Jump to content

User talk:Alexwcovington

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 22:47, 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.

Posters: I will reply at your user talk page unless otherwise requested.

User talk:Alexwcovington/ND Wikiproject proposal User talk:Alexwcovington (Archive 1)

I nominated MatthewUND for admin

If you'd like, please vote for him here. (Opes 00:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Sadly, it doesn't look like I've got a chance of making it this time. Guess I need to get out there and spend some more time talking instead of editing, huh? Oh well...I guess I'll have another chance. Anyways, thanks for the support, Alex. Actually, I've recently been going to ask you if you would like it if I nominated you to be an admin...what do you think? You've been on here a long time and deserve the recognition. --MatthewUND(talk) 19:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject North Dakota, adminship

I'm willing to do anything to help the pending Wikiproject North Dakota. I see that you let Opes know about the proposal. I bet he might be interested in helping out too.

As far as adminship, I think we both probably will gain that status over time. Guess we have to be more sociable, huh? --MatthewUND(talk) 23:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still think you have a chance. As far as I know you can drum up support for your cause, you just cant spam doing it. (Opes 23:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

And Alex, yea I have been thinking about getting involved with that ND project, so I will declare my intentions. (Opes 23:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, I'd be interested in helping out as well for WPND, what would you want me to do? misternuvistor 05:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

beverlin and others

slngo82://

thanks alex. i really appreciate your comments and suggestions. i guess i wasn't expecting all this to happen so viciously. i was going to contact the inclusionists last night which i just found out about. find out how i could make my articles better. i know they were very bare, but i just wanted to start somewhere. i'll work on some of them in the sandbox and maybe send them around for suggestions. if you're interested, i'll try running it by you. thanks again. BrycebeverlinII 18:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperspace

Hi, can you do me a favor and revisit Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hyperspace? ---CH 22:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Videography Revert?

I noticed that you reverted one of the edits to Videography. There seems to be trouble brewing there again as User:Bob Kiger seems intent on turning it into a vanity piece for his writing on the subject. Take a look when you get a chance. Regards --Jeremy Butler 22:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stepping in there, AlexWCovington. When User:Bob Kiger likened my edits to book burning in Nazi Germany, I feared we were heading for a revert war. It could still happen, but perhaps now he can see that his edits really don't fit in with Wikipedia policies. Regards --Jeremy Butler 12:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for voting!
Although this is a bit late in coming, I want to thank you for voting (no matter what your vote was) in my recent request for adminship. You might be aware that it did not pass due to a lack of consensus. The final tally was 21/9/10. I think I will try again this spring or summer after I have gained a bit more experience and met a few more fellow editors. Thanks again!

--MatthewUND(talk) 05:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote on Userbox policy

Support. Banning political userboxes stifles free expression, and limits the ability of editors to determine the general stance of others in certain situations. --AlexWCovington (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you intend to support then? The policy clearly does stifle free expression, in part by banning lists of Wikipedians and userboxen.

StrangerInParadise 18:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yaaay! Now, you need to remove your struckout vote, as the counters just look at the last one for the tally.

StrangerInParadise 20:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

North Dakota wikiproject

I grew up on the western part of the state near Watford City, ND, so I can give as much information as I can. You just need to direct me to what you would like me to work on and the link to where the project is. --Leopold Samsonite

Perth

For your WP:RM listing of Perth, Towner County, North Dakota I have added the template and discussion area on its talk page. Gene Nygaard 14:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High School Sports

Would an article on North Dakota High school athletic association be appropriate? It would mostly be on the past champions and all that stuff mainly in football basketball and wrestling.--Leopold Samsonite

North Dakota High School Athletic Association has been started but the NDHSAA won't give out any information, and the only play that has all the information is the Almanac of North Dakota Sports, and I can't find out if anymore are in print. --Leopold Samsonite

Wikiproject

Good to see it finally off the ground! Great job - I will help in any ways possible. Weatherman90 18:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shock and Awe

Hello Alexwcovington, 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 22:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alexwcovington&oldid=47614483"