Sorry for confusing you about the article. I was merely expanding upon another user's basic article template. I have now finished working on that article for now. Bobo.23:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Barack Obama for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you. GrszReview!19:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second warning, do not use Talk:Barack Obama for general discussion or to mention fringe theories such as this: [1] ... Note that WP:BLP applies to talkpages as well as articles. Introduction of non-sourced or poorly sourced BLP violations is disruptive. --guyzero | talk20:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the ban lifted a while ago, but I have things to do besides WP: OWN. I guess I need to find some more sources to include that Obama funded "racially charged" organizations - I'd like to figure out how many sources I need though since my first source is already pretty good. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Grsz, If you link off the page protection article to "requests for", you find the sentence:
"requesting indefinite semi-protection, be aware that it is only applied to articles with endemic and endless vandalism problems which multiple increasing periods of temporary semi-protection have failed to stop."
They way I understand this is endemic and endless vandalism, which the Obama page doesn't seem to have IMO, and this is speaking of semi-protection, much less full protection, which is a last resort. DigitalNinja13:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. I'm not sure how I feel about the issue though. I certainly think Obama has had enough to warrant protection, but I'm not sure about the others. Grsz11→Review!16:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This exchange is drifting a bit from general noticeboard stuff, so I suppose it's best to mention something here. My standard offer if an editor does get sitebanned is to support their return after 6 months if they refrain from socking etc. and promise not to repeat the behavior that led to the ban in the first place. I've been known to adjust that downward to 3 months under good circumstances, such as a productive history on another wiki. Best, DurovaCharge!01:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That makes good sense, and I think thats pretty good judgment if you ask me. Thanks for letting me know where you stand on the issue. It's good to know that most peop
I'm using Wikipedia:Huggle. It's a godsend for vandalism revert-ers like you and I because it automates many tasks, for example, it automatically posts a notice about a frequent vandal on [Wikipedia:AIV Administrator Intervention against vandalism].
If you want to use it just ask for a permission to use the rollback feature and then download huggle. (You need the rollback feature to use huggle).
No, the problem was that I wanted to remove vandalism by an IP, but as (somehow) I couldn't 'twinkle' it, this turned out to be a mess.--Miacek (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I was wondering what that meant. I was just in the process of transferring $6.00 to my PayPal account per that edit sum :-D DigitalNinja21:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, generally in programming code $1, $2, etc are sort of like placeholders. It's like {{{1}}} in Wikicode. Say you were writing a template and you wanted the user to be able to change parts of it, like a block message. If this were your block message: "You have been blocked by [ADMIN]" and you wanted to turn it into a template, you would code it like this "You have been blocked by [[User:{{{1}}}|]]" and then when you placed the template (say the template was called "blocked") you would write it like this: {{blocked|1=L'Aquatique}} and the result would be "You have been blocked by L'Aquatique". $1 works the same way in programming code, those amounts were supposed to be replaced names and such, but for some reason didn't. Make, uh, cents? (bad pun)
Should have done this before... I had a look at your WIP. WOW. My first go didn't look anything like that good. :( A few minor things. Your caption for the steel version is a bit unclear. I get the sense you're talking about the difference in finish v the poly, but some clarification might be helpful. Also, the magazine link should go here, & I'd write out CCW rather than abbreivate (like so: "concealed carry or CCW"). And I'm not sure I'd count a trigger guard as a safety feature; it's too common. (I won't argue it isn't, just not really noteworthy.) I'd also delete SA from ROF & tweak the syntax on mag capacity a bit. Still, for a first go, this is exceptional. TREKphilerhit me ♠ 08:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
remove CCW and insert 'concealed carry'.
re-caption steel version - clarify.
relink magazine
re-think "trigger guard as a safety".
SA removal, syntax. not really sure about deleting the SA from ROF. Can you explain?
I'm thinking to leave the trigger guard in the safety piece, as the owners manual directly mentions it in their own "safety features" page. However, I'd like some discussion on that because I completely understand where you're coming from about it being not exactly notable.
