User talk:1ForTheMoney: Difference between revisions

This is where you can ask questions, get help or start discussions with me. I'll try to respond as soon as possible to any comments here.

If you start a discussion here then I'll usually reply here, so make sure to check this page for a response. If I need to contact you, I'll add your talk page to my watchlist so you can reply there or here.

• If you'd like to start a new topic, click the "add topic" tab at the top of the page or click here.
• If you'd like to comment on what other people have said, feel free to do so - but keep it civil, polite, and relevant. My talk page is not a battleground nor a place for an argument. Incivil comments, trolling, vandalism and other silly comments will be ignored or removed without warning.
• Always sign your posts with 4 tildes (~~~~). That way I know who I'm talking to without having to check the page history.

This page is manually archived whenever it becomes very long, or if discussions become very old. Since I don't really involve myself in Wikipedia processes, my archiving is likely to be rare.

Happy Editing! 1ForTheMoney

Archive 1 - December 2007 to March 2009
Archive 2 - April 2009 to April 2010
Archive 3 - April 2010 to May 2011
Archive 4 - June 2011 to March 2012

Hi - I have recently completed a project to get all Chiefs of the Air Staff up to B rating. I notice that in the case of Richard Johns you have removed the flags from the infobox. This is a matter that has been debated before (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history#Flag icons). I believe that the settled position in the Manual of Style is "the most common practice is to use flag icons to indicate allegiance or branch of service". I have therefore reinserted the flags. I hope you are OK with this. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fair enough. I was getting conflicting information on using flags/not using flags/using them sometimes. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for that. I have also restored them in one or two other places including Peter Wall (British Army officer). Good luck. Dormskirk (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be pain but as you will see from the changes made to David Evans (RAAF officer) by User:Ian Rose we do not normally put honourific suffixes into infobox titles either. We strive for consistency. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chalk that one up to the desire to make every person infobox exactly the same as {{infobox person}}. Since someone wrote it into the infobox guidelines you'd do well to note that at Template talk:Infobox military person. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. It is confusing. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of good order, I have now re-inserted flagicons in all the VC articles so they should be OK now. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• sigh* Since you insist on going over everything I've done, fair enough. But this business is getting tiresome. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I have spent most of the day restoring the position to that laid down in the Manual of Style. In theory you should have reverted your own changes. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do as you wish, but don't keep bringing it up here. I'm already losing patience with the big orange banner and do not expect to see it again. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You recently added all the parameters in the infobox header for Chris Harper, which was then reverted. Given that those changes appear to be as per the instructions in the template, I've started a discussion here to try and establish a consensus. Antrim Kate (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really just want to let this affair die now. So let me just say that the parameters were added to the template for no reason, and I won't fuss over their removal. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I hadn't read the conversation above before I posted my message, and I can see that it could look like I was just piling in. For the record I can see exactly why you added the info you did - the instructions in the template (for once) were quite clear and you followed them. It just seems that that isn't what other people do. I'll make that point in the discussion at MILHIST before it winds up. Best Wishes. Antrim Kate (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot say I'm surprised - the parameters were added with little/no discussion by two editors who seem dead-set on making everything a clone of {{infobox person}}. I have no interest in their business, but they're creating a number of backlogs in the process. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I need help putting the Userbox in my profile. Simbaha1 on World 43 04:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simbaha2 (talk • contribs)

Judging by your userpage you want to add the RuneScape userbox. I shall leave the instructions on your talk page. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 08:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Simbaha2 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 14:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can you please tell me, why did you removed the flags and other insignia from the infobox of this officer? I think, that article looked better with it. Thank you in advance for your answer.

--AntonyZ (talk) 11:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I wasn't aware of MILHIST's guidelines on flag icons. You can replace the icons if you want (though I believe they should serve a purpose and not be there just for looks.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For your hard work on Category:Infobox cricketer using deprecated parameters. Magioladitis (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And now it's empty. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've voted in the Steward elections. However, you do not seem to have a global account, and as such our guidelines require that there be both a link from meta to your main userpage and from said main userpage to meta, so we can verify that you are indeed the same person. Could you be so kinda as to put a link from User:1ForTheMoney to your meta userpage? Many thanks, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had a premonition someone would ask. Let me move my meta-userbox to be more prominent. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, I had missed that. Hoo has marked you as being eligible I see :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 03:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you should feel free to move it back into hiding, there's no requirement that it be prominent, I just hadn't thought that it could be in there, now that we know it, there should be no issues in keeping it inside the section :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 03:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but this didn't come up last year... 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just wanted to apologize for the vandalism on the page "Jagex", I left myself logged in and went away for a bit.... My immature little brother must've been on it :( sorry. (He hates Jagex, I'm not sure why.) Nerdablurdaturd (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, okay. But those were the first two edits registered to your account (plus the little brother defence doesn't work on everyone.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 08:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know that seems like a lame excuse. However, I will be able to prove it once you see that no more vandalism occurs from this account. The main reason for no constructive edits is I was off the "Needs work" account creation screen before I could read it, and I couldn't find anything that needed work. Could you link me to those pages? Nerdablurdaturd (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And WOW, I didn't know there was a joke page on that, haha. (I'll admit, it was pretty funny.) I'm serious though. It's actually his 13'th birthday today 0.0 Nerdablurdaturd (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a joke page, but there is a serious point - while people will give you the benefit of the doubt the first time, if it happens again they probably won't be so lenient. (The page was actually created because a lot of vandals who get blocked try using that as an excuse.)

On a much happier note, for pages that need work this page is a good start. You could also follow the instructions at User:SuggestBot to receive regular notices about articles you could improve. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say I dig the user name! :) Cheers! Subzzee (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Chalk it up to thinking of random phrases and picking whichever one came first. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am well aware that Wikipedia isn't a game guide. No, I am not trying to ignite a WikiFight. RuneScape's Fictional universe counts as one. Creating a page would be pointless, and putting it there would be more convenient, as with Warcraft's Azeroth. Soo... Cans I has segment back pls? Good day, sir. 00:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by YOPbottle (talk • contribs)

Just because WOW has a section on its fictional universe doesn't mean RuneScape needs or should have one - and the reason is that reliable sources have not talked about it. Sadly, it's a simple fact that RS (the game or the universe) does not get a lot of mainstream coverage. If you really think we should have a section, start a discussion on the talk page and it can be opened for wider review.

(Later note) Hmm, I see that Gielinor was removed from the list of fictional universes as well. I'm guessing that has something to do with this? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Good day, sir. 21:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)