User talk:FlightTime/Archive 3

The following page is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

There is a very good reason for my edits: Shaban Demiraj and aboutnames.com, as discussed in the talkpage, are do not meet WP:RS. They were unilaterally inserted there by User:Sulmues for POV-pushing purpose, without any consensus on the talkpage. Could you please revert yourself? Thanks. Athenean (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually what you stated in the talk page is not enough to justify his non-inclusiveness as RS. In addition, aboutnames.com doesn't exist, it is aboutnames.ch and is not a commercial website, but a very good database of baby names. And there is no reason why Mlpearc should revert himself. I am glad there are still editors like him around. --sulmues (talk) 02:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mlpearc: I appreciate what you do here, but you are misconstruing my edit: It is not vandalism. Rather, I undid some rather blatant POV-pushing. You should know that User:Sulmues is a highly tendentious, Albanian nationalist SPA that has been sanctioned (blocked, topic-banned, placed under civility parole, you name it) several times now. His edits on Vjose are POV-pushing solely designed to make the article as "Albanian" as possible. For example, he is using a source, Shaban Demiraj, that is a nationalistic pseudo-scholar. Also note the poor quality of his edits: He has placed the "Name" section at the very top, when it should go at the bottom, added irrelevant info about other river names, and is also using a non-reliable source, www.aboutnames.ch. Not only that, but the name section appears in duplicate, both at the top and bottom. This shows Sulmues is not interested in improving the article, but rather to make it as nationalistic as possible. Athenean (talk) 03:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see how giving 14 names in Greek and 1 in Albanian should be the right thing to make the case for an Albanian river. Shaban Demiraj according to you is a pseudo scholar, but according to the Academy of Sciences of Albania he wasn't that bad of a scholar to be the President of it in the 1993-1997 period. --sulmues (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • I made my edit on a judgment call, there was not enough or no edit summary explaining the reason for your edit. If you are having some kind of dispute with sulmues my talk page is not the place for it, please check the resources at Wikipedia:Edit warring thank you Mlpearc MESSAGE 03:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for inappropriately using your talk page. I wanted to, again, express my appreciation for your edit. --sulmues (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mlpearc. In this edit [1] you reverted me supposedly because I "no reason stated for the size of the blanking". I did give a reason, as seen here [2]. Fictional plot summaries are written in present tense per WP:TENSE. I realize the article is in bad shape, but it doesn't need to be in even worse shape due to conflicting plot tenses. Rocksey (talk) 02:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • I don't see the problem with the ommited content, It is a fictional story, It's all set in past-tense, also please look Here . I will admit I know nothing of soap opera's. I made the revert because it didn't look right me given your edit summary Mlpearc MESSAGE 02:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • You might not see a problem with the omitted content, but like WP:TENSE says, it goes against the style for summarizing fictional plot. Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas states this as well here. Like that style guideline says, fiction exists in "perpetual present tense, regardless of when the fictional action is supposed to take place relative to "now." Thus, generally you should write about fiction using the present tense, not the past tense." I explained in my edit summary why I took it out. I'm going to restore my edit and explain present tense on the talk pages of the article and IP editor who added plot. Rocksey (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the insight/information Mlpearc MESSAGE 20:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FlightTime/Archive 3! If there is any consensus at at all, it is that the entire discussion has become a tangled confusion, and as a result both proponents and opponents of the issues under discussion are abandoning ship. None of us want this. It is still not clear which way consensus will fall and your contributions to the discussion are invaluable. However, In an attempt to keep the policy discussion on an even track, some users have decided to start the ball rolling for clarity by creating a special workshop pages. The first of these is for the technical development of a template at WT:BLP PROD TPL in case policy is decided for it . The taskforce pages are designed keep irrelevant stuff off the policy discussion and talk page, and help a few of us to move this whole debate towards a decision of some kind or another. The pages will be linked in a way that watchers will still find their way to them. This move is not intended to influence any policy whatsoever; It is to keep the discussion pages focussed on the separate issues. Cheers. --Kudpung (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is no reason for you to not treat me like any other editor. If you don't like something that I've done tell me. Just because we usually agree doesn't mean we always have to, and certainly because I have a few extra tools does not mean I'm anything special, plus it's embarrassing. So, with that out of the way... I, of course refer to his as 'Ozzy' in conversation, if I post on blacksabbath.com I use 'Ozzy', and on talk pages I use 'Ozzy', but I just think it looks unprofessional in his article. If I'm in the minority I'll stop making the change. Oh, anbd thanks for the Evel Knievel reference, I haven't thought about him in a long time. J04n(talk page) 12:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking over your contributions and the feeling is mutual, you've come a long way in a short time. Your contributions to the sticky prod issue are to be commended. Kepp up the good work and let me know if you want a second opinion on anything. J04n(talk page) 19:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sir Mlpearc MESSAGE 20:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just made some final amendments, now it really is perfect! (on the last version if you double clicked to the space to the left of the bottom ribbon it highlighted some text that didn't really need to be there: example, the new version just replaces that text with a blank space (in case you were wondering what I was doing)). Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! It was mainly your work though. ;) Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mlpearc. I think some users may be interrupting the workflow by discussing policy (albeit in GF), particularly that of the technically unenforceable WP:BEFORE, on the workshop page. I have suggested we create a new sub-page for this kind of discussion. What do you think? --Kudpung (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
• The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I do often use edit summaries, but for something as small as that edit for instance, I feel that they are unnecessecary. I usually just click on minor when I do something like that. RG (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FlightTime. You have new messages at Hersfold's talk page.
Message added 01:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Airplaneman ^talk 01:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You just educated me, I didn't know what alt text was until now. Wikipedia talk:Tip of the day may be a good place to start. Placing the ? on your userpage will do a lot of good. Leading by example is always smart. When adding the text let whoever added the pic know by a message on their talk page of what you did and how you did it will help. I just checked Ozzy Osbourne and none of the pics have alt text! J04n(talk page) 17:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing a fantastic job, I can't believe it's only been a month since I put that first post on your talkpage. J04n(talk page) 20:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FlightTime/Archive 3 ! The template workshop has now split off most of the long threads purely on policy to a new discussion page so that policy can be established while technical development of the template can continue in its own space. When the template functions are finalised, the policy bits can be merged into them. If you intend to continue to contribute your ideas to the development of the template or its policy of use, and we hope you will, please consider either adding your name to the list of workshop members, or joining in with the policy discussions on the new page. --Kudpung (talk) 06:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FlightTime. You have new messages at Kumioko's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Why did you revert me? The article (which had previously been redirected) had not a single source and plenty of OR on the song's content. I figured it was best just to leave it a redirect, as no one has protested before. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know I had a bad feeling about that it looked like you "tried to fix it" but it did'nt go through. Sorry It seemed to me I was just backing up what you were trying to do. A honest mess up Sorry Mlpearc MESSAGE 01:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

