User talk:Batmanand/Archive 3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of former discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page. |
[edit] My RFA
 |
Thanks for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (66/2/3), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! Stifle 17:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC) |
[edit] List of Junior Common Rooms
I notice you've edited List of Junior Common Rooms in the past. Someone has suggested the article should be deleted - perhaps you would like to comment on this at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Jamse 13:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- No problem - just thought you would like the opportunity to have a say! Jamse 12:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] University Challenge!
Congratulations on getting picked to enter University Challenge, we will soon see whether or not you are yet a Renaissance Man in general knowledge.
Quincel.
[edit] AID
-Litefantastic 17:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] My RFA withdrawal :(
Hello Batmanand, it is my apologies to bring you that I've withdrawn my RFA. Due to the lack of experience, I would go under admin coaching first before trying again later. I would thank you for your vote in this RFA whether you voted support, oppose or neutral for me. I appericiate your comments (if you do have) you made and I hope to see you here in future. --Terence Ong 15:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] from AdilAliev
But these articles is written by us on wcra,uscra and azcra web sites.
--AdilAliev 22:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article Assessment
Article assessment is an open project... no membership is required. To get involved as an assessor of articles specifically, you'll want to view the page for the current topic undergoing assessment. At the moment, that topic is African countries. To assess an article, you'll want to read through the guidelines as to how to evaluate each aspect of the article. When you have a good idea of what to look for specifically in each category, select an article that looks interesting from the topic page and read through the article in an evaluatative manner. Perhaps as you read or otherwise after you have finished reading, you'll want to edit the individual assessment page for that article and copy-paste the "Review by [name]" section from the bottom of the page. Then write down your scoring of the article in each area along with a total score. You should also add a few comments throughout the assessment about the various sections offering criticism or praise for the article's content. Make sure your review is added below any other reviews but above the blank review template. You'll also want to sign your review. Then just save the page and you've written a review!
If you want to help with the project in other ways, AA also needs suggestions for future topics along with help in choosing a topic from the suggestions list. You can also help by nominating articles during the topic's nomination phase, which happens during the week (or two weeks, depending on the run of the previous topic) before it is scheduled for assessment. Thanks for your interest in the project, and if you have any additional questions please feel free to contact violet/riga (the project leader) or I, though I will tell you that Violet/riga's wikipedia time is currently very scarce due to limited net access. Thanks again, and good luck! -DMurphy 22:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Save the Game!
Help us track down verifiable sources to bring The Game back! Go to SaveTheGame.org! Bkkbrad 19:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Real Aikido
Hi You flagged the page for copywrite problems. I think the /temp version is good enough to replace it. It had its 7 days. I had suggested a few fixes to the first attempt and it is a reasonable start. The associated Ljubomir Vracarevic page has similar problems but I have no idea what tags are appopriate. Cheers Peter Rehse 01:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear. The Real Aikido page was flagged for copyright violation by you. As I understood from reading the page I can not just replace that page with the new one that was written. Real Aikido/Temp I assumed it could be done by the same person that put the flag up orriginally. I would be happy to do so as I think it is ready.Peter Rehse 09:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User:209.115.232.94
Hi. You put the test template on User:209.115.232.94's user page by mistake. Please put it on the talk page in the future. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- No problem. You do not need to apologize for that. I just brought it to your notice as I thought you had made a mistake. - Aksi_great (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Shock and Awe
Hello Batmanand, I don't want to cause any trouble because I'm new here (at least as an editor), so I'd like to talk off the record to a few good contributors about a problem I see on an article that you've edited. Your contributions seem solid, so maybe you can help me. I've been using the Wikipedia definition of "Shock and Awe" for several months because I like how it described the type of warfare that "Shock and Awe" is and also how it gave a link to a definition of "rapid dominance" (of which it claims to be a subset).
In the last couple of days, however, a user called JW1805 edited the article and I think he made the definition much worse.[1] It now says that "Shock and Awe is a military doctrine," whereas is used to say exactly what type of military doctrine it falls into: "Shock and Awe is a method of unconventional warfare." Isn't the old definition more informative? According to the definition of Conventional warfare, I don't think anyone could call it that. So, I think it's safe and informative to say that "Shock and Awe" fits into the definition of unconventional warfare, don't you?
