User talk:Patton123/Archive/2008

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Patton123/Archive, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

I'm no good at history merges, but saw that you were not yet welcomed, having done a great job on the article you asked about! Someone will be along shortly to merge or similar. Thanks for you hard work so far! ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 20:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFA edit[edit]

Also, regarding this edit... I believe Taxman is a 'crat. Your edit was clearly good faith, and you reverted it yourself of course, but its generally advised not to edit the page unless you are transcluding an RfA as a nom or candidate or closing one as a 'crat. You may be aware of this already - although your account appears to be new, I get the feeling it might not be your first. If you are new, welcome. If not, welcome back! Avruch T 19:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'll be more careful in future, never heard of Taxman before so I assumed he wasn't one :-)--Serviam (talk) 11:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hastati[edit]

The Content Creativity Barnstar
Great job on Hastati! Bearian (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, a barnstar...thanks a lot Bearian :-) It's nice to know my work is appreciated, realy, thanks a lot :-)--Serviam (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback[edit]

I've granted you rollback. Please take the time to visit Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback to practice, and ask on my talk page if you need help. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll have a read over that page then :-)--Serviam (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

strange question[edit]

You wouldn't happen to have ever played a computer game called Dragonrealms, have you? ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, never heard of the game. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Forgotten Realms something to do with it?--Serviam (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, or at least nothing that isn't incredibly tangential. Your username, Serviam, is a character name that someone I used to know used in that game.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Am, right, sorry. Serviam means "I will serve" in latin, which is what I intend to do here at wikipedia, writing articles and all. I do have RTW though, and that's a great game ;-).--Serviam (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request to move article Cohort (military unit) incomplete[edit]

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Cohort (military unit) to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

  1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
  2. Added {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
  3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

Thanks! have you seen much of my stuff then? i'm afraid i cant recall having much (if any) interaction with you as a user. Actually, does deleting pages count as "stuff"? :P. Ironholds 15:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ahh ok, thank you. I have made some mistakes (and i freely admit to that) but the ratio of mistakes to edits when i've made 5,300-odd edits is fairly good. Hopefully i'll be nominated for adminship at some point to make the deletion process that much faster. Thanks again for the barnstar, its the first one i've got. rollback and a barnstar within 3 days of each other makes me a happy wikipedian.Ironholds 15:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Military history participants[edit]

Hi!

The consensus of the Military history WikiProject has been to avoid creating member categories, as they cause problems with maintaining the active member list, and break automated tools that depend on it. Thus, we were wondering if you'd be willing to get rid of the category and use the member list instead?

Thanks! Kirill (prof) 17:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay then, if that's the current consensus I'll get it speedily deleted.--Serviam (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and hope to see you around! :-) Kirill (prof) 17:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm on the members list, I just thought I'd add the cat to keep with the other cats on my userpage lol--Serviam (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work[edit]

Dude, it says that the scientific community regards it as a psuedo science,

Great comment, I think that will pretty much clear up any debate (hopefully) on the pseudoscience matter. Keep up the good work! --Lightnin Boltz (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks, I'd watchlisted those pages on evolution and creationism cos I heard there would be a bit of POV pushing there, and thought I'd be able to clear it up fairly un-controversially, and without much hassle. I never thought I'd be thanked for my comments...thanks!--Serviam (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Lissa (1811)[edit]

Many thanks for you comments and suggestions on the above article that is now a Featured Article. Your assistance during the review process was much appreciated and helped make the article what it is today.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou :-)--Serviam (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Triarii[edit]

I'm reviewing your GAN and started with triarii. Please do the recommended changes. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leves[edit]

Updated DYK query On 1 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Leves, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 08:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank's RfA[edit]

Hi there, and I apologize in advance if this is too forward. I see you opposed Frank on his recent RfA but made it clear you would reconsider if your concerns were addressed. I believe he's made an attempt to address those concerns, and I'm not sure if you've had a chance to look over his clarification of Q1. It's alright if you still oppose but I just wanted to make sure you saw it before his RfA closed. Thanks :) -FrankTobia (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you can see my reply there, I've struck the oppose now.--Serviam (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serviam, you struck your oppose but didn't indent it (replacing '#' with '#:') as is usual with retracted comments so they are not included in the autonumbering. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly indented your comment, interpreting your comment here as intention to retract the oppose as well as the comment itself. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thankyou.--Serviam (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks[edit]

Thank you so much[edit]

Thanks for the barnstar and the message you left. You really made my day better. I really appriciate it.

