Jump to content

User talk:Looper5920/Archive 3

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

More on MoH categories

[edit]

I see that there are ongoing discussions in the Military history WikiProject and the US military history task force on categories. I'm comfortable making the change for the Marine Corps -- but do you think that for all the services, it should be discussed on the US talk page? —ERcheck @ 01:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. It should be run in front of the project first. I too would only feel comfortable migrating the USMC pages. We tend to get a little protective of our own little corners of the encyclopedia. I'll jump in if any problems or issues arise.--Looper5920 01:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, do you think I should migrate the USMC pages first or hold for discussion? In the meantime, I added a TOC to the Category:Medal of Honor recipients to at least make it a little easier to navigate the 200+ articles. —ERcheck @ 01:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a discussion to the US task force talk page here. There a many more USMC MoH articles to write. I made a quick count of those I'd created - 79+ to date. And more to come. It will be some work to convert the existing articles, but, better now than 100 articles from now. —ERcheck @ 03:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slow response from Wikipedia

[edit]

Wikipedia is responding VERY slowly right now. I'm going to take a break from re-categorizing and return to it tomorow. Thanks for the help ... you're making very fast progress. —ERcheck @ 06:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on a new USMC list

[edit]

What do you think about having a List of United States Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipients? This list would be comprehensive versus the category, which only contains those who have Wikipedia articles. In addition, there are some recipients who I haven't been able to find sufficient info (beyond their short citations), e.g. those from the Boxer Rebellion. —ERcheck @ 02:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Absolutely. List broken down by war and presented either alphabetically or by date recieved. I am at work now but can help later on if you need it.--Looper5920 02:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I have completed the list and have been using it to go by for missing articles. I just need to fix some of the links that should be disambiguated. I'll post it soon. I've been spending time moving MoH articles into the new categories. I think all of the USMC articles are done (133). I've got 36 in the Navy, 43 in the Army, and 4 in the Air Force. (The Air Force ones are a bit of an issues - it is the USAAF vs the U.S. Air Force. There are 17 recipients who were members of the USAF. The question is what to do with the USAAF ones. The CMOHS gives the USAF number at 17; the USAF "claims" the USAAF on a few of their pages. I put the question on the Project talk page and have had on back and forth discussion in it with Rlevse, which you can find on our talk pages. I'd appreciate your input on the issue. —ERcheck @ 03:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • To keep is short and simple I would put the USAAF ones under the Air Force. USAF is a direct descendent of the USAAF.--Looper5920 03:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the feedback. BTW, I tried to send you e-mail from "E-mail this user" and found that you did not have an e-mail address enabled. Are you planning to enable one? —ERcheck @ 11:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't even know how to set it up. Is it something I should have?? If so just point me in the right direction. Thanks--Looper5920 11:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not a must have. It only provides fellow Wikipedians an e-mail means of communication. You can sent this up in the "my preferences" at the top of your Wikipedia page. After you enter an e-mail address, you will need to click for a confirmation - an e-mail will then be sent from Wikipedia to your provided e-mail address. I don't believe that your e-mail address shows up, but e-mail sent from Wikipedia will arrive at your e-mail address. —ERcheck @ 12:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks. I'll set it up now.--Looper5920 12:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I should be up and running now. Let me know if it is up and running.--Looper5920 12:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: USMC Portal