Also JW1805 removed the link to "Rapid dominance," deleted the "Rapid dominance" article and redirected it to "Shock and Awe." Yet the "Shock and Awe" article still says, "Its authors label [shock and awe] a subset of Rapid Dominance." Does that make any sense to you? According to RUSI Journal 141:8-12 Oct '96, "Rapid dominance" is an "intellectual construct" whereas "Shock and awe" is one "method" of implementing that construct. Obviously they are not the same thing. So, why would JW1805 redirect "Rapid dominance" to "Shock and Awe?" Why would he delete the "Rapid dominance" article and the link it?
I went to JW1805's talk page to speak directly to him, but I read what others have said to him, and it seems to be the same story: if you are only one person complaining, JW1805 considers you a troublemaker and has his friends ban you, but if more than one person gets together and says the same thing, he listens. If you feel the same way as I about his edits to "Shock and Awe" and "Rapid dominance," I'm sure we can work together to get the best definition back in place. Are you up for something like that? --Larnue the dormouse 20:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Batmanand, Larnue the dormouse (talk • contribs) has been confirmed by Jayjg (who has CheckUser power) as a sockpuppet of banned user Zephram Stark (talk • contribs). If you aren't familar with this long-term troll, please see Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Zephram_Stark, Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#Zephram_Stark, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark for details. Since he is banned, I'm going to continue to rvt all of his posts and edits. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] {{prod}}
Batmanand, you commented in an edit summary that another user should not remove a {{prod}} tag on Alpha Club. You may want to read over Wikipedia:Proposed Deletion - the fact that the tag was removed, for whatever reason, automatically causes it to fail {{prod}}. I've removed {{prod}} for that reason, but please feel free to nominate it for deletion. Happy editing, -- stillnotelf is invisible 02:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- I too am a little bit surprised by how easily {{prod}} can be circumvented by the author with no reason, but there doesn't seem to be a way to change the rules without significantly subverting the system. Thank you for ignoring all rules, though—what you did makes perfect sense once you explain it. Happy editing, -- stillnotelf is invisible 16:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Ironically enough, the orange "new messages" banner appeared on the "edit" page for the nomination! -- stillnotelf is invisible 16:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP:ARCHIVES
Hi again! Given the opinion you gave at the request for comment on archives I thought you might be interested to know the issue has now been put to a straw poll and could use your vote! Staxringold 00:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Community Justice
Welcome to Community Justice. Please take part in the meeting. Computerjoe's talk 08:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Opinion on Userboxes
I agree that they are silly, as you put it. Nevertheless, I shall be finding some good ones for my userpage. So ner. Ray 13:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Just curious
Hi,
Saw you write "si erat sic omnium" on Bangladesh FAC. I was curious to know what it means. You may reply here itslf as I keep a watch on my watchlist. Thanks in advance. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Oldest Cities
Thanks for that Batman, it was my first major edit and I value your support. I obviously still maintain that the page is unverifiable but I can understand the position of you (and everybody else) that the article is of notable value - so I will try and make it as useful to the encyclopaedia as can be done.--Si42 00:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC).
- Ha, yeah, AfD can be a scary place for the first time user, and obviously, I do/did genuinely believe the page should be deleted. Trust me, on a first edit, your is valued! I was part of a debate on Talk:Damascus and talk:arbil to make sure that those cities' claims to being the oldest continually-inhabited city on Earth are put into context and I am trying to draft in some expertise from some of my "enemies" there. By the way, which uni did you play for on UC?--Si42 00:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Eugh, Oxford. Yeah, well, the many evenings/nights/next days that can be spent trawling the depths of wiki can only be useful in a show like that. Good luck. --Si42 01:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Ha, I really only meant that I preferred Cambridge!--Si42 13:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Wikipedia:Community Justice/Elections
As Wikipedia:Community Justice has over 30 members, we are beginning the elections process.
If you are interested in becoming the chairman, the chief executive or councillor please add yourself, and a statement, to Wikipedia:Community Justice/Elections.
Voting shall begin on April 24th, and end on May 1st. To see if you are eligible for a vote, please see Wikipedia:Community Justice/Elections.
Thank you,
Computerjoe's talk 20:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] CJ election reminder
Hi Batmanand
I noticed that you are not registered for voting or nomination in the CJ elections, and would like to remind everyone that all Candidates Must Submit Their Statement By April 23rd. Voting will begin April 24th, and end May 1st. More details on how to nominate yourself can be found HERE.
I hope to see you at the elections!
[edit] Re: Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence
Batmanand,
I want to wish you luck on the the Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence article. Leibniz is such an interesting person to study. Unfortunately, I don't have enough knowledge to be of help, but I'll definitely see it when it's done. Just pop a message on my talk page if you would like a second set of eyes.
