User talk:Deathlibrarian/Archive 6

Compare selected revisions (cur | prev) 15:13, January 6, 2018‎ Deathlibrarian (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,245 bytes) (+471)‎ . . (→‎Controversies) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 14:27, January 6, 2018‎ Deathlibrarian (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,774 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (→‎Controversies) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 14:23, January 6, 2018‎ Deathlibrarian (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,772 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (→‎Controversies) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 14:22, January 6, 2018‎ Deathlibrarian (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,768 bytes) (+163)‎ . . (→‎Controversies) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 14:01, January 6, 2018‎ Deathlibrarian (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,605 bytes) (+80)‎ . . (→‎Controversies) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 13:59, January 6, 2018‎ Deathlibrarian (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,525 bytes) (+196)‎ . . (→‎Controversies) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 15:04, January 5, 2018‎ Deathlibrarian (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,329 bytes) (+43)‎ . . (→‎Controversies: I have added allegedly, though not sure it makes much sense in this context. Fisted Rainbow (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 15:01, January 5, 2018‎ Deathlibrarian (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,286 bytes) (+1,146)‎ . . (Undid revision 818693679 by Fisted Rainbow (talk) I have concerns about WP:COI user is associated article subject - he has apparently admitted this already Fisted Rainbow (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)) (undo | thank) (Tag: Undo)[reply]

This is not normal behaviour over an article. Again I question what is your motive here ? Fisted Rainbow (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I don't have anything against you or your event. I've attended it and had a great time, and I'm not involved in the industry, and I haven't sufferred financially from the event. In fact, I'll help stop vandalisation of the page, which seems to happen frequently. Just put something on the talk page, or if you can't get anyone to remove it, you can put something on my talk page and I will help you out. I have run events (not music events) and I know its hard, and a great many people have a great time at our event, I'm sure.I also know councils can be awful, and I think have it in for doofs, so I empathisize with you there. I am just trying to make sure the page has all sides of the story on it, and I have already changed the tone and language of some of my posts at your request. So if you stop hammering at me, I can actually help make the page better, as long as its balanced. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A number of companies relating to the management of Earthcore have sufferred from financial problems

Nowhere in any article does it state this. You have invented this story. Please remove or place correct statement. Once again you have added something not related to the actual topic. Also you have a spelling error 04:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisted Rainbow (talk • contribs)

It's paraphrased from this article, the original text being " But despite its popularity, the web of companies that were involved with the festival suffered from financial problems" taken from this article: [[1]] and the other articles discuss the recent collapse of the 2017 evemt management company "Controversy surrounding Earthcore has continued this week, with reports that the company which owns the trance festival is set to fold this year. As Herald Sun reports, documents lodged to Australian Securities and Investments Commission cite a notification of application to close Yellow Sunshine Pty Ltd; the majority owner of Earthcore." taken from this article [[2]] and the Herald Sun article Earthcore company to be wound up after festival cancellations" http://www.heraldsun.com.au/lifestyle/melbourne/earthcore-company-to-be-wound-up-after-festival-cancellations/news-story/f1911ba86de245cc382f524118f0b34b Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this carefully

"However, many of the bands countered that the cancellations were in fact because they hadn't been paid for their performances, and hadn't been given their air tickets, and so wouldn't be attending. The event "lost up to 32 acts" the day before the event, with the Herald Sun reporting "Many artists have posted disgruntled messages on their Facebook pages, many claiming they have not been paid and many saying their flights to Australia had not been booked". This included many of the headlining acts such as Juno Reactor, Animato and Electric Universe."

Why have you stated the same information twice in one paragraph ? This is clearly terrible writing. Please only have one instance of the same comments/topic etc etc Fisted Rainbow (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also in the article only 2 artists have made these comments not "many". Please stick to what has been written and stop inventing the narrative constantly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisted Rainbow (talk • contribs) 04:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You said I wasn't reflecting the article correctly, so I am now using a direct quote from the article. If you have a problem with the quote, you need to talk to the Sun Herald. Given that you had raised the fact that I wasn't reflecting it correctly, quoting it directly seemed like the best option, IMHO Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are using fake news and unsupported claims as matter of fact.