[edit]
Note that it is a proposal; it had to be made before it could be discussed. Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals is the appropriate forum for that to take place.
Whether USMC is actively maintained or not in question; what is is its scope and usefulness. One of the fundamental objectives of a portal is usefulness and it has been established that this is best-accomplished with broad subject areas. Moreover, portals are intended to promote only good content from those areas. A portal on military is appropriate because it is a broad subject area; because of that, it can draw on a sufficient number of quality articles. And note that I mean quality; thousands of articles mean nothing if they are in majority stubs.
The strawman you put about Baseball completely ignores the point. USMC is a minor branch of a broader force; baseball is a sport in its own right and thus a broad subject area. Portal:Sports and games exists as an over-arching parent portal from which baseball descends. USMC exists without any structure. Essentially, what should occur is a trickle down - Portal:Military is created as the subject and if a division of that subject, say, navy, should require a separate portal, then one is created. Even still, USMC would probably not be eligible for its own portal because of its inherent limitations.
You state that I should concern myself with other, more inept portals. Believe me that I am getting there; the sheer numbers of sub-standard portals means it will take considerable time. Most of the processes aimed at improving portals were established by me: I wrote Wikipedia:Portal and its subpages; I direct Wikipedia:Featured portals; and I initiated Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals. So you needn't worry that I am not working to improve portals. Portal:United States Marine Corps and Portal:Military of Australia are just the latest I've encountered.--cj | talk 05:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have never assumed that I am the "sole determiner"; hence Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals. USMC is not a substantial topic and it is laughable to even attempt to place it equal to a country. I think that the reason you don't accept my argument is precisely because USMC is your focus on Wikipedia. I appreciate that you and like-minded editors are working to make coverage on USMC comprehensive but that does not change the fact that it is inherently constrained by its specificity. It is but a subset of a broader subject a portal for which would duly cover it. Thanks, —cj | talk 12:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My intention was never to say that Australia and the USMC should be on the same par and I was not trying to compare the two. What I meant was that both were equally substantive subjects and encompassed a wide range of topics and deserved their own portals.--Looper5920 12:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solicitation

[edit]

With regards to your recent flurry of edits: the biased solicitation of votes to a debate to sway consensus is heavily frowned upon and is in fact considered spam. You would be well advised to cease this action and to remove and/or clarify existing postings. Thanks, —cj | talk 12:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • My bad for not knowing the rules. I will stop.--Looper5920 12:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice you haven't made an effort to retract your 'call to arms', as it were.--cj | talk 14:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have not made any edits of the sort since you posted the message on my page. It would be one thing if the people voting on the proposal page were randoms but the people with the oppose votes are the heads of Wikiprojects and Admins as well. Nice warning though, looks very imposing.--Looper5920 14:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit it isn't exactly what's required, but it is the only boilerplate I'm aware of that relates to the situation. I was referring, by the way, to the standing request in your postings for others to continue the rally call. It is this I expect withdrawn. Whilst not strictly spam, this was soliciting. Happy editing, --cj | talk 15:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that that was soliciting. Informing the individual that created the Military of Australia Portal that he may be interested in the fact that someone is proposing the deletion of his portal is not spam. I did not solicit a vote or ask anyone to rally. I merely stated "You may be interested."--Looper5920 20:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USMC portal

[edit]

someone proposed it for deletion? absurd! I'll fight to keep it. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the reaction I was concerned about.--cj | talk 02:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah ...we should all be concerned about Wikipedians that are actively involved in many aspects of the community and willing to fight to keep things they believe are important.--Looper5920 09:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal maintenance activities

[edit]

The current "selected article" (United States Marine Corps War Memorial) has been featured since April 20. I think it is time for a change out. (I've been resisting changing it - I really like the picture... nice to see it when I bring up the Portal page.) I'd appreciate it if you would chooes the next new article to feature. —ERcheck @ 01:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

[edit]
When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

— Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 03:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Editor / User Page Review

[edit]

Hey Looper5920 –

You opposed my last RfA in March on rationale I believe may have been related to my user page. In the time since then, I have changed my page to be more universalist (which still conforms with my personal beliefs) and removed the majority of information regarding my conversion to Islam in favor of a section on my philosophy (as well as yours if you desire). Now, I'm looking for your feedback on what you think of the redesign of the page and whether it is sufficient in quelling the March controversy over the page as well as solving the issue about possible inability to maintain a neutral point of view, especially in religion-related articles. For what it's worth, the reason I kept a condensed version of the timeline was because there were, and still are, many people who find it interesting instead of a form of proselytization. Many people have also given me positive feedback on my talk page regarding the look of the page. I personally believe that it is okay to insert individuality onto user pages, especially if it still promotes a sense of community. That is what I was going for with this current version of my user page.

