User talk:Lord Hawk

Thank you for experimenting with the page 2033 on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Mhking 03:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your VandalProof Application

Dear Lord Hawk,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact with the new 1.1 version release it has even more power. As such we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that for security reasons, VandalProof's creator requires it's users to have made 250 edits to articles, which you have not. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again in the not too distant future. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date linking

Hi Lord Hawk, I noticed that you linked a bunch of date-related terms in the SAT article. According to this entry in the manual of style:

There is consensus among editors that month and day names should not be linked unless there is a particular reason that the link will help the reader to understand the article.

There is less agreement about links to years. Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader. Some advocate linking to a more specific article about that year, for example 2006.

So while there isn't a clearcut policy, I'm under the impression that most editors try to avoid excessive date linking. Just food for thought. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 04:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in accordance with WP:CONTEXT we generally don't link just any date in an article, and never isolated months like 'May' or day names like 'Wednesday'. I've made a start at reverting your date link changes, but you certainly were busy!! I don't think I'll get through them all. Stumps 08:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ... I see you are adding more wikilinks for years in some articles ... please read the above comments carefully and also the relevant pages in the style manual ... such as this one. Thanks Stumps 13:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks Warning

With regards to your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightsaber combat (third nomination): Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. — Mike • 20:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Lord Hawk! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. - Glen 05:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing links

Sometimes removing redlinks is good. Sometimes it is not. Either way, please leave an edit summary, and please don't remove ones that may obviously someday get articles. --Golbez 14:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you take out all the links in the disneychannel original movies page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Disney_Channel_movies&diff=prev&oldid=64756035

Because the article needed much cleanup, having dozens of links that did not exist one after the other. Also. Haha169, Please sign your name. User:Lord Hawk 01:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Star Trek series userbox

I know that you are against the deleteion of the series Star Trek userboxes, but may I show you, but adding the new userbox to your userpage, that you will not lose anything by using the new userbox over the old one?
Lady Aleena talk/contribs 07:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you may place such a userbox on my page and I am open to looking over the userbox with my best and unbiased judgement. User:Lord Hawk 01:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So Weird

I don't understand your edit: "Fiona never reappeared in the seasons, not even in the final episode," as opposed to "Fi never reappeared in the series, not even the final episode." Fiona vs. Fi is a judgment call, and I'm not worried about that, either way. But the context was the final season of a tv series. To refer to plural "seasons" here doesn't make sense, unless you mean winter and spring, or whenever those final episodes aired. The meaning to be conveyed should be that she never came back at all, even for the show's last episode. I'm going to change it back, but if you have a better, clearer way to convey the intended meaning you're welcome to pt it in. Regards.... Karen | Talk | contribs 23:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the confusion. The reason I made the edit was that it stated series instead of season and I forgot to remove the "s". I have corrected the problem and also reverted Fiona to Fi. Thank you for pointing it out to me. Lord Hawk 23:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Edits to Nintendo

Hello! I base myself in Partial dates, where it is stated that linking to year alone does not apply date preferences, thus it is not necessary to link, and context linking, where you should only link relevant things according to the context. In other words, nobody is going to normally click a year, and if he is going to, he would arrive to a place that has nothing to do with the article. Linking "Sega", "d-pad" or "game" is justified in the article, linking to years only clubbers the article. However, instead of liking to 2001, linking to 2001 is justified as it makes sense in the article context. Hope that answers your question. -- ReyBrujo 17:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Net Yaroze

Why did you remove the linking for Blitter Boy: Operation Monster Mall ? Palpalpalpal 10:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Sorry. I removed it because it did not exist and I don't like having dead links that are never worked on. If you want it linked, it should have a dedicated page. User:Lord Hawk 16:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the link is an invitation for others to create the page. As dead links are marked in red they cannot be an inconvenience: you know what you get before clicking. Well, anyway, I guess I could create the page. Palpalpalpal 19:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High School Musical

Sorry, but unverified doesn't match anything in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. I suggest you see that- while the speedy system authorizes administrators to delete things on sight, it doesn't allow them to delete any article they don't like. Secondly, deproddings can be done by anyone. Just because the deprodder was unregistered (or not logged in) doesn't make it vandalism. Wikipedia:Assume good faith applies. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. User:Lord Hawk 22:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the question regarding it films need to be done production: Not necessarily. I don't think there are any rules regarding when a film can be listed in Wikipedia, and in fact we have Category:Unfinished films and Category:Cancelled films. The only rule would be against writing a crystal ball, a prediction. That said, High School Musical 3 has actually been deleted at AfD as a crystal ball, and I am unsure as to whether it can be speedied as a recreation, as I'm not aware if the situation has changed. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date links

