User talk:Patton123/Archive/April 2009
| Archives |
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
[edit]The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Question on your comment at WP:AN
[edit]Why did you remove your comment here? The discussion is ongoing, and the dispute is unresolved as of now. Timmeh! 21:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- I thought he has been topic banned. Anyway it wasn't very polite, and thus was innapropriate. I've been a bit of a dick as of late.--Pattont/c
- That move was reversed, as the closing admin didn't really let enough time for editors to weigh in on the issue. I urge you to make your opinion known on the issue, and you can certainly do that without insulting anyone. We need the input of as many editors as possible so we can gain an accurate consensus. Timmeh! 23:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Alright will do lol.--Pattont/c 10:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- That move was reversed, as the closing admin didn't really let enough time for editors to weigh in on the issue. I urge you to make your opinion known on the issue, and you can certainly do that without insulting anyone. We need the input of as many editors as possible so we can gain an accurate consensus. Timmeh! 23:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Re: Unverifiable?
[edit]Yeah, ignore what I said about verifiability on that source. I think I just looked at it very quickly and noticed it required a paid subscription but not that it was a newspaper, or something. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- No problem lol :-).--Pattont/c 18:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
It was described as a falconet on the website.
That's your opinion, which you are entitled to. It fits the description: a small-bore cannon resembling an oversized musket on a two-wheeled carriage. Whether it's muzzle-loading or breech-loading is irrelevant.
Thank you
[edit]
|
Military history reviewers' award | |
| By order of the coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Roger Davies talk 13:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC) |
- Thanks!--Pattont/c 14:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
RE: Barnstar
[edit]Thanks :) I'm aware it won't pass, but I'm happy to have pretty much 2:1 support. I'll get as much feedback as possible and let it pan out whichever way it goes, I suppose :) Thanks again for the barnstar. —Cyclonenim | Chat 14:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Patton. Congrats on FA for SAW! We have a long running discussion on what should be the lead image, with editors regularly swinging by to swap in a tank of their preferred nationality. When I saw the image had changed again I nearly popped a blood vessel :) Please join the discussion if you would like to contribute to a consensus on a more 'typical' tank image. Thanks Dhatfield (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oh right lol, mine was just a drive-by edit as the M3 Lee isn't exactly a typical tank. Will check :-)--Pattont/c 22:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Our image selection is a bit dire. Thanks for your contrib. Dhatfield (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories
[edit]Thanks for not deleting the article. The article in its prior state definitely deserved deletion, but before recreating the article I have ensured that the sources were reliable and looked at the issues raised in the AfD. The article obviously has room for expansion, and although I won't be taking part in the article, I'll still be watching it for vandalism and unreliable sources. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hey no problem, it definitely wasn't recreation of deleted material, the previous version was awful, but your work is really good. Happy editing to you too!--Pattont/c 13:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
RfA Thankspam
[edit]| Thanks to everyone who took the time and trouble to take part in my RfA whether support, oppose or neutral. All comments are valued and will be considered carefully in the coming weeks. Feel free to add more advice on my talk page if you think I need it. SpinningSpark 22:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC) In case you're wondering, the image is a smiley, just a little more aesthetic, but not as serious as the Mona Lisa |
 |
Macedonia
[edit]FYI, the Macedonia issue on which you commented yesterday is now at arbitration - see WP:RFAR#Macedonia naming dispute. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I think that I've now addressed your comments on this article's A-class review. Do you think that any further changes are needed for the article to reach A-class? thanks, Nick-D (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, —— nixeagleemail me 03:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)