User talk:Badgerpatrol/Archive 3

Archives

1 2

Please subst templates :)

Hi Badgerpatrol! I've noticed that occasionally you do not subst: welcome or user warning templates. The way to do this is to include the word subst: between the opening braces ({{) and the template name. This expands the entire template text into the page, reducing server load should the template be changed. For more information, see WP:SUBST.

Examples include:

• {{subst:Welcome}}
• {{subst:uw-test3}}

Cheers! Yuser31415 04:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

WWII France

I can't see a real majority for anything. However, until now in no article has the inclusion of major combatants been objected (see WWI, etc. there were far more allies), so this proposal is a rather unconventional solution without any precendence. The whole discussion itself is a bit insane and too France-focused (what about Italy?). Besides writing axis and allies just moves the problem from one page to another and reduces the information provided in the WWII infobox. Wandalstouring 05:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you write the articles you want to link? It may help in the discussion. My problem is not that I can't live with a simple name for the alliances (or any other solution if it is done on a reasonable bases, for example if we make the inclusion based on merit it is likely USSR, UK, USA and China vs Germany and Japan - excluding Italy and France), but there are hardly any other military infobox using this style. Perhaps Peloponnesian War could be seen as a kind of precedence, but its really neath. Wandalstouring 14:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The allies article is a joke. It needs substantial buildup before it can be used for the purpose. Currently not a single ally is lsted there. Allies of WWII might be a better location for this purpose. I know that we have no guidelines on the subject, but we do try to keep wikipedia consistent as far as common sense permits. Choosing major combatants has hardly been a problem for other wars, but in case of WWII it is rather a France focused POV issue in the Anglo-Saxon world (As far as I could find out, the English version is the only wikipedia where it is considered to exclude France from the group of major allies). The poll did highlight that both sides are not minority opinions and as a result is very substantial for any progress. Wandalstouring 18:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Eton College

Hey, thanks for looking out for the article. I reverted the compromise, seeing as it seems rather convoluted, and the initial, cited consensus statement was a compromise from "is the most famous school" in its own right. Have a nice day. Yanksta x 10:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Dorset Conservative Future

Yes, no problem whatsoever. Thank you for the prior notification. Richardbooth 13:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

World War II Mediation Case

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/World War II, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. —Krellis (Talk) 21:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

University of Portsmouth

I notice that you asked for a citation for the university motto. I have added a relevant comment to Talk:University of Portsmouth which may interest you. It needs a little more work by someone. SMeeds 14:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Maelstrom

Please read up as to what a personal attack is, and do not remove messages without consent from the submitter. Thanks. Matthew 10:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to get a definition ("A word used sarcastically. Generally to someone who is looking for sympathy or pity."), none the less it's you prerogative to believe it is a personal attack or not, though I say it is not, HTH. Matthew 11:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

University of Portsmouth

I have just made an update to this article, reordering the "Notable Alumni" section and removing what I considered superfluous detail recently added. I have explained the latter here. I have also noted your comment at the top of the talk page about "notable academics". I do not know whether you or anyone else other than the previous contributor would consider this academic to be notable - you may want to contribute to any debate. SMeeds 09:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you have now deleted the entry; a good call I think, especially since no one tried to defend it. SMeeds 10:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Arkell v. Pressdram

An article that you have been involved in editing, Arkell v. Pressdram, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arkell v. Pressdram. Thank you. - Iridescenti 20:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject University of Oxford

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the University of Oxford. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! Casper Gutman 15:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

decades

Regarding this, 1970s says its from 1970 to 1979, inclusive. Truth be told, the "one per decade" limit is entirely arbitrary, but serves as a check to keep people from adding what would essentially be a list of the movies and games that have come out in the past two years. Cheers, BanyanTree 19:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "unreferenced", "fact", "cleanup" etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 10:43 5 April 2007 (GMT).