===scam companies=== That company is part of the evil corporate culture. They are evil they are a scam. With a dynamic ip adress you wil only block editing for a day at best. Freedom for all ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.194.161 (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

=== Sorry ===

Um, yeah. I guess I've proved to myself that anyone can write something offensive on wikipedia, so I'll go off and play in traffic. Sorry, and goodbye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.156.163 (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Stop this mindless, serial delinking project of yours. I have no objection to, for example, a legitimate cleanup effort such as delinking PGA Tour if it appears more than once, but you are going way, way overboard and delinking completely legitimate content.--Hokeman (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are doing now --> you are delinking links in the main body of the article if one appears somewhere else in the article (usually in a table or in the info-box). The problem with that is readers may want to view something in more detail (and click on a link) while they are reading the main narrative. They may not find the link if it's located in an out-of-the-way table. Generally the golfer bios that I have worked on were created first, and then tables are added later; that's why you sometimes see redundant links. Remember, links are only there for the readers convenience. I don't think any of the golfer bio pages that I have seen are "polluted" with overlinking. In fact, when Wikipedia's policy to delink dates such as birthdates came out, I did a fair amount of this myself. I hope that you discontinue this activity for the reasons outlined above until I can broach the subject with the golf project's other members. Thank you for your time and attention and I apologize for being harsh, but it appeared to me that this was something that was spiraling out of control very fast--Hokeman (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They way I see it is : One link per subject,per article, I might get flack from this but I make Judgment calls and this one. Period.. Mlpearc MESSAGE 04:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All opinions welcome ! Mlpearc MESSAGE 04:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to put this on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Golf page and send it to other golf editors and ask their opinion. This notion of One link per subject per article is absolutely not a hard and fast rule. Many articles, including featured articles, have links in tables and/or infoboxes which also appear in the article.--Hokeman (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

add on to Hokeman:

