User talk:Ahudson

User:Ahudson/Sandbox



Heavy Metal Cellist talkcontribs has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Image copyright problem with Image:Symvalley.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Symvalley.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 23:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello there! It seems that you haven't been given a welcome message before...let me be the first to welcome you!

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --HappyCamper 11:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

World War 2 page length
I don't regard World War II as too long relative to it's importance, I'm also not sure that after 200-odd edits you are the right person to undertake such a big project - maybe take longer to get used to Wikipedia first? I suspect any drastic changes you make as proposed might get reverted. MarkThomas 18:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I see you've laid out plans to make major edits to all the major U.S. war articles. Please proceed very cautiously. Those articles are among the most thoroughly edited we have and the text is often carefully chosen to maintain consensus. Please show detailed plans or propose major changes individually on the talk pages. User:MarkThomas may be right that thismight be aproject better left to others, or for later. If your concern is length you might see if any of the articles developed sections that are tangential and self-contained. Those can make good sub-articles without requiring a major rewrite of the main article. -Will Beback · † · 00:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand both of your points, but nonetheless this task needs completion, and nobody else is doing it. As it stands, the article is unreadable. This, to me, is unacceptable, because there is so much information there that many people want; however, as far as I can tell this issue hasn't been addressed at all. So unless someone else steps up and decides to do it instead, I'm going to. I'm sure that, in the process, some people may get unhappy, but I think that by the time I'm finished most people will be happy with what I've done. Ahudson 22:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I almost think that the whole chronology section of the WWII article could be moved out into it's own article. The Overview gives enough of the structure of the war for me; in my view, all that needs to be in the article is the Overview section and a discussion of issues like Causes, Casualties, etc. It's too bad that so many people are getting in the way of your attempts to shorten the article. Keep up the good work, and don't get too frustrated. Heavy Metal Cellist talkcontribs

I think shortening the American Civil War article would make it worse
The subject matter makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the article to be adequate in covering the major topics if it was shorter, due to the nature of the subject matter. There are already a lot of sub-articles on the Civil War. Also, every attempt was made to be concise and leave out filler to begin with. I don't know what you could take out that would be an improvement, as opposed to the opposite. Jimmuldrow 02:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * See the discussion at Talk:World_War_II, specifically my post near the end with a list of points as to why this must be done. The main consideration is accessibility to the average user; but remember that sectioning an article up does not remove information, just move the bulk of it into a seperate article, leaving a summary behind. Ahudson 22:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the article you mention says that the article should be up to 15 printed pages "treated as a guideline, and considered case by case depending on the nature of the article itself", and given the nature of the Civil War, and given the fact that the 15 page guideline doesn't include pictures and notes and lists, and given the fact that the rest fits on 20 MS Word pages with easy to read Arial size 10 font, I think the length is within reason.Jimmuldrow 21:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll put it this way: I don't think I could read the whole thing in one sitting, and I'd have to read it a few times or very slowly before I could get a good idea of the civil war itself, and understand the whole thing. Comparing myself with those I know and encounter, I'd say I have higher-than-average reading speed and comprehension, and therefore most people couldn't read this whole article at once, which is the point of a singular article. Maybe you can read it, but keep in mind you seem to know a lot about the civil war. Try thinking as if you didn't know anything about the Civil War, and maybe you'll see my point. Ahudson 18:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that War Articles should be REally Freally long and then everyon will Like War becaus ethatts good!!!!!Celsiana 16:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

School or institution blocking
Hello Ahudson. :) Just wanted to confirm with you that 199.164.68.175 is blocked with the school block code, while allowing registered users to edit.  Take care, Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 16:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Ahudson 17:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Origami linkspam
Thanks for fighting linkspam on Origami. Unfortunately 24.85.248.99 is an obstinate spammer and added the link in a sixth time (14 edits and all to add this one link). I added a final warning to the talk page and if the link reappears I'll post a request to block the user. Of course, with an IP like that, who's to say that they'll stay down. A good spammer never quits... Fenevad 01:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * He did it again this morning, so I have requested a block on editing Origami for both his IP address and his user name. We'll see if it works. Fenevad 13:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You might just have to block him outright.... Ahudson 16:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * His user name was blocked indefinitely, and his IP was blocked for 24 hours. I suspect we'll see him again, but not for today at least. Fenevad 16:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I'll keep an eye out for it on my watch list. Ahudson 18:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Got a new IP address and is immediately back at it. I'm not sure what can be done at this point other than reverting the linkspam. I just hope I don't run afoul of 3RR for reverting it, even though reversion of vandalism should be exempt from 3RR. I visited his site and he seems keen on keeping the link live because he uses the link from Wikipedia to promote the site... I'm not sure what to do when he just gets a new IP address and is back at it. I think he probably even means well, but when he won't engage in dialogue requested in the edit summaries I believe he isn't even looking at them... I wonder if it's kosher to put a comment in the section alerting him to the problem. Fenevad 21:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think at this point it might be a good idea to call in an admin to help, as he appears to be sockpuppetting... I don't know what else to do. Well, we could just leave it there... one of the suggestions in WP:TROLL is to leave the edit there so the "troll" doesn't get attention and gets bored.... How does a week sound? or maybe a few months... Then again, I think we've done that before. I'll try to track down his email, maybe I can talk some sense into him in a forum where he'll actually respond... Ahudson 22:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Date Masamune
Sorry about that ... Mr Stephen 16:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries. vandal fighting is a demanding process. Ahudson 16:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the revert. :) :: Colin Keigher ( Talk ) 21:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome.Ahudson 21:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

hey loook
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis_Senior_High_School#See_also

write a page about mads already. You won a major international competition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TrogdorPolitiks (talk • contribs) 22:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Now there is two
I know this is a year late, but I fully agree to delete Norio Torimoto. I tried to get the article deleted once, but it didn't meet the criteria needed for speedy deletion. If Torimoto is as able to fold so skillfuly as the article describes, why isn't he more known??? The article sounds only like a fishy advertisement...--Origamikid (talk) 06:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Sayyad Zabiuddin


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Sayyad Zabiuddin. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Zabiuddin Ansari. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Zabiuddin Ansari - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions.  D Big X ray  06:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Robert Neale (paperfolder)


The article Robert Neale (paperfolder) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)