Spanish Civil War

Do you mean that "The US sent troops into the Spanish Civil War" or "Some combatants (on one side or the other, e.g. in the International Brigade or whatever) in the Spanish Civil War were Americans". These two statements are emphatically not the same. If the former, I find that remarkable, and this is the first time I have ever heard about this. I would be grateful if you could provide more details. Badgerpatrol 15:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, there was a volunteer military unit in the International Brigade made up of Americans, called the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. By 1937 it had about 450 members, and I'm not sure how they organized that but in the WWII infantry that could be from 2 or 3 companies to a whole battalion. It saw combat from 1937-1938. --LtWinters 17:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "my bad," when I said that, I should have said 'US volunteers joined the Abraham Lincoln Brigade.' Thanks. I don't have time now but I'm going to see if I can put in a sentence or two about the Spanish Civil War. --24.225.156.40 22:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

WWII

He's not voting because he thinks it a waste of time. And JWinters is my cousin, not a puppet. If I wanted another vote why would I make a similar name??? And I just want to point out that stubborness like this is what makes people say wikipedia commonly has false information. --LtWinters 19:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have read the archives, and I thought that was a waste of time, but where does wikipedia have an actual page setup for doctrine on how to vote? --LtWinters 11:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

I know about the problem with arbitration... I was rather astonished at that outcome, but then again I was also astonished that that person even participated in arbitration in the first place. But if one editor is acting in a disruptive way there is no need for us to sink to that same level.

Concerning your comment on the Allies of World War II article I partially agree that even now the intro is problematic, I guess I just hadn't looked closely before. But even taking that into consideration your edit didn't seem to be an improvement. The intro could probably use a complete rewrite.

But I have to appologise now, I just don't feel like working on these issues right now (too depressed), otherwise I'd try to propose an alternative for the Allies article (I fear we are stuck with a big problem at the WWII one). Hopefully I will be able to contribute in the coming days.--Caranorn 13:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

World War II Allies

Australia and New Zealand both did declare war by their own goverments very quicky after Great Britain did but basically didn't really have any choice because they were part of the British Empire. Worthhedges 15:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

London Bridge

That concrete bridge with its name written on the side; isn't that Waterloo Bridge rather than London Bridge? BTLizard 15:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

An end to the "bad faith" issue

Please see here where Kitty states that he forced the AfD]] therefore it was not a bad faith nomination. Can you please now strike through that statement.Vintagekits 13:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Shameless POV - my characterzation of Gen George Patton on Ted Roosevelt article

On the Theodore Roosevelt, Jr.article, you called my description of Patton's "brashness, impetuosity, arrogance and a self-promoting style" shameless POV. While I actually admire much about Patton, can you list even ONE modern reputable professional historian or Patton biographer who does NOT consider Patton "brash, impetous, arrogant and self-promoting?" The evidence beyond my mere opinion is incredible. Patton himself spoke of these aspects of his personality. Please defend your points that this characterization of him is NOT simply common knowledge of anyone who has read 3-4 biographies. Hey, it gave the man color. I suggest you read both his own biography as well as 2-3 that are out there. I admire the guy's so-called good points but don't make excuses for the other less "friendly" aspects of his character. If you read several biographies of Ted Jr, you WILL see that he WAS, in fact, a soldier's soldier - a HECK of lot more than Omar Bradley, whom I've come to realize was NOT what he portrayed himself to be. Look at THAT man's pre-WWII record. SimonATL 12:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Mikkalai Commenrts

Badgerpatrol, I read your discussion talkback [[1]] to Mikkalai, and I heartily agree. Of course, I'm concerned that he states on that page, "Please don't leave me any messages here. Most probably they will not be unanswered." It seems like he's taking a vacation of his admin duties, phoning in his resolutions without much consideration. To further illustrate, I invite you to read his summary of another debate regarding the entry for omnitopia [[2]]. It's a bit lengthy but you'll find (I believe) that he failed utterly to demonstrate any understanding of the issues raised. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Andywo 13:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Following up, thanks for your thoughts on this issue. I've had some contact with Mikkalai, and we'll see how things go... Andywo 23:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Badgers

Dare I ask why you patrol badgers? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone whom asks that question is frowned upon with suspicion. *Frowns upon with TPH with suspicion* Scarian 02:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite so. If I don't keep an eye out for the little blighters, who will? Eh? Eh? Exactly. Badgerpatrol 09:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

WW2

Badger, are you done with WW2? Although we disagreed, your opinion was valued.--LtWinters 19:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Anglophile