1.You can not list 32 acts not performing therefore claims to this are false. 2. You are showing bias by not reporting two sides to acts not playing which is easily available by google search news 3. You have zero to limited understanding of the subject matter and you specialise on war history mainly. 4. Your bias is not only unsupported its terrible grammar 5. You have no proof other companies were part of earthcore therefore irrelevant statement and not of the subject matter.

I am rediting to correct facts. Please cease not researching the subject matter properly

Also had you looked at the talk section you would not be making the same errors as discussed in the talk section.

Stick to what you know.

Fisted Rainbow

Dear Fisted Rainbow. I assume you are making Bad faith edits on behalf of the Earthcore organisation, as you are consistently removing the information that states bands and organisers were not paid by Earthcore. I don't make the claims, I am simply stating what is in the references - have you read them? There are numerous articles indicating that the bands pulled out because they weren't paid, so that side of the story needs to be inserted for WP:Balance reasons. The controversy section certainly may state the Earthcore's point of view, but it must also state the opposing point of view. Please refrain from removing this. If you persist on making these bad faith edits, I will ask an admin to have you blocked from the page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DL

Its clear you are making edits skewered for personal motive. I am not involved with earthcore but have a good knowledge of the industry much unlike you and your zero background in music let alone music festivals. You have not balanced the viewpoints including the following article that counters the accusations 32 acts did not perform see this link http://musicfeeds.com.au/news/earthcore-festival-accuses-artists-keeping-money-refusing-play/

As you can see from the link above the arguement and viewpoints are balanced. You have failed to edit the article for a balanced perspective.

1. Where is the proof that 32 acts didnt perform ? You need evidence that indeed 32 acts didnt play. 2. Secondly you have diverted things from the topics by mentioning unrelated companies that the director owned and stating that these companies ran or run earthcore. A totally false statement. 3. Threats. You should not threaten other editors just because you are not getting your own way and skewering the article to suit a distorted veiewpoint which is no balanced

To solve this dispute i propose the following edit

In 2017 earthcore expanded into several other states including Western Australia, New South Wales & Queensland all of which were subsequently cancelled after allegations of a carefully orchestrated smear campaign by international artist Coming Soon and claims by some artists of breached contracts. Footnote http://musicfeeds.com.au/news/earthcore-festival-accuses-artists-keeping-money-refusing-play/ Earthcore countered that some artists kept fees and did not perform. However, the Victoria event proceeded with a reduced lineup.

This is a balanced paragraph with both sides of the story

If you refuse to accept this balanced paragraph you have personal motives and therefore the issues between us will continue

I expect you to accept this balanced edit that shows both sides of a story very clearly.

Also I suggest you read the talk section of the article and see the same traps that were discussed in full then and there. You can not quote or use things like ticketing urls as News sources, Facebook posts or images and other non credible news sources all of which you have within your footnotes. Also you are attempting to divert the topic into unrelated topics like articles about a director of the company. If you want to go that direction I suggest you start a new article about an individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisted Rainbow (talk • contribs) 07:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fisted Rainbow A balanced article, as per WP:BAL would have both points of view, those of the artists, that they weren't paid and those of Earthcore. YOU are the ones continuously removing one side of the arguement. As for personal involvement, I don't have any, I just want to make sure that both sides are expressed in that section. The articles are from a range of sources, however it includes the Herald Sun, amonst others, which is a valid source. I would assume INthemix is also a valid source, as it is a professional industry media site. talk Are you, or have you been, connected to the Earthcore? Can you please advise if you have a Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest with this page? Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Death Libraian

You have now made the article completely one sided with no balanced viewpoint. You even deleted the credible news article that gave two sides to a story -----> http://musicfeeds.com.au/news/earthcore-festival-accuses-artists-keeping-money-refusing-play/