Sorry part 3). Please let me know the answer, But know one thing it's not's only Golfers "I" think this applies to all Articles. "redundancies" ! Mlpearc MESSAGE 05:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the featured article Bob Dylan (that I selected at random off the list of featured articles). Notice that his hometown Duluth, Minnesota is linked in both the main body of the article and the info-box. Ditto for the musical genre blues. Ditto for the musical genre rock and roll. Please study other featured articles.--Hokeman (talk) 05:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this issue was originally reported at WP:AIV but the report has been moved and is now being discussed at WP:ANI, see here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this at ANI and came to look. I'm surprised that nobody has pointed out that the edits in question violate Wikipedia:Linking#Repeated links. That states that if the first link was in an infobox, or something similar, then it's OK to have another in the body of the article. It also says that "long sortable tables, in which each row should be able to stand on its own." are another exception to the general rule of one link. something lame from CBW 07:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your edits are absolutely shocking. Please cease using AWB until you have read and understood Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly on linking. Delinking items in see also sections and various navigation templates is totally unacceptable. Jeni ^(talk) 10:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Your statement that "[You] make Judgment calls and this one. Period" is not only untrue but also disappointing given that this is meant to be a collaborative environment. I refer you to WP:AWB#Rules of use, in particular 3 and 5. Do not mass delink indiscriminately. "1 link per article" is not the hard-and-fast rule. If something is linked in the infobox, it can also be linked in the prose. If something is linked in the lead, it could also be linked in a section further down the page. This requires editorial judgment, not simply a blanket stripping of links down to 1 link per page. I stand ready to revoke your AWB access if you continue these edits in this manner. –xeno^talk 14:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message received and understood, My apologizes, won't happen again Mlpearc MESSAGE 15:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. These things happen. something lame from CBW 05:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want all involved to know that all and I mean ever single edit I made was in good faith. I misunderstood the overlinking. Mlpearc MESSAGE 16:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never doubted your good faith, I don't think anyone at ANI did either. As an aside, typically using <big> signatures is frowed upon. You might consider changing that back to the regular font size. Cheers, –xeno^talk 16:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. And no hard feelings. We've all made mistakes. The goal is to make a better encyclopedia. Best wishes--Hokeman (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the list of workshop members ? I think I'm already on it. Mlpearc MESSAGE 03:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FlightTime. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I am Mlpearc on freenode and I'm requesting a cloak

• wikipedia/Username

Mlpearc MESSAGE 17:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate,

I noticed you have reverted my edit of the Witchcraft Act 1604 wiki. I understand I may not have posted a reasonable summary for my edit but this is due to being unfamiliar with wikipedia way or working. That being said me edit is valid. Study of the witchcraft acts (can be easily found at http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fyI9xo1GvGAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Gibson,+Marion&hl=en&ei=qQGiS5emMIzv4gbD5dmRCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=&f=true in the first chapter) shows that the acts, rather than acting as a way for local landowners to grab land not rightfully theirs, in fact provided for the welfare of any spouse/ children. The Elizabethan act states:

“Saving to the Wief of such parsone her Title of Dower, and also to the Heyre and Successour of such pson hes or theyr Tytles of Inheritance Succession and other Rightes, as thoughe no suche Attayndour of the Auncestour or Predecessour had been hadd or made”

Or in modern english:

"Saving to the Wife of such person her title of Dower (Widow) and also to the heir and successor of such person his or their titles of inheritance, succession and other rights, as though no such attainder of the ancestor or predecessor had been had or made"

This part of the bill was in fact written in to stop local landowners acting in the manner described in the wiki.

