User talk:A D Monroe III

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Wikipedia:Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 23:45, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

References

Hi welcome to Wikipedia, I saw you r comments on references at Talk:History of Bulgaria perhaps you would like to comment further on this at [1] where there is an ongoing debate on the subject. Regards Giano 13:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re: 1951

Thanks for the note. I made the edit in a bout of random date and year updates, when I get into a fit finding random biographical pages and then adding their birth and death dates to the appropriate pages. So I have no idea what I added. :) Nothing important though, I'm sure... and in fact, whenever I do that I wonder about the value of adding a minor ballerina's birth to a year page, and whether it's better left off. Bantman 01:26, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Split in topics

In the introductory paragraph you or me can place more instructions like the subject list is split alphabetically and point to the bottom of the index to see where one should place one's name and/or subject. It should be real easy.WHEELER 14:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Mainland China" vs "PRC"

Hello. Thanks for sharing your opinion at WP:CFD. But I am afraid in any case if you're well-informed with the situation when you cast your vote I would recommend you to reconsider. — Insta ntnood 16:36, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'll replying here, rather than on your talk. If you're interested in my views, you'll look for them. If not, the less said the better.

I'm sure you're informed on what the names should be, but I don't see how that matters. Wikipedia can't lead changes in people's perception, it must only reflect current perceptions. You're very insistent of your views, but even if you're right and everyone else is wrong, by definition of the purpose of an encyclopedia, you're still wrong. Doesn't it bother you that so many are against your views? You can't force agreement, but you can easily force resentment. By continuing to push your single-track views, your can get a reputation of being a disruptive irritant, where anything you request triggers hostility. You're doing your own cause a disservice. Please, relax and wait for the mob to die down. --A D Monroe III 17:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm here, and you know your opinion is important to me.

The reason why I cared about whether people who's cast a vote are well-informed was because the issue has been brought up at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese), and the outcome was, I must have to say, quite different. I understand Wikipedia is a test ground for participatory democracy, but that does not equal to mobocracy. While everyone's opinion has to be respected, everyone has to be well-informed and be rational in making every single decision. And that's the true meaning of this free encyclopedia. — Insta ntnood 21:07, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for responding.

I agree that in Wikipedia, as in other democracies, people vote who aren't informed. But who decides who is informed? Would you have started this particular talk if I agreed with you on CFD?

I also agree that there may even be a mob mentally against your views; some of the comments of your detractors are less than accommodating. But, remember, the mob didn't always exist; it's been created by your own actions. You push, they push back. The harder you push, the harder they will push back, and the mob grows every time. Again, you can't force agreement, only resentment. If you really care about your views getting accepted, please, lay off for a while. Idle mobs disintegrate. --A D Monroe III 22:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes I am not the one to decide. Not anybody. What I can do is to facilitate. I put up a list of relevant articles, discussions and precedants so that people can read a little bit more about the issues before making a decision. Thanks for the suggestion of idling for a while. I have tried to do so, but the categories kept got listed by others. — Insta ntnood 14:30, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

StarCraft Prequel

I noticed you've edited the StarCraft storyline page recently, and you've done a good job.

Do you think you could tackle the StarCraft Prequel page as well? I haven't the faintest idea how to write a proper introduction to that page.

-- Kimera757

Thanks. It's done. Actually, the existing introduction wasn't that bad; I just added a couple sentences. I think the {{cleanup-context}} note could have been removed before. Still, the other StarCraft articles could use a similar treatment, perhaps even the same verbiage. I'll leave that to others, though. I've done enough StarCraft for now. --A D Monroe III 19:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3

PBurka pointed out that an important omission from this proposal: a band could meet WP:MUSIC criterion #5 (sharing a member with a famous band) and still be speedily deletable by this criterion. I've added a sentence to the proposal to reflect this: it now reads An article about a musician or music group that does not assert having released at least one album, nor having had media coverage, nor having a member that is or was also part of a well-known music group. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead. Please consider if you support this new wording, and change your vote if not. Yours, R adiant _>|< July 5, 2005 09:54 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. My vote to support doesn't change. --A D Monroe III 5 July 2005 21:19 (UTC)

CSD Proposal 3-B

You voted or commentd on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-B or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-A. I have proposed a revised version, at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C. This version is intended to address objections made by many of those oppsoed to 3-A or 3-B. The revised propsal revers explicitly and directly to the criteria at WP:MUSIC. If you have not already done so, please examine the revised proposal and vote on it also. Thank you. DES 6 July 2005 04:51 (UTC)

1000000000000000000

I've put my thoughts on the 1000000000000000000 (number) VfD page. Rich Farmbrough 01:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the VFD results, taking them as a whole, and concluded "The result of the debate was move and replace with redirect". This is what I did, the redirect being from 10000000000000000 to 11th millenium and beyond, the data (such as it was) going onto the 1000000000000000 (number) article. I also disagree with this, but I did it anyway, because the VfD was about 16 days old.