Thanks,
(^'-')^ Covington 05:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, just wanted to second the interest in Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence, and also to ask if you could provide some more details as to how Caroline of Ansbach was involved -- this is very interesting! Cheers, Marysunshine 20:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Merci bien pour votre soutien pendant mon RfA.--Rockero 00:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Community Justice Voting has Begun!
I see you've registered to vote in the Community Justice elections, and I'm just telling you that now you can vote!
Please cast your vote(s) at Wikipedia:Community Justice/Elections/Voting; following instructions provided there.
Thank you,
Computerjoe's talk 12:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC) (current Chairman)
[edit] My RfA
 |
Thank you for voting for me at my RFA. I am thankful for your kind words and confidence in me. Even though it failed, constructive criticism was received. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWynekenTalk |
[edit] A revert I made
Concerning a revert I made of an edit I viewed as spam and you thought reasonable - I was actually reverting a series of edits made by one user, which all promoted one website. Some articles were actually fitting (and so a few edits I did not revert). However, when I see a user (or anon) make his first edits by adding the same website to 10+ pages, it's a spam signal for me. Karol 22:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I still don't think the site fits well on that page. If you think otherwise, please re-add it, I will not object. Karol 09:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I feel obliged to note that lack of concensus is a special kind of concensus. No hard feelings, I hope. Karol 12:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] thanks
Hey, thanks for voting for me in the CJ elections. --Osbus 21:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Community Justice Newsletter
Community Justice Newsletter
|
[edit] Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner
Good luck with this one. I suspect that the AfD process, with its inherent bias towards "I've heard of it, so it must be encyclopedic", won't produce the desired result, but it would be great if it did. Vizjim 11:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hi there. Saw your nom for this article on AfD, and that the vote eventually went "keep". I was wondering how you'd feel about a requested move/rename to "2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner". I came in on this article as it was threatening to take over the bio on Stephen Colbert, with the hope of moving it some place where the topic was encyclopedic, without losing too much of the article itself. As I stated in my vote, my feeling is that the press dinners themselves are more worth covering than individual comic performances. I'm thinking a move/rename vote would still be controversial, as I proposed this earlier and the idea was refused by the editors working on the article on the grounds that content would wind up being cut. Still, it does seem like a simple merging of this content with a more obviously encyclopedic topic might go over. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts either way as I'm still somewhat new at this. Thanks. :)
Lee Bailey 19:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the reply. I can relate to your boredom with the debate. For similar reasons, I'm still deciding whether or not I'll put it up for a rename again; I might just wait until the topic has cooled down a bit. As far as deletion goes, I'm sympathetic to your argument. My logic was that merging with a larger topic would allow the article to find an appropriate balance of coverage via the natural editing process, while possibly counteracting some of the kneejerk 'keep' reactions that are common when people feel a lot of material is going to be thrown out the window. Then again, my issue is primarilly with the article's specific topic, so your mileage may vary. In any case, thanks for your two cents, and I hope you hop in to vote if the question comes up again, since you've obviously given it some thought. Cheers, Lee Bailey 22:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP:SIG
I saw your comment on WP:SIG. I'm certainly not here to tell you to shorten your sig :-) but I thought you might be interested in an advanced version of the pipe trick. If you put a pipe at the end of a link, without anything else, it strips off the namespace prefix. So [[User_talk:FreplySpang|]] --> FreplySpang . Just in case you wanted to shorten your signature. (Actually this can be pretty handy when leaving message for newbies: "Please see our [[Wikipedia:Welcome|]] page" for example.) Cheers, FreplySpang 00:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oh yes. I didn't really think you would bother to change your sig just to save ten or twelve characters. I just like nifty little tricks and I thought you might too! :-) FreplySpang 00:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Concordia newsletter
Concordia Newsletter
Community Justice is no more. It has been reformed to Concordia. Membership has been transferred.
Concordia is an organization of editors on Wikipedia that strive to encourage civility and fair treatment among all editors in the Wikipedian community, from the Wikignome to the Wikiholic. The project was designed to have a friendly and helpful environment to support any unfortunate Wikipedians that have become victims of incivility, hostility, or continual disrespect.
We currently need help in getting going, and making the community understand our aims. We work for civility. Nothing more, nothing less.
If you have ideas, let us know at our talk page, or on the IRC channel. We aim to spread civility in every way we can.
Should you wish to unsubscribe to future newsletters, please add your name to Wikipedia:Concordia/Do Not Spam.
Thank you for your time. If you need anything, feel free to comment at WT:CCD or come into our IRC channel [3].
- The Concordia council. Delivered by Ian13 13:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