Why would you remove this ? Its clear you have personal motives here and you are attempting to start an edit war by making the entire article one sided only. Since you refuse to accept two sides I will revert to my copy until you come to a balanced article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisted Rainbow (talk • contribs) 12:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Death Libibrarian I propose we both create a balanced paragraph of contested section here and then post to article to avoid a daily edit war ? Yes ? If you are non biased you will accept this compromise to end this ongoing issue. Please advise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisted Rainbow (talk • contribs) 13:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a copy of what I propose

In 2017 earthcore expanded into several other states including Western Australia, New South Wales & Queensland all of which were subsequently cancelled after allegations by Earthcore of a carefully orchestrated smear campaign by international artist Coming Soon. Claims however were made by some artists that there was a breach agreement including non payment and therefore did not perform. Earthcore countered that some artists kept fees and did not perform. [5] The 2016 Victoria event proceeded with a reduced lineup..[6]

This version is two sides to a story. Your version is only one side of the story and you have not only ommitted earthcore version of events you have invented a false/fake news storyline which includes

1. 32 acts STATED they were not paid. THIS IS FALSE and appears in NO article. You have twisted words and basically lied. 2. That somehow an individual's business dealings in other companies is the topic of earthcore. FALSE 3. You have taken the word "allegations" which appears in most links you have presented and desperately tried to turn this word into "facts" and "statements" ie Did not get paid instead of "Alledged to not having been paid". You wording is riddled with these attempts on your behalf.

I can go on but I think i have proven you once again must have a motive to be twisting reported facts and trying desperately to only show one side of a story. Please stop and be balanced like I have above. Thanks

Fisted Rainbow Before we proceed, can you please indicate if you are connected to the Earthcore organisation? You appear to have admitted that you were previously, and even signed off with your name (which I won't mention here for reasons of privacy). Please read WP:COI Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not involved in this organisation and please stop trying to divert from creating a balanced article endlessly. I have put forward a balanced paragraph that clearly states two sides to "allegations". Lets move forward here so we can get on with other articles etc etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisted Rainbow (talk • contribs) 01:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me,Fisted Rainbow but your previous writing seems to indicate you are involved in Earthcore. Also, looking at your contributions, the only page you write about is the Earthcore page. This is a quote of a post of yours from the Earthcore talk page

"Here we go again. Yawn........ For starters The Sphongle tour had nothing whatsoever to do with the Earthcore festival of which the article isn't written about so therefore Cognitive's arguement trying to include something that has no relevance to the Earthcore festival is a no brainer and not even worth discussing any further. The tour (NOT EARTHCORE) he is discussing tour was cancelled and refunds were made for that "concert" and no legal action happened by any parties. If cognitive disident can provide a valid link that shows that 1. Sphongle (live) was performing at a Earthcore festival in 2008 or 2009 then by all means please show all of us. 1.5 That the article above (via the age) is not written about Earthcore in anyway. The drug overdoses DID not happen at Earthcore and therefore have no bearing on Earthcore. 2. Show any documented legal action that was taken (ie court order etc etc) in the regards to <snipped to reduce length> What really is pathetic is the fact Earthcore is no more anyway in the first place and stopped over 2 years ago. Cognitive is flogging a dead horse and getting a mental erection from it I am assuming or as I said is a rival promoter afraid that we will be re entering the market which unfortunately for him we already have and will be putting on events in his region (his market) very very shortly. Could someone with some editing skills please include the artists I have listed above be added the artists who have played at Earthcore please ? With thanks and happy new year everyone !! Spiro Boursine (See Cognitive how easy it is to put your full name behind what one says ? ):-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisted Rainbow (talk • contribs) 04:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)"

And you also wrote this Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC) -[reply]

"Mr Anonymous - I find it rather amusing that you continue to hide your identity yet make claims that you volunteered at my events. Due to the fact you continue to not put your actual name to your claims your words mean absolutely nothing to me yet your motives present themselves as clear as a blue sky. You are a rival promoter who has vainly attempted to personally discredit me and my old festival. If you really really feel like flogging the dead horse then why not start or add a Shpongle tour wiki subject and say that we(I) failed to get them over to australia or whatever rocks your boat and makes you happy. (Removed personal contact details due to recent harassment by Cognitive Disident 60.242.37.151 (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC) I have nothing to hide nor am I what you think I am. Cheers Spiz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisted Rainbow (talk • contribs) 03:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)"

