Jump to content

User talk:GreatWhiteNortherner: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Shock and Awe
Line 172: Line 172:


[[Cotw|COTW]] = Collaboration of the Week
[[Cotw|COTW]] = Collaboration of the Week

== Shock and Awe ==

Hello GreatWhiteNortherner, I don't want to cause any trouble because I'm new here (at least as an editor), so I'd like to talk off the record to a few good contributors about a problem I see on an article that you've edited. Your contributions seem solid, so maybe you can help me. I've been using the Wikipedia definition of "Shock and Awe" for several months because I like how it described the type of warfare that "Shock and Awe" is and also how it gave a link to a definition of "rapid dominance" (of which it claims to be a subset).

In the last couple of days, however, a user called JW1805 edited the article and I think he made the definition much worse.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shock_and_Awe&diff=46973295&oldid=44565774] It now says that "'''Shock and Awe''' is a [[military doctrine]]," whereas is used to say exactly what ''type'' of military doctrine it falls into: "'''Shock and Awe''' is a method of [[unconventional warfare]]." Isn't the old definition more informative? According to the definition of [[Conventional warfare]], I don't think anyone could call it that. So, I think it's safe and informative to say that "Shock and Awe" fits into the definition of [[unconventional warfare]], don't you?

Also JW1805 removed the link to "Rapid dominance," [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rapid_dominance&diff=46972961&oldid=46943059 deleted the "Rapid dominance"] article and redirected it to "Shock and Awe." Yet the "Shock and Awe" article still says, "Its authors label [shock and awe] a subset of Rapid Dominance." Does that make any sense to you? According to RUSI Journal 141:8-12 Oct '96, "Rapid dominance" is an "intellectual construct" whereas "Shock and awe" is one "method" of implementing that construct. Obviously they are ''not'' the same thing. So, why would JW1805 redirect "Rapid dominance" to "Shock and Awe?" Why would he delete the "Rapid dominance" article and the link to it?

I went to JW1805's talk page to speak directly to him, but I read what others have said to him, and it seems to be the same story: if you are only one person complaining, JW1805 considers you a troublemaker and has his friends ban you, but if more than one person gets together and says the same thing, he listens. If you feel the same way as I about his edits to "Shock and Awe" and "Rapid dominance," I'm sure we can work together to get the best definition back in place. Are you up for something like that? --[[User:Larnue the dormouse|Larnue the dormouse]] 22:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:36, 8 April 2006

Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.


You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.


You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 04:27, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi...just so you know, your currently red-linked article for the Persian Invasion of Greece is already covered under Persian Wars. I suppose that article could be divided into the separate invasions, but I guess you could also just expand that one. Adam Bishop 06:15, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I deleted your subpage that you listed for deletion. If you need anything else just ask. silsor 06:39, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

Dear Great, thnk you for the time invested on Roman subjects, always neglected around here. About your change in the Ancient Rome directory, i dont agree with a series of things. Now, i am out of my base camp but in another two weeks i would like to discuss my ideas with you. Meanwhile, i ask you to explain in the talk page your basic motivation for changing the page, so i can see your point. Normally, thats how things work (or should): discuss first, change later. All the best, Muriel 14:46, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Hello! Me again. I added some more arguments to our ongoing Ancient Rome discussion. Cheers! Muriel 11:24, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[[Silvanus

Sorry for the delay in responding to your email: I've made a sensible disambiguating stub with a link to Silvanus (mythology) that shopuld be clear. Wetman 08:01, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) 18:26, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

UNPROFOR

A quick note to thank you for your patient and cautious re-reading of UNPROFOR. You were harsh with yourself in putting this as a minor edit. Or perhaps minor edit, great improvement ! Merry Christmas and Happy new Year ! Rama 17:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Isla Mona

Among your spelling corrections you changed English spellings to American English - just curious about your rationale for doing so. Guettarda 17:54, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's a judgement call when an article contains a combination of British and American English spelling. I try to use the dominant spelling of the article except when the article is about an American, British, Canadian, etc. subject. According to the article, Isla Mona is part of Puerto Rico and thus American territory - so American English seemed appropriate. GreatWhiteNortherner 22:37, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Having trouble

