Jump to content

User talk:Mr rnddude/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, Mr rnddude, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Battle of Antioch (218). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome, and thanks for the links I will take a look at them now. Also, I was wondering how people automatically had their information come up. Well now I know. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
No problem Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 03:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Mr rnddude! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 04:05, Thursday, November 5, 2015 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together

Welcome to Milhist!

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome, and for the links, I will take a look at them today. I've already seen some, so I'll look at the ones I haven't seen. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Fort St. Andrews

Thanks for the feedback on talk page. I have been working to get that improved. Reb1981 (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2016 (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) 05:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Possible GA review of Battle of Antioch (218)

I am thinking about taking on the GA review for the article Battle of Antioch (218), where you appear to be the most recent major contributor, as well as the nominator for GA status. I wanted to drop you a note before I officially start the review to allow you to provide me guidance on whether you in fact want me to do the review. Based on the 2 GA reviews I have done this month (Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre/GA1 and Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel/GA1), I think I am fair and even-handed, but I am very detailed and methodical. I have read the article on the Battle of Antioch a couple of times so far, and while I really enjoyed the read, and you provide good structure and information, as well as sources, there will be quite a list of suggestions, and there will be some must-do items to meet GA criteria, especially GA criteria 1a. Please review and advise your thoughts - and thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry for the delay. I've had a busy week. I'd be happy to take any review you have on the article. I'll take note of your suggestions and the must-do items. I have one review on the article already which I am about to take care of now. Thanks in advance if you get this post. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks as though someone else just grabbed it yesterday - so you should start getting feedback soon regardless! Good luck! --Concertmusic (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Antioch (218)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Antioch (218) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Antioch (218)

The article Battle of Antioch (218) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Antioch (218) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Community Awards and Recognition

Hi, I wanted to give you a Barnstar in thanks for your work assessing Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy. I didn't know where to put it on your page, so I created a new section in your template and popped it in there. I hope you will accept my thanks. Robert Brukner (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Tagging of AJ Campbell

