Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:52, 9 July 2020

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Precious

gnome in military history

Thank you for quality contributions in over 10 years to articles of military history, beginning with additions to Irregular military and creating Daniel Harvey Hill, now refactoring a section of Armoured fighting vehicle, for welcoming new users, for a thoughtful search for problems, for quoting "If my soldiers were to begin to think, not one would remain in the ranks." - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Three years ago, you were recipient no. 1479 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Revert on Data Storage article

Please don't loose your cool over my revert - I meant to say the change you made should not have been made util Sklar responds to my question. I ran out of comment space so the comment got mangled. FWIW I believe @Sklar:'s summary inaccurately states the relevance of MOS:STYLERET and if properly interpreted most of the "votes" would not be counted which would clearly establish no consensus. Tom94022 (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; cool is being maintained. But, point of order, the RfC is currently closed. While it's possible it may be overturned, that doesn't affect the current status. If there is some formal official public protest state you wish to invoke (I don't know of any such that applies here), that would be different, but a user's private talk page discussion with a single user has no standing on public RfCs. I'll wait to restore the article state per the RfC closure, but not for long. (BTW, you've stated Data Storage instead of Disk Storage a couple times. I know what we mean, but others will get confused.) --A D Monroe III 16:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Tom94022; I note that Slakr has responded with his reasoning (in short, a majority preference by itself is significant in this type of case). He suggests, if you still don't agree, taking this to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment or WP:VPP. If you did either of those, that would qualify in my mind as a "formal official public protest" as I stated above, so I would hold off on enforcing the RfC closure per an outcome there. It's up to you of course, but I wouldn't recommend going down that line, as from what I've seen, such official forums aren't patient about minor matters. This is a very minor matter, and I'd very much like to see us both move on to more useful efforts. I'll give it a few days; if there's no substantial action on this, I'll restore per the RfC's closure. --A D Monroe III 16:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually I think this is a small example of a big issue so I'm going to follow up - just haven't decided how. Tom94022 (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Big how? As for grammar use for "data", while I mentioned on the RfC that it might be used to apply to similar articles in Data Storage and the like, they conform to "data is" anyway. Any such issue for other articles would need a big forum, not just an RfC on a single article. The only appropriate big forum I can think of is MOS, and that was already tried and rejected.

Do you mean a big issue on RfC closures in general? I don't see what that issue could be. This RfC closure isn't going to stand as a precedent to close any others.

Seriously, before the RfC started, you actually agreed that "data are" doesn't make the article better -- just no worse. I actually think the article is improved by "data is". Even if I'm somehow wrong, that would just means it makes no difference; why would you spend any effort at all on this, much less so many hours of effort? I feel we're both valuable editors; couldn't we more effectively spend our efforts elsewhere? --A D Monroe III 18:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force/Colours

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force/Colours. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Western Digital proposed History changes to address citations/source issue

Hello, A D Monroe III,

Thank you for considering my proposed changes to the History section of the Western Digital Misplaced Pages article. I updated the sources per your request and have listed them in a Replace XYZ, With XYZ format for you.

The currently published Western Digital History section has several flags indicating that additional citations from reliable sources need to be added. These proposed changes adds reliable sources where possible and removes statements where sources cannot be found.

Please take a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Western_Digital

and let me know if you agree to update them.

Thank you very much, AnneElizH (````) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnneElizH (talk • contribs) 21:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

AnneElizH; Response is at Talk:Western Digital#Western Digital proposed History changes to address citations/source issue. --A D Monroe III 20:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	How eloquent of you. Trillfendi (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Virginia Beach shooting

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Virginia Beach shooting. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Mahlzeit Stellung

"Mahlzeit Stellung" may refer to the angling advice in the Tigerfibel, see this page. Each angle is given a mealtime as a reference. (Hohum ) 17:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. That's now the third explanation I've seen. And this one's more straightforward, as it doesn't really rely on "slang" use. I guess we should probably favor this one. With this tip, maybe I can find some at least semi-reliable sources now. The one's I used aren't worth mentioning. Thanks. --A D Monroe III 17:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't find a source that explains this, but I used it anyway; it's got to be better than what I had. Thanks again. --A D Monroe III 20:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Confederate monument

I saw your edits on Nathan Bedford Forrest's article and I was wondering if you would like to review the article for the Confederate memorial Robert E. Lee on Traveller.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

MagicatthemovieS; excellent work overall. I have only a couple minor suggestions. (I'd attempt them myself, but I'm going to be offline for a week or two, and didn't want to leave something half-done for that time.)

The reason for the removal (the Unite the Right rally, etc.) should go in the lede; it's probably the most notable thing about the statue/memorial at this point. Similarly, the removal should probably have its own section, since some readers might want to skip down just to that. If possible, any info on how it was appreciated or noted during the long time between dedication and removal would be good to add, if possible (sourced, of course).

