| Revision as of 23:59, 17 June 2006 editLooper5920 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users48,117 edits Looking for your advice← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:47, 18 June 2006 edit undoAñoranza (talk | contribs)1,398 edits →Need you helpNext edit → | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
| == Need you help == | == Need you help == | ||
| If you could, there is a ] who has begun removing all Operational names from military pages without any discussion. It is turning into a revert war and as I can feel my blood pressure rising. I am asking for sane outside help before it gets any worse. Your advice is welcomed.--] 23:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC) | If you could, there is a ] who has begun removing all Operational names from military pages without any discussion. It is turning into a revert war and as I can feel my blood pressure rising. I am asking for sane outside help before it gets any worse. Your advice is welcomed.--] 23:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :Thank you for your reply. I am a bit concerned about your comment "we've had some problems with that user before." In my eyes, this shows how well the perfidious tactics of ] work. He reverts with excuses like "fixed redundancy" instead of just fixing the redundancy, bugs admins at the noticeboard instead of trying to resolve the conflict and misrepresents facts: ]. I got blocked for a 3RR violation that was none by an admin who was in a conflict of interest and the consensus shows my original move at ] is supported by the community. ] 00:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:47, 18 June 2006
|
Archives |
User:Kirill Lokshin/Accountability
Unsourced?
Look at the bottom of the article, please. Those are the sources.--HQCentral 03:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not going to go look at the sources at the library again to make that distinction. So, the tags serve no purpose.--HQCentral 03:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Re: Collier's Encyclopedia: thank you for supporting me on this. It seems to me that the fact that HQCentral does not plan to fill in the citations is neither here nor there: it does not entitle him to say that they are not needed. - 23:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Question regarding template
I was just wondering, on some military related pages I find the template WikiProjectBattles, which is very similar to the WPMILHIST, if not identical. Is it an older version? If so, should I replace it with the WPMILHIST? Thanks. --James Bond 10:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Your opinion
Would like your opinion regarding this point i've raised, here.--James Bond 11:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Re: Request
Kirill, I'd love to. But one thing: Mexico-Angola comes on in about 13 minutes. Is it all-right if I do it after that?UberCryxic 18:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I went through once and made some changes. Tell me what you think.UberCryxic 22:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Ideas on best way to fix an article
I was surfing around and again stumbled on the United States Army page. For such a high profile article it needs some major work (actually it's a mess). Since it falls under the realm of WPMILHIST I figured I would ask your opinion as to the best way to begin cleaning this up. Make it a collaboration? Clean Up Task Force
? Interested to hear your thoughts?--Looper5920 03:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Australian Task Force
Hi Krill, I have been discussing with ERcheck the possibility of an Australian task force within the Military history wikiproject. There is at least 2 users; Nick Dowling and myself interested in helping. I have come to ask for help in setting up the force, im not sure where to start. Regards Hossens27 13:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Need you help
If you could, there is a user who has begun removing all Operational names from military pages without any discussion. It is turning into a revert war and as I can feel my blood pressure rising. I am asking for sane outside help before it gets any worse. Your advice is welcomed.--Looper5920 23:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. I am a bit concerned about your comment "we've had some problems with that user before." In my eyes, this shows how well the perfidious tactics of Zer0faults work. He reverts with excuses like "fixed redundancy" instead of just fixing the redundancy, bugs admins at the noticeboard instead of trying to resolve the conflict and misrepresents facts: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Zer0faults. I got blocked for a 3RR violation that was none by an admin who was in a conflict of interest and the consensus shows my original move at United States invasion of Panama is supported by the community. Añoranza 00:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)