Please do not tag for WP:CSD#A1 within a minute of the article having been created. WP:CSD#cite_note-Hasty-6 strongly suggest waiting at least 10 minutes, and I suggest at least 15 minutes myself. If you patrol from the back of the new pages queue, this will not be a problem. DES (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Its an exact recreation of another article that is also with no content. So, if you'd prefer I'll tag at G3, because it is. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I will however acknowledge that I have done that more than once today. I'll leave it for ten minutes, except in egregious circumstances such as G10 (Attack pages of which I've seen a couple today) and other G3 (Hoaxes) Mr rnddude (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Its an exact recreation of another article that is also with no content. So, if you'd prefer I'll tag at G3, because it is. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Was the other article deleted at an AfD? If not, G3 does not apply. In any case, I have left the tag but will not delete for at least an hour on any ground at all. But mostly i would like you not to tag so rapidly in future. DES (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
The same consensus applies to A3 speedy deletion tags, and I and many other editors think it should also apply to A7. DES (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Attack pages, copyvios, spam, and the like you may feel free to tag at once. DES (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Serious side question, consider a page like Lucy melrose which I tagged as A11 but can also be tagged A7 and A1. Its quite obviously a prank or boredom. Would this also violate that 10 minute grace period (suggested or otherwise)?
I don't think that fell under A11 (invented) as presumably the author really exists and did not invent herself. Another editor tagged it as G2 (test page) and it was deleted as such. I agree with that decision. It could also have been tagged as vandalism, but I think test page is better.
In cases where A11, or G2, properly apply, no delay is needed, as the likelihood that additional content will soon be added that would make the page no longer a proper speedy deletion candidate is small. Indeed, only A1, A3, and perhaps A7 & A9 (the two 'claim of significance' criteria) need any delay. I hope that helps. DES (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey again, cheers for that explanation, I'd read on what each one meant but didn't note the suggestions for delay. Thank you for clarifying that. Also I noted that G2 and A7 would more properly apply on the page being discussed. I tend to add pages I patrol to my watchlist so that I can be updated with any changes. I will aim to give 10-15 minutes time for situation where A1 and A3 are relevant, and also A7 and A9 except with pages like the one being discussed. Again thank you for that clarification and sorry to bother you so much with it... five messages in only thirty (forty eight to be technical) minutes... what even is this??? Mr rnddude (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
When i am actively editing, and particularly when i am dealing with speedy deletion requests, i often check back on talk pages where I have left messages for followups. However, if you want someone who has left a message on your talk page to see a reply it is good practice to use {{ping}} or {{U}} to notify the other editor, or to use a {{talkback}} template on the other editor's user talk page. Twinkle will place talkbacks with only a few keystrokes. DES (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
@DESiegel: Of this I am aware, but I tend only to place pings for things I consider important or emergency (so I use it sparingly) usually article talk pages are being monitored by those participating but I doubt the same is true for user talk pages. Although unless a page is on your watchlist you will miss it. I'll make an exception this time.
Thanks. Do please remember that pings don't work unless they are part of a signed comment. DES (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Bollocks, I have done it again, I know tindle can sign me quickly but I'm used to typing up the tildes. I am currently editing seven pages simultaneously, edit war, AN/I, etc. You'd be surprised how much trouble one event can cause, and that's just for naming the damn thing... sorry @DESiegel: Mr rnddude (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
No problem, just a reminder. If you need a friendly admin, drop me a line. DES (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Cheers, I'm hoping for diplomacy but I'll call you if it gets out of hand. @DESiegel: Mr rnddude (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
@DESiegel: You know, my first AfD was created with consensus between myself and three other people. We had a calm cool discussion and have come to the conclusion that the best action would be to rename the article so that it doesn't come off as ISIL propaganda despite naming convention suggesting otherwise. My second AfD, or participation in an AfD, was led by someone angry at the notion that their article was being merged to another on the same topic instead of vice versa, and had limited genuine discussion on topic and was all about why we shouldn't delete the other article, the AfD now looks like pigs breakfast and has been closed by WP:SNOW. An entirely avoidable catastrophe if everybody hadn't gone about bucking like bulls into whatever walls could be found. A simple change in attitude can make a big difference in outcome, compare for just a moment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casualties of the Military intervention against ISIL with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Lahore suicide bombing, the tone says it all. Although I dare say, they've all tuckered themselves out and hopefully tomorrow we'll get some more thoughtful discussion on the topic. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Just noticed the duplicate article and started a talk page discussion on the 2016 Lahore bombings page.

I do not believe speedy deletion is appropriate. I believe redirect of one of the articles to the other is much better. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

That's fair, I wasn't sure if that would be possible, I assumed that re-directs were separate to articles having never created one. All is well as long we get a discussion. I'll start one up on the other page and have them linked to the discussion on the Lahore bombing page. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
FYI, any article can be changed into a redirect simply by editing it to start with

#REDIRECT [[Target article]].

It may also include category links and "Redirect from..." templates, but other content should normally be removed. Any editor can make this change, and any other can revert it, just as with all normal edits. DES (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for this, it may come in handy Mr rnddude (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks over at ANI

Hi Mr rnddude, I just wanted to thank you for taking care of the notices in response to the incident I posted at ANI. Your work is greatly appreciated! -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@LuK3: No problem, I was already there with my own thread so it seemed easy enough to rectify another issue while I was at it. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

