User talk:Wdfarmer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wdfarmer.
This is the user talk page for User:Wdfarmer, where you can send messages and comments to Wdfarmer.

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Wdfarmer, 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 (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Flockmeal 05:48, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Moved Page

Hullo. I moved the page that you created, United States Navy ship naming conventions, to a new location, American ship naming conventions. I explained my reasoning on the discussion page at the new location; just thought that I ought to let you know. Cheers. Zamzodder 05:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help with class project

Hello, I am doing a class project in wish I have to complet a wikipedia article. I was wondering if you could take a look at it and tell me what you think. Thank you for your help. My article is titled cultivator.--Ghmd 13:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)ghmd

[edit] Twiggy/Lesley Hornby

If you watch this episode here, Twiggy clearly acknowledges her old name as "Lesley Hornby." Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 12:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Season's Greetings

Season's Greetings!

[edit] Results of the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries

On the subject of your edits I have a couple of concerns. First, I understand that there are style issues, but I think it best for the name of the event (whether a caucus or a primary) to be in the headings, just to make the event clear. For example, I think it would better for the heading that currently is “Iowa” to be “Iowa caucus”. I don’t think it matters if there is a link or not in the heading for “caucus”, but it seems odd for there to be one below to “Iowa Democratic caucuses, 2008”. My other concern is that the style of the page should parallel results of the 2008 Republican presidential primaries. I’d like to move this discussion to here so other users can input their opinions. – Zntrip 20:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your idea on moving the discussion, and have answered in your talk page. Wdfarmer (talk) 07:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have made two posts on Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries and Talk:Results of the 2008 Republican presidential primaries. I’ve directed the discussion to the first, so that everything is on one page. – Zntrip 21:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, Wdfarmer! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for letting me know. I was testing to see how fast the edit would be reverted, to test to see if the wikipedia community kept up on the job of keeping the content encyclopedia-ish and correct. So far, most of my results have been that edits have been reverted in under a minute, which is making wikipedia look a lot better than most schools give it credit for.

--Friend-Of-No-ONe (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation templates

Thanks for your comments. Much appreciated. Yes, I think some editors pay lip service to the idea of working toward consensus, in reality preferring to game the system with deliberate antagonism. Anyway, I haven't quite lost faith in the power of reason yet. I don't get time to edit each and every day (I'm not sure I'd want to), but slowly, slowly, hopefully there'll be some progress. --SallyScot (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanx for advices —Preceding unsigned comment added by US - Jimmy Slade (talk • contribs) 23:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blaine

Thank you for providing a picture for the Blaine, Minnesota article. Would it be possible for you to take a picture of Blaine's city flag for use here as well as in Blaine's article? thanks, --Appraiser (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Nice photo. I added it here to a new set for the Minnesota portal. -Susanlesch (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Our little argument about primaries and caucus

Please look in the discussion area. I guess we just have onbe dissence about the row actual pledged delegates. Please tell me your meaning about it. If we cannot agree, we can skip this row - that is what I think. Do you agree?

[edit] Please stop

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries, you will be blocked from editing. Please register and propose your changes in the discussion page. The 3-revert-rule is now in effect: see WP:3RR. Wdfarmer (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Wdfarm, you are way to fast by using the word vandalism and speaking out warnings. Even when you are doing it (without any reason), you do not give any time to react on it. And please consider the dimension of our SMALL disagreement right. Calm down, we will find a way, which will suit any wikipedia user. O.K.? Thanks for your understanding! See you in the discussion area.