What dictionary are you basing this assertion on? I can't find reference to it anywhere. I happen to be British, and I'm much more likely to to use the Z instead of the S. If the final part of that paragraph is not empirical, I think it's a good idea to consider whether or not it should be kept in. SPTimoshenko 09:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for rewriting University College London intro. I believe, UCL is such a famous and prestigious institution all around the world that it does not need any slightly confusing fame. Current intro is completely perfect, in addition, some how you may also add that it was initially established as London University and later on renamed to its current name. Regards, Niaz bd 01:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Mountbatten

Thanks for spotting the questionable citation used as a reference for the claim that Canadians, and particularly the RC Legion, resent Mountbatten. I have substituted a scholarly secondary source (from Brian Loring Villa's study of the Dieppe raid). I think part of the problem is that to Canadians, especially early baby boomers like me, hating Mountbatten is second nature; we don't need no stinking evidence. One of the values of Villa's book is that it demonstrates we've been demonizing him (and the rest of the world idolizing him). I will probably add a summary of villa's conclusions, which seem even-handed, to the section. Approximate Vicinity 19:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply, which I only got round to reading just now because I messed up the link from my user page to my talk page. Interesting how important topics eventually just seem to languish, eh? I have since added Villa's conclusion that Mountbatten was acting without authority but with the tacit approval of his superiors. Approximate Vicinity 17:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

personal attacks

"Lay off the personal attacks" <-- What do you perceive as a personal attack? --JWSchmidt 22:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my comments were so easy to interpret as personal attacks. My goal is that Wikipedia have a good article about Crick...there is so much that is really interesting to say about him that it bothers me to think that Wikipedia's editorial choices might favor weak sources and trivia while ignoring more important topics and better sources. Anyhow, I'd like to try to stick to the editing process and effort to get Wikipedia's story about Crick's life into reasonable balance. On reflection, I admit that it may be that many Wikipedia readers are just naturally more interested in things like casual drug use by famous people than they are in fundamental scientific discoveries of the nature of life. I do hope we can work to cite reliable sources in support of Wikipedia editorial decisions rather than descend into all-to-common Wikipedia discussion sessions where, "Well, I think this is interesting," becomes more important than what has been published in reliable sources. --JWSchmidt 05:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom case

User:SqueakBox has filed Wikipedia:Request for arbitration#User:Vintagekits and you are a mentioned party. Kittybrewster (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Giano II's attack page

You should probably be made aware that Giano II is using 303's and Brixton Buster's (effective) technique of removing inconvenient material from user space:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGiano%2Fsome_thoughts&diff=153430452&oldid=153428848

One would have thought that he could have stuck to policy and guidelines at least while an ArbCom was pending84.13.10.123 22:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

K-T extinction event

Hi Badgerpatrol!

Hey, I saw your message on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event: "Good grief, I'm taking it from all sides here, aren't I! I genuinely wish I'd never contributed to this bizarre discussion." Badgerpatrol, please do not wish that. Anything that will help the article, including critical discussion, is important. I think the observations you've made are important and deserve to be addressed. Please do not allow yourself to be run off a FAC discussion because of this debate. I fully intend to take an in-depth look at the points you've raised on the FAC today, and assure you I take your comments seriously. Please, please, please do not be offended at the (IMO) aggressive welcome you have received on this FAC. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Badger,

Thanks for helping out with this article. I'm glad you were able to shrug off feeling upset about your less than enthusiastic greeting on the talk page and just help out with the article. I cannot say how Orangemarlin or Filll feel, but that's my feeling on the matter. Thanks for your edits. I added a citation for the material for which you wanted another citation, and fixed some minor problems. Are you happier with this article now? What else, in your opinion, needs to be improved? I want to be responsive to your concerns and address whatever still remains. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about my talk page; it has seen worse. I just usually remove anything that isn't addressed specifically to me, as there are probably better places to take these sorts of arguments.

