User talk:Usrnme h8er/Archive 1

I just deleted it, but in tagging it, you just recreated the page. I've now blocked the guy for 48 hours (increasing length) to let it sink in. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:52, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Too late again, I already added that template and locked the page. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:58, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know when the official "First Battle" was. World War I Day by Day gives it as 27 September to 10 October 1914, Major & Mrs Holt's Battlefield Guide: The Western Front - North says is started on 26 October 1914 and Keegan's First World War gives it as 14 to 24 December, which was the period of a wider French offensive in Artois and Champagne. There are plenty of sources that name the battle starting 9 May 1915 as the "Second Battle" and the battle starting 25 September 1915 as the "Third Battle", such as the Holt Guide and The Great War by Robert Crowley. Geoff/Gsl 10:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to do about the "First Battle". I would be happier if I could find at least two sources that agree on the dates but I don't have much on the French fighting in Artois and Picardy in 1914. Unfortunately I don't have much time to do any research or writing at the moment. Geoff/Gsl 11:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The country links were removed by mistake when i had an edit conflict with you. My apologies.

Dob & Dod links are standard when and only when there is a full date, because then they allow the date preferences to work. There is no other good reason for them to exist. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting says If the date does not contain a day and a month, then date preferences do not work. In such cases, square brackets around dates do not respond to user preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it. (emphasis mine). I routinely remove such year links when otherwise editing articels, and I ask others not to add them. DES ^(talk) 18:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote (on my talk page) I agree with the above editor, your obsession with the "date preference" functionality as a style suggestion is strange, notice that the Manual of Style link posted by the above editor shows very clearly that lonely years generally ARE linked. The date preference functionality is the ability of wikipedia to automatically translate a 7 September and a 7 September to the same page. It has nothing to do with what should or should not be linked. Usrnme h8er 15:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh but it does. You are correct about what the date preferences are and how they work -- although if I am not mistaken until version 1.5 of the software they only worked if a full date (year, month and day) was present. But the connection is that the only resason why links on dates are widespread is to activte these prefernces. It is most unlikely that the content of an article reached via a year link will have any relevance to the article about some event (such as a birth or death) that happened in that year, or that a user would follow such a link, or find that the information reached in any significant way illuminated the source article if the link is followed. Thus making such links is overlinking; they are, strictly speaking, pointless; and they should be ruthlessly removed. DES ^(talk) 15:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You responded: Interesting... But it still doesn't make sense to me... So I'm going to continue discussing it until a) it does, or b) I come to the conclusion that I simply don't agree. I hope I don't end up pissing you off, but I prefer this method to edit wars... First of all, can you explain the Manual of Style entry that contradicts you? Second, regardless of date preferences, if I follow the date links in George W. Bush (my favourite sample site because it bugs people... :P) I end up on equally usless sites as if I follow year links on Harry Charles Luke... It doesn't make any sense to me that the GWB dates should be links when the Sir Harry dates are not... Why the application of date references should matter if beyond me, and (normally at least) I don't fancy myself thick... Usrnme h8er 16:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, following the date links on the GWB article, or on any article, rarely if ever takes you to a sensible place. So why are full dates linked? Because the only way wikipedai "knows" that a text string is a date, and can activate the date preferences, is when the date is linked. Note that many date formats that can be chosen with date preferences include the year, so 2005-09-15, 15 September 2005, and Sepember 15 2005 should all wind up looking the same. If they weren't being linked to activate the date preferences, there would be no good reason for such links, since they don't go anywhere useful. Why then are so many years standing alone linked? Because a good many people, seeing full dates linked to activate the date preferences, got the mistaken idea that all dates, full or partial, including years with no other info, should be linked, and did so in many places, and other people, seeing the results of this imitated them. i suspect that even some of the MoS entries have been infected by this. Some people defend linking bare years as a method of emphasis. I say that if you want to emphasize years, you can use markup specifically for that purpose, put them in bold or italics or underline or change their color or whatever. But why years rather than any of many other types of frequently occuring information should be emphasized, such people never say. I have no objection to discussign this with you, and I hope to convince you. I agree it is much better than edit wars. DES ^(talk) 16:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your support on my nomination for adminship. Now that I have been made an admin, I will do my best to live up to the truest you and the community have placed in me. If you ever see my doing something you think is incorrect or questionable, or does not live up to the standards that should be expected of an admin, please let me know. DES ^(talk) 15:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Episode The Parent Rap. It's in the second act, when Bart is watching TV after Judge Harm sentences Marge and Homer to be in locks. He's watching a wrestling show:

Lisa: Do you think it's fair that you're always into trouble, yet Mom and Dad are being punished?

Bart: No, it's terrible. [loudly slurps his soda]

Lisa: Well, why don't you do something about it?

Bart: After wrestling.

Announcer: Ladies and Gentlemen, I don't believe what I am seeing. Dr. Bonebreak just married Rumbleina, and they're already whaling on each other! [on TV, a wrestling couple attack each other with folding chairs]

Lisa: When are you going to start taking responsibility for your actions?

Bart: If I felt like it.

Lisa: You're not even listening.

Bart: I know you are, but what am I?

Lisa: Ugh. [walks off]

Reverting back...:-) (Unsigned by Sohmc (talk · contribs))

I feel the same way about anonymous posts. (And sorry for not signing my origional comment.  :-) sohmc 17:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help translate this for me to swedish? Many thanks in advance!

For a small country, Albania is endowed with considerable resources. The southwestern part of the country is rich in petroleum and natural gas. The northeastern region has substantial reserves of metallic mineral deposits, including chromium, copper, and iron-nickel. Large deposits of lignite (soft coal) are found near Tiranë, and natural asphalt is mined near Selenicë.

Albania is also rich in rivers and streams with significant hydroelectric potential. These have been exploited quite effectively, making the country an energy exporter. A number of huge hydroelectric power plants have been built, mainly on the Drin River, and more than half of the country's arable land is irrigated, largely from the artificial reservoirs created upstream of the dams.

--Armour 14:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have reverted your recent change to Canton of Benfeld. A canton is not the same as the commune of the same name, so there is no need for the redirect. Regards, Kiwipete 02:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is an h8er? A vandal just called me that. --MrFish^{Go Fish} 15:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, stupid me. I was trying to pronounce it as "aitch-ater".--MrFish^{Go Fish} 15:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no case in the first place, since mediation requires two participants, and I will be damned if I let this b.... and her "helpers" harass and slander me, which so far is all they have done. So I did blank that, because now that b.... which is not even supposed to be a participant left off another of her slandering rants. What do you expect from me, let that stand? Nope! -- AlexR 07:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]