Again, this is quality work. --A D Monroe III 17:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Would you like to review the article for GA at some point?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

That's not my forte; I'm sure others experienced in GA reviews would do a better job. But I'll look in sometime after I get back (next month or so) and re-review. --A D Monroe III 20:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:EOKA

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:EOKA. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

climate change and AGW

Hi thanks for your edits at Global warming. Some years back the words "current" and "ongoing" were floating around the first sentence and discussions. Besides saying hello, the main reason for my note is to mention the new WP:WikiProject Climate change. It's just getting off the ground, and editors are welcome to sign up by adding their name to the participants list. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. As a wikignome, I may not be the be able to participate that much, but I'll keep this in mind. --A D Monroe III 17:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Aviation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Aviation. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Battle of the Spurs

Would you care to tell me on what grounds you have so cavalierly reverted my edits to the above? Plucas58 (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

See article history. Edit self-reverted ten minutes before this post. --A D Monroe III 20:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough- we all make typing mistakes - my own typo rate is pretty bad. Plucas58 (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

NP. BTW, as a result of this, I just enabled a "confirm" button on my rollbacks to prevent this in the future. --A D Monroe III 20:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (broadcasting)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (broadcasting). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Battle of the Teutoburg Forest

Demanding source for statement:"Battle of the Teutoburg Forest is NOT greatest Roman defeat" is similar to asking source for statement that "Napoleon has NOT visited Australia".

Neutral Point of view noticeboard the_Teutoburg_Forest. I am new in this so maybe is better to see position of wikipedia on "greatest defeat" statement. Maybe I can learn something new about how wikipedia works. ps. I have not even used connection with German national myth Analitikos (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Analitikos; Of course I wasn't expecting any "X is not the greatest" sources, but just any "Y is greatest" source to contradict the statement.

BTW, talking on editors' talk pages about their edits is great, if it's a question or issue only about them, rather than the article being edited. Discussions about the article issues really belong on the article talk page, so other editors can participate in the discussion.

Also BTW, calling something "POV" in WP has specific connotations; please see WP:POV. We know each source has its own point-of-view, and that's good; we present their views in articles if they're reliable authorities, and balance conflicting views per WP:DUE. In WP, accusations of "POV", especially on one of the "drama boards" like the POV Noticeboard, imply editors are pushing their personal viewpoint that contradicts sources because of some personal agenda; this should not be done lightly, per WP:AGF. I think your disagreement is about balancing sources -- a very routine one in WP -- not accusations of bad faith editing -- a very serious in WP, as they can result in editors losing editing privileges if true. False accusations of this nature often "boomerang", with the accuser's editing privileges being affected instead.

In general, I suggest moving a bit more slowly here. WP works because it is cooperative rather than combative. WP also works by understanding new editors are given more leeway to make some missteps, especially given the huge alphabet-soup of WP policies and guidelines; we were all new once, and we even have a guideline about this as well: WP:BITE. If you're worried about not having done something right, just play the "I'm new" card.

You are welcome to reply here about anything specifically relating to any of the above. Anything more about the article should probably go on the article talk page. --A D Monroe III 16:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fred Hampton

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fred Hampton. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Map projection

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Map projection. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Television

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Television. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for spam revert

Thank you for reverting a spam edit on Pavement light. I reverted your revert only because the spammer made four more edits, and I went back to the last spam-free version, but I didn't notice for five days, and you were on the spot. HLHJ (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

on reverting edit.

Thank you for noticing the problem. But the credit suisse report is 4.5 year old and outdated. there is notification about updating the list. And there is none other site gave detailed military power index like Global firepower, and many other sites also took this same data from global firepower. So I think reverting this article kind of unreasonable. Also the report in credit suisse in most common sense not quite perfect. Kingarthur581 (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Kingarthur581; User talk pages are to discuss with a single user, only. To discuss changes to an article, use the article's talk page; that's what they're for. On article talk pages, any and all the article's editors can respond, and work to come to a consensus. Debating such changes on user talk pages cannot do this, so is pointless.

It's important to understand that repeating the same edit without discussion is edit warring, and if persistent, will lead to being blocked from further editing. But it's very easy to avoid this; just take what you posted above to the talk page of the article. --A D Monroe III 18:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Recent edit in "Battle of the Bulge."

Hey. I've seen that you've reverted my edit, and although a reference must be applied, what if the references are documentary series about WW2, that are in Netflix? Their names are "World War II in HD Color" and "Greatest Events of World War II in HD color" — Preceding unsigned comment added by VivaBlondie2000 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

VivaBlondie2000; The quality of a source matters in Misplaced Pages -- see WP:Reliable sources. In general, documentaries won't qualify for this, especially ones found on Netflix.

Also, as we are discussing changes to the article, you should have this discussion where other editors of the article can respond: Talk:Battle of the Bulge. --A D Monroe III 00:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Bayonet

On what grounds was my edit deleted Bayonet? Do you consider yourself more competent in this matter? Then bring the battle where the troops were able to overturn the enemy without the use of firearms. I think this was only possible as an exception. In most battles, a bayonet attack was always accompanied by infantry fire. This means that a successful bayonet attack is impossible without a preliminary shootout. Otherwise, a logical error occurs. Why were soldiers armed with muskets? It is enough to arm them with spears, so that it would be easy to overturn the enemy. TooLRF (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

As this is about the contents of an article, I have moved this discussion to Talk:Bayonet#Uselessness of bayonet attacks, where all the editors of the article can participate.