(I disagree because it seems to me that someone entering 1000000000000000 is not thinking of a date but a number.) But the important point is that I did what I thought the debate lead to. Rich Farmbrough 02:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to understand why you thought the results were for redirect. You haven't explained your reasoning. The votes were 13 to 5 for deletion; is counting the votes not important? Why is "because the VFD was about 16 days old" important? I and others think something has gone wrong with Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/1000000000000000000. --A D Monroe III 00:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over everything that transpired, it seems I accidentally contributed to this mess. While Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/1000000000000000000 was going on, someone brought up 1000000000000 has having the same issues as 1000000000000000000 (note different number of zeros). I "fixed" the lower-numbered article by redirecting it; I was preparing to put it up for VFD (or rather, RFD) when the VFD on the higher-numbered article was closed. In retrospect, that was a mistake. Some people didn't notice the difference between the two articles, and thought I'd moved an article while it was under VFD -- a pretty disruptive act. Others thought that this is what I wanted for the higher-numbered article, even though I'd voted "strong delete". Some even accused me of violating WP:POINT. I'd never intentionally do that. Meanwhile, further confusing things, an admin (jnc) deleted and protected the lower-numbered article.

So, sorry for all the confusion. I'm trying to set things right again. --A D Monroe III 01:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Engineering Wiki

Engineering Wiki is a wiki entirely dedicated to collecting information about Engineering. I invite you to join this wiki.

About my edit summaries

Thanks for the notice. I'm quite surprised by it, though! The particular edit you were talking about ([2]) was not made by me, but instead by 71.112.115.22. I described my own edit on that article, changing the JPEG NATO flag to an SVG one ([3]), quite clearly. Maybe you've misinterpreted the diff display somehow? The current edit's contributor is shown on the right, whereas the previous editor is on the left and has nothing to do with the edit you're viewing. Anyhow, thanks for the notice, I'll take that into account. –Mysid (talk) 06:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we all make mistakes. –Mysid (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Workshop

You, or any Wikipedia user, can contribute your suggestions and comments to the /Workshop page of any active arbitration case. Comments on evidence or proposals can help in understanding the import of evidence and in refining proposals. Proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies may be listed on /Proposed decision and form part of the final decision. Fred Bauder 18:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nuggeting

NUGGET (AfD discussion)

You stated that this had "no claim to notability". Please re-visit both the article and the discussion. Please also visit Talk:NUGGET#Cleanup and consider adding the article to your watchlist and assisting in the effort to keep the article clear of unverifiable additions and original research by schoolchildren. Uncle G 15:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help?

Love your site.

I have recently made some edited (and thus far unchanged) corrections to an article entitled "Crisis on Infinite Earths." I, in fact, draw a comic book for Marvel and am an amateur comics historian.

I also included a 5 line "speculation", based on my reasoned assertion about the genesis of the story behind Crisis, and an upcoming series yet to be completed called "Infinite Crisis."

The following users...

Dyslexic agnostic

Tverbeek

...have continually, over the past few days, removed certain comments, despite the fact that at WORST, my comments do not detract from the article in any way. They simply disagree, but instead of contributing an opposing opinion, they remove my contribution.

And they have asked me to stop putting up my "lame" comments.

I don’t intend to. My understanding of the mandate site leads me to believe there is a place for my brief contribution and that the users above are being petty and abusive.

However, should you feel the text of my contribution to be inappropriate for the site, I will remove them myself. But I would like this point clarified if possible.

here is the statment in question:

" As Crisis on Infinite Earths, in an effort to clear the perceived mutli-universal clutter, became the ultimate multi-universal story, Infinite Crisis seems to be posed as an answer to the perception on the part of some fans and editors alike that the DC Universe, and comics in general, has become too dark and "gritty" to the detriment of the stories, and thus, will be the ultimate dark and gritty series that could, potentially, leave the DC Universe a happier place.