I am having trouble with a simonP. I edit Arete (virtue) and he immediately reverts the edits. Him and his friends have deleted [Classical definition of republic] and after the many facts and the quoting of material they will not acknowledge they won't even let an external link and the talk is ongoing at Talk:Republic. This man doesn't know what he is doing. I ask that someone step in and stop this please. This man has no expertise in the classical field. He is an anonymous user. Please see also Talk:Arete (virtue).WHEELER 17:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of genres of reggae

Hi GWN. You made some spelling corrections to "List of genres of reggae" but I wondered about the last one where you changed ragga to reggae. I assumed that was correct as ragga (short for raggamuffin) but I may be wrong. I wonder if it should be changed back or are you confident about your change? cheers. Nurg 08:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just a case of not knowing what I was talking about. I have reverted that change. GreatWhiteNortherner 07:49, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:32, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination but I am not interested in an administratorship. GreatWhiteNortherner 07:42, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)


Question about PWC

I'm not sure I understand the factual basis for your contention that "Pratt & Whitney Canada and its products are NOT part of P&W."

Pratt Canada's financial numbers are reported as part of P&W's figures. Pratt Canada's president is appointed by and reports to the president of P&W, not to UTC headquarters. Seems like is it very much a "part" of P&W and not an independent sister company the way, say, Hamilton Sundstand is to P&W or Sikorsky. Certainly, PWC is a stand-alone division within P&W, but it is still a part of it. Do you disagree?

history articles on Wikipedia

Hello,

I’m an historian working at the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University (http://chnm.gmu.edu/) and we are very interested in digital, peer-produced works of history, including history articles in Wikipedia. We’d like to talk to people about their experiences working on articles in Wikipedia, in connection with a larger project on the history of the free and open source software movement. Would you be willing to talk with us about your involvement, either by phone, a/v chat, IM, or email? This could be as lengthy or brief a conversation as you wish.

Thanks for your consideration.

Olivia

oryan at gmu dot edu

Spanish Language

Hi, I saw that you changed "neighbors" to "neighbours" saying that you wanted to standardize on UK English? Any reason why?

Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia standard is to stick with the same version of English throughout an article - it doesn't matter which. I do a lot of spell checking because it doesn't require me to do anything difficult, like thinking.
Choosing the flavour of English to use is a judgement call. Articles clearly related to one of the Anglo-Saxon countries should use the local version of English. In other cases, I try to use the English most used within the article already. The "Spanish Language" article seemed to be mainly in UK English so I standardized on that.
GreatWhiteNortherner 19:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gaeta

Thanks for your good editing of Gaeta... Hem, it seems that mine was and... Italian English at all! I try to write for the English edition considering it a kind of international version, in order everbody in the world could learn things that, if I wrote them in Italian, will be of course reserved to a minority. Therefore I list here some of the articles I wrote and that will surely need intervention like yours to appear better written:

If you have time, check them and correct at your will. Thanks. Attilios


Camouflage Peer Review

Hello, you once edited Camouflage. You might be interested to know, this article has been nominated for peer peer review. novacatz 03:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Theater/theatre

Hello, I notice you actively standardize English usage in Wikipedia articles. Kudos. One edit you made to the Aztec article made me wonder, however. I have been accustomed to the standard that "theater" was used for the place where a dramatic work is performed, while "theatre" was used for "the art" of playwrighting, performance, etc. What reference do you use to determine a country's standard? And are you familiar with the distinction I have made? I don't recall where I got it, so it is as likely that I read it somewhere as it is that I made it up and thought I read it, so I wouldn't mind being corrected if that's what's necessary. PAZ, --Rockero 04:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that "theatre" is British/Canadian spelling and "theater" is American spelling. The meaning is the same for both versions. For a reference see: [1]. GreatWhiteNortherner 05:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you realize it, but the site to which you referred me is actually a Wikipedia mirror site. Compare it to Theatre (disambiguation). I know there is a tendency to rely on other Wikipedia articles as sources and references, but I'm not sure that it is the best policy. See the definitions of "theaters" and "theater (discipline)" at the Getty Thesaurus of Art and Architecture: [2] and [3]. I prefer this thesaurus for art-related topics. But as you can tell, they are both spelled "-er", which I would guess has to do with the fact that the Getty is an American institution. So it looks like you may be correct after all. Adelante, pues, --Rockero 17:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

