and thinker than I. I have responded to your three remaining concerns and also replied to your general comment at the end.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Re: Feedback and quick question
Please see User talk:AGK#Feedback and quick question, where I have responded to your message dated 13 November. I'm sorry that it took me so long to publish my reply. Regards, AGK 17:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, I was wondering if I could take you up on your offer from the Seattle Sounders FC peer review for a pair of eyes sometime? The problem with Watford F.C. itself is that I don't currently have access to the references I'd need to take it to GA or FA. Given that it's already sitting at B, there seems little point in doing major work until I can get those books from a library. But I think the season article is coming along pretty nicely, and it's undergoing a peer review at the moment. I think that an American soccer fan would be in a great position to give it an assessment for comprehensiveness, flag up words that readers might not understand, and possibly good ideas that MLS clubs use that European ones don't (and possibly should).
Also, let me know if there are any concerns at the Qwest Field or Sounders FACs that you're not sure how to remedy. Not being a fan of the club, I may be in a better position to deal with problems with possibly POV-language, facts or statistics of questionable importance etc. WFCforLife (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's fine, there's no hurry. Thanks. WFCforLife (talk) 08:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to FAC!
Hi Cptnono, I noticed that you've submitted your first nomination for Featured article. It's always nice to see new nominators! I hope that you enjoy the process. In reading through your FAC today, I was pleased to see that you have been very responsive with reviewer concerns. Your nomination has been up a long time, and I know that can be stressful, so we realllly appreciate your continued collaborative attitude. Best of luck to you and your article, and I hope we see you at FAC many times in the future. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the good words regarding the Qwest Field nomination. It has been awhile and Tonythetiger in particular is not letting anything slide. It makes it a better article so it is good to see!Cptnono (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Seattle Sounders FC FA review comments
The FA review for the article was recently started over because they said it was turning into a peer-review. Nevertheless, I saw your comments and tried to address most of them (that you hadn't already done). Hopefully it's all good now. Just wanted to let you know that your comments weren't lost. I saw them and took action based on them. Your continued comments/support of the review is appreciated. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 17:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- The FA review restart I think was a good thing for both articles. I was surprised with the order that she did it in, but whatever. Anyway, as long as there is someone responding to the comments in a timely manner, both will pass just fine. Both have improved a ton since the reviews started. After these FA reviews are done, I do intend to dive into the SSFC '09 season article you're working on in your sandbox. I think we can get both a WP:DYK and WP:GA out of that work item if we work on it in the sandbox before updating the article (WP:DYK likes to recognize big new articles, or big article rewrites). Yeah, I can help with the week by week table in the MLS '10 article if needed. I just switched the standings to templates. Hope you were okay with that. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 20:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
your introduction to me
Thank you for your useful comment welcoming me to Wikipedia and encouraging me to join (you didn't.) I was asking a question on a talk page, not vandalizing an article. The edit summary in the revert was more helpful than your comment, which you felt necessary to add to my talk page 12 hours after it was reverted. In the future, I hope you will assume good faith and not bite the newcomers. Thank you, 71.225.80.117 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC).
- WP:DUCK and it was already in. If you intorduce inappropriate humor you are going to have it mentioned on your page. No biting about it.Cptnono (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Numbers MoS
Hey Cptnono, quick note on the numbers MoS related to your recent edit. The numbers MoS says that "comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." The sentence you changed now uses "15" and "four". One should be changed to match the other, but I'll leave it up to you which to change. Cheers. ← George talk 17:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
oops... on the Help Desk
Sorry about the rollback - I was looking at my watchlist on my mobile 'phone (which has a touch screen), and went to go to the section on the help desk, and tapped on 'rollback' by mistake - I have now rollback'd my rollback. Sorry - my fingers must be too big! Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- I hate responding on a user's talk page then realizing they have the "hey respond over there" message. I suck. Along with my "no problem at all!" message this a chance to point out that an awesome dirty joke could have been made.Cptnono (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
City and state
Thanks for your interest and for the follow-up to your own post on my page. Here's what I've been doing for the last several years. The first instance of a city, I split the geolink (my term). So Everett, Washington becomes two links. Any other cities or towns in Washington from then on are the single link, because the state (in this case Washington) has already had its link. If the first-instance format would be used again and again, the Washington link would be redundant, and in my formatting work, I removed redundant links. So why bother making a city link that's separated from its state? Doesn't make sense to bother, so I don't. Also, regarding cities, I almost always include the state unless it's some world city like New York City or Boston. (The big clue for me is whether the state is needed for the city's link.) Hope this makes sense to you. --21:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Green
Not a great fan but yeah, won in a couple of minutes. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 07:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
agree
yeah ... I would delete the two-comment IP's SPA comment, along w/yours. then again, I could be wrong.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for c/e
Thanks for cleaning up Catherine Lloyd Burns, good work :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
York Park
Looks like it will cruise through this time. Hopefully Qwest Field will too. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 08:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Qwest Field FA review
Re: [1] I've marked off my review comments and made a vote in support of the FA review. As for the SFC article, I'm waiting on User:Awadewit to finish here review of the article before I can take it back to FA review. Here's the conversation on the matter: [2]. Thanks for your offer. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 20:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Awww, shucks...
...my first barnstar. It's lovely to know someone noticed :-) W.stanovsky (talk) 05:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Xa Loi Pagoda raids
Replied to your comments YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 15:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
Willking1979 (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy Holiday
Happy holidays to you and yours. Good to hear from you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
MV Steve Irwin soapboxing
I just removed a couple of anon soapbox comments from the talk page, including your reply. I hope you don't mind. If you think these comments are valuable, please feel free to revert. --Swift (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- It was forumy. no worries. What the IP was requesting is actually right at the top so I think we are all good.Cptnono (talk)
Good News! ...I think
Hello--
I saw the cleanup/rewrite/etc template you'd placed on the Goldline International, Inc. article and pretty much had at the thing. Any irrelevant information, remotely promotional text, overly-detailed sections, needlessly specific and pamphlet-like tone are all gone. I think. Fixed some grammar and moved some things around, a few other small fixes. I consider it at least COI or NPOV-proof in that form and is an acceptable small article to look at in case of massive future disaster. I'll leave it to you to work further or decide to leave on or take off the rewrite tag, but either way I'd leave the thing watchlisted... I get a bad vibe from it for whatever reason. Actually I'm just assuming it'll get changed back, but given the discussion on the talk page I figured you could all use a pretty dull and neutral starting point. Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- More good news! A rewrite came... see my mention on the talkpage ... it felt worse than the original and missed the point of tossing the corporate tone and COI completely. Sigh. Basically had to do the same thing that I did the first time. Again. Needs expanding within sections, not reformatting and separating. Even I'm starting to doubt myself that it can go much farther than this it can go if the company is deliberately passing itself off to be a internet gimmick now. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey Cptnono, noticed your summary on my Qest Field edit. Thanks for catching my mistake. As for the project, I just found out about it recently and have been tagging pages for it. We'd love to have you join here. I've just signed us up for a cleanup listing so hopefully we can get some activity started up. Kithira (talk) 12:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I noticed
Re: [3] Did you succeed or give up? :) --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 22:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: Toast
Here's to what is hopefully the first of many featured articles! :) ← George talk 12:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)