User talk:Colonel Marksman

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear Colonel Marksman: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD!

Feel Free to Directly contact me!!! I Love helping you guys out!! After all I was new here about 3 months ago!!Eagle (talk) (desk) 21:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok here is some research

First off...Thanks for asking me for help!!!

Secondly if you are to continue to upload images...It will be best for you to become familiar with two policies.(I think) ...This really is not my area of expertise. With these two I was able to answer your question so they should suffice.

1) WP:IUP the short cut for Wikipedia:Image use policy
2) WP:ICT the short cut for Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Alrighty, I did not really look at the first (you are supposed too...I'm a bad boy!!) so I put it there. The second one is basically a list of copyright types. If you are going to be upload alot of images, you will know this one by heart. If you don't don't worry...It is well formatted, so a person like me (a programmer and math guy) can figure it out!!!

This looks like what you will want...{{Tv-program-logo}}. The only problem is that the lawyers will want your rational and relevent copyright info. Exactly what should be included is on the links above...WP:IUP and WP:ICT.

Not to discurage you...This area has a lot of policy and lawyer types involved:-) If you need more help plese come back to me I will do my best. (though next time physics...math...programming...books would be nice!!!) Alot less lawyers!!!----these subject tend to make lawyers run away screaming!!!!...I don't know why...:-)Eagle (talk) (desk)

Please respond back on my page and tell me the quality of my response!!!Eagle (talk) (desk) 23:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... Here is my response

First off... I could give you advice in one of two ways:-)

1) I give you a bunch of meaningless links to rule, and policy pages that have what you want... but you will have to spend 30 minutes of your time to find it... :-) Like this:

A)Help:Redirect
B)Wikipedia:Redirect
C) And so on...

or 2) I do it for you, with the idea that you will look at what I did and learn from it.

A) Guess what... I did it.. They are really simple, just make sure that the redirect can't mean anything else... I did not do any research into whether or not NASV means anything... Instead I assume you know what you are doing... (that is the point of this project, don't let others tell you otherwise, there is no "rank" on wikipedia... you are the equal of anybody else.)

The format to follow is this:

1)Type in the redirect(i.e. NASV) that you want to make in the search box, if that name is not used elsewhere, it will come up asking you if you want to create that article...(click on the link that takes you to the editing page.

2)Type #REDIRECT [[Second article that you want to redirect to]] (i.e. NASB)

3)Thats it... you will want to glance at the policy pages, just to make sure that you are not violating anything... (most of the time you are not, but if you plan to do a lot of this, you will want to be familier with what is acceptable and what is not.:-)Eagle (talk) (desk) 20:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. you really need to make sure that any time you leave a message on someone's page you put ~~~~ That is "sign" your post(on a talk page) with 4 little squiggly things. (don't know what there real name is) Doing this makes it easier for others to post messages directly to your talk page. Like thisEagle (talk) (desk) 20:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I hate to sound like I was complianing... but it makes it sooo much easier to respond... as this way I don't have to do anything but click on the link...:-)

If you need any more help... feel free to contact me!!!Eagle (talk) (desk) 19:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh...

Ok, you seem to want NASV to redirect to ammerican standard bible??? is that correct??? If so, I made a mistake and created a double redirect. I will explian those if that is the problem.

If I am not right in what you want, tell me to what article NASV is to redirect from.Eagle (talk) (desk) 04:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I figured this out for you

the first article that you mentioned... Drift racing, has been around for a while. Your article on the other hand has not been around for an awfully long time. Your article is not even a month old. What this boils down to is that wikipedia has not had enough time to notice that your article exists... it will be that way untill the next database dump. (should be soon)

If you are interested in a better explanation ask, but be warned I am a programmer, and thus am likely to lapse into technical jargon in this area.:-).
- Basically all I am saying is that your "problem" will cease being a problem as soon as the next datadump arrives. (I think that is what they index the search on...)...Anyway, the search will be updated, the problem is that your article is too "new".

Yes there was a double redirect. A double redirect is a redirect pointing to another redirect, that than points to the article. These are not allowed on wikipedia, (the software prevents them to prevent infinate loops, never a good thing:-)).

When I made the redirect I redirected NASV to NASB, which then NASB redirects to New American Standard Bible. sorry about that!!! When you make redirects make sure that they point to the article, and not to another redirect. (ask me to clarify if I am confusing)Eagle (talk) (desk) 05:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not Quite

Look at the bolded part above... I fixed the redirect. The datadump thing is for the other problem you mentioned... if you don't get it, please ask... and I will clarify.Eagle (talk) (desk) 14:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. have a look at the edit history on the NSAV redirect... to do so click on the link, it will take you to the New American Standard Bible page, click on the link at the top, "redirected from" NSAV... Then click on the history tab at the top of the page. any questions you know where to go!!!

