Jump to content

User talk:Bonewah/archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

[edit]

Engagement on Lake Huron

[edit]

Apologies for being so quick to revert. I should have checked properly. HLGallon (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

[edit]

Ship photos

[edit]

Just a quick stop by to thank you for the great job you're doing in adding missing ship photos for practically every US Naval ship in history. Bravo Zulu! SpecMode (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! You just added my father's ship, the USS Searcher (AGR-4). Much appreciated! Hga (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome, and my father really appreciated it as well. After I forwarded him the link, he walked me through the deck of the ship, from the funny forward housing that includes the forward 3 inch gun (needed to be able to discourage frisky Soviet "fishing trawlers", I suspect) to the big rear RADAR, an up and down "waggler" that was used to determine the height of targets (needless to say, Soviet bombers didn't have transponders that returned their altitude :-). Hga (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

[edit]

New ship articles

[edit]

Hi - When you create a new ship article could you place
{{WPSHIPS|class=|B1=|B2=|B3=|B4=|B5=}}
on the talk page? No need to fill out the template. Thanks. --Brad (talk) 04:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

[edit]

Carpal Therapist speedy declined WP:CSD#G4 does not apply

[edit]

This was deleted as a result of an expired PROD rather than an AFD. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autoreviewer

[edit]

Hi Bonewah, Nice work on all those ships. I think you're ready to be an wp:autoreviewer, so I've set that flag on for you. ϢereSpielChequers 21:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

[edit]

Anne Feeney

[edit]

Did you do any research other than reading the article to come to the conclusion that Anne Feeney isn't notable? I'm curious what motivated you to PROD this article, other than you, personally, not having heard of her. It's not a very good article, but given that anyone familiar with folk music (or traditional labour fight songs) has heard of her, I'm wondering how you came to the conclusion that she isn't notable. Folk singers tend not to leave large electronic footprints. A Google search probably isn't going to be good enough to establish her notability within her field. SmashTheState (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of folk music is that it's not going to be closely connected to the Internet. In order to judge whether or not Anne Feeney is notable, one would have to have specific knowledge of her field. Have you done any non-Internet research? Perhaps consulted people who may be qualified to judge her notability? I would suggest to you that a Google search is far from the best way to judge notability, and that it might have been a good idea to, at the very least, consult with some related Wikipedia projects (such as the Organized Labour portal) who might have specific knowledge of the subject of the article in question. SmashTheState (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

[edit]

Co-conspirators

[edit]

Why don't you like it? :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved to keep the discussion in one place.)
Its almost never right. Conspirator and co-conspirator mean the same thing, the co- is redundant. You add the co- to things which can be done on their own, like pilot or co-pilot, you can be a singular pilot or pilot with someone else, hence the co- prefix. You cannot conspire by yourself, so the co- prefix shouldnt be there, it would be like saying co-partner, you cannot be a partner on your own, so no need to say co in front of it.
You can make a fair case that co-conspirator is ok in some limited cases, for example "X person turned on his Co-conspirators" but you can just as easily write "X person turned on his fellow conspirators" to make clear that he was a conspirator himself at one point.
Where it is definitely not right is on its own, like "X person is a co-conspirator in the murder of Y". X is not, he is just a regular conspirator. The co-conspirator can only potentially be right when speaking about more than one person, and rarely (or arguably never) even then.
Were you speaking of a specific article? Bonewah (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it's almost never right. See News Archive; it has mentions going back to the 1920s. The OED has references from 1863 and 1866 ("Mr. Bright and his co-conspirators"). I think what you're doing is a case of hypercorrection, "fixing" something that isn't wrong. In particular, why do you think "his fellow conspirators" is better than "his co-conspirators"? I can understand if it's just your personal preference, but "not right" is wrong. Shreevatsa (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right that it is hypercorrection, but I stand by my statement that it is wrong in the singular "X is a co-conspirator in Y plot" as I said, it is potentially correct in the particular that you mention (fellow conspirator vs. co-conspirator) but no more so than fellow conspirator, that is just a stylistic preference. As for the news archives, just because a journalist uses it, doesnt mean that it is right, although Im curious what the OED has to say beyond when it was used. Bonewah (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this is a good example of what I mean when I say its almost never right, as in, most usages of it are wrong, as opposed to there are no instances where it is right. Bonewah (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that on its own, "X was a co-conspirator in…" seems redundant, and certainly I prefer "conspirator". (I wouldn't say it's wrong, and it can even have a useful clarifying purpose, or draw attention to the existence of others: apparently, "lone conspirator" has been used too, e.g. "Hoover names Oswald 'lone conspirator'".) Unindicted co-conspirator is the usual legal term, and "co-conspirator" also is used more generally (where "accomplice" may be used). The difference from "partner" is that "partner" is used as a relationship term, like "classmate" (you can say "my partner" but not "my conspirator"), but when talking of partners in a firm, even copartner exists (to mean "another partner", "fellow partner", etc). The OED doesn't say much (it's under co-), but it says "It is sometimes prefixed to words of L. origin which are already compounded with com- (con-), as co-connexion, -conspirator, -constituent" and later it gives two usage examples of co-conspirator, along with words like co-actor, co-discoverer, co-rival, co-traitor, and co-villager. Anyway, it's a matter of preference, so there's not much to discuss... we just need to be careful not to change "his co-conspirators" to "his conspirators", etc. Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the last part (not changing "his co-conspirators" to "his conspirators"), i definitely dont buy the lone conspirator line, but Im guessing that isnt going to come up except as maybe a quote. Regards. Bonewah (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Milton Friedman. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Edit-warring noticeboard