Thanks for the suggestions! I'll try and get them lined up. Since you seem like an active member on this wikiproject, feel free to point me to some articles you are either a) wanting to work on, or b) in process of, and I'll help out. It might be fast (and fun!) to tag team some of these. Our Wikiproject needs to be bigger, and get some more respect around here lol DigitalNinja
SA. In the infobox. Semiauto isn't really a rate of fire, & I think ROF is more for machinepistols & automatic rifles & such. Have a look at the Projects list of redlinks. If I'm right & those are your own digital pix, maybe you can get some shots of sample ammo; that's looking a perennial issue. And don't forget, where you live, there might be geographical features, buildings, & things (not related to this project) that might bear pix, too! (I know, I did.) Check your city page here, or your state, or both, & have a look at their Project pages, too. About 'tag teaming", I confess, my sources are a bit weak on weaps, but if you've got something in mind, do ask, I'll see what I can do. Oh, one other thing, check the other language WPs; they may have pix you can use, or an article you can copy (translate) or borrow from. (Just don't rely entirely on babelfish or something; that comes out pretty awful...) And if you do find a common article, link out to it. (Take a look at Tank & go to one of the green links on the top of the page to see what I mean; to link out is a bit complicated to explain, so if you get one, might be easier to show you.) Hope this helps. TREKphilerhit me ♠ 17:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, no. Let me have a stab. (But not right away, gotta go....) And if you haven't already, let me suggest you watchlist it. I watchlist all mine, at the risk of being accused of ownership; I figure if I know enough to create it, I know enough to keep other people from b*ggering it up. And "show preview" before you save, to be sure you don't go thru redirects (like magazine does). TREKphilerhit me ♠ 17:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. If I don't, somebody else will. And RL is known to intrude...
Is there a magazine safety? An ability/not to fire with the mag removed might bear mention.
"subcompact design" I have trouble with the automotive language. I'd say a snubbie, but that's a bit unencyclopedic. I used cropped, which I'm not really happy with, so if you've got something better...
So you don't get drive-by {{fact}} tagging, I'd fn the polyframe & fact more weight absorbs recoil; we may know that, but....
Also made a couple of layout changes to make the pix EZr to find for later editors (actually me ;D).
Just so you know, watch for overlinking. Generally, link the first mention only. And don't bother to pipe the links unless you really have to; firing pin, for instance, will get you there without piping, but single action might need it. (And this [[Trigger (firearms)#Single action|single action]] is how you go to a page subsection directly. Took me awhile to get that one right...)
Safety stop. I'm inclined to add "(commonly called a "hammer block")", but I can't cite it. If you can, & you're agreed, add it?
Are the sights available with tritium or other hi-visibility inserts? (Don't go to a big effort to find this, but if you come across it....)
Have a look now. And check the edit summay in the page history (if you haven't already watchlisted) for comments. (Don't take the Crusade personally, seems like the number of people who don't get it right are legion, so you've a lot of company. ;D ) TREKphilerhit me ♠ 04:34 & 05:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I think you're going a bit overboard on technicalities. Ask yourself: if I know nothing about firearms (or about this one), is this clear? If not, link to it. If i know a bit about firearms (or about this one), is this clear? If not, clarify. If I know a lot about firearms (or about this one), is this necessary? If not, take it out. And, is this directly relevant to this weapon? That's where I think you're in trouble. The links out can deal with the technical issues in more detail (& if you've got good info, well-sourced, which it looks like, do add it elsewhere!), so you don't need it on this page, if you see what I mean.