Death Librarian all I am asking is that you add the following counter to the article which is

Earthcore countered that many artists were paid and kept the fees and did not perform. http://musicfeeds.com.au/news/earthcore-festival-accuses-artists-keeping-money-refusing-play/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisted Rainbow (talk • contribs) 02:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fisted Rainbow I will add that in for you, and reference it, but please refrain from making anymore changes to the page yourself as you have a WP:COI with this page. I'll also endeavour to keep the vandalism off the page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great. That is all I wanted in the first place. Balanced storyline. Also can you please not make claims that other business's that are not related to Earthcore at all are related to the festival. This is false and misleading. What other ventures I have personally made are not the topic. If you want to discuss this then start a new article under my name. Thanks Fisted Rainbow (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we will have to agree to disagree about "balanced storyline".... I'm not going to spend my entire day arguing with you. Please let me know what you are referring to specifically about "your other ventures"?, I will try to rectify it if I can. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have memtioned that many companies of earthcore have collapsed. This is false. The companies mentioned in the original article are not related to the festival. Please edit that final line in contro section.

Secondly your statement " 32 acts in total announced they wouldn't be appearing," is not presented in any article or the footnotes you have contributed to this statement. Read the articles properly and do not invent quotes that are non existant. Fisted Rainbow (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

32 acts did NOT announce they would not be appearing. If you can provide a footnote where this claim can be proven please do so or edit the words "32 acts announced" From the article only 3 acts announced that they would not be appearing. Not 32 Fisted Rainbow (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the wording to reflect the text of the Sun Herald article. It says the event "lost" 32 Acts the day before the event, and "many" artists said they hadn't been paid. I have used the direct quotes. Hope this is more accurate for you. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment. "Many companies related to earthcore management have collapsed" Where exactly is this quoted ? Once again you are not accurate with your edits and like I have previously stated these companies are not earthcore festival related therefore you need to either edit this or start a new topic about the organiser personally.

Fisted Rainbow (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly if you didnt have all day then I suggest you try and be accurate with your statements. Also can you let me know on who I can contact if you decide to simply ignore edit suggestions ?Fisted Rainbow (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "the web of companies that were involved with the festival suffered from financial problems." so I will change the word "collapsed" to "Have sufferred from financial problems", as per the article. Is that ok? Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to suggest changes to the page, you should put those recommendations on its talk page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For all you do!! Have a wonderful HOLIDAY!!

Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Earthcore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coming Soon (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) 11:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at tropical medicine and Operation Market Garden Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on US Army doctrine in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Luca Lampariello is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luca Lampariello until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Panzer Ace". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 January 2018.

A tag has been placed on Christopher John Lewis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 12:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The request for formal mediation concerning Panzer Ace, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