Please reply here only if you have something that is specific to me, and not of interest to other editors. --A D Monroe III 02:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Broadwood park

Thank you for the painstaking work to carefully fix the difficult to detect damage caused by this editor. For example they changed "The earliest recorded use" -> "The most first recorded use". I've only ever seen stuff like that one time before, it was someone using an automated grammar fix program without the required skills to fine-tune the suggestions. It may be the same person who did this edit in which they claim to be using Grammarly, because that edit contains the same change: "neutrally" -> "in a neutral way". -- GreenC 21:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the appreciation. :) It is a bit tedious to undo the damage after other edits have been layered on top, but given the muck they produced, still rewarding enough to keep me going; there are only about a dozen more edits to fix now.

My greatest appreciation goes to Drmies, who swiftly indeffed Broadwood-park, eliminating any further muck-splattering.

I agree that the style of edits match that of the IP you presented, but given the long time between these two editors' "contributions", I think the similarity is more to do with just both using the same tool. If these demonstrate the capabilities of Grammarly, I would recommend it only for its byproduct of unintended humor in clueless mangling of English prose. --A D Monroe III 00:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

New guy needs help

Hello A D Monroe III. I am trying to make a article but, I need help trying to get the quotes to Format properly can you help me and with anything else you see? https://en.wikipedia.org/Mass_Rape_By_German_forces_During_The_Second_World_War#Historians_assessment_on_Mass_Rape_by_German_forcesDriverofknowledge (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Driverofknowledge, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. I'm not a quote-box expert, and the long-standing various fancy quote boxes we had were recently all declared obsolete. But AFAIK, your use of the now-preferred one-size-fits-all {{Quote}} template seems fine. The only problem I see is that the quotes have no ordinary text to introduce them and set them off as quotes. This seems to be at odds with the template's intent.

Having a section that is nothing but a series of quotes is basically just reproducing primary sources without any context or interpretation, leaving all that up to the reader; the whole job of an encyclopedia is to summarize common information for the reader. In general, we avoid reliance on primary sources in Misplaced Pages -- see WP:PRIMARY -- and that's when cited as sources for our summarizing text. To quote them at length directly in an article, one after another, is going well beyond that. This may even get into WP:COPYVIO territory, which is legally absolutely forbidden.

I can review the article and offer further suggestions if you like, but there's a class of editors called WP:New page reviewers that are experienced at guidance for new page creators. I'd be surprised if they weren't already aware of your efforts here, but I can contact them for you if you want. --A D Monroe III 02:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

A D Monroe III ok thank you. can you please I need all the help I can get!Driverofknowledge (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I already tried to message. Everyone I have come in contact with, to get help but thanks for replying I appreciate it.Driverofknowledge (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Bear in mind

If EEng's tournament were legit (not that it isn't), the shark would be the only one crying about meeting on the shoreline. Bears love the shore! It's where they literally eat big fish for breakfast. Seen it firsthand, at least this big, biggest fish east of the Pacific, ask anyone! But I've never seen Cher, a wolverine or an iceberg live. If you don't mind me asking, have you? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Shark-infested shores aren't frequented by bears. So there. --A D Monroe III 18:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, the dreaded minnow shark, quite a scourge, bear beware! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and for what it's worth, I have seen both a wolverine and iceberg in the wild, though while keeping my distance. I've not seen the elusive Cher in the flesh -- perhaps just an urban legend? --A D Monroe III 18:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

That's how I feel about wolverines sometimes, just a very elaborate rumour. I live where they're supposed to, seen all their supposed woodland associates, but neither hide nor hair of any legendary badass. Maybe tomorrow, though, there's always tomorrow up here! My dad says he went to a Cher concert around 1980, but he's been wrong about stuff like this before. I envy your eyes, glad you escaped your experiences with both intact, stay alert, stay safe! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Stormtrooper

Your edit notes have been giving me the giggles but I feel your pain too. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 10:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I insert these bits of humanity in my bot-like efforts so I can keep slogging forward. That someone actually noticed these is an extra bonus. Thanks. --A D Monroe III 21:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maneuver warfare, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Siege of Paris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Food and agriculture in Nazi Germany on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:80 Plus on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Daft revert

Did you read the source? The Campbell book literally has 399 BC in the title. Don't be the problem. Be the solution.--Tataryn (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Solutions for content disputes go on article talk. Unhelpful editor accusations go on drama pages, if anywhere. --A D Monroe III 03:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Page for your law

The shortcut to the pump was deleted, so I created a page for it and directed the shortcut there. See Misplaced Pages:Monroe's law. {{u|Sdkb}}  20:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Timur

You are the only one who has a problem with it apparently. Why? There shouldnt be any issue. I explained it clearly and yet you still acted disruptively. LordAgincourt (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)