It remains to be seen."

My comments would of course, be edited after the series is completed.

The two users have been abusive and condescending and have not been responsive to an attempt to compromise, particularly Tverbeek, who I feel is operating under the illusion that he is the primary custodian of this article.

I've tried to keep up with the disputes, but it's moving faster than civil tongues can follow.

My first advice is to become a registered user. It's easy, useful, and will make needed discussions on talk pages easier to follow. It will also remove the (pointless) classification of registered and unregistered editors. (BTW, this isn't my site -- it's just as much yours.)

Second, there is a policy in Wikipedia about no original research. There may be some issue with your edits because of this, though this isn't clear-cut.

Mainly, however, all the above should have been brought up by any of the editors you encountered, and should have been discussed on the articles' talk pages. The fact that they didn't is the reason things got out of hand.

I've started to encourage those editors to do just that. Since there is no police in Wikipedia, and no "right" or "wrong", this may take a while.

In the meantime, I'd recommend browsing in other areas of Wikipedia, and letting things cool off a little.

If there are more specific issues I can help with, just let me know.

--A D Monroe III 21:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Association of Members' Advocates

Hi, you are recieving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, please de-list yourself from Wikipedia:AMA Advocates accepting inquiries, and consider noting it on the main list of members on WP:AMA. If you are, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) (please direct any responses to my talk page) --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 22:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki for Engineering

Engineering Wiki is a wiki entirely dedicated to collecting information about Engineering. The Engineering Wiki is in early development stages at the moment. We invite you to help devlope this wiki.

USMC peer review

Hi, as an expert, please have a look here. Thank you. --Predator capitalism 11:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AMA

Hello, you are receiving this message because your name is on the list of members of the Association of Members' Advocates. There is a poll being held at Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates for approval of a proposal for the revitalisation of the association. You are eligible to vote and your vote and input are welcome. Izehar 22:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMA Coordinator Election

Dear AMA Member,

You are entitled to vote in the AMA Coordinator election, set to begin at midnight on 3 February 2006. Please see the pages on the election and its candidates and the procedure and policy and cast a vote by e-mail!

Wally 10:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMA

Hello, you are receiving this message because your name is on the list of members of the Association of Members' Advocates. There is a poll being held at Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates for approval of a proposal for the revitalisation of the association. You are eligible to vote and your vote and input are welcome.Gator (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shock and Awe

Hello A D Monroe III, I don't want to cause any trouble because I'm new here (at least as an editor), so I'd like to talk off the record to a few good contributors about a problem I see on an article that you've edited. Your contributions seem solid, so maybe you can help me. I've been using the Wikipedia definition of "Shock and Awe" for several months because I like how it described the type of warfare that "Shock and Awe" is and also how it gave a link to a definition of "rapid dominance" (of which it claims to be a subset).

In the last couple of days, however, a user called JW1805 edited the article and I think he made the definition much worse.[4] It now says that "Shock and Awe is a military doctrine," whereas is used to say exactly what type of military doctrine it falls into: "Shock and Awe is a method of unconventional warfare." Isn't the old definition more informative? According to the definition of Conventional warfare, I don't think anyone could call it that. So, I think it's safe and informative to say that "Shock and Awe" fits into the definition of unconventional warfare, don't you?

Also JW1805 removed the link to "Rapid dominance," deleted the "Rapid dominance" article and redirected it to "Shock and Awe." Yet the "Shock and Awe" article still says, "Its authors label [shock and awe] a subset of Rapid Dominance." Does that make any sense to you? According to RUSI Journal 141:8-12 Oct '96, "Rapid dominance" is an "intellectual construct" whereas "Shock and awe" is one "method" of implementing that construct. Obviously they are not the same thing. So, why would JW1805 redirect "Rapid dominance" to "Shock and Awe?" Why would he delete the "Rapid dominance" article and the link it?

I went to JW1805's talk page to speak directly to him, but I read what others have said to him, and it seems to be the same story: if you are only one person complaining, JW1805 considers you a troublemaker and has his friends ban you, but if more than one person gets together and says the same thing, he listens. If you feel the same way as I about his edits to "Shock and Awe" and "Rapid dominance," I'm sure we can work together to get the best definition back in place. Are you up for something like that? --Larnue the dormouse 22:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]