Please make comments regarding the user page on my editor review page. Thanks in advance. joturner 14:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a break; Portal

[edit]

I've been taking a bit of a break from creating new USMC articles. I've been spending some time re-categorizing the Medal of Honor recipients. (Thanks for the help.) While doing the recat, I've been adding the Military person infoboxes (and other general maintenance) which takes some time. I'll get back to new articles in a bit. In the meantime, I did change out the bio and the quote on the portal. Still needs a selected articles change and about due for a picture change. —ERcheck @ 04:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have been going easy on the articles as well. It is always good to look back over old articles as you always catch new things that are incorrect and it is always good to mix it up on Wikipedia. I will update the Portal when I get home from work later today.--Looper5920 05:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

hi, i see that the "good article" spam has been put back in Template:featured despite objections from several users. this seems to be the way the GA project works: boldly putting something into a page that doesnt want it, then claiming consensus is required to *remove* it again (consensus is never required to put it there in the first place).

this is exactly the same behaviour as witnessed on the attempt to create an article space "good article" star, which i & raul654 finally managed to have deleted (a huge effort since they had already spammed a 1000 articles with it), and on the Community Portal where this non-policy wikiproject has pride of place - its apparently far more important than any of the other dozens of collaborations!

they even had the cheek to remove the "non-policy process" template from the top of their project pages claiming they now had "enough support to be policy" - this is despite clear consensus on the talk page that its NOT policy. an attempt to put it back was quickly removed.

i would appreciate any comments on the template's talk page. i'm really fed up with fighting these GA spam battles everywhere, its quite tiring. why do they have to constantly spread their GA spam everywhere? hope you can help! Zzzzz 09:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:MGySgt. Frankie Segarra

[edit]

Hi there my friend, I read that you may recommend the article for deletion and I understand your motives. I have only one minor request, please put it off for at least a week. I'm in the process of setting up a new system in my computer and I would like to at least print out the article. Semper Fi Tony the Marine 20:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Portal picture

[edit]

I like your choice of picture for the portal. Looking forward to what you choose for the next "selected article". See my e-mail for comments about selected articles. —ERcheck @ 05:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

[edit]

Thank you very much for the barnstar, and for the kind words! Kirill Lokshin 11:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I notice when you add "35px" at the end of the USMC portal link, the seal is cut off at the bottom - as least when I look at it in Firefox. You seem to use it with and without the sizing; without the px pipe, it renders just fine. —ERcheck @ 02:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you

[edit]
The count is in, and now I join the crew who wield the mops and pails.
Thanks for your support! I pledge to serve both you and Jimbo Wales.

If you have anything you need, then please don't think to hesitate.

For I am the very model of a grateful admin designate!
♫Bucketsofg✐♪

Redirect or own article

[edit]

Example: The 2nd Marine Brigade was redesignated as the 2nd Marine Division.

Question: Should there be a separate article for the 2nd Marine Brigade, or just create a redirect?

—ERcheck @ 16:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - May 2006

[edit]

The May 2006 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. —ERcheck @ 00:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 1 - WikiBreak over?

[edit]

Hi Looper5920. It's June 1, but the WikiBreak notice is still up. I see you've been easing back in the past few days. Are you back yet? —ERcheck @ 01:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am still having internet issues from home due to the move so I am editing when able from work. Once I am up and running at home I will be back in full. Thanks for the reminder on the Wikibreak sign. I'll get rid of that now.
    • BTW, I'm still working on the Medal of Honor recipients articles. Only three more (out of 82) left for World War II. About 50% of the Korean War and Vietnam War recipients are completed. —ERcheck @ 04:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? Richard K. Sorenson

[edit]

Did you know that in World War II, there were 27 U.S. Marines who saved the lives of others by throwing themselves on exploding grenades. Of these 27, Pvt Richard K. Sorenson was one only three who survived. —ERcheck @ 05:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominated it for DYK. Hope it makes it.--Looper5920 05:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks ... it will be interesting to see its DYK fate. I've read the info pages, but do not find the process clear. It seems that the group of admins who handle the template decide which of the nominees make it to the Main page (put on the Template). From reading the talk, there was discussion on whether or not to notify the creator or to put a note on the article talk page. Looking at dates of the articles on the Main Page DYK, it seems that they are put newest on top, and the newest is about 4 days old. Well, I'll be watching. —ERcheck @ 00:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah - I hate wandering into new turf especially when it is high vis. It seems like there is a small clique of people that control that page. Hopefully it makes it but if not we can always try again.

The Sorenson article is currently on the Main Page DYK. —ERcheck (talk) @ 22:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Saw that last night. Good stuff. Might not be a bad idea to consider 1 every month of two. No point in sending to many or they will get rejected on sheer volume alone. Glad that one got through though. That would be the "Kudo" for all of the MOH articles you have been putting together.

