Archive for April 2009
- Archive--Cerejota (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- COme on archive!!!! Can someone please reply so the bot archives? :D--Cerejota (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It requires that someone other than you have a time/date stamp? Aleta Sing 06:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mira, I think this is a good article for DKY but I'm clueless when it comes to that process. If you think is worth the time maybe you can take it. Hope everything is well with you, --J.Mundo (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Be less clueless: WP:DYK (gotta love the shortcut). Basically you need to expand it five times the size and within five days submit to DYK with a sourced "hook". Mind you, they have strict rules, so its best to wath the page for a while to see what gets approved and what doesn't. Also: I am fine a little busy in real life, with the economy etc, but fine, and you mi hermano?--Cerejota (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing the way. I'm fine, real life? I try to follow this economic advice "si te cielo te caen limones has limonada." Cuidate mi hermano, --J.Mundo (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The March 2009 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cerejota, I created an article that I had been working on in my userspace and was wondering when I actually copied it to the mainspace should it have been moved to retain the history or not. Also, was thinking of making one of the DYK but not sure how to go about it (just did that, think I did it right). Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If no one other than yourself worked on it, you can copy and paste it, as essentially you are compressing your contribution into one as per the WP:GFDL. (edit conflict)As to how to go about doing DYKs, WP:DYK is pretty self explanatory (you can read on my thread with Jmundo above), but the key parts are "true" novelty, and having a catchy "hook". New articles with over 1,500 characters with a good hook almost always make DYK, its almost trivial.--Cerejota (talk) 03:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- confused at the strike through, you saying I can't do it or that I can. It was all my edits, though I took stuff from current articles as a base, you can see it here. Nableezy (talk) 03:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You had already done it (right!) so the comment was irrelevant. I think this is in, it has a clear hook, its well sourced, article is new, and its not puffed.--Cerejota (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I am a bit impatient, in fact I created the article prior to asking. And the urge to add insane amounts of puffery, such as replacing the words 'Michael Jordan' with a piped link saying 'the greatest NBA player of all time' and John Stockton and Karl Malone as the 'blp vio regarding whether or not he was a dirty or (1st and 2nd) dirtiest player of all time' was very difficult to resist. Nableezy (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Civil defense in Israel. As always, your comments & contributions welcome. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As usual an interesting effort. My only comment is that it seems to be a summary article, probably better to transform most of its content into a navigation template, with a less heavily-sectioned article explaining "Civil defense" as applied to Israel. In the USA, the Civil Defense was changed to Emergency Management in the 1990s because of the end of the Cold War, but I was (as a scout) involved in EMA, so I have some knowledge of the field as a professional/academic field. I will sandbox what I mean in order to have it make sense, because this needs coverage. In other words, I think it has major MoS issues that affect is quality as an encyclopedic entry (nothing I can see in terms of NPOV etc, perhaps the lead needs some work). The reason I talk about this here and not article talk is because is new and can be shaped, and I want to make it a joint thing. --Cerejota (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's certainly supposed to be a skeleton that others can work on. I only wrote about a paragraph for each section because the research was very time consuming, but each section can be expanded respectably. Not sure yet what you mean by some of your other comments, but I'll check your sandbox. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mcenroeucsb. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: In deciding whether a CheckUser is appropriate, we are guided (for cases A-E) by fairly clear information as to what needs to be alleged, and what evidence needs to be provided. For case F, the guiding principle is that we must be talking about behaviour that is at least as serious as that described for cases A-E. In all cases allegations must be accompanied by clear evidence, usually in the form of diffs. What we are looking for is clear and concise evidence, rather than a well argued and eloquent case. Whilst you make a clear and well argued case, it lacks concise and easy to use evidence, as links to alleged poor behaviour is in the form of hard links to a particular version of the page, rather than to diffs. In the absence of clearly presented evidence, CheckUser will be declined, and it is highly probable that the case will take significantly longer to resolve. Mayalld (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You added {{articleissues}} to this article a while back. I didn't agree with the claim it was essay-like, so I removed that straight away. I have now expanded the entry and dug up some references. The only thing that remains hard to sources are the exact events during BGT, but I'll keep working on that one. What do you think of the article now? - Mgm|(talk) 09:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating 2008 Mumbai attacks for FA-status, as it has improved since GA-status. Since you are one of the foremost contributors like me, I am just notifying you of this. If you have any objections, please contact me on my talk page or on the article's talk page. Thanks! WhaattuSpeakwhat iDone 22:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi...not sure if you would be interested in this, but I have nominated Toni Frissell's famous photo of Tuskagee Airmen in Italy in 1945 as a featured photo at Commons. Would appreciate you opinion. Thanks. --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to ask you, given your interest in terror, what you thought about the map in Terrorist#History which is based on List of terrorist incidents, 2008, original research, synthesis, fatally flawed, (potentially) encyclopedic or what ? I'm not sure what I think about the map or the list....I love maps but not when their sourced from lists made by wiki editors. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
better late than never.
- I appreciate your kindness, happy editing!!!--Cerejota (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of weather it is proper to use or not, the flag of Puerto Rico in the article of the "Puerto Rico Campaign" infobox has come up. This one of those cases that I believe that it is important that others express their opinion in the Talk:Puerto Rican Campaign. Please participate. Tony the Marine (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey,
I recall you being involved with James Lindsay when it was first posted. You were concerned it might not be notable but according to talk, we seem to have come to a reasonable consensus. Since then, the article has been improved but the article has been submitted for deletion. I ask you to read my comments in the AFD if you wish to offer an opinion. This isn't canvassing right?? Cheers! P.S: I posted the same message on Ceed's talk page. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would hope you warn wf about what canvassing is (and this is precisely that) though I really wouldn't mind if you gave your opinion. Nableezy (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been told this isn't canvassing. Alerting heavily-involved editors (i.e, NOT yourself) seems reasonable and I find no indication that goes against protocol. Plus, I forwarded the notice to all major contributors. Ceed (many battles with), Cerejota (same), Brew, Tundra, etc. I didn't cherry-pick editors who would probably endorse my POV. Perhaps you should look up canvassing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You posted to users who agreed, or at least appeared to, on this topic, I don't care what they disagree with you on. You selected a group of editors, who if heavily involved have the article on their watchlist and can see the AfD nom themselves, and asked them to get involved. That is canvassing. Nableezy (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No I didn't. Cerejota wanted the article gone, Ceed is commonly involved in the Palestinian articles, Tundra is Tundra, Bree hasn't edited in over a month, and then there's me. I sent notices to almost every editor involved: Evidence. Of course, you would know that if you actually edited the article and/or possibly read it. Please strike your blatantly inaccurate post. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating the discussion involving the Flag icon of Puerto Rico. Now, I ask you to please participate in the following consensus. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
