User talk:Nloth

Welcome!

Hello, Nloth, 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! ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arab-Israel

I think some of the information you presented in the new Background section was already included elsewhere... I deleted this new section, but we can discuss if you think it is important. Lokiloki 15:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fast battleship

Hello, Nloth! thanks for contacting me; I was beginning to wonder if there was anyone out there. In response to your request, I've put some thoughts on the Fast battleship Talk page. As I explained there, I plan to wait a few days before resuming work on the article proper, in case you or anyone else wants to comment on my ideas. In the meantime, your list needs a little tidying (for example, the Bismarck had a sister ship, Tirpitz); would you like to do that, or shall I?

I see from your contributions that neither of us has been working on Wikipedia for very long (I kicked off on 10 March). However, unlike me, you seem to have an appetite for controversial subjects. How are you finding it? My experience is that there are some people out there who can give you a pretty rough time.

I look forward to hearing from you - on battleships or anything else.

Sincere regards,

John Moore 309 21:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Moore, London, UK

Good news: Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs) has recently created the Maritime warfare task force as part of the Military History project. Bad news: so far, it has only three members (the worst news is that one of them is me).

I think this would be a good forum for discussing of maritime warfare/naval history, exchanging ideas and establishing best practice at a more general level than the Ships project. If you are interested, can I suggest you pay a visit and, if you like what you see, sign up?

Regards, John Moore 309 16:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

Thanks for some good advice. I agree; much better to wait for the dust to settle and weigh in later with some evidence. What worries me is that a lot of editors, instead of working along the lines of "an alternative view is ... and here is the evidence", simply try to wipe each other out of cyberspace. I was afraid the my edits on HMS Hood (51) would provoke a new edit war (which is why I went so OTT on providing the evidence from which I was working), but so far it seems to be quiet on that front. Thanks also for your kind words re Fast battleships.

Regards, John Moore 309 13:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

190 Proof

I raised the 3RR problems with User:190_Proof originally. I was suspicous about him - his edit summaries appeared to be written specifically to appear harmless. Was there somewhere else I could have raised the problems? Nloth 07:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is always good to take things up with the user first, as you did. If that doesn't work (and it obviously wouldn't have in the case of this user) then you could have gone to WP:AN3 for the 3RR violations. Or since your concerns were wider than just the 3RR violation, WP:ANI might have been more appropriate. Also, most admins don't mind being approached for help directly in matters like this. Snottygobble 12:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CAIR again

Hi Nloth, Yahnatan, Andjam, PeruvianLlama,

There's another POV pusher on the CAIR article; I'm contacting you because you've recently been involved in maintaining the article. I've tried to talk things out with the guy, but he remains dedicated to removing important information from the article, and I don't have the time to deal with his long screeds and shifting rationales. Could you maybe help out here? I confess I've lost my patience with him, but would be happy to help if you could join in the discussion and brewing edit war.

Thanks,

Sdedeo (tips) 19:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should note the reasons I removed what I removed. Allegations of ties (involvement even?) to terrorism is a pretty serious matter. I deleted allegations that were either 1) refuted by more reliable and current sources (I assumed documents published with the support of Congress in Feb 2006 were more reliable than a magazine website that published articles on the same matter in 2001), 2) inconsistent with the sources actually cited (most of the indictments listed did not involve CAIR, and several allegations of indictment weren't sourced at all), and 3) editorial content that seemed to be founded in the writer's own opinion rather than sourced data. You suggested the information I deleted were 'important'. The information were pungent statements indicative of highly criminal acts on the part of CAIR, info which would have been noteworthy had they been properly documented and cited. Much of that information is refutable with more reliable sources, such as publications produced by the US government. Please discuss before further reverts. Also, you might want to note my response to Sdedeo's talk page. His Excellency... 05:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at...

You can look at the talk page of the Adnan Menderes article. With respect, Deliogul 23:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cavalry tactics

Currently I am the main editor on cavalry tactics. You wrote that a rearrangement would be neccessary. I agree, but the problem is how. Can you make a concrete proposal? Wandalstouring 22:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

war horse

You showed some interest in the topic of horses in warfare. There is an article, war horse, which in my opinion deserves lots of attention. I consider several of the facts mentioned there misinformation and the sourcing seems sometimes improper to me, as the aforementioned facts are not mentioned as such in the source (use of horses in Hastings). I had some arguements with its main editors and have little inclination to fight an edit war. As this is one of the central articles informing about horses in war, it should receive some attention. I would like to invite you to take a look and post some opinions. Wandalstouring 12:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use in Australia discussion

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery