User talk:WPGA2345/archive

WPGA2345, you are invited to the Teahouse

 * Thanks for the invite. I appreciate it.WPGA2345 (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK
Hi, would you mind if I nominated Operation Crimson for DYK? Thanks, Mat  ty. 007 18:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, that sounds great. Thanks!   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   18:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you can find it at this page. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  18:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 14:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Will do now.   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   18:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Operation Crimson
Gatoclass (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Films
Hi, if you create any more can you add them to the lists like List of American films of 1945? Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. Thanks for the suggestion!   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   22:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Gunship
Please stop capitalizing the word "gatling" in a file name...they are case sensitive.--RAF910 (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know about the problem. I have made a request on the Commons page for the image file to be renamed to Gatling with a capital "G," so no one will accidentally try to fix it again.   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   03:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Mat ty. 007 14:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Educational institutions in the United States by accreditation association
Category:Educational institutions in the United States by accreditation association, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 05:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Minesweeping, Demining, Minesweeper (ship), Naval Mines
It seems to me that the various articles that cover the removal of Naval Mines are in a bit of a logical muddle. The Naval Mine article has the most information, but the Demining article only mentions Naval Mines once, without actually giving any material information. There is a danger of one subject completely burying the other. The disambiguation page Minesweeper has links into all the major articles: i.e. Naval Mines, land mines, demining, Minesweeper (ship). Without this disambiguation page, someone who searches for minesweeping ends up reading nothing about the naval activity. I appreciate that the parts of speech are not ideal, (verb gets you to a noun), but otherwise you either rewrite all the articles involved or have another disambiguation page that achieves exactly what the minesweeper disambiguation page does. It seems to me that two such pages that do the same job is undesirable. If we work on the basis that people use Wikipedia to find things out, then I think we have to accept that my proposed redirect method is imperfect, but I think the user who finds required information would not notice that. There is a lot of good information there, but there is a problem with accessibility. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that Wikipedia usually treats these kinds of terms differently, as with, for example, driver, which is also a disambiguation page, and driving, which is an article on the action. It is actually better from a long term view to rewrite the articles involved, because an article on demining that excludes naval demining is missing something that should definitely at least be mentioned there. I think that the user who looks for minesweeping is looking for information about minesweeping, possibly limited to land or sea, but maybe in a more general sense then that.   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   22:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

OK - I see your point (just checked the Driver/driving situation). I think an extra disambiguation page is the stop-gap solution. The original problem is that the demining article is really only about removal of landmines. This is actually something that I could accept, as my terminological understanding is that nowadays people use "demining" or "mine clearance" for landmines and "minesweeping" for naval mines. Furthermore, combining clearance of naval and land mines in one article may be too big a subject. I note that the article on naval mines is quite an extensive piece of work. I'll take another look at this in the next few days - out of time now. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing is, if this link points to a disambiguation page then it will make a lot of links point there. My understanding of things is that editors are always going to want to try to fix those links by correcting them to a page that isn't a disambiguation page. Since you say that people use "minesweeping" for naval mines, that sounds like a primary topic issue. If that's the case then "minesweeping" should be pointing to an article that is about clearing naval mines.   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   05:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

page is nominated for disambiguation?
I noticed you put this text in the edit summary on several pages you made changes to - what do you mean by this? Also the edit messed up the links in at least two of the pages - you have a pipe (|) where there should be a #, and there is no need to link to the overview as the basic link already points to the top of the page where the overview is.NiD.29 (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Also wondering if there is some reason you are changing to , other than for the sake of changing something?NiD.29 (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Some of the edits he made with this edit summary were correctly described, but between 03:30 and 03:40 today there were about 50 edits with that summary which actually consisted of minor formatting fixes. I'm assuming this was a mistake. – Smyth\talk 12:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for alerting me to the problem. I see it and I am fixing it now.   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   20:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Aircraft
Thanks for signing up for this project. It is a very busy and active project with lots going on and we can always use more help and especially a fresh set of eyes. If you haven't done so already you might want to add Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft to your watch list as this is where much of the background discussion occurs. You may also want to watch New articles (Aircraft) as this is where newly created articles get listed for peer review. Having a look over these new articles is a great way to get a feel for how things are done on the project and also most new articles need reviewing anyway. If you have any questions you can leave me a note or post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft, either way you will get a quick response. - Ahunt (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I appreciate it.   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   02:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The Ribbon International
You are changing quotes, and who made the quotes. Susan Macafee (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please provide the diff. Thanks   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   18:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Edward J. Kay
Yeah, sorry about that. I meant to do the rest of the filmography chronologically but I forgot. Anyway, I've fixed it now. Thanks for flagging it up. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks.   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   17:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Subgenus Nebularia
Thank you WPGA2345, for your attempt to create a new article on a sea snail subgenus. I am not sure which source you used for your information (?) as you did not cite a reference or even give an external link. Here on Wikipedia, for taxon articles on marine gastropods we use only one taxonomic source, and that is the database WoRMS. The world-class taxonomists on WoRMS do not seem to fully recognize Nebularia as a subgenus, only as an "alternate representation", so I will probably make your stub into a redirect. However, I have posted a question on the talk page of the gastropod project, and I will see if anyone else has an opinion on this before I do that. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the concern you've suggested. I made this article only because there are a large number of redlinks coming from the infoboxes. If this is a naming controversy, it probably means that those infoboxes should be edited to not contain this link. I'd be glad to help do that, if you can tell me what should be in them instead of Nebularia. Thanks.   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   23:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Another member of the project and I have worked on the stub over the last couple of days, and managed to fix it up into a functioning article, so thanks very much for starting it. Take a look and you will see how it looks now -- much improved. We do appreciate your work in creating the stub; maybe next time you could leave a little note on the talk page of the gastropod project (see template on the talk page of any gastropod article) and that way we will know what is going on. Many thanks again for your help on flagging this for us. Invertzoo (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Invertzoo. The page looks great! Next time, I'll be sure to check first at the gastropod project.   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   17:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Navy Cross redlinks
You added Navy Cross (UnitedStates) to many articles. The link is Navy Cross (United States). Can you fix please. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixing now.   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   00:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. There is nothing like a dumb error (and not using the preview button) to double your edit count! Your contribution and effort on those hundreds of articles is truly appreciated. – S. Rich (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You've replaced dozens of instances of Navy Cross with Navy Cross (UnitedStates) when you should have been substituting Navy Cross (United States). (See the difference a space makes?) You're welcome to go back and fix them all. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 00:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixing now.   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   00:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Everything is now fixed. Thanks!  - WPGA2345 -    ☛   03:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014 disambig contest: let's do it again!
Greetings fellow disambiguator! Remember back in February when we made history by clearing the board for the first time ever, for the monthly disambiguation contest? Let's do it again in May! I personally will be aiming to lead the board next month, but for anyone who thinks they can put in a better effort, I will give a $10 Amazon gift card to any editor who scores more disambiguation points in May. Also, I will be setting up a one-day contest later in the month, and will try to set up more prizes and other ways to make this a fun and productive month. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks! Seems like a cool effort.   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   02:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Move review notification
Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Canvassing that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

L.A. Meetup on September 21
I just might do one of these, one of these days.  - WPGA2345 -    ☛   02:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion
Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request
Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)