User talk:Wdfarmer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Wdfarmer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Flockmeal 05:48, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Moved Page[edit]

Hullo. I moved the page that you created, United States Navy ship naming conventions, to a new location, American ship naming conventions. I explained my reasoning on the discussion page at the new location; just thought that I ought to let you know. Cheers. Zamzodder 05:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Help with class project[edit]

Hello, I am doing a class project in wish I have to complet a wikipedia article. I was wondering if you could take a look at it and tell me what you think. Thank you for your help. My article is titled cultivator.--Ghmd 13:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)ghmd

Twiggy/Lesley Hornby[edit]

If you watch this episode here, Twiggy clearly acknowledges her old name as "Lesley Hornby." Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 12:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

Room Service-20071223.jpg Season's Greetings!

Results of the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries[edit]

On the subject of your edits I have a couple of concerns. First, I understand that there are style issues, but I think it best for the name of the event (whether a caucus or a primary) to be in the headings, just to make the event clear. For example, I think it would better for the heading that currently is “Iowa” to be “Iowa caucus”. I don’t think it matters if there is a link or not in the heading for “caucus”, but it seems odd for there to be one below to “Iowa Democratic caucuses, 2008”. My other concern is that the style of the page should parallel results of the 2008 Republican presidential primaries. I’d like to move this discussion to here so other users can input their opinions. – Zntrip 20:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your idea on moving the discussion, and have answered in your talk page. Wdfarmer (talk) 07:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have made two posts on Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries and Talk:Results of the 2008 Republican presidential primaries. I’ve directed the discussion to the first, so that everything is on one page. – Zntrip 21:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation[edit]

Coat of arms of Germany.svg

Hello, Wdfarmer! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.


--Zeitgespenst (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for letting me know. I was testing to see how fast the edit would be reverted, to test to see if the wikipedia community kept up on the job of keeping the content encyclopedia-ish and correct. So far, most of my results have been that edits have been reverted in under a minute, which is making wikipedia look a lot better than most schools give it credit for.

--Friend-Of-No-ONe (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation templates[edit]

Thanks for your comments. Much appreciated. Yes, I think some editors pay lip service to the idea of working toward consensus, in reality preferring to game the system with deliberate antagonism. Anyway, I haven't quite lost faith in the power of reason yet. I don't get time to edit each and every day (I'm not sure I'd want to), but slowly, slowly, hopefully there'll be some progress. --SallyScot (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanx for advices —Preceding unsigned comment added by US - Jimmy Slade (talkcontribs) 23:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Blaine[edit]

Thank you for providing a picture for the Blaine, Minnesota article. Would it be possible for you to take a picture of Blaine's city flag for use here as well as in Blaine's article? thanks, --Appraiser (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Nice photo. I added it here to a new set for the Minnesota portal. -Susanlesch (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Our little argument about primaries and caucus[edit]

Please look in the discussion area. I guess we just have onbe dissence about the row actual pledged delegates. Please tell me your meaning about it. If we cannot agree, we can skip this row - that is what I think. Do you agree?

[edit] Please stop

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries, you will be blocked from editing. Please register and propose your changes in the discussion page. The 3-revert-rule is now in effect: see WP:3RR. Wdfarmer (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Wdfarm, you are way to fast by using the word vandalism and speaking out warnings. Even when you are doing it (without any reason), you do not give any time to react on it. And please consider the dimension of our SMALL disagreement right. Calm down, we will find a way, which will suit any wikipedia user. O.K.? Thanks for your understanding! See you in the discussion area.

It is funny: I had been thinking the same about you, but I did not mention it (cause I am trying to be nice). I am the one who is using the footnotes and who is marking the resources. I did not see that by your changes. Calm down. It seems that you are an emotional person. I love people who are emotional. So , if you find something positive about me, we will be able to work together for sure! You are invited, Wdfarm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.132.240.19 (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Democratic primaries[edit]

Well, if the results are admitted, we can change back the section header. But personally, I don't like controversy as it's one of those words to avoid, even if it is true - saying the primaries were nullified is both true and NPOV. Will (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC for 77.128/132.*.*[edit]

Thought you should know that I started an WP:RFC (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/77.128.196.58) for 77.128/132.*.*. You may want to comment and add to the discussion. ~ PaulT+/C 09:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this. I've signed the RFC. Wdfarmer (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

US Primary/Caucus Results Table Template[edit]

Hello, Wdfarmer! I had an idea for a template that I'd like to make and after our lengthy discussion on a similar topic, I thought that you might be interested in helping me with it. On Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries, we're in the process of moving the individual state event results tables off of that article and onto all the individual state articles. The only problem with scattering the results tables among many articles is maintaining consistency between the tables. It occurred to me that an election results table template might do the trick. The idea is to make a template that takes several input parameters (such as contest_type, state_name, candidate_1_name, candidate_1_vote_count, etc.) and dynamically draws a primary/caucus results table like the ones currently listed at the bottom of the Results article. I thought the process of making such a template would be a good way to learn about template creation. Interested? --Bryan H Bell (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Democratic Primaries[edit]

Thanks for your comments at Talk:Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008. An issue has arisen over how to represent the winner of the Texas primary-caucus hybrid. I'm trying to move us quickly toward consensus. Please vote here: Talk:Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008#Moving Toward Consensus. Thanks! Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Sorry I responded too late, but I'm in agreement with your consensus, and have posted my vote below it. The question does bring up another question for me, however: see my new section, Two rows for Washington?. Wdfarmer (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Template sandbox[edit]

No worries. I don't like it when people leave pages which should never be moved, like William Shakespeare, unprotected like that. Graham87 02:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Vote to overturn previous consensus on rows[edit]

