Revision as of 03:26, 16 November 2005 editGeorgewilliamherbert (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users16,680 edits →"Vandals and idiots"← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:08, 16 November 2005 edit undoChristopher Thomas (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers5,839 edits Added RFArb notice.Next edit → | ||
Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
*** Please be more careful. You're making a mess. ] 03:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC) | *** Please be more careful. You're making a mess. ] 03:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
==Notice of Request for Arbitration== | |||
As it does not appear that an amicable solution to the contention over ] will appear, I've filed for a ]. ], ], ], and ] are named as involved parties. --] 04:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:08, 16 November 2005
Welcome!
Hi Tmayes1999! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Misplaced Pages community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Misplaced Pages page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! --Phroziac 23:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Welcome
Hello Tmayes1999, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on Talk page. Again, welcome! You 23:53, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to articles about nuclear weapons, You are certainly enthusiastic about this subject, and we appreciate this.
Please have a look at some of the Misplaced Pages:Manual of style pages. There are some places where your articles do not read like encyclopedia articles. Also you should note that if there is a space at the start of a paragraph, then Misplaced Pages will lay it out exactly as written, without linbreaks or anything. This is rarely what is needed. Some of your article is also duplicating things we already have at nuclear weapon, nuclear weapon design and similar articles. You might like to consider merging the A-bomb article with these.
Thanks for your contributions, and keep editing. DJ Clayworth 22:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
One of the othr things that is unusual about Misplaced Pages is the hyperlink structure. This means, for example, that when you are writing about atomic weapon design, and you mention an alpha particle, you don' have to explain what an alpha particle is. Instead you make a link to alpha particle and let people who want to know find out for themselves. That makes articles shorter, and doesn't disrupt readers who either already know, or aren't interested. Happy editing. DJ Clayworth 20:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
From User:Wolfkeeper, posted 17:19, 30 June 2005
Not sure quite what you're doing wrong, but your edits are trashing the formatting in the articles you edit; you are inserting line breaks semirandomly, and not putting them in where you need them. It may be a fault in your web browser, I would recommend Mozilla.
Your spelling leaves an enormous amount to be desired too.
For example:
equal - not eqaul
Please Keep
I want A-bomb to be restored as a stand alone article - Tim
- I have restored it - can you do some work on it now? cf the attention tag. :) ...en passant! 05:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Tim - I have no views on it myself - and was just referring to the tag that's there already. Have a fiddle and then remove the tag - if it gets re-posted asked the User what their concerns are. :) ...en passant! 06:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- Tag removed for you. You just go to edit and look for some thing in double {} type brackets and delete it.
- Hi Tim - I have no views on it myself - and was just referring to the tag that's there already. Have a fiddle and then remove the tag - if it gets re-posted asked the User what their concerns are. :) ...en passant! 06:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
You should be unblocked now. Calm down, you shared an IP with a vandal. I can't help that. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-30 13:56
A-bomb
If you want to discuss the creation of an "A-bomb" article, please do so on Talk:Nuclear weapon. Thanks. --Fastfission 21:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Formatting
Something about either your browser or your way of editing is screwing up the formatting of articles you edit. It is inserting paragraph returns in the middle of lines and spaces before lines. Please try and fix this. It causes people to spend a lot of time cleaning up after you and is very irritating, especially since someone has previously told you about it. --Fastfission 00:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
"Vandals and idiots"
Tim, you've been formatting articles poorly, spelling things wrong, and replacing well-written sections with things like "The most common method of detonating an A-bomb is called the implosion method. The implosion method is superior to the gun method of detonating an A-bomb." It was not me that origionally put that statement in the article. All I did was fix the grammar errors, and so on that were made by who ever wrote the statement.*
You had a large number of factual errors in your A-bomb article despite your "garuntee" (you claimed the last US nuclear test was 1994, it was actually in 1992; you claimed current worldwide stockpiles were around 100,000, they are actually around 20,000; etc.), and in the end it was apparently just a dump for you of pseudo-precise values from other websites. I don't think your "A-bomb" article was anything to be excited about, and frankly I'm not very thrilled about your edits to Nuclear weapon design. They are misformatted (you've been asked at least twice to try and correct this), they are full of spelling, grammar, and formatting errors, and you have been replacing standard terminology with antiquidated phrases like "A-bombs". Whether or not fission weapon design needs its own devoted article is a good question, but your approach is thoroughly wrong-headed, and calling people who have, in very good faith, tried to contact you, work with you, and correct your errors "vandals and idiots" is not a very good approach either. --Fastfission 02:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- The last live nuclear test really was in 1994 after a two year moratorium created by the
clinton administration in 1992.*There were no significant factual errors in the A-bomb article. There was only a few typing errors.You have misquoted me on the 100,000 weapon stockpile. I was talking about the the size of the worlds stockpiles in the past during the cold war not about the size of curent stock piles.. There were spelling, and grammar puntuation errors most of which I fixed with my edits to the article. The nuclear weapons article you refer to was not very good. I edited it to improve it, and to eliminate the errors that were in it. Very few of the errors in article were actually made by me. I fixed many kinds of errors in the article nuclear weapons today that were made by other people ,and not by me. I never said that fission would convert a whole kilogram into energy in the A-bomb areticle at all. If you read it more closely you would see that I said specificly that fission converted less the 1000 th of the mass into energy.Your claim that I made that statement was never true to begin with. et el Tim
- All reputable sources put the last US nuclear test as having taken place on September 23, 1992. Check it for yourself. Your spelling, grammar, formatting, and capitalization errors were rampant in the article by the time it was turned into a redirect, and they continue both in your responses on this page and on your edits to Nuclear weapon design. Please do not re-create an "A-bomb" article -- there is considerable consensus against its existence. It is not, and was never, the correct article title — "A-bomb" is by itself just an abbreviated form of "atomic bomb" which is an imprecise and antiquated name for fission weapons, one which was considered imprecise and poor even in 1945. Your "corrections" have included bad writing, bad spelling, and lots of pseudo-precise nonsense pasted in from other sources, and will require a good deal of correction themselves. Please just take a look at the number of changes which were recently made to clean up your formatting and spelling errors to the article. Take a look at how you left the article, misformatted and horrible looking. This is not a case of a few typos; it is a systemic problem with everything you have so far contributed to Misplaced Pages, one you have shown no intention of fixing. My patience is wearing pretty thin. --Fastfission 03:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- I would like to second Fastfission's comments.
- Second, there are huge typing and spelling and grammar errors in everything I've seen you do. If you really don't know better and still want to contribute, please ask someone else to help proof stuff before you load it up for live content.
- Please be more careful. You're making a mess. Georgewilliamherbert 03:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Notice of Request for Arbitration
As it does not appear that an amicable solution to the contention over A-bomb will appear, I've filed for a Request for Arbitration. Tmayes1999, Christopher Thomas, Fastfission, and DV8 2XL are named as involved parties. --Christopher Thomas 04:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)