User talk:Parsecboy: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:24, 6 October 2007

Archives

Archive 1
Archive 2

Hello, Parsecboy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 16:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"misleading edit summaries"

"If an admin happens to stroll upon the issue at the page, they'll most definitely view it as an edit war, and they'll be much less likely to go easy on you if they see you using misleading edit summaries." Define "misleading edit summaries", there is nothing wrong with them. Now I have even provided a source (as it seemed that people could not bother to check the facts) - the United States Department of Defense to convince certain person about the United States involvement in the China threatre of war as an combatant. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 23:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWII images

If you actually read the talk page you will see where I highlighted my objection and why I thoguht each particular image should be kept. There is no concensus for this change, Dna-Dennis merely experimented, I changed back some things, does not mean the new version stays.--Miyokan 02:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Word War II

You've been taking some serious flak from others during Word War II, flak which is the result of my previous actions. I just want to let you know that I appreciate your views & actions, either if they support or disapprove with me. Regarding the flak, I sincerely hope you're not wikistressed, but rather feel that it is/has been intellectually stimulating. I say so, because I was once myself very close to lashing out at some views. You have my sincere appreciation. My warm regards, --Dna-Dennis 06:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winky Bill

Does he happen to be a sockpuppet of Jetwavedave? They both seem to have the same style of writing ForeverDEAD 00:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikistalking Anon

You seem to have picked up a wikistalker in 65.102.184.183, who seems to be doing nothing more than reverting edits of yours and sometimes adding vandalisms (e.g., Firefighter). Askari Mark (Talk) 00:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed that, too. Makes me wish for a change in policy so that anon IPs can't edit. Binksternet 00:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the crowd! I think a great many editors would cheer if it would happen, but holding one's breath waiting for it to happen is not advised. :-( Askari Mark (Talk) 02:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WW2 Framework

Hi again Parsec!

Since I have clearly noticed our shared concern about the WW2 article size, and that you mentioned some stuff here, I just want to inform you that (mainly) Oberiko and I have had a long and IMO fruitful discussion starting here and leading to a basic framework here. If you have time, you might want to read it through and participate with comments/suggestions. If you have time/interest, that is. My regards, --Dna-Dennis 01:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WW2 Pics Asia/Pacific

Hi again Parsec!

I have noticed your "triggerhappiness" :) on pic inserts and stuff in the WW2 main article.

I just wanted to ask you if you think it's ok if I (at this moment) try to scrutinize the rest of the pics/captions, i.e. Asia/Pacific/Aftermath, hopefully improving selections/pruning? (Don't worry, I'll think it through and be careful). If you prefer that I wait, I don't mind. It's just that I feel an itch to do it at the moment...:) My regards, --Dna-Dennis 22:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I just worried about being too bold, considering the amount of changes I've done lately. Don't forget to flame me/undo if you disagree with any changes of mine. Regards, --Dna-Dennis 23:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You replaced my Pearl Harbor mighty battleship with your puny little destroyer! Shame on you! When those good, daring Japanese fought so bravely to defend their fatherland against the evil imperialism of USA! No seriously, I considered the destroyer pic as well - it is more dramatic, but I have trouble seeing the actual vessel itself. But neither I do care very much, so I let your puny destroyer be there. My regards, --Dna-Dennis 06:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Columbus (whaleback)

Hi, I just nommed this for GA. (I admit bias, I was the principal author) I noticed you rated it "start". What do you think it's missing to bring it to B? Perhaps you could comment on the article's talk page? ++Lar: t/c 18:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{Refactored to keep threads together per my policy ++Lar ) To be honest, I didn't really look at the article closely; we're in the middle of an assessment drive (we've assessed over 2000 articles in the past 3 weeks or so). We're trying to clear out the "unassessed articles" category, not necessarily review them to rate them "A" or "B" class.