Finished

[edit]

Just finished all of the World War Two Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipients. Some amazing Marines! —ERcheck @ 13:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I never did say great job on this one. I'd give you a barnstar but you already have one from me and anymore would look like we just go back and forth iving each other awards. The articles really look outstanding and provide an excellent record of what those guys did. The fact that you accomplished this on your own is the other amazing part. As a side note I am glad to see that Tony has sought to put you up for Adminship. No one I have come across on this project deserves it more You are always the level head and calm voice of reason compared to my incendiary comments. I can't imagine you will have any problems. Good luck when that goes forward.--Looper5920 10:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marine bio's

[edit]

Let me know if any other Marine articles become targets for POV-pushing. I've had my eye on Pantano for a long time (unfortunately was out of town when the Haditha para was added), and have NPOV'd the articles about the Marines involved in the Haditha incident.

  • All the articles relating to Haditha to include the individuals involved and the unit (3/1) have brought out the anti-American crowd in force. Good to have another person maintaining sanity on those pages. Nothing is coming o mind right now but if I se something crazy happening I'll let you know. Again, thanks for the help--Looper5920 05:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Mmx1 05:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, what do you think about US_gang_graffiti_in_Iraq. I think it's borderline in terms of notability, but it has 1 citation. --Mmx1 05:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a big fan but since it is cited I would leave it for now. If that one cite is all that is there 6 months from now than I would go ahead and try to have it deleted on notability grounds.--Looper5920 05:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

I just wanted to thank you for helping to integrate some of the info I've found on the Haditha Marines into their respective bios. Within the next few weeks/months there's a chance of some major expansion. You might want to keep an eye out for any more info on Frank Wuterich, because all articles I've read seem to put him right in the investigations' line of site. Joshdboz 23:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New article for Jimmie E. Howard, see talk

[edit]

I just created an article for Medal of Honor recipient Jimmie E. Howard. Please review my comments on the article's talk page. Do you agree with the rank info I put in the article. —ERcheck (talk) @ 03:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MAG-15

[edit]

I created a stub for Marine Aircraft Group 15 — which was at one time had Peter Pace as XO. If you are able to find further information, please expand it. Thanks. —ERcheck (talk) @ 07:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Look at this picture: USMC site photo. Visually, I think it makes a great picture for the page. It doesn't directly link to a particular USMC article on Wikipedia, but it is a great human interest story that the run is being held in Iraq. —ERcheck (talk) @ 00:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're great with unit articles. What do you think about (you) expanding the MWSS-274 article a bit and then nominating the picture for a "Featured picture"? It is public domain so it would qualify. —ERcheck (talk) @ 03:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This too shall pass

[edit]

Time for a short break ... but not time to leave. Too many valuable contributions for you to continue making. When your WikiStress is up, visit yahoo, find a funny website, ... Have you seen the Diet Coke/Mento video at http://eepybird.com/. —ERcheck (talk) @ 07:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New article for Jay R. Vargas, Medal of Honor recipient

[edit]

Thought you would be interest ... Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipient Colonel Jay R. Vargas has some interesting points of note ... I have <self->nominated the article for DYK for June 10. I'd appreciate it if you would review and make any edits you think necessary. Thanks. —ERcheck (talk) @ 20:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warm welcome

[edit]

I appreciate the welcome, and I look forward to contributing to the wiki-community. I took the disclaimer off my talk page as suggested. Thanks. Bunns USMC 00:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VMFA(AW)-533

[edit]

Nice new article. See coordination - picture - suggestion for idea of use of photo for a possible featured picture/adding to article as an illustration and for featuring the article. —ERcheck (talk) @ 05:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your User page

[edit]

That plea to fix your user page finally got to me. Though I am no expert, I borrowed the menu header from Grafikm_fr (who borrowed it from someone else). I'm still trying to figure out how to fix the barnstar portion. You could make a separate page for recognitions, with a link ...

