User talk:Patrickneil: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:34, 5 October 2015

Archives

Alanya • Georgetown • Virginia • Soccer • Other
NATO • Mentoring • Awards • Invites • Images
Last archived March 27, 2023

Leave me a message below
I will respond wherever is fastest, but prefer article talk pages
I can be reached by email if it is necessary to keep a message off Wikipedia

Your GA nomination of Enlargement of NATO

The article Enlargement of NATO you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Enlargement of NATO for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomandjerry211 (alt) -- Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V in sources

Please advise Re: this I don't see anything at WP:V or WP:SOURCES about this. Can you substantiate your claim in the edit summary? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion on the talk page of the script about this. I see this has been discussed at the MOS, without resolution. Perhaps you can help me get consensus on this, one way or the other?-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 17:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edits inquiry

Hello, I'm just inquiring as to why you reverted a number of my edits on the articles of several schools of Georgetown University. The edits were consistent with the infobox field format used in the Georgetown University article itself as well as with many other university infoboxes. The version that you reverted back to was put in place by myself, as was the recent version. I modified my own edits to in an effort to achieve consistency.
Thanks. Ergo Sum 18:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I may have been too hasty here. It does seem like Seal (emblem) is linked more often than not, though that may just mean this is a larger debate. Carry on the good work then!-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 20:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that linking Seal (emblem) seems unnecessary. I was simply bringing those articles in line with the format on the other aforementioned ones. If you would like to unlink seal, I should think it quite appropriate. Just wanted to bring it to your attention. Happy editing. Ergo Sum 20:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Nomination

Hello! Your submission of Dahlgren Chapel of the Sacred Heart at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

Hello Patrickneil, I reviewed the nomination. It looks like everything is in order except for the requirement that the image appear in the article. The image that you selected does not appear in the Dahlgren Chapel of the Sacred Heart article. Thanks for your attention. Ergo Sum 20:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Dahlgren Chapel of the Sacred Heart

On 28 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dahlgren Chapel of the Sacred Heart, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Dahlgren Chapel of the Sacred Heart is now home to a cross believed to have been used in the first English-language Catholic mass in North America? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dahlgren Chapel of the Sacred Heart. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise and Disruption

I just read your post on Volunteer Marek's talk page. I must say I am a bit disappointed to see that you describe me as a disruptive editor. We had almost reached consensus before VM's intervention. That editor is hellbent on thwarting me in every way he can, so that you can rest assured that he did not want to revert you. I think describing a person one disagrees with as disruptive should be avoided. They could reply in kind, and this is a recipe for perpetual war. My source? Human History. Againstdisinformation (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"at a minimum, I don't understand why the removal of Wikilinks and Non-breaking spaces". You are right, I have no idea how that happened. If I am responsible for it, I apologise. Againstdisinformation (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patrickneil , before Volunteer Marek's intervention you wrote "I don't think its actually necessary for this section to specify. Its just as accurate to say "talks broke down on 23 March" period "bombing started 24 March" period. Would that work?" I agreed with you and the matter was almost closed. Are you still of the same mind? I don't want to argue forever with Volunteer Marek on the talk page. Againstdisinformation (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 11:07, 29 September 2015 edit Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk \| contribs) 885 edits →‎Compromise and Disruption ← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:34, 5 October 2015 edit undo Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk \| contribs) 885 edits →‎Compromise and Disruption Next edit →
Line 36:		Line 36:

	"''at a minimum, I don't understand why the removal of Wikilinks and Non-breaking spaces''". You are right, I have no idea how that happened. If I am responsible for it, I apologise. [[User:Againstdisinformation\|Againstdisinformation]] ([[User talk:Againstdisinformation\|talk]]) 11:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)		"''at a minimum, I don't understand why the removal of Wikilinks and Non-breaking spaces''". You are right, I have no idea how that happened. If I am responsible for it, I apologise. [[User:Againstdisinformation\|Againstdisinformation]] ([[User talk:Againstdisinformation\|talk]]) 11:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
			:[[User:Patrickneil \|Patrickneil ]], before Volunteer Marek's intervention you wrote "I don't think its actually necessary for this section to specify. Its just as accurate to say "talks broke down on 23 March" period "bombing started 24 March" period. Would that work?" I agreed with you and the matter was almost closed. Are you still of the same mind? I don't want to argue forever with Volunteer Marek on the talk page. [[User:Againstdisinformation\|Againstdisinformation]] ([[User talk:Againstdisinformation\|talk]]) 00:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)