Hi. Please don't delink years which are part of complete dates e.g. [[12 July]] [[1913]], as I noticed you've recently done in Royal Flying Corps. One of the user preferences allows users to view dates in ISO format (e.g. 1913-07-12), but this won't work if the year's not linked. Thanks. -- Arwel (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That date does not exist in full on Wiki and I was under the assumption that you should only link a year once in an article. I had no idea about this new form. User:Lord Hawk 23:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney Channel films

Would you mind reverting the latest silly additions to this again? I would do it but I'd break 3rr. Thanks Mad Jack 00:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheetah Girls filmography

Please discontinue your removing of The Cheetah Girls 3 from the filmography section of The Cheetah Girls (group) or next time it will be reported as vandalisim, as you have no reason to be doing so. Jtervin 22:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as I said, you need to stop removing it. If you would like to check, The Cheetah Girls 3 has more than one reference, and an IMDB page, which I just added to The Cheetah Girls 3 page. So, it seems that you have been the one removing cited information, and that I have been adding real information. Jtervin 00:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Dragon category

I noticed you re-added Blue Dragon to the Xbox 360 games category. This is over-categorization, as Blue Dragon is in the 360 exclusives category, which is a subcategory of 360 games. I don't see a reason for it to be in both the parent and child categories. Is there something else at work here? --GargoyleMT 18:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you put the game on just the Xbox 360-only list, it does not get on the Xbox 360 list. User:Lord Hawk 21:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you said ~~on my talk page~~ is true, it does not appear in Category:Xbox 360 games if you put it in Category:Xbox 360-only games. However, users can find the 360-only games category in the 360 games category, and thus people can find the game that way. This appears to be the convention among exclusive games and pages in general (I believe the categorizing guideline says to put pages in the most specific category (in the section talking about overcategorizing, I believe)). (I'm watching this page, so feel free to respond here.)--GargoyleMT 16:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

I regret to see that your RfA closed early as per WP:SNOW. I think that a summary of the opinions cast would be essentially 'get some more experience before trying again'. You have been very brave in putting yourself in the spotlight here after so short a time of editing WP. Most people wait between six-to-twelve months before trying for an RfA and they are not alway successful either. Strategies for improving your profile for another RfA include:

contributing effectively to articles. This includes finding references and citations for facts in reliable sources, something that is essential for an encyclopedia.
Working on the Good Article Drive, Good Article Collaboration of the week and the Article Creation and Improvement Drive.
Patrolling the New pages and Recent changes special pages for vandalism; tagging the pages according to the criteria for speedy deletion and warning the vandals.
Reporting repeat vandals for admin intervention.
Joining a Wikiproject or finding a portal on a subject in which you are interested and contributing through that.
Assisting at the Help and Reference desks.
Welcoming new users.
Becoming adopted or, when you are more experienced, adopting new users to assist them in learning about Wikipedia.

These are just some of the ideas for making effective contributions to the project. You can also see Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia for more ideas. Regards and good editing, (aeropagitica) 22:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Cinco de Mayo refs

Would you be able to google through the on-line Mexican press of the past week to find recent comments about the American celebration of Cinco de Mayo? I expect that there are a number of on-line comments from Mexican newspapers (and other media) about how unusual it is that Americans have fixated on such a modest holiday as Cinco de Mayo.

You can then either add these on-line comments to the article itself as references, or you could send me the links and I can add them!

Saludos, EspanaViva 14:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date linking (again)

Hi Lord Hawk. I see above that several others have tried to advise you about linking dates in articles. Please pay very close attention to what they have said, and also take a moment to re-read Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context, WP:MOSDATE#Dates containing a month and a day, and WP:MOSDATE#Partial dates.

In a nutshell, individual months and month-year pairs should virtually never be linked. Likewise, day-months pairs and day-month-year triplets should virtually always be linked. The only place where there is a lack of consensus is whether solitary years (e.g. 2007) should be linked. Be aware that this last case is an extremely contentious issue, and it is a very bad idea to go through articles solely to link or de-link solitary years.

It would be helpful if you could go back through your recent edits and correct the mistakes that you have made. If you need any more info, please let me know (on this page). All the best ×Meegs 18:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British date formats

Please stop changing the date formats in pages about British subjects. The convention in the UK is day month year - please respect this! Nick Cooper 20:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, if the date is linked, Wikipedia automatically converts the date to the correct format. For example, assuming it has worked, on your set up [[2007-05-07]] is 2007-05-07, and [[7 May]] [[2007]] will display 7 May 2007 Pit-yacker 20:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Hawk, please stop and read the messages and links from all five people who have commented on the matter previously. Here are two examples from your edits since my last message:

Don't do this. Either link date-month-year triplets to allow user preferences to handle the formatting, or do nothing and leave the original author's format in place.

Don't do this without good reason. As I said above, linking solitary years is very controversial, and doing it en masse has caused serious drama for users in the past.