Hope you find it a bit of an improvement. I'll not be offended if you revert back. —ERcheck (talk) @ 00:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Review

[edit]

Looper5920, the Joe Foss article seems pretty complete. It needs assessment and importance ratings. Would you take a look? After you review, what do you think about putting it up for WPMILHIST Peer Review? —ERcheck (talk) @ 12:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Main Page DYK

[edit]

Check out the Main page Did you know... feature. Look for Jay R. Vargas. —ERcheck (talk) @ 23:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USMC Aircraft squadrons

[edit]

With the list as long as it is now, I think that the graphics (one per line) will make it too unwieldy. Since it is a single column list, there is room after each squadron name to put a comma and the nickname (ex: VMGR-152, "Sumos"). One idea that would add some color/image and would be section appropriate would be to put a picture of the particular aircraft that each squadron flies (on the right). —ERcheck (talk) @ 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HMH-462 and Operation Distant Runner page

[edit]

Looper, you seem to be one of the go-to guys on USMC articles. Question for you... I wanted to add to the HMH-462 page based on my knowledge of the squadron back in the early 90's, as well as to do an article on Operation Distant Runner. I participated in that operation as part of HMH-462's det to HMH-163 (Rein), 11th MEU. I have a photo of the CH-53s on the ramp in Bujumbura, Burundi that I want to include on 462's page, yet the aircraft were actually attached to 163 at the time. Does this sound illogical? Any suggestions? I guess my question is ultimately this... would actions taken by a particular squadron's det to another squadron during the time they were det'd out be appropriate on the original parent squadron's page? In this particular case, do you think the actions of 462's det while attached to 163 be appropriate on 462's page? Hebron 22:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ideas on best way to fix an article

[edit]

Listing it as a collaboration candidate isn't a bad idea; we're sort of running out of good ones anyways, and this should interest a few more people than the generic obscure battle would. Other than that, I'm not sure if there's any way of provoking a rapid reaction; Wikipedia tends to be very good at procrastinating ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am as guilty as the next guy. There are about 20 times I can remember looking at that article and saying "This has got to be fixed" and then forgetting and moving on to something else. Thanks for the help--Looper5920 04:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HMT-303 graphics

[edit]

Hi ... was looking at HMT-303 -- the insignia graphic did not show up. I double checked to make sure that Image:HMT-303.png graphic existed — of course it did. But it just doesn't show up. I logged in and out... tried lots of little things. The only way I could see it was if I took away the 180px specification (which is where it stands). Please check to see what you see, both with and without. (I use Firefox ... perhaps there is something browser-specific about the rendering.) —ERcheck (talk) @ 05:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had the same issues last night when I was making the page. I guess I never thought it may be tied to the px I had attached to the picture. Using IE it shows up with no problems. Using MF it has issues. I use both to create articles but sometimes something like that slips by. Thanks for the fix and the heads up.--Looper5920 05:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Completely too weird for words... I tried to understand what there was in the size specification causing the problem. Tried lots of other options ... oddly, 100px, 110px, 120px... work up to 150px, then no image. Disappears for 150, 160, 170, 180. Back at 181, 190, 200, 250. I've not see this before. Would you see if you get the same behavior? I'm a bit concerned as many of the images that I've put in infoboxes have a size specification - with most at 180px. —ERcheck (talk) @ 05:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I keep a pretty good tab on the articles that you create and I have never had a problem viewing any of the pictures contained in those articles. As for what I have done, it happens about 1 in a 1,000 articles. Maybe just a software glitch. For right now I would not worry about it. --Looper5920 05:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Names

[edit]

You should see other edits by Añoranza, they are attempting to remove all operation names from Wikipedia, check out their contribution list. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 23:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just got on and saw them. In the process of restoring them. I am sick of these ass clowns --Looper5920 23:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Please remain civil in the future. Furthermore, this is an encyclopedia, there is a reason why articles concerning military operations do not have their propaganda terms as titles when avoidable. Thus, they should also be avoided when linked to. Thanks. Añoranza 00:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You realize that I am not questioning the names of the articles. However, military units take place in military operations and your crusade is absolutely wrong. Because it is an encyclopedia Operation names are not warranted? I do not get the correlation.--Looper5920 00:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Añoranza I made a post regarding it, it seems Anoranza feels it was not settled last time, I think its time admins made a decission, your comments will be welcomed. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, redirects should be avoided. Second, operations usually get propaganda names. As they are not neutral, they should be avoided whenever possible. I carefully looked at all articles where I replaced them and found they could be replaced unless they were in a list of operation names or something like that. The fact that an article is about the military does not mean that military propaganda needs to be used.
Zer0faults, thanks for your umpteenth section at the administrator's noticeboard regarding me without ever trying to resolve conflicts via talk and this without harassing admins. Thank you also for again trying to incite others to attack me. Añoranza 00:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You were already told by admins your edits were overzealous, why don't you try sticking to that decision instead. I find it funny that you refused to comment on my proposal on the RfC yet find so much time to mass edit articles, yet you want me to resolve conflicts? I think people see what is going on here already. Furthermore some of the articles you edited were nothing but paragraphs of operation names that someone took part in, so according to your own words they should have been left alone. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I stroke out Zer0faults's comment he knows to be fallacious. This is again an attempt to discredit me and to post innuendo where it is inappropriate. Añoranza 01:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the strikeout and offer a link Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive108#User:A.C3.B1oranza User:Cyde said "I think this user is being overzealous though" I think I have supported this claim already before. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 01:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was one user and he is no admin, you were already told so. Furthermore, he was mislead by your perfidious tactics to discredit others. Stop using other users' talk pages for discussion with third parties. Añoranza 01:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure I'm still an admin, if you're referring to me...? Kirill Lokshin 01:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anoranza is refering to User:Cyde, which is an admin also. I do not know why they keep striking it out. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 01:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Advice

