User talk:Askari Mark/Archive 1

2006 Archive page

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia! It's always a pleasure to have another editor join—we can never have too many good editors.

Some useful stuff/Things to remember:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia: Our most important principles and philosophies. Or if you're interested in specific polices, see our Policies and Guidelines page.
• Open tasks: These are important things that aren't getting done. We need your help with them.
• Tutorial: What you need to know about editing pages.
• Test area: If you need to test an edit but don't want to perform the test on an article.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk, or leave me a note on my talk page.
• Manual of Style: Suggested content standards.
• Always Always Always try to maintain neutrality in your contributions.
• When you make comments to a discussion page, sign your comments by using the tilde '~' symbol: add four tildes (~~~~) to the end of a post to leave your username and the timestamp.
• Be bold in editing pages.
• The Wikipedia Signpost: Wikipedia's community newspaper.
• A happy editor is always successful. Have fun!

Cheers and good luck, Ingoolemo ^talk 02:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Postscript

Until you write a longer userpage, you might want to consider setting up your userpage as a redirect to your talkpage, by adding #REDIRECT [[User talk:Askari Mark]] to your userpage. It will make things easier for other editors, because they won't have to deal with redlinks to your userpage.

Tejas

The article is very difficult to read. There is a lot of badly organized information, the text flows poorly, and important concepts are lost in a sea of minutia. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 00:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Opinon

Would you please take a look at Talk:Charles de Gaulle (R 91)? We need some outside opinions on an ongoing dispute. Thanks. --BillCJ 18:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Signature

Hi! Your signature is pointing not to your user page or talk, but to the user page of the user Name, user:Name (by the way, that user has only about 3 edits, and has been blocked indefinetely). Is that your intention?--Laur2ro 17:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. There was a period during August and through most of September where something happened to my talk page link. If you click on it, it still links to "user:Name". Oddly, though, the occasionaly new talk page I've only worked on since then also sometimes gets referenced to "user:Name", even though my user name appears correctly. I have no idea why. I've gone back and tried to eliminate all of the past mentions of "user:Name", replacing it with my proper name. We'll see how that works. (BTW, you should set up your Talk page; right now you're only linked to your personal page.) Thanks again, Mark.

I believe you can do that in your preferences. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have, but sometimes my work still gets linked to "User". BTW, thanks for fixing my ID in the WP:Num! Mark

List of air forces

Hi Mark,

I like the wikitable you have designed for List of air forces, but if you are going to run multiple countries together in a single table, may I suggest a more significant line separator between nations?

I agree and know this is not the only table that could benefit from (say) a slightly thicker border between nations. I reckon the simplest/neatest/most effective method would be to add an appropriate CSS class next to the row dividers (i.e. |- class="rowborderthing") but don't know what "rowborderthing" might be... (...Just tried a quick internet search, but nothing obvious returned...)  I guess I could ask one of the HTML/CSS guys I've passed by here, unless you have another idea...?  Glad you like the wikitable approach, although a little complicated; I hope Lars (Necessary Evil) does as well. Even if something simpler used, I'd say sorting out some kind of alignment/s for the flags/roundels will be a major improvement. Yours, David Kernow (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm among the HTML-challenged; I only know enough to be dangerous. :o I tried to see if I could change the style of the border lines between nations to something like the border="2" formula I've used for List of military aircraft of Japan and List of military aircraft of the Soviet Union and the CIS, but I gave up after an hour of messing around trying to get it to work with the wikitable template. I've browsed around trying to find an example of coding to do that, but without luck. Maybe Lars has an idea??? ... of course, I don't feel so bad since Mets501 also had problems. Askari Mark | Talk 21:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Have just left this request with someone I hope will ride to our rescue. Yours, David (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

... I see what AzaToth has done ... but I see no change in the border at all...
During spare moments here I'm working on a generic/configurable approach (i.e. intended to be useful beyond List of air forces) that hopefully will work across platforms... Regards, David (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

...Decided the above was probably more trouble than it was worth (but spawned {{Trb}} and {{Table}} as a result). Meanwhile, have switched the border colo/urs from silver to darkgrey; how do they look now...?  Yours, David (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I do like the slightly darker outer border. However, {{Trb}} appears to have no effect. I ran the width up to 100px and nothing happened. I don't know why this should be so. Is there something about class="wikitable" that locks out subsequent formatting changes? If so, would creating a class="wikitable-trb" work? Askari Mark | Talk 22:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Damn... looks like this may be a browser problem; {{Trb}} seems to work fine with Firefox, but not with IE (is that what you're using...?)  I'll try looking into it a little and/or asking someone more knowledgeable. Sigh, David (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm using IE7. It seems that every "improvement" MS makes to their software, the worse it performs. :( Askari Mark | Talk 17:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, peer review, and project-wide collaboration.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• Our requests page has extensive lists of requested articles, images, maps, and translations.
• We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 20:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Numismatics

Greetings!! I'd like to welcome you to WikiProject Numismatics. Anything you see that can be improved upon, go for it, anything that is lacking add it, anything that is all together absent, please fill us in. There are quite a few knowledgeable people of both numismatics and wikipedia, in this little project, so don't hesitate to ask. Please be sure to read through the whole of the project pages, as we have just recently started using some of them. Again, welcome.

You can add this to your user page:

{{NumismaticWikiProject-Member}}

Which looks like so:

This user is a member of the Numismatics WikiProject, a WikiProject which aims to expand coverage of numismatics on Wikipedia. Please feel free to join.

Hope this gets you off and contributing to the little project that makes the world go round. If you need anything don't hesitate to ask either me, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics. See ya  :) Joe I 11:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Hi Mark: Thanks for taking the time to proof-read and improve the Military history of Africa article while preserving its contents. Greatly appreciated. IZAK 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Re "User:User"

Hi again Mark,

I've recently experienced an "identity problem" for the second time since joining Wikipedia. Recently, my signature code has somehow changed (not by me) from [[User:Askari Mark|Askari Mark]] to [[User:User|Askari Mark]]...

Can you recommend a wiki-techno I can contact about this? Thanks, Askari Mark | Talk 21:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I finally began a list of helpful technical folk only a day or so ago and I know there are as many missing as I've managed to recall!  If memory serves, I'd say User:Mzajac (Michael) seems particularly knowlegeable about the Wikipedia software etc or should know someone to ask. I guess the weird behavior you've described isn't some kind of vandalism, but it's new to me!  Hope you find a solution, David (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
PS Haven't forgotten about this above; one of the other people on the list will probably be able to advise re {{trb}} and IE.

This is very strange, and I can't think of what is causing it. Perhaps it has something to do with the pipe "|" divider between the two links in your signature.

Mark, have a look at your preferences ("my preferences" link at the top of the page). What exactly is in the signature field, and do you have the "raw signature" box checked?

Can you find an example where your signature changed on the page? It may be helpful to look at the diff where it happened. —Michael Z. 2006-12-01 18:33 Z

Thanks for taking a look, Michael! The change occurred on Nov. 28th, although it's hard to narrow down the time. My last post on the 27th was timestamped at 19:34. I first noticed it and made my first signature correction at 13:11 on the 28th. My preferences signature field (currently) has "[[User:Askari Mark|Askari Mark]] | [[User talk:Askari Mark|Talk]]" and the "raw signature" box is checked. An example of where I had to correct my sig can be found in the history section of this talk page: "22:56, 29 November 2006 Askari Mark (→List of air forces - Corrected user ID)" — Thanks, Askari Mark | Talk 20:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

From the page history, it looks like the link was entered that way, way back on November 11. Is it possible that you were using something like {{username}} in your sig field at the time, or that you simply entered incorrectly and didn't notice until later? I've never seen a change in a Wikipedia page that doesn't show up in the history, although I believe there is a way for an admin to revert a vandal and leave its work hidden. —Michael Z. 2006-12-01 20:53 Z

No, since I first set it as "User:Askari Mark|Askari Mark", I've only changed it to fix the "User:User" problem. The odd thing to me is that whatever is happening, my signature in old posts gets changed. I would expect the changed signature to start appearing in posts subsequent to whatever caused it. It also appears to take time to propagate. As I began checking my sig in old posts, some that were initially okay I later found to be changed — although none that I had fixed have reverted. My best guess would be that something or someone "resets" my user name code to "user" and the system slowly tries to correct this until I fix my sig. Askari Mark | Talk 21:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Safiyya bint Huyayy solution

You wrote... Then the best that can be done is probably to describe it as "what would today be called a form of 'concubinage'", and explain the kind of relationship it was then through a brief description in the text or as a footnote or possibly with a link (if there is a suitable article on Muslim marriage customs). I settle for your suggestion and award you a barnstar for the refreshing logic that was lacking from all parties of that discussion.

		The Original Barnstar
		For your solution to the edit war on Safiyya bint Huyayy on whether she was or wasn't a concubine of Mohammad FrummerThanThou 12:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you very much for my first Barnstar! I am honored, and glad that I could help cut that Gordian knot. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

pleasure, I hope your comment comes to the consensus. I have asked respected admin user:jpgordon to make a decision. you can leave a comment on my comment on his talk. by the way, would you like me to move your barnstar to your userpage? FrummerThanThou 20:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but I will move a copy of it to my user page later. I will add a note to your comment on user:jpgordon's talk page. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

May I second this Barnstar? It's always wonderful, especially with the pathetic excuse for public discourse that exists in the United States, to see anyone respond to a dispute with thorough research instead of just rhetoric. I gave a Barnstar to Jossi for a similar reason, and I would like to quote here what I said there:

I was supremely impressed with the way that you stepped into the talkpage and did a lot of research into the question. I tried to be a voice of reason and moderation, but was simply too lazy/distracted to put in the effort that you did. I don't know you that well, but that one example speaks very highly of your skills as a Wikipedian.