Regarding the article: my heart jumped into my throat when you said it would take "a couple of weeks" to sort out the article. Already months have been spent refining this article. Orangemarlin began fixing up this article on May 18th and has edited it regularly ever since, often dozens of times a day. It has spent more than three months and 700 edits in preparation. But if that is what's required, that's what is required. I will try to help out as best I can, but I'm sure part of the reason the others became so exasperated is that I volunteered to help them, but wasn't able to improve the content very much at all. Firsfron of Ronchester 12:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Paleontologist, you say? Neat! What's your specialty? WikiProject Dinosaurs has a few paleontologists on board; if you're at all interested in extinct Mesozoic archosaurs, you'd be welcome to join. As far as the article goes: no, of course you shouldn't be expected to slave over the article night and day. I hope that wasn't the impression you got from my comment. I'm just delighted you've volunteered to edit out the problems. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 13:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry Badgerpatrol. I will not bother with that article again. I have had it with that article. It is not an article I have done much with. It is not an article I am very interested in. I have no expertise in your particular area. I am just helping a friend. And after helping for a couple of weeks, I do not see the article going in a positive direction. For a variety of reasons. I am sorry you are unable or unwilling to help fix the purported numerous errors and factual inaccuracies in that article. Maybe someone else can. I personally cannot. It is a shame, but that is what I guess the bottom line is.--Filll 20:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, an RfC is to "prove" if someone is right or not. I will say right here and now, and in the RfC, you are right. If this is such a big deal to you, you are right. I give. I call uncle. You can do or say whatever you like, with no response from me on the article or its talk pages. In fact, I think I will remove my posts to the talk pages. If you feel you have done nothing unreasonable or been difficult, then more power to you. --Filll 22:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Badger, I'm going to respond here. First, I'm insulted by your comments. You wrote on Firs page about confirming the references. Like I'm an idiot and incapable of reading references? I read the references, and I hate it when Alternative medicine fuckheads misquote references in medical articles. I don't misquote references, simple as that. If you want to rewrite your insulting comment about my writing and apologize, I'm all for that. Am I perfect, no, but I'm not exactly an idiot either. Second, you obviously missed the point about K-T boundary vs. the extinction. This article discusses the extinction itself, and only gives brief mention to what causes the extinction, because I don't think it's been figured out, and more than that, it's complicated, deserving its own article. As for not contributing, either help or don't help, but throwing out a bunch of comments without helping is not helping at all. I'd prefer your help, but I don't like your attitude. Yes, you're smarter than me about paleontology, but that's not why we're here. I spent hours upon hours on this article, begging for help from anyone who would listen. You come along, fling a bunch of crap at the editors, and it takes Filll's vitriolic commentary to get you to actually be someone who helps as opposes to someone who complains. Help, don't help, it's up to you. But your attitude sucks, especially for those of us who have contributed to making this a better article. I want it to be FA, and if you can get it there, I'd kiss you. If you're going to be like a few others who drive-by the FAC, and complain without helping then no thanks. Oh yeah, I'm a little pissed, because I've put in a lot of time trying to improve this article (go back in the history and look at it the minute before Firs and I attacked it)--how about a little thanks to us for getting it close, and helping getting it over the top. That's why I'm pissed, not because it was criticized. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Adversarial, cross-posted from my page

Adversarial? I am giving up. How is that adversarial? I don't want to fight. You win. Stop attacking and harassing me please. If you think you did nothing wrong, then far be it for me to tell you otherwise. You have not done a THING wrong. Not a thing. You win, ok? I apologize for ever talking to you or appearing on those talk pages. I have had enough abuse on this matter. Just stop bugging me. What part of "you win" do you not understand? --Filll 22:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I begged and begged you to help. You finally did, but it took a tremendous amount of effort to convince you to help. I begged and pleaded with you not to start a fight with me. I said I would not bother you on the talk page and leave you alone. And now you want to fight? What is wrong with you? I do not want to fight. Why are you so anxious to pick fights? I have now seen this a couple of times. Why? Why? --Filll 01:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Look if it comes to a confrontation, and you think I have been adversarial so far, I think you are sadly mistaken. I do not want a fight. But do not make the mistake of thinking I am weak or a pushover. You will get a very bad surprise if you believe that. I will defend myself and you will NOT be painted in a good light. Your actions have been atrocious and continue to get worse. I am a stalker now? You want to get us dragged through the mud, then lets go for it. I might even call for an RfC myself to "settle" this. I might ask for administrative sanctions to be levied against you, if any grounds can be found.