That said, some clarification of "3-dot" is appropriate. Why 3 dots? Even better, if you can photograph it (which I think might be clearer than explaining); the pic could be of use for other articles, too. (Which reminds me, if you haven't put the article's pix on Commons, will you do it? Ditto if you take one of the sights.) Just let me be clear: don't rely entirely on a pic, use it (if you can) to emphasize or clarify. (Some peopledisagreewith me.) TREKphilerhit me ♠ 07:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you cut & paste, they should work OK. And you may not have screwed up the Project boxes; I had a look at the main page, & there looks like an image problem somewhere, or they're not displaying properly for me. If you prefer a different Project box, just go back in a few days & swap out mine. Also, good on you for CZ 2075 RAMI. Did you add here? (I didn't notice that till long after I first joined... :( ) Also, "reformed vandal"? Outstanding! Hope you enjoy being on the right side of the law. ;D TREKphilerhit me ♠ 07:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the boxes! I went ahead and added some. I'll work more on the RAMI article, and I plan on adding a few more articles this week. Yeah, I got off on a rocky start here, but I definitely enjoy being on the right side of the law! :D DigitalNinja14:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, sometimes my humor gets me in trouble. I have an apparent, chronic syndrome of trying to ease the tension in otherwise very serious disputes by poking fun of the entire thing. I suppose I just realize that we're not on a timeline, and in the grand scheme of things; who really cares? So far the only person who my antics have no effect on is Wikidemon. He's completely immune to my lighthearted melodramatic attempts to install easy going spirit :) DigitalNinja20:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let me say I "followed" you for some time [no, not stalking ;)] and can say that with Wikidemon you have now two in your "immune" account. Just keep on doing as your nature guides you and you won't do wrong. That is the right approach anyway that more editors should follow. Happy editing.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed you signed the WP House proposal, the WikiProject has been formed a few months ago, if you're interested in joining, you can view the project page here.--Music26/1119:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote on my User page, "I am not related to or associated with Malik Zulu Shabazz of the so-called New Black Panther Party, except that we both chose our names in honor of El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz" (Malcolm X). I'm upset that a rabid racist and antisemite has adopted the name, but I've been using it as a "handle" in various online forums for more than 15 years. — Malik Shabazz (talk·contribs) 02:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I make a suggestion? Keep stuff like this in your own private sandbox, rather than the article talk? (And didn't you use yours to do the first draft on CZ2075?) TREKphilerhit me ♠ 08:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<--Why move? A couple of things. First, the article talk is more general, for everybody (also why I'd del your "to do" list); as it is, it kind of leaves a sense "this is my own personal page", a bit WIP, a bit...amateurish. (Don't take that the wrong way. ;) ) Maybe it's just me. (That wouldn't be a first, either. ;D) I prefer to keep stuff like that in private sandboxes (I've got 3-4 "template" pages, cats & all), & I cut/paste. I understand some people disapprove, preferring a move, tho I don't really know why; you moved yours, didn't you? Did you "lose" the sandbox in the process?
As for too much stuff, 2am edits will do that. ;D I only raise it so you know why I'm taking it out. I have trouble balancing what I know against what the beginner knows, sometimes, & I tend to come down on the side of putting in too little (which is sometimes a problem). It's EZ to fix.
