User talk:HiramShadraski
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, HiramShadraski, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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! Stifle (talk) 09:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Someone has sent for the Cabal!
The case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-17 Filibuster (military) has been opened. Please comment and help to come to an agreement. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 3RR
You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule at Filibuster (military). Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Thanks! --Chris S. 13:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi there! I got your e-mail; I counted four reverts, and not two, within a 24-hour period. :-D Relevant links: [1] [2] [3] [4] Thanks. --Chris S. 22:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mediation
Regarding Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-17 Filibuster (military) - I've not seen anything from the other person (Doughface) and a check of his talk page indicates that he's left WP. Should I take this as an indicator that I've "won" the dispute? If so, I intend to change the links in the "see also" section back.
Sorry if this is a stupid / inappropriate question - I'm a rank newbie.
HiramShadraski 14:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's OK. The Mediation Cabal doesn't declare "winners" or "losers", it just exists to provide friendly answers to questions and help users come to an agreement. However, since Doughface appears to have left, it is unlikely that you will be reverted if you change the links back. If you are, however, then think long and hard about re-reverting, as it may be the case that others are opposed to your changes too. Stifle (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Osama bin Laden
Who is Osama bin Laden if not a "a private individual who engages in unauthorized warfare against a foreign country"? I'm making the case that Osama bin Laden is indeed a contemporary example of a military filibusterer, and that as such he should be included in the historic article as a modern example. (I'm not arguing that archaic term need be included in his own article.) In any case, some semantic distinctions probably need to be made eventually between non-state actors, terrorist organizations, private armies, freedom fighter and military filibusterers. A can of worms, I know, but private individuals have a lot more techological prowess at their disposal than Walker did his his day! A rising tide lifts all boats. Kencf 21:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Old conversation about Panama Canal Zone
Hello again, Hiram. I was going through my old edits & noticed that I mistakenly placed this conversation on your User Page, my apologies. Here are the contents:
Panama Canal Zone Hi. I only lived in the Canal Zone from 72-75, at that time some of the restrictions were in place. Perhaps the entry needs clarification with the proper citations. Thanks for your attention.--Son of Somebody 19:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Once again, thanks for your input. Let's discuss it on the talk page instead of each other's user pages, shall we?--Son of Somebody 13:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
--Son of Somebody 03:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Killian documents
Hi. I reverted your revert at Killian documents. You may not have been aware of this, but there is an active discussion going on its Talk page regarding many, many problems with the version you reverted to. Reverting all the corrections without discussion and only putting "NPOV" into the edit summary as your "explanation" might be considered vandalistic, especially considering all the recent problems there have been with sockpuppets and such causing trouble with that wiki. FYI. (PS -- should I call you "(deleted)"?) -BC aka Callmebc 15:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Javier and the commas
I double-checked and -- sorry to tell you -- s/he is right about those commas, even if s/he is being a tool about it.
When the full month, day and year appear in a sentence, the year must be either offset on BOTH sides by commas or a period must be placed after the year to end the sentence.
A semicolon may be used in place of the comma after the year when the entire date is part of a longer list where semicolons are being used.
A semicolon may be used in place of the period after the year when said semicolon is linking two independent clauses.
It's an all-too-common mistake.
Sorry... almost forgot to sign... The GrammarCzar
[edit] Cesar Millan Article
Sorry, I'm very new in Wikipedia and I didn't know about the talk page before. For making an article look objective I think we have to post all the pros and cons of the subject, in this case, Cesar Millan. If you post only the critics part, you are misguiding people to a wrong conclusion about him, so, is like manipulating the article. Is because of this that I have posted a prises part on the article (or delete the critics one). I don't have any interest in making Cesar look more atractive, since I'm from Spain and don't have any link with him, but I think we have to try to make articles look neutral.
A part from this, I think the "legal" part of the article, doesn't have to be in the "critics" part, it has to be an independent one.
Sorry for any inconvenience,
Regards from Spain
--Emongeca7 (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 3RR on Little Green Footballs
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Article. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Sorry to teplate you, but I'd rather not see one of the good ones get slapped with a ban. McJeff (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AN/I on LGF
Just so you know, I've listed Eleland and Timeshifter on AN/I for their disruptive actions on the LGF article. McJeff (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