I have been reading previous edits and the article as a whole and quite blatantly it is a revisionist historical article in favour of Americans who unequivocally use their own bias sources to spin the article in their favour. Have you had any luck on your end? Even the resident historian they claim to be an expert is terribly bias and unaware of basic facts I have pointed out. Hope you are well. Americatcp (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Americatcp I just had two days off wikipedia (went interstate) - yes I agree, it has elements of a revisionist article to it, though it was even worse before! The resident historian is quite professional, and knows the war, but unfortunately quite firm in his view of "who one the war" and in my opinion, not a neutral source to refer questions to about this topic. Its blatently clear there is a division in the historians by nationality on who won the war, and I have spent a lot of time collecting that information to indicate to people the differing viewpoints - ... how this can be continuously omitted from the article is beyond me!Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed so! His knowledge is abstract though, and as I have pointed out the US was indeed bankrupt many times, using madisons letters and letters to and from congress he still chooses to not address them. I wonder why that could be! Him and others on the article will do anything to maintain the status quo that favours the Americans, for an encyclopaedia that tries to pride itself on being neutral it is laughably pathetic. And people wonder why Wikipedia is not a reliable source!Americatcp (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's my observation that there is a core of "gatekeepers" that just sit on that page and protect it from being changed from their viewpoint. I think it should be a balanced article that the wikipedia user can come to and get information they need, and it should include a balanced viewpoint, not a US centric viewpoint. I think you are right, they will debate things to an extent, but then just cease to debate things when it goes against them. Good on you for putting this viewpoint across, good to see the British victory viewpoint represented so well.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if you have references to where historians have expressed their viewpoint, and the titles and page numbers, sned them through, I'll put them in with the others. I'd like it to get up to 40, I think that's an ok sample size. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good way of putting it yes, "gatekeepers". I agree that the resident historian should not have questions directed towards him, especially as he does not understand GDP is not relevant when the currency at the time is specie. Thanks for the kind words about the British viewpoint, it is one that is so definitive and yet Americans choose to ignore it when it doesn't fit their agenda. In regards to your other question, what about publications from 1814/1815 and letters from the period that also convey the defeat for the US?Americatcp (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this may help. Gatekeepers is a good word....but must understand 2 of them are former University professors that wrote about this topic during their careers.--Moxy (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt they know all about the War of 1812, however they have their set opinions and very set on making sure the page doesn't change from that. Someone may be a good historian, but that doesn't mean they can write a balanced wikipedia article with the user in mind (in my opinion!).Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy Many university professors have, many names have I provided, what makes them have more leverage than those such as Lambert? Was RJensen invited to speak the Bicentennial ? I think not. Just because they have wrote about it, doesn't mean they are unbias or unable to address the valid (and well sourced) points I have made. Seems to many that the goal is to make sure the article stays as an American-centric viewpoint. Also some grade A WPSTALKING here.Americatcp (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your main problem with them is verification ......lots of old primary stuff. To see where they are coming from review WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:SCHOLARSHIP.--Moxy (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, old primary stuff such as http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/connections/james-madison/file.html as well as Lambert's work, Arthur's, and various other cited historians? Or do they not fit the agenda? Honestly it is quite peculiar how some historians are accepted when they fit the American-centric view, but others are not when they "go against the grain". If the ACTUAL LETTERS sent to congress and ACTUAL LETTERS sent by Madison are unverifiable then you have a serious issue with bias in the article. And completely discredits the "encyclopedia" which is evidently already not a reliable source. Americatcp (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article in my view is a Canadian POV. So not much I can say on your assertion .--Moxy (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can it possibly be in the Canadian POV when Canada had not existed yet? The "resident historians" are very American centric and make no attempts to hide this, especially when confronted with sources that do not fit their bias. Resulting in RJensen attacking me personally and my contribution about"submarines" as if that had any relevance whatsoever (which it does not) which is a pathetic attempt to distract when he is losing the argument, something a "professional historian" should not do, yet as I have said as a very American-centric individual this is hardly surprising. Also see my edit request on the talk page of 1812 to see another example on how it is written as American-centric as opposed to that of neutral, notice how my edit request has been completely ignored by others, as well as my edits regarding bankruptcy. "The gatekeepers" are very hard at work ignoring my work that does not fit their agenda. As usual.. Americatcp (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty do you not find it simply staggering that Lambert is disregarded? When he is one of the greatest historians of our era, with the accolades to match. Do you think it is simply because anyone that disagrees with them must be wrong? That certainly seems to be the impression I am gettingAmericatcp (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, people will definitely attack historians that don't agree with their viewpoints, and not apply the same criticisms to historians that support their viewpoints. Its blatent and it happens on a lot of history articles. It sometimes done strategically, to remove references for arguements people don't agree with. I mean, if there is a body of criticism of a historian, by their peers then fair enough. But if people are just giving their own personal opinions, you just have to take it with a grain of salt. From my opinion, he seems to be well established as an expert in his field... I mean he's written 18 books, all published by reputable publishers, articles, etc. Ultimately, if something is recognised as a RS, it should be allowed to be used by wikipedia rules, unless there is a body of work that discredits that author.Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precicely! And there has never been any body of work discrediting Lambert, in fact many scholars have used HIS work as sources for their own. He is one of the best of our era, this is undoubtable, yet those consider him unreliable, as if they have any where near the credentials or accolades Lambert does. Quite ridiculous to even try and discredit him.Americatcp (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Deathlibrarian. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Military victories against the odds, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Snickers2686 (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Love Thy Woman (film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable film; fails WP:NFILM.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Zawl 15:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Napoleonic Wars and Hawkeye7 on World War II Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on generalship in 1918 Timeline: This month in World War I