Hopefully that clears up why i made my edit

Thanks

JohnScone ead (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful when using AWB, you have been warned for your careless edits before. this is an inappropriate mistake to be making when you are using software to mass edit articles. I strongly suggest you cease using AWB for the time being and get some experience editing articles manually. Jeni ^(talk) 21:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes I just saw that there's no such cat. I will fix what I done, Thanks Mlpearc MESSAGE 21:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infact, exactly why are you adding articles to Category:Disambig? Jeni ^(talk) 21:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

when AWB come across a disambig it alerts "no cat" so I put them and it accepted them, I just went to one of those disambig pages and found there is no such category, I did'nt know, I thought if it's was wrong AWB would not accept it. I always re-add the page to the list i'm giong throuh and when it gets back it show nothing's wrong so I hit save. Mlpearc MESSAGE 22:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am now VERY concerned about your knowledge of Wikipedia, I will be urgently recommending that your AWB access is removed as you obviously do not understand the software, or how Wikipedia works. Jeni ^(talk) 22:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mlpearc, I've removed your access to AWB for now. Firstly, Categories are added with a colon, not a quotation mark. Secondly, you shouldn't be using AWB to add non-existent categories, and you shouldn't expect it to figure out that for you. Thirdly, You shouldn't be adding categories to disambig pages directly anyway, you should use {{Disambig}}. Feel free to request AWB again once you are willing to make sure you understand the way it works. I understand that you were just trying to help, so please don't be put off by this. Just take some time to review the different areas you want to work in; if you're categorising disambigs, you need to understand how the categories for it work. Hope to see you with AWB again soon. Yours, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Jeni#Sorry

User talk:Xeno#Mlpearc and AWB

User talk:Mlpearc/Archive 2#Mlpearc & AWB

User talk:Mlpearc/Archive 2#AWB (again)

User talk:Mlpearc/Archive 2#Stop delinking golfer bios immediately

User talk:Kingpin13#Thank you

I've asked the members at "Califorina Jam Fan Club" if any are Wiki members/users and if they would be willing to help, and if they have/had any thing about, or can contribute to this article for thier input. Not looking to benefit "my article", but to benefit Wikipedia. Mlpearc MESSAGE 19:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry if i startled you by that editing, you see my little brother jack, thought it would be funny if he changed and edited the page while i was in the restroom. I was looking at the Lilac Breasted Roller for a Science Project, so he wanted to mess me up. My apologies, Really.Sincerely, Caitlin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.76.106 (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mlpearc. Don't worry, I don't think your judgement is at fault in this case, rather you just need to expand your knowledge of Wikipedia slightly before using AWB again. I'd suggest you just continue editing articles as you are, and you may be ready to use AWB in a month or so. If you need help with anything, please feel free to ask. Best,- Kingpin¹³ (talk) 06:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yuh, I actually said quotation marks, here's the diff (you used category"disambig rather than category:disambig). I don't actually make a habit of signing guest books, but I guess if you want.. :D - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mlpearc MESSAGE 10:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was fortunate for an author I collaborate with to allow us to use these images. Unfortunately, with Hopper's declining health, I wanted to get more recent images of Hopper to update his article. I like the 2008 image, but I think it would be better to have a more recent image as the main image. I didn't use the side image for the infobox as we usually prefer full head shots for the biography infoboxes. Of course it would be better if he didn't have the bandage, but accidents happen. I moved the original image to within the article as its size and date would be better served along one of the other appropriate sections. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That info that I reverted was copy/pasted word for word from this:[3]--Yankees10 16:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mlpearc, thanks for reverting that vandalism to my user page. Would you mind reporting them? I'm Twinkle-less, and I am not exactly sure how to report them manually. Thanks again! Dr Aaij (talk) 02:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was cleaning up this article to make it more encyclopedic - not sure why you reverted?193.61.220.3 (talk) 10:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was editing my watch list and found this page Wikipedia:User:Mlpearc/Work, I'm asking you because your name appears more often, am I missing something ? This page has my user name ? I looked at it, didn't see anything pertaining to me. Can you shed some light ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlpearc (talk • contribs) 23:37, 29 March 2010

It seems you cut and pasted this from a Village Pump on March 13. The original thread is here: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 59/Archives/ 48#Soft-block of school IPs.. –xeno^talk 00:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you no longer want the page, you can add {{db-u1}} to it and an administrator will delete it. –xeno^talk 13:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