Edit summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

--Pak21 09:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines

Wow... -- Saberwyn 21:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, compliment. My only complaint at this time would be that its all at once. I think it would be better to focus on bringing set groups up to standard at the same time, (such as overhauling all the playable race articles first, then overhaul all the characters, etc) as opposed to spending hours on drafting up guidelines for every possible outcome and saying "We won't use these until everyone agrees on them all. -- Saberwyn 10:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... CB319 00:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, while a lot of these new guidelines are useful, some are not. For example, one theme I found was that you think we shouldn't use things people wouldn't already know to explain things. Well, oftentimes you need that jargon to explain - in which case you then have a short section (somewhere) to explain the jargon. For example, traditional dating. You can leave it as it is, then simply when you have a date given, it links to a short article, wherein you explain the date. I can see it now: Dating Systems (Warhammer 40,000) I do think refraining from POVing for which races are 'good' and 'bad' but there are clearly defined sets of the levels of 'advanced'-ness among the races. And the rules as well, some rules need to be told to explain a concept.

All in all, the other stuff is good, the formatting guidelines, but your stuff at the top is a little extreme...

Thanks for the thanks !

Hi, Colonel -- thanks for the thanks! You must think I've forgotten you. I haven't :-) I just got sidetracked on lots of other things, but after your explanation on Encephalon's talk page, I (finally) fully understand the changes you're suggesting on the TS page, and have been meaning to get to them. I will, as soon as I find a free moment, which may not be for a week or so :-) Regards, Sandy 20:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyranid edits

Howdy. I'm a bit puzzled by the message you left me. Not entirely sure what you're getting at... -- Colm O'Brien 16:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No no, I'm not angry or anything, I was just genuinely confused as to what you meant. To be honest, my edits were a lot more extensive than I originally expected, but I didn't insert any significantly new content apart from a line or two. Most of what I do on Wikipedia is to do with clarity and structure rather than content. Apologies if I stepped on anyone's toes with the initial reorganisation. -- Colm O'Brien 16:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I agree we should keep the ones we have, but they're can't be much harm in grabbing a camera and going crazy. Then again, I have a 40 member gaming club to mess with... someone's bound to have some decently painted miniatures. -- Saberwyn 21:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything you can do will be great. -- saberwyn 01:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add that I'm with saberwyn on this one: I'd much rather even if you don't think your models/images aren't great quality, they're still much better than what we've got at the moment. Please photograph and upload! Cheers --Pak21 08:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

syntax

I noticed you were trying to reference a category on a talk page without placing that talk page into the category. The way to do this is to precede the category name within the brackets with a colon: for example [[:Category:Adolf Hitler]] results in Category:Adolf Hitler. - Nunh-huh 23:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to feel silly, it's not like there's any way to intuit that a colon would be the solution! <g> - Nunh-huh 23:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Imperial Guard

Re your comments... I've knocked together User:Saberwyn/Cadia rewrite, based on what I think you're suggesting. Is this what you meant, and would it do for a main article? Just so you know, the information is taken from the IG History and the Planets list, and expanded to include info from the IG and EoT codexes. -- saberwyn 07:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cadia (Warhammer 40,000) -- saberwyn 21:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicles of Narnia Film Series

I don't recall the article ever being much longer. More specific content belongs in the articles for the individual movies like The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Eluchil404 16:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines mark II

The main problems, from where I'm standing, is that it was too much, all at once, and had a lack of samples. It probably would have garnered more support if you went "Hey, here's an idea for improving army pages. Check out my [rewrite of foo army's page]. If you think it's an improvement, I've left an outline at [army page guideline]." Then, after all the army pages have been dragged up to your standard (if accepted), repeat the process with... say... Tech pages, again providing a sample rewrite for comparison. Rinse and repeat as necessary.

Also, on another note, you continual claim that the Wikiproject should be a "union", not a "confederation". I (being a goddamned Australian) have no knowledge of how the American government runs, or how the two sides of the American Civil War differed from each other, but based on your examples, at this stage of the game, we have no choice but to be a "confederation". We will all be pulling in different directions at once, and have access to different resources (For example, I have almost every White Dwarf from 1999 to 2003, but absolutely none before and after. In addition, you will never see me make a major edition to ... say... Dark Eldar pages, as I have no interest in the background or playability of that particluar army.)

