User talk:MrDolomite/Archive 5

I thought you wanted Wikipedia to have real information...
I did not bother signing in, but I am a contributor and was NOT making a "test" edit. That was real information you decided to take back out. Maybe you should have done some real studies yourself before taking out what I took the time to put in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.218.170.188 (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The message above was in response to a message I left on the IP talk page, seen here, regarding the edit made to Ray Mabus, seen here. I replied back on the IP talk seen here. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 16:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Pistons colours
Actually, I have to agree with you m8. Seing the Trailblazers template gave me some odd ideas. I'll change it, thanks & much respect. :) Malez 16:59, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

GAA to point to GAA (disambiguation)
I've proposed that GAA become the disambiguation page instead of GAA (disambiguation). You made an edit similar to this. Discussion at Talk:GAA (disambiguation) if you wish to participate. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 17:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

recent infraction to my IP
hello mr dolomite, id just like to say the edit made to the Omar Bradley page ((http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omar_Bradley&diff=prev&oldid=371927223)) was NOT made by the owner of this computer (me). I try to make only constructive and relevant edits to Wikipedia. Recently I had a friend watching my house, so he must have done this. I only make edits under my username anyway. I apologize for any misunderstanding.

75.104.128.54 (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

1776
dude its 1776 not 1976 thats not funny http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_leaders_by_rank —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.193.73 (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on IP talk page seen here. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 15:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

HotCat
I noticed you do a lot of categorization, do you know about WP:HotCat?Sadads (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Had heard of it, but never investigated. Thought it was a standalone program like WP:AWB, but now that I see it is script-based, I may give it a go. Thanks for the info. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 17:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is in the gadgets section of your user preferences, Sadads (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Pershing page
Well, you can find another site to wank you macho cyber ego on. The text I added on Pershing page was not intended as joke. I removed it after doing study on it and finding out it was not a true story but made up by someone for who knows what purpose. You are too rush to bully people. Take that to a game site or somewhere, you are not giving a very encouraging impression of wikipedia. Your "ballsy" show off was neither funny nor appreciated, shown HERE.
 * "Thank you for your contribution to John J. Pershing, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember that Wikipedia is a widely-used reference tool, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the sandbox to get started. Your edit, seen here, was neither funny nor appreciated. Either contribute to Wikipedia in a positive manner, or find another online place to goof off. — MrDolomite • Talk 13:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)"

btw. If you think you are writing an encyclopedia, I pity you. Wikipedia will never be a real encyclopedia. You should get real projects in your life to feel fulfilled and important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.95.169.107 (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The edits above were made by User talk:87.95.169.107 in response to my creation of that talk page, seen here, which I performed due to their edit to John J. Pershing, seen here. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 19:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 19:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Your Opinion
Please take a look at the situation at List of United States military leaders by rank. I am hoping you agree with my revert. -OberRanks (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

IP comment
LOOK AT GEORGE WASHINGTONS COMMISIONING DATE 1972?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.65.187 (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

George Washington
You may recall this edit? I'm wondering if any insignia was associated with this award? (But, to-date, I haven't found anything useful.) Can you tell me anything? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, I've never heard of any insignia for GW's new rank. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 23:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh. Hmmm. Well, that probably explains why I can't find anything useful. Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

your edit: IBM System/3 page
Hi,

You removed a link I added to the above page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IBM_System/3&action=history

Might I ask why? It's a video, unique as far as I know, of a System/3 in operation. This would seem to be entirely relevant and appropriate to the page in question.; if *I* was researching the System/3, I would delighted to be offered a link to such a video. Thanks

Mike (herder of mainframes at corestore.org ) 108.21.92.10 (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The User:XLinkBot posted several messages on your talk page regarding that link. I myself removed that link because wikipedia is not a collection of links, YOUTUBE and also, there is no indication of what kind of copyright the uploader has granted to that video.  While it _seems_ that they wanted anyone to see it, they didn't say so. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 02:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I thought the bot was simply trying to prevent link farming attempts; I thought my link to be highly relevant. I only link to *my own videos* produced and uploaded by me, so I'll avoid any copyright issues by posting an uploader comment on YouTube that makes the video free under Creative Commons license. Hope that will be satisfactory; I don't think the video breaks any other link policies.

Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.92.10 (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

1999–00
That has 1881–1986 so people don't think it is 1881–1886. For these NHL seasons, it is always just one year and the next one. There's no confusion for 1999–00. And what would it be confused with? 1999–2100? RandySavageFTW (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Listing it as 1999–00 is incorrect as it implies 1999–1900. You can only take away the first two digits of the second year if they are the same as the first two digits in the first year. Just take a look at Stanley Cup engravings:  --Izzygood (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks terrible in the table, no one is confusing it for 1999–1900 and yes it's like that on the cup but I don't mind it except when it's lined up with the other seasons in the tables. And there's sources that use 1999–00 like HockeyDB, Hockey Reference, and Legends of Hockey. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1999–00 is like a misspelled word; people will know what you mean but it is still misspelled. NHL.com uses four digits for each year (1998–1999) on player profiles, which would probably be the best 'correct' way to list the seasons if you want to prevent the table from looking "terrible". Legends of Hockey does use 1999–00 in the player's stats, but they use 1999–2000 on award pages. --- Why do the seasons have to line up on tables? Looking at the typical player's stats table, neither the team or league columns line up exactly. (The League column does on a few pages, but not for players who played in the NAHL, LNAH, QMJHL, etc.) --Izzygood (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Per YEAR, it is supposed to be the long way, with both centuries used. I would suggest taking it up on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) or WP:HOCKEY. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 18:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Magicword
Template:Magicword has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Evil IP address (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

General of the Armies - relative ranking
I assume you watchlist but wanted to bring your attention to my revert of your edit on List of United States military leaders by rank. I added an explanation at Talk:List of United States military leaders by rank. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 07:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Canadian Forces Medallion for Distinguished Service
I created the article that you requested on the WP:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals page. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I responded on his talk page here. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 17:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding disambig hatnote links and your edits to Pantages Theatre pages
The specific guideline can be found at WP:DLINKS. Hoping this will help for future reference on when to place these links. Thanks, &oelig; &trade; 09:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

PS. I do however see a case for adding a link to the dab page in a see also section.. considering every other article linked from the dab page is also a theater.. I do see how it can be helpful to readers. -- &oelig; &trade; 09:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Since they were all theaters, I felt having the hat note dab link would be very useful to readers who may have come to that page from outside WP. A google search may drop you on any of the ones on the list. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 16:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see that now. However I still think it unnecessary to use a hatnote and runs counter to the guidelines. A see also section link would probably be better. -- &oelig; &trade; 10:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, like just about everything on WP, the guidelines are vague and conflicting. :)  WP:HNP says to put them at the top so that "If a reader has reached the wrong page, they typically want to know that first."  There is only a single note on each page and a very short one, other so hopefully that isn't too disruptive.  Is there a WikiProject which may have had previously reached a consensus on this?  Because I believe they are important and should be returned to the articles in question to assist readers and editors. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 12:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)