== Skinny Little Bitch article ==

Hello! Even though I did make a mistake with the references (which I was preparing to edit), I believe that the information about the vinyl being released Apr. 13 was relevant and I was wondering why you cancelled that? 82.224.130.76 (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Vandals[reply]

== Apology and a few questions ==

That last comment of mine was certainly childish, I recognize it, and I apologize. I would like to know however, on what grounds you called me a vandal after the "Skinny Little Bitch" article incident. 82.224.130.76 (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted

Hey there, sorry, yes, I am indeed the subject of the Rob Walker entry that I was trying to trim -- I have ID'd myself in correct mistakes there in the past. In this case all I was trying to do was make it concise. It seems long, and I'm frankly not even sure I should have a Wikipedia entry at all.

Anyway I wasn't inflating anything or whatever. And I wasn't cutting criticism. I was just (trying to) make it more modest and concise.

Whatever you think is better is okay with me. But I don't want anybody to think I was trying to put a thumb on the scale -- quite the opposite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobWalkerMurketing (talk • contribs) 03:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. It will explain why I need to address what I saw. Mlpearc MESSAGE 03:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to repost. :)

Hi. You participated earlier in the sticky prod workshop. The sticky prods are now in use, but there are still a few points of contention.

There are now a few proposals on the table to conclude the process.

I encourage your input, whatever it might be. Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I left a reply for you here. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mlpearc, about your questions --

"I am assuming that the said "source" is going to be required in the request for undeletion. Also I'm not that great at auto editing but has anybody brought up, or is it even a issue: "Let's say Huggle", is that program going to overlook these issues ? Is it going to be programed with the parameters to tag these BLP's ? Sorry if I took the lid off the worms, I just thought of this and it's been kinda hard to follow every conservsation."

The conversation is sometimes hard for me to follow, too. :)

As far as requiring a source in the request for undeletion -- I believe that hasn't been brought up before. A couple of things that had been talked about are either 1) just assuming it is a good-faith request that would fulfill the requirement, but anyone could check and see whether the requirement had been fulfilled, or 2) keeping the sticky prod on the article when it is undeleted, the clock would reset and the editor would have x amount of time to add the source or it would be deleted.

As of last week, I believe the workshop participants had favored #2. Any which way, I'm assuming it would be the same for all the proposals.

About Huggle and that type of thing -- I know very little about Huggle. But my understanding is that it has been added to Huggle, and that as far as Huggle is concerned, the proposal doesn't matter. That is, I expect all the proposals would work equally well with Huggle.

Hope that is some help. Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a v quick note for now to say I briefly read it, and yep, I'm sure I can sort it out. I'll let you know.  Chzz  ►  06:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Could a member please point me to the usage guidelines for members using "GOCEinuse" template (flag). Please use (talkback) or answer on my talk. Thank you Mlpearc MESSAGE 15:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the tag if you are going to edit the article (or section) in a major way. It helps to stop edit conflicts while you're working. When you have finished, remember to remove it. If I start a major edit but have to stop for a long period of time, say overnight, I will remove it and put it back when I work on it again. As you're a member, don't forget to add:

{{GOCE|user=YourName|date=XX Month 2010}} ...on the article's talk page when you finish. It helps prevent repeated work by other members and is also a nice ad for GOCE and yourself. - S Masters (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for this information, just what I was looking for. Cheers Mlpearc MESSAGE 13:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per this edit, it would seem customary to set a time when the tag would be removed. Otherwise, no one knows when its okay to start editing the article again. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get that, but if you (or anyone else) are not working on it constantly during the time in question, its best to set a specific time, like 3-6 hours. that way, others can edit without fear of interrupting someone else's work. Setting it for an entire day seems a bit much. You can always replace the tag anew when you are prepared to start again. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FlightTime. You have new messages at Airplaneman's talk page.
Message added 22:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Airplaneman ✈ 22:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we had a double-revert on Huggle. See my talk page. I'd appreciate if you'd remove the warning. I know it's a software issue and not your fault. Thanks! --N419BH (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

The page above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.