If you need any more information, or have any questions, please ask. Date formatting is not that important; at this point, you may want to consider finding another project to work on. ×Meegs 20:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[regarding the second bullet] I understand the other and agreed already, but what is with providing a context with the foundation of an organization? Lord Hawk 20:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, there is no consensus that those links are worthwhile, and there are very strong feelings on both sides. If you browse through the archives of talk pages of the guidelines I linked, you'll see endless debate on the issues. It's ok to link or de-link to change one here or there for consistency, but do not systematically sweep through articles looking to make those changes. Exactly that action has lead to conflict, editors being blocked, and volunteers leaving the project. You don't want any part of that. Similarly, please take care when changing other people's spelling or punctuation choices, use edit summaries, and communicate with other editors when they challenge your edits [1] (if nothing else, with an edit summary). ×Meegs 20:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. ⋐⋑ REDVEЯS 20:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed Disney Movies

Those movies have been confirmed by the source, which just happens to be a Disney Channel press release.LAUGH90 21:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are next to the names of the DCOMs. I have more sources.LAUGH90 21:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will report you to Wikipedia for removing my sources.LAUGH90 22:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to believe what you want to believe, then fine. But their are the sources right there infront of your eyes. Why dont you believe them? They are from official press releases from Disney Channel. I even gave you one that said "Twitches Too" was in production, but you dont want to believe me? Whatever. Look at the date of the source for "High School Musical 2".LAUGH90 00:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cookies

Hello, Lord Hawk. I just wanted to give you a plate of cookies for being a Wikipedian. I hope your Wikistress gets better! Peace, Neranei 02:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 17:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of lost ships of Starfleet

I have nominated List of lost ships of Starfleet, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lost ships of Starfleet. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin-American Wikipedia Meeting

"Latin-American Wikipedians,unite us!"

Hi wikipedian!Today I'm going to talk you about a new proposal that can to advantage you and many other users of Latin America.

You,that is from Latin America (second your userbox),already shall to have observed the importance of the Wikimedia Frojects in the region.Only Wikipedia represent 40% of the internet access^[1].With every this importance,why don't we make a big meeting?

Of this idea,was borned the proposal for a Latin-American Wikipedian Meeting.Various Wikipedists has Latin-American users and this is a proposal of a culture and ideas interchange,that can be help all projects.Above this,comtemplate to help in the formation of new WMF chapters in Latin America.

The main page and the talk page is originally in English,with translations in Dutch,French,Portuguese and Spanish(NOT YET).

Speedy deletion nomination of Vernon Aguirre

A tag has been placed on Vernon Aguirre requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Vernon Aguirre has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article, which appeared to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. TigerShark (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Military history of Australia during World War II. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Oneiros (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autism and Asperger syndrome

Ok, I apologize for this, but I cant seem to find a single source of the DSM IV online that is organized according to numeric order instead of alphbaetical. The closest I could find is this but that isnt the DSM, it's just a list of patients with various ASD's. However I have seen it on paper and the autism spectrum section looks roughly like this:

299 Autism Spectrum Disorders / Pervasive Developmental Disorders

299.0 Autistic Disorder / Autism

299.10 Childhood Disintegrative Disorder

299.80 Asperger Syndrome

299.90 PDD-NOS

The different names are considered as synonyms, they're not different disorders. If you're not convinced, that's OK ... I didnt think it would be so hard to find a simple listing of the different disorders recognized by the DSM. I will try to find something else, but there are other people who edit the autism articles who might be able to provide the sources as well. —Soap— 22:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the basic point Im trying to make is that "autism" and "autism spectrum disorders" aren't the same thing. BHowever this is complicated by the fact that many people, including experts, treat them as if they were. You can often find people referring to ""autism and autism spectrum"" disorders, showing that theyre not the same, but just the same you can find people saying "Asperger's is a form of autism ..." etc. Our article (as it stands as of my last revision) uses the narrow form of the wording to make it clear that we're not saying that Asperger's is autism, just that it's related. —Soap— 22:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more link: NIH. —Soap— 22:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North Africa Campaign

Maybe I'm missing something here. The point that is trying to be made is that Germany's choice to fight in Africa in early 41 reduced the resources available for Barossa in June 41. It's not a very strong point though since in 41 the Germans only had 3 divisions in the Western desert - not a huge number in comparison with their eastern commitment. Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 10:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Asperger syndrome. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Andy Walsh (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Edits to American Airlines Flight 587

Thank you for doing that edit. I had been trying to get the IP user to go on the talk page and discuss his edits but he resisted all attempts to do so as 'Vandalism' by a 'disruptive user', which seems to be how they dealt with all criticism (See the talk page history). Thanks also for finding an independant citation for the statements of the APA.

As a side note if you check the revision history of that users talk page you can see how they responded to warnings.Graham1973 (talk) 02:52, 17 October 2013 (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) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ Comscore tracked 26 million out of 63 million (41% reach) viewed Wikipedia sites in Latin America (June 2008)

[1] Comscore tracked 26 million out of 63 million (41% reach) viewed Wikipedia sites in Latin America (June 2008)

[1]