Also, I'm glad to know you're pleased how it came out. Maybe you can work a little magic on mine; open up the "open vanity" boxes on my page, & pick at random. ;D Looking forward to your next effort. Pretty soon you won't need my help. ;[ Ciao. TREKphilerhit me ♠ 14:00 & 14:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you reverted my edits on University of Idaho claiming them to be vandalism, but if you looked closely, you would have realized that i simply split that section off into a new article. that's not vandalism. Check before you revert. PeaceOfSheet (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting me know it wasn't vandalism, however, you removed a large section of information and didn't leave an edit summary. It's difficult for me to note the difference between vandalism Vs. contribution when large amounts of text are removed for no apparent reason. I apologize for reverting your edit. Please use edit summaries in the future. Cheers, DigitalNinja22:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I've been debating on using a template, however, I decided I just like good 'ol fashioned "talking" :) Happy editing on improving your article, and if you need anything let me know. DigitalNinja22:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 9 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article CZ 2075 RAMI, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I know what you mean, the comments are tough to follow at times :). I think that is a result of edit conflicts. That is my only explanation for how my comment ended up below yours, because I put it under Tarc's. I was responding to he/she telling me I was threatening disruption when I in fact meant others would raise the issue. Landon1980 (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, sorry I didn't respond sooner, I was out shopping. I didn't think they would ever allow this to go through. If this needs to be done by attrition then so be it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed changing leaked to revealed on the talk page for ACORN. Please tell me if this is an acceptable compromise. Leak shifts the focus from ACORN to the FBI, IMHO, but I'd be willing to hear your arguments.Die4Dixie (talk) 05:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is enough Acorn releases to make this a fluff piece. I object to haviong one standard of reliable source for laudatory peacock words and the rejectioin of reliable source (the AP) for confirmed instead of leaked. Several blogs are currently cited. Perhaps people ought to go back through and read the article and recheck every source following them back to the headwaters.I think the neutrality tag needs to stay , what do you think?Die4Dixie (talk) 05:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mylast comment on the talk page at acorn wasnt directed at you about publicly changing your opinion. It was meant for Bali, and sorry if I caused any confusionDie4Dixie (talk) 05:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually reading the article right now, and I'll have a full report on what doesn't pass WP:NPOV IMO. Sigh, I hate being a pain in the ass. I hope nobody thinks I'm deliberately being unreasonable if I change my opinion based on sourcing...
My non existant computer skill make editing tedious and my typing skills consist of two fingers. This and moderate ADHD serve to make my edits look like those of a five year old.; however, my critical and analytical skills are at least those of a 10 year old. :) There are editors on that page with whom I have had some problems in the past, and although we disagree, there is a mutual respect, so I'm sure that the experienced editors will not hold it against you. I obviously have not earned that same respect from Bali, but i'm sure if his purposes are in improving the article ( and I am sure they are) then I believe that I will have his respect too when It's all over. If you find some validity to the things i point out, don't feel you you need to do any mea culpas for anyone. I have been convinced several times on this project, and was the better for it each tiem.Die4Dixie (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for what it's worth I've dragged both GoodDamon and Wikidemon through AN/I's accusing them of working for Obama (I plead temporary insanity...I was a conservative talk radio junky for 6 months straight, 8 hours a day, then I went on an Obama BLP editing spree). Needless to say, I've had my differences with them too. However, I've learned that they're both some of the most respectable, good natured, and well intentioned people I've ever met on here. There is definitely a mutual respect between us, and I really don't want to do anything to imped that. They've helped me with all kinds of articles. Although, I fear they've become lost to the dark side ;-D DigitalNinjaWTF06:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I fixed the problem for you in this edit, just to let you know for future reference, you don't need to include the 'User:' in the template or it will break the template, it includes this automatically. Have a nice day! :) — neuro(talk)09:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You speedy tagged this article with the comment "This should be merged into Camera Lens article. Not notable enough for it's own article." Please remember that a merge can and SHOULD be performed without deleting the article so the attribution remains intact as required by the GFDL. Instead, you can merge the material and perform a redirect. - Mgm|(talk)12:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reminding me. Makes sense. I think that would normally be how I would have done it. It's probably just the fact I need to stop editing by 2am. DigitalNinjaWTF20:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took an interest in editing the Right-wing politics article about a month ago and I've noticed that it's frequented by POV pushers -- basically their goal is to attribute all of the qualities of extreme American conservativism to the entire group of right wing political philosophies, and to attribute anything describe as "conservative" to right-wing politics. It's regularly a group of three editors who partake in this.