About 98.204.228.159

I know you did what you did to try and prevent a Boomerang, but that IP has been blocked for his incivility before. Twice, actually. They're extremely disruptive to the project and need to go.142.105.159.60 (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@142.105.159.60:: Thank you for taking the time to give me this information. I had not reviewed their block log at the time of discussion to see if they had had previous altercations at AN/I or other. I will take the time to monitor them for now, if any further problems arise from them then I can look to have them sanctioned. Right now, since the discussion has just been closed, and they have been let off any action against them would be retroactive. I'll have a look to talk to the closer of the discussion. Regards, Mr rnddude (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
@Writ Keeper: I thought it best to bring this to your attention since I was unaware of this and you are the closing admin. Right now, I figure no action is to be taken against the editor in question, but keep for future reference if the IP editor is brought to AN/I again for similar (WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA) issues. Would you agree that that's the best course of action for now. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Correction, the IP editor has been banned for a month, if they return and continue to display behavioural problems then quite simply, escalate the ban. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
Exceptionally good and technical user page u have I am impressed thats why i am copying it! Varun ☎ 10:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Varun, I sourced ideas from several other editors including John, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and Queerly Bohemian, while putting my own spin on things to make it more for myself. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind gesture. How does one ping you I couldn't get it to work. Happy editing :) Mr rnddude (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

<no wiki> "User: 7&6=thirteen" </no wiki> works. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
This Barnstar is for your persistent Civility and Compassion on a controversial and divisive Talk Page. R00b07 (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar R00b07, I appreciate the gesture and just when I'm having a cup of tea too, :). Mr rnddude (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Caracalla

I responded over on my talk page. Cheers! Psychotic Spartan 123 22:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

could you help for a moment?

I need some help setting up a simple rfc on the talk page of Noel Neill

It only needs to ask if an editor prefers image one or image two to be used in the info box.

Thanks Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 07:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant; Brilliant to ask me, I haven't set up an RfC before. What is the issue? Mr rnddude (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

it is sort of like a poll to let editors choose between two images to be in the article

I know what it is, I just haven't set one up before. I am currently on the talk page, and have seen both images, give me a couple minutes I'll try find how to set one up. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

thanks so much! I will owe you some help later! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 07:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant I've set up an informal but formally binding RfC, hopefully the discussion goes well. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Question

Hello, Mr rnddude! Out of curiosity - is this your very first account? Doc talk 11:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, indeed it is. Why do you ask Doc9871? Mr rnddude (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Never edited even as an IP before this account? Doc talk 11:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Nope, except if I've been logged out, I might have one or two edits as an IP. But, I've never edited Wikipedia before making this account. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Doc9871 don't know if it's on your watchlist but I forgot to ping you. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
You have one of the most remarkable learning curves for any new account I've seen! You must be a prodigy. Did you study the nuances of Wikipedia before you started, or it just came naturally? Doc talk 11:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I sincerely appreciate the compliment, in all honesty, I was half expecting to be asked this when you posited the question. Here; [1], it's not the only time I've been asked. To answer your question, it's much like what I said to Fences and Windows, I do my best to check policy before I speak and I have about twenty tabs open at a time. I also try to follow the lead of other established editors, Fences, Fortuna, AustralianRupert, you too even and a few others as well. I failed at that somewhat yesterday, as you are no doubt aware, but am trying to bounce back. Even had a talk to Cassianto. I hope that helps, Doc9871. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Have you edited any other wikis besides this one? Doc talk 11:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if it counts as a wiki, but, Redacted. It's a creative writing website. I mostly did proofreading and criticism, so that may be a factor. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, ping again, Doc9871. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
You created your user page right off the bat using some pretty sophisticated wiki markup language. Where did you learn how to do that? (You don't need to keep pinging me, as I am clearly watching your page).. Doc talk 11:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
user:John, I read the wikimarkup and copied much of it adjusted it where I needed. The tables, also not mine but I can't remember from where I learned the sourcing for that. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
What brought you to look at that user's page before you even made your first edit? Were you watching something he edited? Doc talk 12:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
You would think so, but no, I honestly can't tell you how I first encountered John. I will note, before I joined, I occasionally visited the talk pages of articles I was interested in, primarily history, so I think, from one of those. When I created my account, I wanted to have my own space, but I hadn't really looked at how to do that. I can take a look and see if I can find where I encountered John. Though I can't answer with certainty. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for your time! Cheers :) Doc talk 12:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
You're entirely welcome. Can I ask though, am I under investigation for something, misdemeanor, sockpuppet, other? there's an odd structure to your line of questioning. I hope you don't mind, but my learning curve does extend at least somewhat as much as you and others mention. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any formal investigation. Doc talk 12:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
So, an informal investigation. If that's the case, I have answered all of your questions truthfully and to the best of my ability. I looked at my userpage, sandbox and talk page, and yes, my first edit was on my userpage. I understand that that is strange especially considering I was immediately using a certain level of wikimarkup, even acknowledge it. Never even occurred to me that that would be weird. I'm actually going to take a look to see if I know where I first saw John. I think I might. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Found it immediately. The November Paris attacks. That's where I met him, I'd been watching it unfold closely. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
And shit, that can't be it. That happened a week after I made my account. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
About 1/5 of your edits are to AN/I. This is somewhat atypical of what we see from most new accounts with 1,200 edits, and less than a year in. I've been here for almost 8 1/2 years, and when I get suspicious about an account, you better believe I'm going to ask a few questions. Doc talk 12:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I am by no means surprised, nor am I angry. I just figured that's what it was. I'll point out, my first edit outside my userpage, was Battle of Antioch (218) as I recall. I'll also mention, why not ask how I found out about AN/I? Mr rnddude (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
How do you know I don't already know? I'm asking the questions, here! You definitely don't need to point out your edit history, as that's freely available to comb over by anyone. As is mine, for that matter. Doc talk 12:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate that bit of good humour. There's something however, that ought to strike you as far more suspicious. I had a hiatus between December and March (0 edits), then almost immediately after returning, I start doing NPP and AN/I soon after... why? Also, I know users edit histories are available to anyone, that's why you came to me asking questions in the first place. I do occasionally do a check of another user's edit history when I too become suspicious. Usually its a newbie editor with 1 edit making a new page... rarely a good sign. In any case, cya around, hopefully in better circumstances then that' thread... Mr rnddude (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Lastly, a bit of very serious busines... What's up Doc? Mr rnddude (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Help with Military history of the British Commonwealth in the Second World War