Thanks for your past comments and contributions at Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries. Right now there is a significant vote taking place at Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Vote to overturn previous consensus on rows about whether or not to overturn a previous consensus that each row in the Overview of results table should represent individual nominating events. The vote ends at the close of March 19, 2008 (UTC). The vote contains the negative-option that if there is a tie or fewer than 4 total signatures the previous consensus will prevail. I invite you to visit the talk page and submit your vote on the matter. Thanks! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Reporting some one to the administrators[edit]

If you donot mind, i would like you to help me fighting vandilization. i want to report a user, but i donot know how, or who to report him/her to. Thanx in advance. One last pharaoh (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Reporting someone to the administrators is the very last thing you want to do. Have you already read and followed the steps at WP:VANDAL? Those include reverting (WP:REVERT) an article and issuing warnings (WP:WARN) of increasing severity. Only after you have personally gone through these steps, including issuing gradually increasing warnings up through level 4, and the vandalism has still not stopped, then may you contact the administrators following the procedure at WP:AIV. The administrators WILL reject your request if you have not gone through the warning procedure yourself.
In the process of reverting and warning, be sure that you do not get into a "revert war" (see WP:3RR); you are only allowed to revert another person's edits to an article a maximum of 3 times.
Make sure you review the offending user's talk page before issuing a new warning to them. See if they have been warned before, or blocked before. If the user is not registered (does not have a name, but is using an IP address only), the vandalism could be the work of multiple persons sharing that IP address.
Wdfarmer (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanx for the helpful response, sorry for the late reply. One last pharaoh (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Alphonso Jackson[edit]

Your comments make sense, but I think that's an artifact of how the article is organized. Surely his resignation is part of the Career section.

Let me think about a way to address this that doesn't cause the reader to make the inference that his resignation is a consequence of the scandal. I mean, we all know it is, but you're right, that's editorialization and non-objective, and I've reverted similar edits myself, so I take your point.

My initial take is that the three subheadings Selecting contractors..., Conflict of interest... and Withholding funds... should be grouped into their own subheading under Career and the resignation would precede that subheading, so the resignation is not part of that. What's a good heading? "Controversies," maybe? TJRC (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Is "Allegations of misconduct" too strong? – Wdfarmer (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. If someone feels it's too strong, it'll get modified. TJRC (talk) 05:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hogwarts[edit]

Just thought I'd let you know that "Enrolment" is proper spelling according to British English. British English is used in all articles referring to Harry Potter according to the Manual of Style. Happy editing! [Ashleyy|osaurus] 18:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I'd looked about briefly and hadn't seen any "colour"s, so I'd assumed otherwise. – Wdfarmer (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Operation COOKIE MONSTER[edit]

In support of Operation COOKIE MONSTER (OCM) I'm presenting WikiCookies in appreciation for military service to the United States. Happy Independence Day! Ndunruh (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Coronado/North Island[edit]

Hey WDFarmer, In the article on Point Loma, I had changed the reference to "North Island" to "Coronado Island" because to my mind, "North Island" means the North Island Naval Air Station. We have numerous friends who live in Coronado, and I have never once heard them describe where they live as "North Island". Can you please help me understand your logic in reverting my edit to this effect? Thanks, Rnickel (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Yes, you're right, "North Island" is usually understood to be shorthand for Naval Air Station North Island, so it doesn't properly belong in that article, and your friends do indeed live in "Coronado". But "Coronado Island" isn't the right name to use. The Coronado Islands are the Mexican islands just southwest of San Diego, easily visible on a clear day. The city of Coronado (and the Naval Air Station) are located not on an island, but a peninsula, as the Coronado article makes clear, although it does state that locals "often refer to Coronado as The Island or Coronado Island".
I've just now changed the article in question, Point Loma, to use the term "Coronado peninsula" accordingly; can you agree to that term instead? –Wdfarmer (talk) 08:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good; thx.Rnickel (talk) 05:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Cornish Art Colony[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Cornish Art Colony, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.almagilbert.com/html/AboutAlma.html. As a copyright violation, Cornish Art Colony appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Cornish Art Colony has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Cornish Art Colony and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Cornish Art Colony with a link to where we can find that note.
  • If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Cornish Art Colony.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you.

I've just done that, and hope the result will be satisfactory. – Wdfarmer (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No wontons???[edit]

So you're saying there are no wontons in that bridge?! I'm disappointed. :-) - Denimadept (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No, but it can carry two won-ton trucks: one from column A, and one from column B. :-) – Wdfarmer (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
LOL - Denimadept (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Cornish Art Colony[edit]

Hi! Thought you might like to see that the Cornish Art Colony is being expanded, and wanted to thank you for starting it off. Come edit it if you feel like it! best --Lockley (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Adminship[edit]

Hello. It appears you've been making valuable contributions for more than four years now. Are you interested in becoming an administrator at some point? Jonathunder (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That's very kind of you to offer! I think my plate is full of responsibilities at present: I'm just beginning a job search and expanding my network on LinkedIn. (Perhaps you'd care to join?) It may be that becoming an admin would help that, but I'm reluctant to add the workload right now. — Wdfarmer (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I understand. Best of luck in the job search. Jonathunder (talk) 05:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to disappoint you. I do understand it's a bit of an honor to be asked, and for that I thank you. But to do the position justice, I think I need to be less preoccupied. — Wdfarmer (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration for your alma mater[edit]

UC San Diego has been a recurring candidate for the Universities Collaboration of the Month but it has been short the votes necessary to win on several occasions. If you'd like to see a concerted effort to improve the article on your alma mater, please drop by the collaboration page to cast your vote. Also feel free to help improve our current collaborations during their last few days. Cheers! -Mabeenot (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)