[edit]

As per the report there, I would suggest that you do not skirt the edges of 3RR even when faced with an editor who is willing to do so. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ship disambiguation pages

[edit]

I noticed that you've create a number of disambiguation pages for ships. If you remember, could you tag them with {\{disambig}} or one of its more specific cousins please? I used the following snippet (copied from another ship) on your USS Iona page, but have no idea if it's the best option.

{{Shipindex}} {{DEFAULTSORT:Iona}} [[Category:United States Navy ship names]]

70.109.146.60 (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

[edit]

JR Hercules

[edit]

To be honest, I would say that either the edit-warring noticeboard or WP:ANI is the best course of action; I doubt if anything I say to him would be taken as impartial given that I blocked him last time. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

[edit]

Koch Industries

[edit]

Hi there Bonewah, I've just proposed a new / replacement section for the Koch Industries page, and would like to get someone else's eyes on it (currently on a page in my user space) for discussion before it goes live. Please take a look if you get the chance, though I'll be reaching out to at least one more recent editor of the page. Cheers, NMS Bill (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I should have mentioned the first time, there is a detailed note about this on the Koch Industries Talk page which gets into some of the specific considerations. NMS Bill (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, Bonewah. You seem to be occupied with other subjects right now, so I've taken this same request over to the Help Desk. Your input is still desired, if you wish to comment. Thanks, NMS Bill (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

[edit]

Jimmuldrow on Sarah Palin article

[edit]

I've tried pretty hard to get Jimmuldrow engaged on the talk page, but it seems to be going nowhere. He continues to try to explain himself on my talk page. I've told him I won't discuss it with him there as it's a content dispute and such discussion should be had in the presence of the other editors. I believe he is editing in good faith, but am now completely frustrated by his unwillingness to discuss his changes on the article talk page. I am not very familiar with dispute resolution, but am completely out of other ideas. Since the Palin talk page is so well traveled, and so many other editors have voiced their opinions on this already, I feel RFC is inappropriate. Unfortunately, the dispute seems to have devolved into an edit war between him and myself and I want to break the cycle. What do you think would be the logical next step? (Assuming he doesn't listen to my latest plea to take it to the article talk page anyway?)Sperril (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right that an RFC is inappropriate, as you said, there is no shortage of people who have an opinion as to what that section should look like. Having said that, maybe the admin incidents notice board or |Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct is the next step. Sadly, this behavior is just the tip of the iceberg with him, he regularly ignores consensus, mischaracterizes arguments, bombards the talk page with the same thing over and over, and generally is the poster boy for Tendentious editing. However, he is good at appearing to be working with other editors just enough that a formal complaint wont quite stick. Heck, just scan some of the recent sarah palin archives and you will see what I mean, section after section is him repeating the same thing and ignoring the 5-6 editors who disagree with him. For something like this, however, You might try asking User:KillerChihuahua to talk to Jimmuldrow, KC regularly acts as an uninvolved admin to enforce the article probation on that page. Bonewah (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

