User talk:Howard C. Berkowitz: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Daniel Mietchen
imported>Daniel Mietchen
Line 42: Line 42:
Hi Howard, can you please apply [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=User%3ADaniel_Mietchen%2FSandbox%2FAOTW&diff=100516542&oldid=100516520 these changes] to [[Ancient Celtic music]] and then set back [[CZ:Article of the Week]] to [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=CZ:Article_of_the_Week&oldid=100516490 this version]? Thanks! --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 20:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Howard, can you please apply [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=User%3ADaniel_Mietchen%2FSandbox%2FAOTW&diff=100516542&oldid=100516520 these changes] to [[Ancient Celtic music]] and then set back [[CZ:Article of the Week]] to [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=CZ:Article_of_the_Week&oldid=100516490 this version]? Thanks! --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 20:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:Note that the second paragraph had a "<" removed, and the third one a " " added before the final onlyinclude. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 20:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:Note that the second paragraph had a "<" removed, and the third one a " " added before the final onlyinclude. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 20:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::One more thing: This transcluded version starts with the article title, but this would not be needed in the approved page, as it already has that title. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 21:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:04, 19 June 2009


Did you mean to do that?

I missed this the first time because I usually look at all the changes at the same time.. then I saw that you deleted something.. did you mean to do that? I was going to respond, but thought maybe you changed your mind or something. D. Matt Innis 23:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't mean to delete; now trying to figure out how to restore it. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you like Ike?

How do you feel about the Dwight D. Eisenhower article from a military standpoint? Is it ready for approval? If so, could you nominate it? Then I'll get some people from other applicable workgroups to join in. --Joe Quick 16:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not ready. The WWII is better than Cold War; the Cold War has a lot of ideological baggage. It's fixable, but I need references and I'd like to get some Afghanistan things in better order -- to say nothing of some Vietnam material that's long been close to approval. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

RIM-2 Terrier

I have made a copy of your article in my draft space, with the minor modification of using the convert template instead of writing out the conversion. I have set the values to display what you had written, however if you want a more precise conversion simply change {{convert|12|km|feet|-4}} to display as {{convert|12|km|feet|2}} and it will display out to the second decimal.

If you like it this way, simply copy the draft into the article space. I have not touched anything other than the conversions.Drew R. Smith 20:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

DNS

Hi, Howard, did you see my last remark? Peter Schmitt 14:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I should have guessed this ... Peter Schmitt 14:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Howard, we need some feedback

Howard, please look at This thread in the forums. We need some feedback in that thread. Milton Beychok 06:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Air Force

Howard, Air Force is in state of moving, did you forget it?--Paul Wormer 15:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Dutch air force

"Koninklijke Luchtmacht nu‎" means literally "Royal Air Force now" (nu = now). Why do you have the now? --Paul Wormer 15:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Because I don't speak Dutch and that's the translation given by my reference! We should, by all means, change it. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Kop or sysop needed to format AOTW

Hi Howard, can you please apply these changes to Ancient Celtic music and then set back CZ:Article of the Week to this version? Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 20:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that the second paragraph had a "<" removed, and the third one a " " added before the final onlyinclude. --Daniel Mietchen 20:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
One more thing: This transcluded version starts with the article title, but this would not be needed in the approved page, as it already has that title. --Daniel Mietchen 21:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)