I don't have diffs handy at the moment, but they frequently attribute information to existing sourced information, insert non-sourced or poorly sourced information, edit templates to remove neutrality concerns, on the most part ignore the talk page (one of them infrequently uses it, but he basically uses it for more poorly/non sourced POV), rally people on user talk pages to join, incorrectly cite Wikipedia policy, and well... push a point of view that isn't supported by the article's content, amongst other things. It's been a short time, but judging by comments they've left on each other's pages, their edit summaries, and the content of their edits, I don't think reason is going to win out here. Do you have a suggestion on further steps I could take? Request for comment? Admin intervention? Incident report? Some other avenue? Your advice would be helpful since the nonsense is getting tiring, and judging by your comments and contributions to the content dispute on the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 I think you have a good grasp of the best ways to resolve these types of issues. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 19:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at the article this afternoon or early evening. Unfortunately, with these political articles (especially Republican/conservative) they attract sock-farms and POV warriors like no tomorrow. Just remember, there isn't a deadline, and the article can always be changed or modified :)
Oh, and it would be a good idea to open a word file, and save as many diffs and examples of what you described above, as well as a list of editors involved. We just blocked/banned a sock army on the ACORN page, and the only way we did it was by proving a clear, concise editing pattern complete with positive checkuser results on AN/I. It's important to document everything. Also, there are multiple venues to address these issues, but mostly just being articulate in your points with properly sourced support gets the job done. RfC is an option for a group of good-faith editors trying to reach a consensus. AN/I would be a last resort when all else has been exhausted. Admins really don't want nor have time to hash out content disputes, so that's why it's so important to thoroughly document evidence of abuse -- regardless of what that is (POV, Sock, Warrior, etc).
Thanks for the advice! I've decided to follow your advice and have created a whiteboard for the case I am building against the POV pushers at Right-wing politics. The whiteboard is accessible here: User:Amwestover/The Case Against Barack Obama and so far I have an outline of the case I intend to build. I will soon begin to include diffs and examples of the allegations I have against each user, and I am inviting other users to participate. I know that you're busy and are a third party to all this (but if you'd like to contribute to the case that'd be great too), but if possible I would like for you to review the case while it's being built and once it's complete since you have experience with a successful incident report. Thanks again! --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 16:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. It's been so long since I looked at my user page I'd forgotten that that userbox was there. "You're very welcome", I usually say, "it was an honor and a privilege." It was indeed both, and a pleasure, and I cried when I left. I still have "righteous fury" issues over the discrimination that Vietnam Era vets, and those with invisible handicaps, faced years ago. I had thought I was over all that, long ago, but it suddenly erupted again recently (thankfully, in a wordy form, rather than violence.) Semper Fi! htom (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Following your suggestion (how long ago was that...? A year? ;D), can I ask if you can help out here? My copy of Barnes has an evident contradiction over the caliber. If you've got something newer, or something on British Army smallarms... Feel free to fix it, if so. If not, no worries. Thanx. TREKphilerhit me ♠ 08:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear. If you do come up with an answer, will you post a "done" here & here, so nobody has to duplicate it? Thanks a bunch. Ciao. TREKphilerhit me ♠
I had another thought: is this a matter of inside or outside lubrication? I've seen cases where the bullet diam changed when style of lube changed, while bore remained the same. TREKphilerhit me ♠ 05:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The difference may be more than is visible. The .41 LC was originally outside lube & true .410, inside lube'd is .387. (Says Barnes; I knew I'd seen it...) That might explain it. Could also be it was redesignated, to keep the different rounds from being mistakenly swapped (which the Soviets routinely did, & I think the 7.92mmK was named to avoid using full pow 8mm Mauser in them. Whatever, here's hoping you can find it; a .476 round you can fire in a .455 would make a DYK fer sher. ;D (And I can use my own userbox, too. :D) Ciao. TREKphilerhit me ♠ 04:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to break it to you after your generous offer, but I got help from Commander Zulu just tonight on the .476 ish. Thanks, tho. And if you do get anything new, do add! And, FYI, I think this one can earn a DYK. (My .44 Colt failed, being too short. :[ Need to add some...) TREKphilerhit me ♠ 05:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wishing you happy Christmas. Hopelly this makes your Christmas better! Cheers, and happy editing! (Yes, it's a bit early. I don't want to forget. And somebody gave me one, so I'm regifting. ;D TREKphilerhit me ♠ 02:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:CZ 2075 RAMI P magazines.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:CZ 2075 RAMI P magazines.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:CZ 2075 RAMI P magazines.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 09:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
