User talk:Flonto

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with the page Battle of Ticonderoga (1777) on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Reagan edits

Hi there. It seems that you are new here, so I don't know whether or not you are familiar with one of Wikipedia's policies that you did not follow when editing Ronald Reagan. Every claim that you make must be cited. Right now, myself, along with more editors, are working to fix the citations on President Reagan's article, but when you edited and added some claims, they were not cited, and they were reverted. It's ok for now, but please keep that in mind. If you have any questions, please feel free to leave me a message. Thanks, Happyme22 02:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive content to Wikipedia, as you did to George H. W. Bush. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Shenme 22:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Ronald Reagan edits

Hi again. I see you did not "get the message" of my last message. I repeat myself: Every claim that you make must be cited!!! NONE of your additions to Reagan's article were cited, and they reverted. Also, please do not show Point of View when editing, for it will be reverted, and was. The criticisms you added must be cited, and placed near other criticisms, which you did not do. Please read the Wikipedia: Manual of Style, for it will really help you. Also, please provide an edit summary at the bottom bar below the edit screen to help other editors determine what your edits consisted of. If you have any questions, please leave me a message. Happyme22 22:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flonto. I'm sorry if I came accross harshly. It's ok that you are new here, and that you aren't familiar with Wikipedia's rules, but it would be a good idea to read up on them. I am here if you have any questions. Oh, and to add a message, go up at the top of the screen next to "edit this page" where there will be a plus sign. Press it, and there you go. Also, to sign your messages, you just have to type four tildes, which will automatically say write your name. Again, if you have any questions about anything, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your understanding, and I look forward to working with you in the future. Best Regards, Happyme22 00:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happyme22, I find it curious your lecturing a newbie on leaving out Point of View (POV). It is exceptionally clear from your own edits that you very much admire Mr. and Mrs Reagan. Fine to teach a new member the importance of citation, but articles are neither memorials to the subject or a place to defame. CApitol3 19:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George H. W. Bush

And for my part I was awful quick to revert. Two reasons, I was grumpy (inexcusable!), and the more rational reason, the addition was excessive. If you look through the article you will see the same issue specifically raised/mentioned three different times, once each for the two campaigns, and once in the quotes section. There is even a separate article Read my lips: no new taxes on the issue, in case people want to know more. So as much as I'd like every Nth word in the article to be 'lips', it's just not possible to do so without unbalancing the article. Knowing what to put in vs. what to take out vs. what to leave out is something I am haven't fully got right yet. There is so much that could go in. And indeed, sometimes you watch an article grow until someone chops it down by half, and then it starts growing again.

Anyway, I should not have used the {{uw-vandalism2}} template. I should have explained somewhat as I did above. But... I was grumpy (don't interact with people when you've just found out they've disconnected the gas the same morning they also received the payment!) (sigh) Shenme 03:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate

You can't just go on someone's talk page and ask to define "not necessary" if they have no flippin' idea to what you're referring, especially if they've never seen your name before, and expect an answer. Could you clarify so I can at least give some rationale behind one of my edits or whatever you're questioning? Eagles Fan In Tampa (formerly Jimbo) 01:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I remember...sorry, a lot has happened between then and now. Basically, the edits you made were "unnecesary" for two reasons:

They are not sourced as per guidelines of Wikipedia, and
They come off (most likely unintentionally) as deragatory or imflammatory (esp. "Leatherhead" and "Iron-Puddler" for PA and "Muskrat" for DE)

Honestly, I'm from the area (lived in South Jersey for 20 years and visited Philly and Delaware on a weekly basis) and I have to admit, I've never heard any of these terms. While I'm not saying that I have to hear everything in Wikipedia for it to be valid, I am saying that things that could seem offensive or even questionable, whether intentional or not, needs to be cited as per above. Also, changes to Wikipedia need not be discussed if something won't directly change the entire intent of the page, it can be changed at leisure, just as you added the names at your discretion. So, I assumed good faith when making the reverts, but as stated above, if added again without cites/sources, I won't be the person to revert them this time. Eagles Fan In Tampa (formerly Jimbo) 12:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Buchanan article