Hello, Once again, I'd like to thank you for your support while I was working to assess Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy. I have a request for your advice and support in resolving an issue. You have far more experience then I and I am out of my depth. There is an article called British Empire in World War II. There was a notice that it was incomplete. I worked to expand it considerably over a couple of weeks. I also altered the title (to Military history of the British Commonwealth in the Second World War| to keep it in line with British English and the "Military history of..." series of articles. Suddenly yesterday an editor rudely pounced on my work, altered the title, challenged the content, etc... I have responded assertively by reverting the original work I did on the original article back to the point of origin, prior to my first edit, and then reverting the changes made to my new article by the aggressive editor. I am sure there are a million rules here, but I know none of them. All my work is done in good faith. But I could use some of your wisdom and help with this.Robert Brukner (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Robert Brukner, not a problem, I'll take a look at it. My experience, however, isn't as far greater than yours as you think, if you note parts of the discussion above, I've been here since November, 2015 and only have 1,200 edits (you have around 8,000). Policy and community discussion is part of my work though, so I'm happy to help. Generally, when an editor reverts another person's edit they should leave their reasoning behind so that the person who originally made the edit knows why their work was removed. I assume based on your comment here that you've reverted their edits once, that's perfectly acceptable so long as you have a valid reason. I could point you to WP:3RR and WP:EW for guidance on the topics of reverting and edit-warring, but I don't think it's utterly necessary since you are not even close to being in violation of them. The editors; I don't think were intentionally being rude, they were following policy as well, the article's name was contended in an RfC in 2014, until such time as it is overturned by another RfC or through the process of WP:BRD, the outcome of the RfC is still in effect. I'll leave a comment on the article talk page and move from there. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. A cool hand and unbiased perspective will be greatly appreciated! Robert Brukner (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mr_rnddude/Archive_1&oldid=1078391805"