Cheers, Karl Dickman ^talk 23:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words, Karl! I am an analyst by profession and much of my job is basically to cut through wrong, contradictory, and incomplete information to determine the "ground truth" (or as near an approach as is possible). I also have a broad interest in world history. I believe I came across the issue on your talk page, as a matter of fact, and thought I might be able to make a useful and neutral contribution since I have no stake in the article or its subject. As it happens, I made an effort some time back to learn about different and unusual (to me) cultural practices of ancient Middle Eastern societies. That coincided with making friends with a nice couple from the UAE who were open to discussing all sorts of things in a "civilized, Western manner" (they were UK-educated). They even gave me a gift of a copy of what they felt was the best annotated English version of the Qur'an, which I read. So I at least have a passing familiarity with it. Unfortunately, as you noted, the quality of public discourse in the US (and in the Middle East) is rather blunt, insipid and uninformed, so it's rare that I get to exercise it. In any case, I've probably exhausted what I can do for the Safiyya article, as what it needs is well beyond my level of experience and interest ... and I have too many projects which are in line with my interests and more expert knowledge on my to-do list as it is. (BTW, I think you should have kept the Ingoolemo handle.) Askari Mark (Talk) 00:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

More re #List of air forces above

Hi again Mark,
Revisiting the problem you reported with {{trb}} and Internet Explorer, can you see some thicker-line dividers in the table here...?  Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi David, unfortunately, no. Microsoft has always been bad with graphics ... that's why I miss my old Power Mac! Thanks for keeping on trying! Mark

Okay, last throw of the dice before I say "Dump IE!": Can you see thicker borderlines here...?  Daring to hope, David (talk) 05:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Only on the outer borders, not the internal line dividers. :( -- Askari Mark (Talk) 16:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's "Dump IE!"... The example on the test page uses HTML tags to specify the internal dividers, so if IE can't parse those...!  I think I'll start tabulating the other sections anyway; if a solution arises later, I can't imagine it being difficult to replace the divider code (identical each time) with whatever flatters IE... Thanks for the feedback, David (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your persistent help, David! Too bad IE is such a poor excuse for a browser. But then, having a near monopoly means you can always just skate by. :( I'll try and help out on the list, but please keep an eye out for any blemishes I might add that I cannot see. Merry Christmas! Askari Mark (Talk) 04:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ditto!  David (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25

You added a {{cn}} note, when a photo of the operation was just above, and that photo had an attached caption indicating the circumstances, as well as a link to the original photo. Why? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It was not a matter of whether Iraqi a/c were "discovered buried in the sand", but of how many. The article quotes "several dozen" and I've seen a wide range of numbers for this, quite a few of which were fewer than "several dozen." It would be particularly nice if an authoritative source were found, preferably giving the quantities by type. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Award

Here is an award for you. Do with it what you please! I usually try to put wards ont he main page but you dont have an awards section so I will leave it up to you to decide.

		The Wikiproject Aircraft Wiki-Wings
		I, Chrislk02, award you this wiki-wings for the excellent work you do with Wiki project aircraft! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the "Wings", Chris! I appreciate it — and I'm glad to know I'm making a difference! Merry Christmas!! Askari Mark (Talk) 00:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem! I think valuable editors are way to often overlooked. It is amazing what a simple thanks, or an award is worth! Happy holdiays to you as well. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Re ...List of air forces table discussion

Hi Mark,

...Would you mind making suggestions regarding my notes in Talk:List of air forces#Issues related to the changeover to the new table format?

Sorry not to spot your post before; these issues also occurred to me while tabulating the B section. Have added some thoughts (and a link to a page where I've been experimenting) to the thread. Yours, David (talk) 08:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Update

Before Christmas finally prevails, decided to be bold and start implementing {{LOAF entry}}. Hope it's self-explanatory once you see it. Best wishes, David (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been able to respond. Just before Christmas, I began having computer problems which eventually led to my being unable to access the internet or my email. After stumping the 2nd-line support experts at AT&T and Microsoft, I put it in the shop ... where they're still trying to figure it out. (Insert expletive of your choice here.) Askari Mark (Talk) 18:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds as if it's time to bite the bullet and go for an upgrade – unless, I suppose, it's been less than a year since you last did so. I know, though, just how much hassle that can be. I hope by the time you read this the situation has been resolved one way or the other; at least frustration can then be replaced by action.

As you may've seen, the List of air forces has now been "LOAF"ed, but, as and when you're able to devote a little time to it, there're still plenty of gaps and queried dates!  Hope all else well for the new year, David (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As best as I was able to discern, the TCP/IP card went bad and a replacement has been ordered by my "mechanic." During all of this, I also confirmed my suspicion that Microsoft's IE7 is evil. Each successive version of Internet Explorer has been buggier than the last, and even with my RAM maxed out and generous virtual memory, response times significantly worsened when I first downloaded it — and greatly improved after I removed it amidst my travails. IE6 is much better, but I plan to download Firefox after I get my 'puter back. I'm hoping to be back online at home by this weekend and I'll take a look at the "LOAF'ed list then. Happy New Year to you! Askari Mark (Talk) 18:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)