User talk:Batmanand

NOTE: Periodically I will archive this page, so if you post something and it is no longer here sorry. I will read anything and everything people leave here, so don't worry.

UPDATE 29 January 2006: first archive, for everything pre-2006, is now up and running.

UPDATE 10 March 2006: second archive, for everything from January and February 2006, is now up and running.

My RFA

Thanks for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (66/2/3), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! Stifle 17:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Junior Common Rooms

I notice you've edited List of Junior Common Rooms in the past. Someone has suggested the article should be deleted - perhaps you would like to comment on this at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Jamse 13:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - just thought you would like the opportunity to have a say! Jamse 12:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University Challenge!

Congratulations on getting picked to enter University Challenge, we will soon see whether or not you are yet a Renaissance Man in general knowledge.

Quincel.

AID

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Great Leap Forward and Decline of the Roman Empire were selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

-Litefantastic 17:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA withdrawal :(

Hello Batmanand, it is my apologies to bring you that I've withdrawn my RFA. Due to the lack of experience, I would go under admin coaching first before trying again later. I would thank you for your vote in this RFA whether you voted support, oppose or neutral for me. I appericiate your comments (if you do have) you made and I hope to see you here in future. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from AdilAliev

But these articles is written by us on wcra,uscra and azcra web sites.

--AdilAliev 22:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Assessment

Article assessment is an open project... no membership is required. To get involved as an assessor of articles specifically, you'll want to view the page for the current topic undergoing assessment. At the moment, that topic is African countries. To assess an article, you'll want to read through the guidelines as to how to evaluate each aspect of the article. When you have a good idea of what to look for specifically in each category, select an article that looks interesting from the topic page and read through the article in an evaluatative manner. Perhaps as you read or otherwise after you have finished reading, you'll want to edit the individual assessment page for that article and copy-paste the "Review by [name]" section from the bottom of the page. Then write down your scoring of the article in each area along with a total score. You should also add a few comments throughout the assessment about the various sections offering criticism or praise for the article's content. Make sure your review is added below any other reviews but above the blank review template. You'll also want to sign your review. Then just save the page and you've written a review!

If you want to help with the project in other ways, AA also needs suggestions for future topics along with help in choosing a topic from the suggestions list. You can also help by nominating articles during the topic's nomination phase, which happens during the week (or two weeks, depending on the run of the previous topic) before it is scheduled for assessment. Thanks for your interest in the project, and if you have any additional questions please feel free to contact violet/riga (the project leader) or I, though I will tell you that Violet/riga's wikipedia time is currently very scarce due to limited net access. Thanks again, and good luck! -DMurphy 22:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save the Game!

Help us track down verifiable sources to bring The Game back! Go to SaveTheGame.org! Bkkbrad 19:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real Aikido

Hi You flagged the page for copywrite problems. I think the /temp version is good enough to replace it. It had its 7 days. I had suggested a few fixes to the first attempt and it is a reasonable start. The associated Ljubomir Vracarevic page has similar problems but I have no idea what tags are appopriate. Cheers Peter Rehse 01:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The Real Aikido page was flagged for copyright violation by you. As I understood from reading the page I can not just replace that page with the new one that was written. Real Aikido/Temp I assumed it could be done by the same person that put the flag up orriginally. I would be happy to do so as I think it is ready.Peter Rehse 09:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:209.115.232.94

Hi. You put the test template on User:209.115.232.94's user page by mistake. Please put it on the talk page in the future. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You do not need to apologize for that. I just brought it to your notice as I thought you had made a mistake. - Aksi_great (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shock and Awe

Hello Batmanand, 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.[1] 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 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 20:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]