[edit]

Yeah, we've had some problems with that user before. The scope of the changes he's making is so massive that the only real option here would be to pursue formal dispute resolution, which tends to be a waste of time for little benefit. My advice would be:

  1. So long as he's not actually moving articles around, compromise on the linking issue in-text. I'm not really convinced that hidden links (e.g. [[Invasion of Foo|Operation Bar]]) is actually beneficial in any substantial way; unless we're talking about the actual operational plans, talking about the codename rather than the battle isn't really necessary (in my opinion, anyway). Certainly you should not edit-war with him over the issue, or the 3RR patrol will have the head of everyone involved in short order.
  2. If he does try to move pages around, require evidence that the terms he wants are the ones predominantly used in English-language sources; that, at least, should keep some of the more unusual variations out of the running.

Sorry for not being able to help more with this. Kirill Lokshin 00:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you suggest is exactly what I am trying to enforce: avoiding redirects to propaganda terms were inappropriate. Note that it is Zer0faults who is well known for the trouble he starts while I got blocked for a 3RR violation that was none by an admin who was in a conflict of interest and that the consensus shows my original move is supported by the community. Añoranza 00:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the redirects, this users continues to revert, please stop misrepresenting your cause. You are also advocating the moving of articles now ... Considering you just came off a 1 week ban for being Uncivil to admins, I think its best you do not mention 3rr blocks, it reflects badly on you. Also considering noone supports most of your edits and your RfC, I fail to see your concensus. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
you once again broke the rules of linking to RfC's this will be noted, you are not suppose to do it in a negative way. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are rules about linking to RFCs now? Are you sure you're not confusing it with rules about advertising RFCs? Kirill Lokshin 00:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user is advertising it by mentioning it here to you. It is suppose to be done in a neutral way, not taking a side in an attempt to entice someone to comment on it. "To request other users to comment on an issue, add a link to the Talk page for the article, a brief neutral statement of the issue, and the date." --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The rule is in regard to "How to use RfC" --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That only applies to the actual RFC listing page, though, not to discussion of the RFC on other pages. Kirill Lokshin 01:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It says to request others to comment on an issue, add a link to the talk page for the article., That would not make much sense if it was for the RfC listing page. How would you tell the user on their talk page about it, if you were posting on the RfC listing page? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 01:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's talking about an article RFC, not a user one; the talk page linked to is the one for the article in question. Kirill Lokshin 01:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its under overview, its not about articles only, its about how RfC are suppose to work and how you are suppose to inform others of them. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 01:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:NewtownSquareSign.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq and the War on Terrorism

[edit]

Wikipedia:WOT is up for vote now. Rangeley 15:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Portal formatting changes

[edit]

I see that you added an "In the news" box. Bold move ... it will require frequent updating.

Suggestion ... how about moving the New Articles section up, so it is just below the featured picture. —ERcheck (talk) @ 13:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks!

[edit]
Thanks for voting!
Hello Looper5920/Archive 3, and thank you so much for voting in my recent RfA. I am pleased to inform you that it passed with a final tally of (119/1/3), into the WP:100, so I have now been cleared for adminship and will soon be soaring above the clouds. I was overjoyed, shocked, and humbled by the tally, and, most importantly, all the support. Thank you. If there is ever anything you need, you know where you can find me. Take care.

--Pilot|guy 22:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For In the news

[edit]

Here is a headline for the USMC Portal:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Looper5920/Archive_3&oldid=1089973449"