You are going way over the line here, buddy, and it is getting into harassment. And just because you are sitting there smugly thinking you are in the right, 100%, do not be too sure that others are going to agree with you, when the facts are put out on the table for inspection. I apologized. I backed off. I asked for help on the article over and over and over. All to no avail. You just want to push things farther and farther and farther.

What is wrong with just trying to be productive and improve the article? Have you even forgotten why you are on Wikipedia? Isnt it to improve the articles? If it is not to improve the articles, then I humbly suggest that you might be happier on some other site.--Filll 13:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles opened

Hello. The above named arbitration case, in which you were named as a party, has opened. Please submit your evidence directly on the case page, or, if needed, submit it via email to an arbitrator or an arbitration clerk.

For the Arbitration clerk committee,
- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 11:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Back?

Glad to see you around, Badgerpatrol. I am glad you won't let an edit dispute drive you off Wikipedia. As far as commenting on the incident, I was offline when the second dispute occurred, and didn't want to inflame a situation that seemed to have calmed down by the time I arrived. I'm sorry if that has upset you as well. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 17:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

State your argument

Please state your argument on this issue. It is important and I believe your argument will be valuable for saving this article. Click here for the discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Universities Debating Ranking Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 14:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

Badgerpatrol, I appreciate your vigilance regarding speaking out against the disturbing practice of bullying and abusing other editors. Thanks for weighing in on the issue. Moulton 18:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

vandal

No probs. This annonymous user has vandalised my user page on the last two Saturdays, so I just checked their edit history to see what other things they were up to. Their behaviour is best described as petty, but I though I might as well revert your page, just to make the point. I have no idea who it is, but this person seems to have an interest in Cricket and Rosalind Franklin,[3] so I guess it's associated with the Franklin article as we have both been involved in this article, and this article has been a very difficult article in the past. Still I have not been involved with the Franklin article for quite some time so this is not about any recent edits, besides the Franklin article is now quite stable. This user is more of an annoyance than anything else, their level of disruption is not great enough at the moment to warrant asking for a block IMO, I'll just keep an eye on their edits and revert any obvious vandalism. Alun 11:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

RfC

I hate to make such a suggestion, given my stated political proclivities, but I feel our options are limited. How would you feel if I were to attempt to open an RfC regarding so called User:Nitramrekcap and his various sockpuppet accounts? I feel somewhat shamed to do such a thing, but feel that this user has displayed a breathtaking contempt for Wikipedia and it's content policies. It is also obvious that this user has used dynamic IP adresses to circumvent policies such as 3rr. Would you support me in I were to undertake such an endevour? Alun 22:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

edit summary

Hi. At first I didn't understand the reference to "edits passim", since you only altered that one sentence; but now I realize that you meant edits on the subject passim throughout the page's edit history. So all that's left to explain is the nosebleed part. :) Doops | talk 13:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I still don't get it. The only mental connotations "nosebleeds" have for me are a) "nosebleed seats" (the ones really high up in a stadium or theater); and b) "your nose is bleeding" (said to a poker player to warn him/her he/she has forgotten to ante up). Neither of those seems relevant. Enlighten me?

As far as financial aid goes, I'll do my best:

• at the undergraduate level, lots of schools *do* give merit-based aid to attract the best candidates. But the most elite institutions, like Harvard, don't — because they have such huge reserves of financial aid money that they can afford to admit students on a "need-blind" basis, and then give *every* student aid according to need.
• at the graduate level, the amount of financial aid grants do vary by discipline. There's lots available for PhD grad school in an academic area, or for education school, or suchlike; there's very little available for law, medical, or business school, on the assumption that graduates from those institutions will soon be making huge quantities of money and be able to pay off their loans with ease. That said, though, there is financial aid availble for the very needy who can't afford to sign up for those loans; and even for others there do exist loan forgiveness programs for people who go on to some sort of pro bono public service.

I hope that helps. Doops | talk 14:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of World's largest universities

An article that you have been involved in editing, World's largest universities, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World's largest universities. Thank you. GreenJoe 00:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Erik Prince

I agree with your edits, changing "Erik" to "Prince", and have made such changes in the article earlier, but can you tone down the hyperbole in the edit summaries? I think the intention, stylistically correct or not, was to distinguish Erik Prince from all the other members of the Prince family mentioned in the article. --Pleasantville 12:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)