User talk:Quadalpha: Difference between revisions
compliment |
Shock and Awe |
||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
You're one of the best... [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 21:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC) |
You're one of the best... [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 21:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC) |
||
== Shock and Awe == |
|||
Hello Quadalpha, 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]] 22:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 22:45, 8 April 2006
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!
- If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
- 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.
UtherSRG 01:12, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
User categorization
You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/New Jersey page as living in or being associated with New Jersey. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in New Jersey for instructions. Al 15:32, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
User categorisation
Greetings, Quadalpha! Please accept this message as an invitation to categorise your user page in the category Category:Chinese Wikipedians overseas and removing your name from the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/China#Overseas page. The page will be deleted when all users have been removed. Even if you do not wish to be placed in a category, could you take a moment to remove your name from the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/China#Overseas page? Thanks!!
To add your name to the category, please use the tag [[Category:Chinese Wikipedians overseas|Quadalpha]] to ensure proper sorting.
For more information, please see Wikipedia:User categorisation and Category:Wikipedians by location. --Miborovsky 03:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Native Latin speakers?
Greetings, fellow Latinist. If you have second, please share your thoughts in the discussion of a category for native Latin speakers who are also Wikipedians. --Flex 13:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
User Categorisation
You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Ontario page as living in or being associated with Ontario. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Ontario for instructions.--Rmky87 04:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I accidentally clicked on "Rollback" and reverted your reversion, and you had reverted before I had had a chance to correct my mistake. Titoxd(?!?) 01:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
T.S. Eliot - Formal Recognition
Not a war! Helpful co-operation towards a mutual goal, I am sure. However regards the use of the "serial comma", see [1]. There is no Wiki consensus on this. I feel its presence, where not necessary to avoid ambiguity, is an unnecessary punctuation presence, but I think there's far bigger things to address in this (and other) articles. There's nothing about The Hollow Men (apart from in Popular Recognition) or Aerial poems for a start!! Tyrenius 20:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I know, but I still don't like serial commas! Tyrenius 21:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
You're one of the best... Tyrenius 21:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Shock and Awe
Hello Quadalpha, 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.[2] 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 22:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)