Hi Flonto. Welcome to wikierida, and feel free to elbow in. No one "owns" any article, and you may engage in editing as you please following simple rules of citation and courtesy. In the area of politics people take offense and bristle quickly sometimes. But edits done in good faith with an edit summary are welcome. What may be defamation for an idolator may be a balm of Gilead for an opponenet. But neither is apporpriate unless cited. Sharp elbos are useful in making your way into a closely scrutinized article, but so too are good humor and civility. I size the need for each on a case by case basis and believe everyone deserves to start with a reservoir of goodwill. You will get the hang of it, and will help make wiki a better encyclopedia. Good luck. CApitol3 19:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:The Name of Diego

Hi. The double lastname has alredy been discussed not only for Maradona but also other Argentine personalities. The fact is that in Argentina, unlike in other countries in Latin America and Spain, most people hold only the paternal lastname (with a few exceptions). The important thing is the full name as it appears in a persons documents. Good wiking, --Mariano(t/c) 16:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Reagan Don Regan quote

Hi Flonto. I was just reading thorugh the Reagan talk page, and found that one of your suggestions was to use this quote by Don Reagan rather than the one by Stockman: “In the four years that I served as Secretary of the Treasury I never saw President Reagan alone and never discussed economic philosophy or fiscal and monetary policy with him one-on-one. From first day to last at Treasury, I was flying by the seat of my pants. The President never told me what he believed or what he wanted to accomplish in the field of economics.” I agree with you, and if you provide the page number of the book, I will gladly add it in. Please get back to me. Happyme22 00:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Flonto, and thanks for your help. Feel free to change the paragraph when the page number is found, or I'll do it if you want me to. Again, thanks. Happyme22 22:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tartan Army

If you can find a couple of decent references for "The Bravehearts" then go ahead and add it. BE BOLD! Kanaye 13:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Regan Quote

Thanks a lot Flonto. I put it in hopefully today. Happyme22 23:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

Please refer to [[1]]. Your present handling of footnotes in your many improvements to articles on the War of 1812 is merely adding to the article size with mishandled named cite tags. HLGallon (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite correct in your post to me. The idea of a named cite tag is to re-use a cite e.g.

Blah, blah, blah.<ref name=Bloggs>Bloggs (2010), p.99</ref> Blah, blah, blah.<ref name=Bloggs/> More blah, blah.<ref name=Bloggs/>

Repeating the body of the cite merely adds text, which may also make the article more difficult to edit. It is also unnecessary to provide a name for a cite which is used only once, though this isn't quite such a solecism, as the work may be in progress and the cite may well be re-used later. (Incidentally, to show wiki formatting, use <nowiki>etc. etc.</nowiki>.) HLGallon (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! HLGallon (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Fort Dearborn

Since you've changed the location of this article, could yuo please go through and update links to this article to point to the correct location? Shsilver (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Battle_of_Fort_Dearborn for a full list.Shsilver (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Frenchman's Creek

I deleted that because there was no content at all. However, I saw your talk page note. Where is your sandbox? LadyofShalott 18:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article had some malformed reference tags which were causing it to display incorrectly. I asked her to restore the page. One of you might want to fix those <ref> tags. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is restored. Elkman, since you seem to know what the problem is, perhaps you could fix it (as you had intended). LadyofShalott 18:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the problems. One of the <ref> tags wasn't closed properly with a closing </ref> tag, while another one (Cruikshank280+Index) needed to be enclosed in quotes to make it valid XML syntax. Finally, the reference for Cruikshank237 was missing, so I assumed it was Cruikshank, p. 237. Now that I've fixed those problems, the article displays correctly. (Oh, and the preview button is your friend. :-) ) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]