| Revision as of 16:11, 10 November 2012 editNuclearWarfare (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators83,664 edits →Second pair of eyes: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:59, 10 November 2012 edit undoDennis Brown (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions69,230 edits →Arb: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| NW, if you have the time, I would love some notes on how to improve an article ('']''), that I am building towards FAC in a few weeks. Best, ] (]) 06:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC) | NW, if you have the time, I would love some notes on how to improve an article ('']''), that I am building towards FAC in a few weeks. Best, ] (]) 06:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :Well, as far as the analysis and commentary section goes, I would try to make clear which criticism was contemporary and which is the result of looking at things from a later lens. That way might allow you to restructure how you approach that section in general. Also, have you exhausted the sources available for the topic? '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 16:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC) | :Well, as far as the analysis and commentary section goes, I would try to make clear which criticism was contemporary and which is the result of looking at things from a later lens. That way might allow you to restructure how you approach that section in general. Also, have you exhausted the sources available for the topic? '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 16:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == Arb == | |||
| You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at ] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use— | |||
| * ]; | |||
| * ]. | |||
| Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice --> ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 20:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:59, 10 November 2012
| This is NuclearWarfare's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
 Archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Protection of the Chinese-language-name re-directs for the Senkaku Islands
A secret content-fork of the Senkaku Islands was managed to be created by an Australian-based Chinese-speaking editor. Surely, ALL Chinese-language-name re-directs should also be under full protection from editing? -- KC9TV 20:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Eh, preemptive protection isn't something that is generally done, given the large number of possible premutations of redirects that exist. Have you told TheChampionMan1234 about your redirection? NW (Talk) 22:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I see. There are only a few Chinese ones that I can really think of, actually, pretty much all with a combination of the name "Diaoyu" something. The re-direction was not in fact first initiated by me, but the content-fork was created, or resurrected, by this other editor after the last edit by User:Nihonjoe – who had in fact reinstated a re-direct – after the main articles were locked, on September the 17th.. Perhaps this is cowardice, but I would rather not do anything that would be inflammatory (or cause other to come "on my back"). He does not appear to be the original creator of the article, either as a simple hard redirect in the year 2003, or as a fork in the year 2005, before being repeatedly reverted and undone. -- KC9TV 00:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- I see. Well, if there are a few specific ones that you would like me to protect, let me know. NW (Talk) 00:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I see. There are only a few Chinese ones that I can really think of, actually, pretty much all with a combination of the name "Diaoyu" something. The re-direction was not in fact first initiated by me, but the content-fork was created, or resurrected, by this other editor after the last edit by User:Nihonjoe – who had in fact reinstated a re-direct – after the main articles were locked, on September the 17th.. Perhaps this is cowardice, but I would rather not do anything that would be inflammatory (or cause other to come "on my back"). He does not appear to be the original creator of the article, either as a simple hard redirect in the year 2003, or as a fork in the year 2005, before being repeatedly reverted and undone. -- KC9TV 00:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Second pair of eyes
NW, if you have the time, I would love some notes on how to improve an article (Washington v. Texas), that I am building towards FAC in a few weeks. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 06:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, as far as the analysis and commentary section goes, I would try to make clear which criticism was contemporary and which is the result of looking at things from a later lens. That way might allow you to restructure how you approach that section in general. Also, have you exhausted the sources available for the topic? NW (Talk) 16:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Arb
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Resysoping of FCYTravis / Polarscribe and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)