User talk:Spudinator

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to SMS Goeben. Thank you. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Spudinator. You have new messages at User talk:IRP#SMS Goeben.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{newmessages}} template.

{{helpme}} In this case should 1914 etc. be in a higher level than Crimean Encounter etc. even though it makes the less significant headings tiny ?Spudinator (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, that sort of question would probably be better sorted out on the article talkpage. //roux   18:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Spudinator. I noticed you've been working on

Hello Parsecboy I don't know how much use I would be, I only have extremely limited sources and limited time on the wiki. But there is one thing I need answering, on SMS Goeben would it be better to leave the level 6 headings even though it makes them tiny but a level 5 heading seem out of place? Regards Spudinator (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, we can still work together on the articles to the extent that you're available. I generally prefer to keep the sub headings to a minimum of four "="s (you can look at the Moltke article for how I generally format articles. USS Missouri (BB-63) is an example of a featured article with only two levels of section headers.) One thing to consider is how much can be said in each section; if you only have a few lines of text about a specific action, it's probably better to combine it with another section. A rule of thumb I use is if the battle was notable, and you can write a good-sized paragraph about it, it deserves its own section. If not, it should probably be merged. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Spudinator for voting in my successfully closed RfA! I'm glad that you trust me. Ping me if you need anything! Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  19:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject . It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]