However, to reply to your question, the article seems to be pretty good. In my opinion, and my interpretation of the assessment guidelines, it probably is at least a B class article. I've never reviewed an article (I've only been involved with the Ships Wikiproject for about a month now), and am generally sort of leery to do so, but I think that, in a fit of boldness, I'll rate it at "B" class. You may also want to ask someone more experienced than I to review it as well. Regards, Parsecboy 20:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been involved in a few assessment drives and know what you mean about time. Maritime isn't my area of focus so wasn't watching the project pages closely. But to being bold and giving it the B... I've also rated a few articles carefully and basically in the end you have to think about the criteria and go with your gut. It's not quite like GA where there are some pretty good criteria to use to decide. I'm pretty sure she's at least a B which is why I decided to put her up for GA. I expect I'll get shedfuls of feedback that way. I was sort of hoping you'd spotted something off so I could fix it. :) Thanks for your efforts. ++Lar: t/c 21:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I made a couple of minor fixes; the reference section wasn't formatted right, but I think the article is in pretty good shape. Regards, Parsecboy 21:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US army

Talk:United States Army#Terrorist Organization The Honorable Kermanshahi 20:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korean War

Ah, sorry, the main page is misleading! It shouldn't even be on there until the treaty is signed! Therequiembellishere 22:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remain civil??

If they are not idiots they are just creeps. They know that a concensus was reached! They were there. they know that the image they support is the one least support it. Yet they try to return it by lame arguments. How can i act civil to them? Please say something there. M.V.E.i. 17:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know how hard it was to get a consencus. You were there! Can we give some minority people to kill it all?? A revert war already started there just see the history. M.V.E.i. 17:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vicy were Axis. There was a French devision fighting for the Nazis at the Eastern front and the Race laws were active there, like in the whole Axis part of Europe, but leave that. If theres a problem with the image, it should be fixed. Just talk to Oberiko, he knows how to do that. But what they did was unforgiven, and esspecialy Haber. What was he thinking?? No one had any problems with returning the six-photo image instead of the big-normandy one because it has everything the previous one has, but more NPOV. But when reverting back to the big-normandy one, dont you see it would start a war?? Please talk to him. Leave him a messege, something. He really should have thought before acting. You know how i wanted the 6 photo image to be (and it was supported more then the 5 one). But yet i had the honesty to admitt a concensus was reached, and now trying to make shure the concensus will stay. I really couldn't handle it by myself. We will need a common effort to keep the concensus. I hope you agree with me on that. M.V.E.i. 18:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one? Really nice. It doesn't have the cool changing thing like their, but it's good. Is it correct? I haven't noticed any un-correctness in this one. What about you? Notice anything? If not i will upload it to the article. M.V.E.i. 18:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 77: / Line 77: @@
 :You know how hard it was to get a consencus. You were there! Can we give some minority people to kill it all?? A revert war already started there just see the history. [[User:M.V.E.i.|M.V.E.i.]] 17:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 ::Vicy were Axis. There was a French devision fighting for the Nazis at the Eastern front and the Race laws were active there, like in the whole Axis part of Europe, but leave that. If theres a problem with the image, it should be fixed. Just talk to Oberiko, he knows how to do that. But what they did was unforgiven, and esspecialy Haber. What was he thinking?? No one had any problems with returning the six-photo image instead of the big-normandy one because it has everything the previous one has, but more NPOV. But when reverting back to the big-normandy one, dont you see it would start a war?? Please talk to him. Leave him a messege, something. He really should have thought before acting. You know how i wanted the 6 photo image to be (and it was supported more then the 5 one). But yet i had the honesty to admitt a concensus was reached, and now trying to make shure the concensus will stay. I really couldn't handle it by myself. We will need a common effort to keep the concensus. I hope you agree with me on that. [[User:M.V.E.i.|M.V.E.i.]] 18:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
+:::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WWII.png This] one? Really nice. It doesn't have the cool changing thing like their, but it's good. Is it correct? I haven't noticed any un-correctness in this one. What about you? Notice anything? If not i will upload it to the article. [[User:M.V.E.i.|M.V.E.i.]] 18:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)