User talk:SGGH/Archive 2009/December
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:SGGH. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Happy Birthday!!!
| File:18th Birthday.jpg | Hey, SGGH. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!-- MisterWiki talk (SIGN/REVIEW) 00:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
Happy Birthday YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 06:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks guys. SGGH ping! 12:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Your work is currently at FTC
YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 01:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Bob Willis
Would you mind if I reviewed or would you like someone else unrelated to the topic review the article. Don't worry I wouldn't be offended. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 19:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I have re-created the page Me & Orson Welles which redirects to the above correctly named article, which is also rather more in-depth, notable and lengthy than the one which was deleted over a year ago. The reason being a lot of people are incorrectly referring to and indeed linking it with the "&" sign in the title when it ought to be "and", therefore I thought a redirect was best as opposed to a redlink. I hope that this is ok. Feudonym (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Achim and submarines
I am currently going through all of Achim's contributions so I can get an in-depth feeling for the nature of the conflict. I believe that it revolves around a few misunderstandings, and will be working to clear those up. Thank you for consideration, while I investigate and try to find a beneficial resolution for all parties.Wjhonson (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I believe the underlying issue can be resolved. Take a look at the excellent work Achim did on the presentation method on SM U-92 as an example, showing the actual page images, and then the transcription, to make it clear that what follows is a verbatim transcription of the image, so anyone can verify that for themselves. Looks like a possible way forward. Then any other comment can go into a new section citing sources which discuss these documents or other related documents from a secondary source perspective. What do you think?Wjhonson (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Spaceabook.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Spaceabook.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Alletson
You happy to remove the tag now? --Dweller (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, cheers. SGGH ping! 16:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm quite new at this and am not yet familiar with all the ins and outs! I was wondering if you could take a look at the Wilfred Rhodes article. I have expanded it quite a lot in the last few weeks and would like to know what else could be done with it. Any points would be appreciated. Thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Are the page refs correct? Isn't there meant to be (.) after pp or p? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 22:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would have done: Aaroncrick, p. 248. but I don't know if there is a definite right or wrong way to do it. SGGH ping! 00:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: Dick Padden
Yup, that's the same guy. I don't think his managerial service is listed anywhere else (in 1900 the american league was technically a minor league still, but it's still a nice find). Wizardman 17:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Just so you know, I've nom'd it over at DYK. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Special Barnstar | |
| For your random decision to edit Dick Padden, which greatly improved an article that might otherwise have never moved past stub-class. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
I'm hoping to do something to improve the article, as and when time permits. He's something of a hero of mine, so I would like him to have a worthy article. I'll try not to let my hero-worship colour what I write! As johnlp is our Somerset expert, I've asked on his talk page if he would be willing to assist. JH (talk page) 22:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Dick Padden
|
On December 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dick Padden, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi again. The Wally Hammond article has a couple of tags on it, one of which I think you put on. I'm working on expanding the article and was wondering at what point they could come off and what is the correct way to do it? I'm not nearly finished yet, so I would probably wait until nearer the end.--Sarastro1 (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Sambot
Can you please block Sambot, it is malfunnctioning and I can't raise anyone to stop it! See here -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Re:Mohhan
I suppressed the revision. Technically stuff like that should be sent to the oversight mailing list in the future, just for privacy reasons. Who knows who watchlists my talk page? :) Wizardman 16:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Willis
woops ... Merry Christmas btw. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 06:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Are you going to be on this week before Christmas? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 10:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Will try and Willis rolling then, won't be much to fix; I remember reading after Brian's copy edit. Sense you're eager for FAC? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 10:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- 1973 that's interesting (1983 i'm hoping) :) Yeah know about Boycs ... should be close ... Brian did that one as well didn't he? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 10:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Good luck with your goal; big effort! No real easier ones to pick off; looking forward to Botham, however. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 11:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- 1973 that's interesting (1983 i'm hoping) :) Yeah know about Boycs ... should be close ... Brian did that one as well didn't he? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 10:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Will try and Willis rolling then, won't be much to fix; I remember reading after Brian's copy edit. Sense you're eager for FAC? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 10:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Make sure you add Talk:Bob Willis/GA1 to your watchlist. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 21:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Willis
Where did the previous section go? Hey, can you just quickly explain why Willis's is correct non Willis'? Just for future reference! :) Thanks. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- duh.. misread your comment, sorry. Thought I was right. Good to pass. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Poke
... Red Gown squeak at me! (quietly) 11:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
...
References and Verification
Good morning. I am trying to contribute to Wikipedia but as a new/novie contributor, it appears I have already done things incorrectly. I was trying to add references to certain faculty members at The Juilliard School. I assumed that by fully siting The Juilliard Journal Online and the New York Times, I was both providing information as well as documenting and verifying this information. Based on the messages I received back, this was a "no-no"... Sorry!
Is it permissible to provide an actual link (http://) to an article on another site, for example, an obituary in the New York Times, so that the reader may find additional information or verify any information that I may have written?
I am trying to make certain that the information I do contribute is accurate and verifiable.
Thanks. Seamanjg (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)