  1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
  2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
  3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BDAbramson T 04:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Military History Task Force

Category:Canadian military formations

Barnstar

I, Gaius Cornelius hereby award you this Minor Barnstar for all your brilliant minor edits!

I see you already have one barnstar, but you can never have too many! Great edits: finding spelling errors and duplicate words.

I am curious to know how you hunt for duplicated words? I use WP:AWB myself which is highly effective. Gaius Cornelius 16:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do a Google search on the wikipedia site using the parameters
"the the" -talk: -user: -wiki/Wikipedia:
I copy the page to an OpenOffice file to do spell checking. I assume that an article containing duplicated words has not been carefully proofread and thus is a prime suspect for spelling errors. I have three separate files for US, UK and Canadian English open at the same time. Choosing the right flavour of English can sometimes be an awkward choice as many articles are a combination of US and UK English and have no obvious link to either country.
The whole process becomes quite mechanical and does not require me to do anything difficult like thinking. I am usually multitasking by listening to music or a movie at the same time. GreatWhiteNortherner 02:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: there have been some updates on the topic of Searching for Duplicate Words on my user talk page which you may find interesting. Gaius Cornelius 17:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmud of Ghazni

The user Haiduc added questionable material in Mahmud of Ghazni page. I will revert his changes then I will apply your changes to that page. You can check later if those changes have been done correctly. Thankyou for your cooperation.

Siddiqui 02:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El Paso Diablos

Thanks for looking out on the Diablos page. I greatly appreciate it.

Dominion of British West Florida

I see why you earned the Barn Star! Thanks for the corrections! Bo 12:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COTW

COTW = Collaboration of the Week

Shock and Awe

Hello GreatWhiteNortherner, I don't want to cause any trouble because I'm new here (at least as an editor), so I'd like to talk off the record to a few good contributors about a problem I see on an article that you've edited. Your contributions seem solid, so maybe you can help me. I've been using the Wikipedia definition of "Shock and Awe" for several months because I like how it described the type of warfare that "Shock and Awe" is and also how it gave a link to a definition of "rapid dominance" (of which it claims to be a subset).

In the last couple of days, however, a user called JW1805 edited the article and I think he made the definition much worse.[4] It now says that "Shock and Awe is a military doctrine," whereas is used to say exactly what type of military doctrine it falls into: "Shock and Awe is a method of unconventional warfare." Isn't the old definition more informative? According to the definition of Conventional warfare, I don't think anyone could call it that. So, I think it's safe and informative to say that "Shock and Awe" fits into the definition of unconventional warfare, don't you?

Also JW1805 removed the link to "Rapid dominance," deleted the "Rapid dominance" article and redirected it to "Shock and Awe." Yet the "Shock and Awe" article still says, "Its authors label [shock and awe] a subset of Rapid Dominance." Does that make any sense to you? According to RUSI Journal 141:8-12 Oct '96, "Rapid dominance" is an "intellectual construct" whereas "Shock and awe" is one "method" of implementing that construct. Obviously they are not the same thing. So, why would JW1805 redirect "Rapid dominance" to "Shock and Awe?" Why would he delete the "Rapid dominance" article and the link to it?

I went to JW1805's talk page to speak directly to him, but I read what others have said to him, and it seems to be the same story: if you are only one person complaining, JW1805 considers you a troublemaker and has his friends ban you, but if more than one person gets together and says the same thing, he listens. If you feel the same way as I about his edits to "Shock and Awe" and "Rapid dominance," I'm sure we can work together to get the best definition back in place. Are you up for something like that? --Larnue the dormouse 22:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GreatWhiteNortherner&oldid=47613167"