It is funny: I had been thinking the same about you, but I did not mention it (cause I am trying to be nice). I am the one who is using the footnotes and who is marking the resources. I did not see that by your changes. Calm down. It seems that you are an emotional person. I love people who are emotional. So , if you find something positive about me, we will be able to work together for sure! You are invited, Wdfarm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.132.240.19 (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic primaries

Well, if the results are admitted, we can change back the section header. But personally, I don't like controversy as it's one of those words to avoid, even if it is true - saying the primaries were nullified is both true and NPOV. Will (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC for 77.128/132.*.*

Thought you should know that I started an WP:RFC (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/77.128.196.58) for 77.128/132.*.*. You may want to comment and add to the discussion. ~ PaulT+/C 09:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this. I've signed the RFC. Wdfarmer (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] US Primary/Caucus Results Table Template

Hello, Wdfarmer! I had an idea for a template that I'd like to make and after our lengthy discussion on a similar topic, I thought that you might be interested in helping me with it. On Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries, we're in the process of moving the individual state event results tables off of that article and onto all the individual state articles. The only problem with scattering the results tables among many articles is maintaining consistency between the tables. It occurred to me that an election results table template might do the trick. The idea is to make a template that takes several input parameters (such as contest_type, state_name, candidate_1_name, candidate_1_vote_count, etc.) and dynamically draws a primary/caucus results table like the ones currently listed at the bottom of the Results article. I thought the process of making such a template would be a good way to learn about template creation. Interested? --Bryan H Bell (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic Primaries

Thanks for your comments at Talk:Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008. An issue has arisen over how to represent the winner of the Texas primary-caucus hybrid. I'm trying to move us quickly toward consensus. Please vote here: Talk:Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008#Moving Toward Consensus. Thanks! Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Sorry I responded too late, but I'm in agreement with your consensus, and have posted my vote below it. The question does bring up another question for me, however: see my new section, Two rows for Washington?. Wdfarmer (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Template sandbox

No worries. I don't like it when people leave pages which should never be moved, like William Shakespeare, unprotected like that. Graham87 02:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vote to overturn previous consensus on rows

Thanks for your past comments and contributions at Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries. Right now there is a significant vote taking place at Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Vote to overturn previous consensus on rows about whether or not to overturn a previous consensus that each row in the Overview of results table should represent individual nominating events. The vote ends at the close of March 19, 2008 (UTC). The vote contains the negative-option that if there is a tie or fewer than 4 total signatures the previous consensus will prevail. I invite you to visit the talk page and submit your vote on the matter. Thanks! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reporting some one to the administrators

If you donot mind, i would like you to help me fighting vandilization. i want to report a user, but i donot know how, or who to report him/her to. Thanx in advance. One last pharaoh (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Reporting someone to the administrators is the very last thing you want to do. Have you already read and followed the steps at WP:VANDAL? Those include reverting (WP:REVERT) an article and issuing warnings (WP:WARN) of increasing severity. Only after you have personally gone through these steps, including issuing gradually increasing warnings up through level 4, and the vandalism has still not stopped, then may you contact the administrators following the procedure at WP:AIV. The administrators WILL reject your request if you have not gone through the warning procedure yourself.
In the process of reverting and warning, be sure that you do not get into a "revert war" (see WP:3RR); you are only allowed to revert another person's edits to an article a maximum of 3 times.
Make sure you review the offending user's talk page before issuing a new warning to them. See if they have been warned before, or blocked before. If the user is not registered (does not have a name, but is using an IP address only), the vandalism could be the work of multiple persons sharing that IP address.
Wdfarmer (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanx for the helpful response, sorry for the late reply. One last pharaoh (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alphonso Jackson

Your comments make sense, but I think that's an artifact of how the article is organized. Surely his resignation is part of the Career section.

Let me think about a way to address this that doesn't cause the reader to make the inference that his resignation is a consequence of the scandal. I mean, we all know it is, but you're right, that's editorialization and non-objective, and I've reverted similar edits myself, so I take your point.

My initial take is that the three subheadings Selecting contractors..., Conflict of interest... and Withholding funds... should be grouped into their own subheading under Career and the resignation would precede that subheading, so the resignation is not part of that. What's a good heading? "Controversies," maybe? TJRC (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Is "Allegations of misconduct" too strong? – Wdfarmer (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. If someone feels it's too strong, it'll get modified. TJRC (talk) 05:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hogwarts

Just thought I'd let you know that "Enrolment" is proper spelling according to British English. British English is used in all articles referring to Harry Potter according to the Manual of Style. Happy editing! [Ashleyy|osaurus] 18:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I'd looked about briefly and hadn't seen any "colour"s, so I'd assumed otherwise. – Wdfarmer (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)