Hello Patton123/Archive, Gears Of War has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy Independence Day![edit]

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm actually Irish, but thanks! Hadn't realised it was independence day over there lol.--Serviam (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional rfa thank you message[edit]

Thank you for the support!
Patton123/Archive, it is my honor to report that thanks in part to your support my third request for adminship passed (80/18/2). I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me, and I will endeovour to put my newly acquired mop and bucket to work for the community as a whole. Yours sincerly and respectfuly, TomStar81 (Talk) 03:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin coaching[edit]

Hi Serviam, I'm glad that you reconsidered Happyme22's RfA... It really bothers me when people aren't open minded enough to explore a candidate and his/her contributions or to see how the coaching might have improved a candidate. Coaching isn't by definition bad. Now there are people who get coaching that I oppose---I personally have a higher standard for anybody who has been through coaching---but I think it is important to look at the candidate and make decisions based upon the candidate, not upon some a priori assumption that might be wrong. Again, I mention this because I've seen too strong of a backlash against some poorly prepared candidates affecting those who are strong candidates. I ask that you remember this one and like Happy judge others on their merits/flaws, not upon some bias against people who sought help.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into canidates more thoroughly in future, it was my mistake, I'm sorry.--Serviam (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thankful that you did... I really appreciate the open mindedness. I think there are some really good coaches out there who do their best to help, but then are being shot down because it seems that there are more bad coaches who are noming people who aren't ready. ---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've become used to seeing coachees who just want adminship for its own sake and aren't here for the benefit of wikipedia. When I see "coaching" I've come to assume the worst, and I'm glad I took the time to look over the contributions myself.--Serviam (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA[edit]

Your strong oppose is currently residing in the Neutral section. It looks most uncomfortable there. RMHED (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thank you[edit]

Thank you!
Patton123/Archive, it is with deep awareness of the responsibility conferred by your trust that I am honored to report that in part to your support, my request for adminship passed (87/14/6). I deeply value the trust you and the Wikipedia community have in me, and I will embark on a new segment of my Wikipedia career by putting my new tools to work to benefit the entire community. My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA[edit]

On this RFA[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RMHED 2], you marked your !vote as Strong Oppose[1], but you put it in the Netural column. If you want to oppose, then move your !vote. Just wanted to let you know. America69 (talk) 04:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my mistake lol. Was an accident..--Serviam (talk) 10:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA[edit]

I just moved you vote. figured it was pretty non-controversial. Protonk (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot!--Serviam (talk) 10:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No trouble at all. Protonk (talk) 13:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panzer I A-Class Review[edit]

Hey,

Since you're a member of the Military land vehicles task force I just wanted to let you know that the Panzer I article is currently going through an A-class review. Your comments and support would be much appreciated, and would help the task force continue on its way to increasing the quality under its scope. Thank you! JonCatalán (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TAM going through A-class review[edit]

Hey, the article TAM, which falls under the scope of the Military Land Vehicles Task Force, is currently undergoing an A-class review. Your comments are most welcomed! If you don't wish to be notified of future A-class reviews and/or peer reviews that fall under the scope of this task force, please comment on the task force's talk page. Thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

triarii[edit]

You can use {{externalimage}} to link directly to copyrighted images on the net (use image's url). It is compatible with FAC criteria as you can see in War against Nabis. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. Happy editing! –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Serviam/Cloverleaf interchange[edit]

I happened to notice your work on User:Serviam/Cloverleaf interchange, and I wasn't sure if you had seen Cloverleaf interchange. I once wrote a whole article only to find that there was already one on the same topic with a slightly different name - what a waste of time! ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leves[edit]