[edit]

SP

[edit]

I just wanted to mention that the Health Care decisions day bit over on SP was put there in order to make it clear, at the time, that Palin was pro-Advanced Directives and against Advanced Planning. These are two very different animals and at the time that I added it in, Jimmuldrow was attempting to make them the same thing, in order to make it appear that Palin was contradicting herself and/or had at one time supported Advanced Planning. I admire you and Fcreid for hanging in over there.Malke2010 04:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

[edit]

RMS Atrato

[edit]

Hi - could you have a look at the picture on RMS Atrato and perhaps the article on SS Atrato - I am not sure what I am doing really but I think there is a problem. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)) PS: just writing to you because you are on the Ships project and edited one of these.[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

[edit]

AfD nomination of The Descendants Motorcycle Club

[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Descendants Motorcycle Club, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Descendants Motorcycle Club. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Dbratland (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

[edit]

Another proposed revision to Koch Industries

[edit]

Hello Bonewah, I'm sure you'll remember giving input on my work involving the Koch Industries article earlier this year, with which I need to be careful for COI reasons. I've recently proposed another not-insignificant update to the article, cleaning up a particularly messy section about its environmental and safety record, although the article has been very quiet and I haven't received any comment on my suggestions. The section in question is this one, my proposed replacement is right here, and my explanation is on the talk page. Please let me know what you think, and meantime I'm going to seek input from one other previously-involved editor. Thanks, NMS Bill (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

[edit]

Merge discussion for Foot odor

[edit]

I have proposed that Smelly socks be merged to Foot odor. Since you contributed to the recent AfD on Smelly socks, you might be interested in participating in the discussion to merge at Talk:Foot odor#Merger proposal. SnottyWong chatter 05:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

[edit]

Leopold

[edit]

Thanks fr your support, better if we don't have to protect the article, and block him |(although it is an idea) if we can be as open as possible, he would be better not editing it but .. at least the wheels didn't drop off, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 23:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I ask for full protection? It is tiresome indeed. Off2riorob (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

[edit]

Jason Leopold

[edit]

This has simply gotten ridiculous. I'm drafting a user conduct RfC at User:Yworo/draft. I've never done one of these before, have you? Could you collaborate on getting it properly filled out? Yworo (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

[edit]

removing tags

[edit]

i think tags have to be justified, and since i didn't see a rationale given to merge, i decided to remove them. -Shootbamboo (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

[edit]

Changing OMT tallys

[edit]

Why do you think that the three British BC articles are only GA instead of A-class?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

[edit]

time of year to give Thanks

[edit]
The Teamwork Barnstar
To Bonewah in appreciation of your efforts in working with others to build not only good articles, but in helping to make Wikipedia a collegial community. Well done. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

[edit]

Civility

[edit]

An item here concerns you. Dylan Flaherty 09:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

[edit]

Milhist A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct–Dec 2010

[edit]
 Military history reviewers' award 
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Oct–Dec 2010, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

[edit]

David Koch

[edit]

I noticed your rv of my edit on the Koch article, for the reason you gave as "still dont think a blog is an RS". You need to demonstrate that A. such a no-blog-is-a-RS Wikipolicy exists, and B. that Think Progress is the kind of blog that is considered a non-RS. Cheers. Arjuna (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

[edit]

Invite

[edit]
Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism broadly construed.
Lionel (talk) 01:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost: 18 April 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

[edit]

Systematical removal of wikipedia additions at Koch Industries wiki

[edit]

Please revert the removal of newly introduced wikipedia content, updated improved content and section on Funding of Climate Change Denial, here The source is reliable, has been part of the wikipage for a long time. Claiming Greenpeace is no longer a reliable source is wishful thinking. Gise-354x (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

[edit]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:USS Baldwin g367829.jpg

[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:USS Baldwin g367829.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:USS Aaron Ward (DD-483).jpg

[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:USS Aaron Ward (DD-483).jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 26 September 2011

[edit]


The Signpost: 3 October 2011

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bonewah/archive_3&oldid=1142900516"