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Himmelstürmer Flightpack is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Himmelstürmer_Flightpack until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rovack (talk • contribs) 01:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I’m afraid I’ve nominated this for speedy deletion as it duplicates an article that already exists. Mccapra (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Christopher John Lewis has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Dreams for Sale (film), a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Dreams for Sale (film) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Dreams for Sale (film) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Deathlibrarian. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Dreams for Sale".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at a work by Daniel Ellsberg Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1918 flu pandemic Timeline: This month in World War I

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Battle for Afrin City, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages SDF and PYD (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Scomadi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shirt58 (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the bombing of Darwin; recent books by female military historians Review essay: K.e.coffman on Wikipedia's representations of the Nazi German military Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Red Baron Timeline: This month in World War I

The List of YouTubers is being nominated for deletion again. I don't know why. It's been nominated so many damn times. Take a look here. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's crazy! - thanks for heads up Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at coalitions and logistics in World War II, and Nick-D at Australia's frontier wars Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on a supergun of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

A tag has been placed on Before the Vigil, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 03:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your article has been moved to draft space because it does not meet the requirements for inclusion. You can work on it in draft space. Deb (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: This month's external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the murder of the Romanovs Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at a classic US official history Op-ed: TomStar81 on belated declarations of war in 1916–18 Timeline: This month in World War I

The article Crow's Thumb has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No references. Does not satisfy film notability. No information on reception or notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Rheinmetall Skorpion G, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Indy Beetle and Nick-D on the Katangese Gendarmes and India during World War II Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at two important treaties of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.[reply]

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the use of so-called "substandard" manpower in armies Interview: On the Bugle turning 150 (issues that is!) Op-ed: TomStar81 on the collapse of empires at the close of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67 looks at the Sydney Wars Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello, Deathlibrarian. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Deathlibrarian. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Indy beetle looks at military newspapers in East Africa

Hello, thank you for you work writing articles on Japanese films. I have a few suggestions on how you can improve your articles:

• Film titles should be italicized. You can achieve that by enclosing the phrase to be italicized with two single-quotes: done ''like this'' here -> done like this here. You can italicize the page's own title by including the template {{italics title}}
• The first instance of the article's title should be bolded. You can achieve that by enclosing the phrase to be italicized with triple single-quotes: done '''like this''' here -> done like this here
• For citations, the title of the citation should be an inline link to the source rather than including the URL separate. You can do this using this formattion: [http://www.example.com My Example Source] -> My Example Source. This should also be done in the external links section
• You can add categories to pages using the syntax [[Category:MyCategoryName]]. All films articles should have at minimum three categories: the film year, the country, and the language: so for example: Category:2017 films, Category:Japanese films, Category:Japanese-language films
• Subsections should follow the general order listed in MOS:ORDER and MOS:FILM (so plot sections before cast sections, references before external links, etc)
• Don't capitalize random terms. Only proper names should be capitalized. So don't capitalize Comedy in the middle of a sentence, but do capitalize Akira Kurosawa since that's a name
• Proofread your writing to catch any typos

There's a lot more but I think these basic changes would improve the quality of your articles by a lot and create less work for others. I notice that some of your edits are occasionally tagged with the visual editor, but you should be able to do all of these things in that as well. Let me know if you have any questions on anything or want more tips such as how to add WikiProject templates to talk pages or link your articles to their equivalents on the Japanese Wikipedia. Good luck. Opencooper (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

a (belated) thank you for this advice. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I work for The University of Melbourne. I added content to an article about Stuart Greenbaum, who is also a faculty member at The university of Melbourne. I am not being paid to write about him. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at Albert Speer Op-ed: Factotem on common problems affecting infoboxes Timeline: This month in World War I

