User talk:MajorStovall

Hello, MajorStovall!

helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills, the sandbox is for you. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Getting started
Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation User scripts

Some places you might check out

Before you get too jaded, I thought I would show you that there are some places in Wikipedia where good progress is being made on improving overall quality of articles. One place in particular is the

here. Cla68 (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Great! That's what I normally work on. Here's the WWII project page. Cla68 (talk) 07:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Jennings Brown

Thanks for fixing this page which was recently vandalized. I did a lot of the work on Brown's page and I have it on my watchlist. For some reason, it seems to be vandalized more then it deserves (every month or so) considering that 99.99% of American's probably don't even know who the guy was. A lot of books on the War of 1812 don't even mention him. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasian Land Bridge and LaRouche

A content RfC has been opened on this topic if you would like to comment. Cla68 (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Ghalib Hussain Domki

FYI, you put a speedy tag on an attack page, which in itself is correct, but in this case there was a non-attack version earlier in the history,[1] so right course is to revert to the good version, which I have done. Ty 17:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. Mistakes happen... Ty 17:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not good. That's the problem with little-watched articles. Well spotted anyway. Ty 17:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle
rots your brain

LOL: [2] and the next edit. :) ++Lar: t/c 17:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto LOL. Especially "the next edit". Ty 17:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the AAF pilots were sent back home after 25 missions. I think I'm at about that point, vandal-patrolling-wise. MajorStovall (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teh thing is...

The deliberate mispelling of "the" as

injoke amongst internet users - it models the habit of accidentally spelling the word when typing at speed (usually with two first fingers only). Since the use of it was likely deliberate I have returned it on Jimbo's page. I would also, very gently, point out that it is considered very extremely uncool to alter someone else's post unless it conveys profanity or similar - if you think someone has made a simple mistake the best method is to contact the writer and draw it to their attention so they can fix it. That way is considered much more respectful. I wouldn't worry about it this time, but just bear it in mind for future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC) ps. Correcting someone else's mistake in correcting a mistake, like I have done, is not considered so heinous (providing a friendly message is left explaining why it happened.)[reply

]

You're right on all counts. Appreciate the pointers. MajorStovall (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is cool. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MilHist project

Perhaps I'm too late and you've already given up on Wikipedia. Like I said before, the Military History project is one of the bright lights in this effort. I signed your name up for the project newsletter

here if you'd like to see what it's about. If not, best of luck in all your future endeavors. Cla68 (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I guess I'll go take your name off the mailing list. Cla68 (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked?

Why am I blocked, who is Mantanmoreland, and what are you talking about? MajorStovall (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MajorStovall (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have no idea what this is all about, who "mantanmoreland" is, or why you are blocking me.

Decline reason:

Interesting, as "mantanmoreland" isn't mentioned in your block message or in the relevant sockpuppet investigation that led to your block. TN X Man 21:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It says "Mantanmoreland" right on my user page! Go there and take a look. Who is Mantanmoreland? Please unblock me, there is no reason for this. MajorStovall (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MajorStovall (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It says "Mantanmoreland" right on my user page! Go there and take a look. Who is Mantanmoreland? Please unblock me, there is no reason for this. The "sockpuppet investigation" just lists my name and says nothing.

Decline reason:

Email

[email protected] to appeal this block. NW (Talk) 21:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Well, if Alison (a respected checkuser) says that you are a sock, then I believe her. You will have to present very convincing evidence showing that you not related to Mantanmoreland or anyone else. TN X Man 21:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can I do that when I have no idea what you're talking about. Who is Mantanmoreland? This is surreal.MajorStovall (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: - this is a checkuser-related block. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stetsonharry‎ - Alison ^❤ 22:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This account is Confirmed to be a sock of JohnnyB256 (talk · contribs) - Alison ^❤ 22:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]