Thanks for improving the article. It no longer contradicts itself, but it contradicts the Livy who mentions velites for the battle of Telamon. Please clarify on what basis this change is asserted. The intro is too long and there's no need to explain the complete mechanics of the legion. It's enough to mention that they opened hostilities before the close combat troops closed in. I have seen some theories that they are supposed to have played a part in filling the gaps between the formations of hastati and Livy mentions detachments of velites and equites during the Punic Wars. Were these a new inventions and were the leves always bound to the hastati, while the velites were a fourth branch of the infantry? If your date for the switch from leves to velites is true, you should highlight the Battle of Telamon. It would benefit the article if the distinction between the leves and other light troops was highlighted. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's wrong. There are multiple version and you have to present that. Say from to the second half of the 3rd century to 221 BC they were introduced. However, this leaves the important battle of Telamon to be conducted by leves given the later date and Livy says velites. You have to research the issue more thorough and find out on what sources these assumptions about the introduction are based upon. Then you can fairly present the different arguments concerning when they were introduced. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This may help you. The authors use sources and if their work is scientific they provide a reference to their source. These sources are dated and either mention velites or leves. This way you can retrieve when the last time leves were mentioned and when the first time velites. If you're doing such a compilation, you can also retrieve where leves are mentioned at all. There shouldn't be too many sources and you can autosearch(using your browser) the texts after this keyword. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you to all who participated in my RFA- regardless of whether you supported or opposed, all feedback is important to me. I look forward to proving in the coming months that the trust placed in me by the community is not misplaced. Mizu onna sango15
Thank you to all who participated in my RFA- regardless of whether you supported or opposed, all feedback is important to me. I look forward to proving in the coming months that the trust placed in me by the community is not misplaced. Mizu onna sango15
The Barnstar | My RFA | Design by L'Aquatique


The Mizu onna sango15 Barnstar
Thank you to all who participated in my RFA- regardless of whether you supported or opposed,

all feedback is important to me. I look forward to proving in the coming months that the trust placed in me by the community is not misplaced.
—Mizu onna sango15Hello!


Tanks in the Spanish Army FAC[edit]

Hey, if you can, I was wondering if you could support the FAC. Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 22:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought i already did..."I wholeheartedly support recognitionn" is at the end of my comment...--Patton123 22:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

drop by[edit]

Proposal to end the template conflict and let the users decide. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok commented--Patton123 14:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: December 2008[edit]

"Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to Silures. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Patton123 19:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)"

You have deleted the phrase "So-called Celts" in reference to the Silures, yet the genetic evidence, garnered by Sykes and Oppenheimer in their research clearly shows that the British, the Scots, the Irish and the Welsh were not and are not Celtic peoples. Surely you read fact, rather than simple mythology?

In that case say that they weren't celts, don't say "so-called" celts because that's one of the most unencyclopedic terms imaginable. It's chock full or bias and cyniscism.--Patton123 15:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol... You mean 'Alleged' don't you?
No. While "Alleged" is worse, "so-called" is a similar word. See WP:WEASEL for more info.--Patton123 20:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thankspam[edit]

Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 61/52/7; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.

Special thanks go out to Wizardman and Malinaccier for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board.

Thanks again for the trust the community has placed in me. A special Christmas song for you all can be found at the right hand side of this message!

Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Dendodge TalkContribs, 17:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on my userpage[edit]

Patton123,

I'm a bit puzzled by your comment on my page:

What, may I ask, were you thinking when you made these reverts? [2] [3] [4] That's hardly trolling. He thinks something is OR. If you don't think so discuss it with him on the talk page. Your reversions were trolling. Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly and disruptive conduct such as this is prohibited. Please see incivility--Patton123 16:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]



Yes, He thinks it's OR, the references attached to the various sentances show otherwise. This isn't the first time he's done that, nor the second , nor even the third. I've explained to him that these are referenced and therefore not OR however, he continues his claim. At that point, I consider it trolling. Further, it's not trolling to restore referenced content. I stand by my statement. KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 16:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a Copyedit for FAC Review[edit]

Hi Patton123,

Can I please bother you with some copy-edit ? The article Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II) is a A class Wikipedia:MIL article. User:Joe N in his A class review suggested Level 4 Copy edit. I believe it complies with MOS guidelines but then I am interested in going through a FAC review so I'd appreciate if you could check for 5 as well. Appreciate the help. Perseus71 (talk) 10:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'll start right now.--Patton123 13:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Patton,
First off, thanks a lot for that prompt response. Its really appreciated. I have nominated the article here. It already had a Peer Review. I'd appreciate your support. To my knowledge it is first of its kind for any Luftwaffe related articles. I know there are people biographies there.. Well thanks for your time once again Perseus71 (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Patton123/Archive/2008&oldid=1069705093"