An article you recently created, What Really Happened to the Class of '65? (TV Series), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at What Really Happened to the Class of '65? (TV series) instead.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft is essentially the same as the article with the same name. The draft will be replaced by a redirect from draft space to the article.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:What Really Happened to the Class of '65? (TV Series) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:What Really Happened to the Class of '65? (TV Series), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Deathlibrarian! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Japanese battleship Mikasa

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on US Navy aviation safety and Australian war crimes trials

Hello, Deathlibrarian. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Rheinmetall Skorpion G".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Dolotta (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67, Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at three books focussing on the World Wars Op-ed: Indy Beetle on the fall of Idi Amin

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australia's leadership and medical services in World War II and Peacemaker67 on Israel's targeted assassinations Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the fate of the German fleet at Scapa Flow

Hello, Deathlibrarian. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Military victories against the odds".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (Talk) 07:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the Dambusters, and Hawkeye7 at Allied code breakers and Australia in New Guinea and Vietnam Op-ed: TomStar81 on the treaty that ended World War I

I work for The University of Melbourne. I added content to an article about Yuting Zhang, who is also a faculty member at The university of Melbourne. I am not being paid to write about her. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Haweye7, Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on recent books covering the world wars

Hello, Deathlibrarian. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Stuart Greenbaum".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Talk:Glass (2019 film), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Additionally, please note that by convention new topics added to Wikipedia talk pages should be added to the bottom of the talk page, not the top or -- as you did here -- in the middle. This helps ensure that other editors are more likely to see new topics and join the conversation, rather than having the topic hidden somewhere in the middle. Thanks. SummerPhD^v2.0 17:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Peacemaker67 look at Italian, German and Australian forces in World War II

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Peacemaker67 look at Italian, German and Australian forces in World War II

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the legacy of World War II

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on writing a military biography

You seem to be adding original research into the article Second Battle of Ras al-Ayn (2019) with failed verifications. Please stop this behaviour because it is against the rules of Wikipedia, see WP:OR. In your edit here [3], you have wrote that 2.2 million Kurds live in the proposed safe zone. While the citation you have given stated 2.2 million people live in the entirety of SDF area. Your addition before this was uncited as well and you have replaced it with yet another original research. I will post about this to the administration noticeboard due to it repeating after the first notifications at the article. Otherwise I think you will keep on making uncited original research edits. KasimMejia (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. KasimMejia (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HiKasimMejia, after you noted the uncited edits, I have gone through and either found cites for them, or removed them. I think there might be one left. IN terms of the 2.2 million, the way I interpreted that was that was the people living in the "potentially affected area" is the safezone, not all of the Rojava area its says "the UN said the potentially affected area included SDF-controlled territory that was home to 2.2 million people". I'm happy to remove anything else that can't be cited, just tag it and I will do so. Deathlibrarian (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Willbb234 on Allied pilots, Hawkeye7 on the defence of Australia and logistics in Indochina, Nick-D on Australian commandos Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports back on a high-profile history symposium

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. KasimMejia (talk) 10:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. KasimMejia (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Deathlibrarian. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Military victories against the odds".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 10:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on aspects of the Second World War and Cold War

A tag has been placed on Guy Windsor requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guy Windsor. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Celestina007 (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Jim Mattis

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at a failed German counterattack in the Battle of Normandy

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the logistics behind the Crusades and the USAF's early Cold War nuclear deterrant

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at fortifications, the German Army, and post-Cold War conflict

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the naval siege of Japan in 1945

