Jump to content

User talk:Zoicon5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Larnue the dormouse (talk | contribs) at 22:39, 8 April 2006 (Shock and Awe). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

'Lexiconographer, a harmless drudge' . Is that Doctor Johnson ??? The Norwikian

Yes. Zoicon5

Archived Zoicon5 Talk

Re. Burnbank - cheers for tidying the link up; I am still a Wiki novice and created the Burnbank page - also, does it need to link to Jock stein - he was from there I think.

WikiFun Round 9: Lightning Round Time

I have decided to attempt to advance and end the round quickly. Parts of the question will be revealed with more hints and/or be more elaborated on as every two days. I have currently provided more hints on the answer pages for the current remaining questions. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikifun

Hi, I've noticed you've taken part in Wikifun before.

Just to let you know, Round 11 begins today at 0900 GMT. Dmn 04:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have in the past edited William-Adolphe Bouguereau. A related article, the William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery has been nominated for deletion for violating WP:NOT (AfD here). A proposal to modify WP:NOT is here. Please join either or both conversations and comment as you see fit. Dsmdgold 16:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifun round 12

This is to invite you to participate in the next game of Wikifun.
Round 12 will begin at 11:00 UTC on Friday January 20. 2006.
-- Ravn 17:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walter C. Gribble Jr.

Thanks for fixing the goof I had made on Los Alamos in this article. Vaoverland 18:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig.

Hello,

Thank you for making the edit I did to the Philip Fox La Follette article better. I'm fairly new at using Wikipedia. For now the edits I usually make are: adding dates, places of birth, and (I hope) constructive formatting. As far as locations are concerned, I'm never quite sure whether to join (e.g.) city and state as one lookup or two. I've read the Wiki materials on disambiguation, and have a fair grasp of the concept. I looked at your particular edit and noticed you used a "|", this I couldn't find reference to. Please help me to understand what that particular edit does. Thanks. Michael David 23:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help Again

I left you a message earlier, perhaps you missed it.

Thank you for making the edit I did to the Philip Fox La Follette article (and others) better. I'm fairly new at using Wikipedia. For now the edits I usually make are: adding dates, places of birth, and (I hope) constructive formatting. As far as locations are concerned, I'm never quite sure whether to join (e.g.) city and state as one lookup or two. I've read the Wiki materials on disambiguation, and have a fair grasp of the concept. I looked at your particular edit and noticed you used a "|", this I couldn't find reference to. Please help me to understand what that particular edit does. Thanks. Michael David 22:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up on piped links. Now I can edit without you having to take the time to correct it. Thanks, again. Michael David 22:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Babe Ruth

I'm posting this message on you Talk Page either because you've contributed to the article Babe Ruth, or because you've edited other baseball or sports related articles. I've recently completed a revision of this article at Babe Ruth/rewrite. If you have the time, I'd appreciated it if you'd compare the articles and leave any feedback you might have on the rewrite discussion page. I'd like to reach a consensus before makeing major changes to the main article. Thanks for your help. --djrobgordon 20:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help - Wiki:Popups

Hi, I noticed a change made somewhere by you using Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation_popups which prompted me to set up the tool. My question is - Can I adjust popups to allow for automatic redlink removal when I find it on article pages? Any advice appreciated.VirtualSteve 04:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for your reply. Will do.VirtualSteve 20:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chew Valley Lake FAC

Hi, I've resubmitted Chew Valley Lake as a featured article candidate, because it didn't receive enough support last time.

As you have edited this page in the past I wondered if you would be willing to visit and comment/support on the nomination? Rod 20:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Musical theatre

Dear Sir, 

  I'm make a little error, in this page, and save your last edition.  I sorry, really.

Shock and Awe

Hello Zoicon5, 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 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 22:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zoicon5&oldid=47613463"