This, combined with the current size of the Wikiproject membership, means that we don't have the numbers or resources to pull concentrated attention to set articles at a time. Maybe in the future, a "union" WP can be established, but at the mo, we work with what we have. -- saberwyn 23:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Put briefly, it's because people don't agree on what the facts are. If you read our three content policies carefully, it might become clearer. They have to be read in conjunction: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler's religious views

Dear Colonel, I have read your comments on the Hitler talk page. I agree that the "religion" section should be cut down, since there is already a main article. Maybe you want to have a go at cutting it down? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 06:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main article is in flux but the religion section on Hitler is pretty stagnant. I thougt, maybe it is better for some one to have a go that hasn't been as involved in debates as I have. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will take care of the nutcases. The chief ones are gone right now. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading images

Check Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags if you want to upload and provide what type of licencing the image is, such as the tv-screenshot tag. --Wirbelwind 19:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Experiments: Lain

Hi colonel, I'm doing a bit of work on Lain right now, and I've hit "the colon controversy". I see youve asserted on the talk page that the correct spelling is as above, which is what I used to believe. But now somone came up with the official site, http://www.geneon-ent.co.jp/rondorobe/anime/lain/data.html, and I'm all confused. Do you have any reference I could use to defend the "with colon" version? Cheers, --SidiLemine 10:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accelerated Christian Education

Hi Colonel Marksman,

I notice that you have edited Accelerated Christian Education or Talk:Accelerated Christian Education. You may be aware that this article was tagged for clean up in September. I have started a rewrite of this article at Accelerated Christian Education/draft. Please take this opportunity to make improvements to this artlce.

Also note that material about the administration of the ACE curriculum in schools should be included in a new article at School of Tomorrow, not in the Accelerated Christian Education article.

Blarneytherinosaur talk 02:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your comment on my talk page. Blarneytherinosaur talk 09:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychoactive Drug Chart

Hi there. I designed the current chart which is an evolution of the one I designed about 3 1/2 years ago after studying drug categorization and drawing a Venn diagram of the groupings. (See also Drug Chart version 1.0.png). --Thoric 21:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyranids

Have you looked at the Tyranids and their supporting pages lately? They have been reorganized and filled out, but there can still be more work. It seems to be coming close to where it should be. SanchiTachi 19:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Future of WP:40k

Hello. As a member of WP:40K I ask you to share your thoughts and opinions on a matter that I feel will shape the future of the project. Thanks. --Falcorian ^(talk) 02:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warhammer 40K Project updated

File:W40000 Symbol.png

The Warhammer 40,000 project page has been updated!

Assessment tags have been added to the project banner.
New material, including transwiki instructions and an organizational chart, has been added to the main project page.
Please help us get the Warhammer 40K project back on track!

Protonk (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Sent with Auto Wiki Browser to all 40K project members.[reply]

Project activity

File:W40000 Symbol.png

This message is a test to check to see if members of the Warhammer 40K Project are still online, active and interested in helping the project. If you are no longer interested in the project all you need to do is...nothing! If you don't respond to this I'll take your name off the list and you'll never here from us again. If you're the proactive type you can remove the name yourself or talk to me and I'll do it.

If you are still interested in helping out the 40K project or otherwise still want to be listed there you can say so in response to this message on your talk page or on mine. Alternately you can add our new userbox ({{User WikiProject Warhammer 40,000}}) to your userpage and I'll take that as a response. The userpage doesn't automatically include people in a category of members yet, but it might in the future.

We've assessed most of the articles in the project on the Version 1.0 assessment scale (the table on the project page should take a few days to update) but we need to push to get the core articles in the project up to GA status. Thanks for all your help. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help the project along. Protonk (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boolean operators

I saw your comment on Talk:Logical connective. You may not be aware that:

We don't use plural names for articles; Boolean operators should be named Boolean operator.
The article Boolean operator is a redirect to Logical connective because these terms are synonyms. This redirect has been in place since 2005.

— Carl (CBM · talk) 12:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I think the page should have been moved, rather than blanked. Perhaps you should have a go at merging the stuff into Web search query. 87.112.29.103 (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per your note on my talk page - there's not much I can add - although it may seem odd, the 'logical connective' is pretty much what you described - the term doesn't purely apply to philosophy. HowStuffWorks may well have more detail, but you may find that Wikipedia has the same level of information - just broken down across several articles. Why not combine them then ? (I hear you say) - well, simply because WP:NOTHOWTO - explaining how to create a web search string is a form of instruction, and therefore would likely violate WP guidelines (I've no idea if HSW has similar guidelines). Your article is also only accurate if you're referring to logical operators in web searches, and not necessarily in other types of search such as SQL, so the article title would need to be more like 'Web search query'...guess what.. there's an article called that ! Ok, perhaps I'm labouring the point a little, but what I'm trying to say is that the redirect is correct, and the content of your article is, imo, already present - maybe not just where you expected it to be. By all means try the above suggestion of merging into Web search query - just don't fall foul of the aforementioned guideline :-) CultureDrone (talk) 08:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Principal

If you're planning to change any more correct uses of principal to incorrect uses of principle, it might be a good idea to examine a dictionary carefully before undertaking such a project. Deor (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content removal

There was no reason to remove content as you have done here. Please don't make nonconstructive edits like this again.
--Gyrobo (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Colonel Marksman/Adolf Hitler Page

User:Colonel Marksman/Adolf Hitler Page, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Colonel Marksman/Adolf Hitler Page and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Colonel Marksman/Adolf Hitler Page during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]