The article Before the Vigil has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable film with no coverage as to why it should have its own article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Elinruby (talk) 07:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theory/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Elinruby (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of their traffic comes from people who are there to argue about other articles. They often don't result on a tidy decision and even where they do they aren't binding. However they do escalate the pressure on entrenched contentious editors and often attract fresh eyes to the article. Mathglot for example was just helpful, although I think he is there because he was in my talk page about another article, and noticed that TFD and Tirronen were telling me to "cool it". He is right in this case btw, it's "Indians" that I think is offensive. My issue with "Native Americans" in this particular case is that some specific Six Nations reserves are mentioned in discussions of the Niagara campaign, and they are In Ontario, or Upper Canada as it was then called. HTH, and keep fighting the good fight. Elinruby (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the problem with noticeboards is the people working on them can be overrun with work, so don't really get a chance to look at them. Yeah, I am a bit confused about the use of Indians! Certainly the term was used in period, but whether its acceptable to using it now, I would probably tend to agree with you, and lean to that it should be. Once again, I wonder what the norm is with the other articles. In any case, its good you bring it up. Hey, thanks for the support, and you keep up the good fight too. I think a lot of people just assume the article should be left as is, and aren't prepared for change. There is a LOT of bias on the article as well. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am trying to chip away the bias. Some of it is, I think, due to the use of older sources; some of it may also be an unquestioned implicit bias. To my knowledge, Native Americans and First Nations are accepted terms. This article presents certain difficulties in their use though, which was why I opened the NPOV case. Aboriginal would technically be true but afaik us closely associated with Australia, which leaves indigenous, with the next question being: Indigenous what? It may strike some as overly PC, but TFD objects to "native" and "tribes" for some reason. It is true that in Canada they mostly use "band"; not sure about "native" but I have to admit that the contexts where I have seen that used were in the American Southwest, and it is possible that like "nigger" or "mick" it is acceptable only if the speaker is a member of the group referred to. So let's assume he is right, although he refuses to present any evidence. If I'm going to go to the trouble of making the change it would be good if I weren't changing "Indian" to something that is also offensive, is what my concern was. Elinruby (talk) 02:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will be out of the article for several days, ping me if something co.ed up that seems important Elinruby (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elinruby Will do, thanks for all your efforts, they are appreciated, particularly by me.Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		for civil tirelessness at War of 1812 Elinruby (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this, excuse me but did you miss my point that those are simply some extreme examples to make it more obvious and clear? I am sorry, but this is not an opinion; you are making out the fringe Wikipedia policy so strict as to include only nonsense and pseudoscience when it is clear it is used in a broad sense, including to describe something that is not crazy or unreasonable but that nonetheless departs significantly from the prevailing views in its particular field (In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field). Your strict view of fringe is clearly contradicted by the broad sense the Wikipedia policy actually entails. Either way, whether you like it or not, military stalemate is what happened and is agreed even among sources who claim one side won. My personal view is that it was a military stalemate, but that both sides could claim as win; and indeed that anyone but the Indians won and that the Indians are the real losers, being ethnically cleansed and losing territories; incidentally, this is also the view supported by the majority of historians. We might as well say Military stalemate; both sides claim victory which would be true, at least for the United States and Britain. The bottom line is that military stalemate is not even disputed among those who said it was a win for Canada despite the military stalemate, so your proposal of Disputed military stalemate is not supported by sources. We should list key facts in the infobox and military stalemate is one of them, along with the Treaty of Ghent, status quo ante bellum and defeat of Tecumseh's Confederacy.--Davide King (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are the examples given. Where does it say they are *extreme* examples? Why would Wikipedia use extreme examples that don't actually apply to the concept as it is discussed? Seriously? Why would they give those examples as fringe theory, if they actually meant something else?. Those examples "Apollo moon landings" "Temnplars possessing the Holy grail" flat Earth Theory ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to the viewpoint by some historians that Canada won the war of 1812. The View that Canada won the war of 1812 is the viewpoint of some recognised historians, many of whom are academics working in Universities. The viewpoints are published in academic journals, and published in books by reputable publishers. Its also the popular view held in Canada. IN comparison, Flat Earth theory is not recognised as mainstream science, its not proposed by any respected scientist, its not published in any reputable scholarly works or titles, its not a popular viewpoint held in any country in the world. THAT IS FRINGE THEORY, and it is NOT MAINSTREAM THEORY. If you are going to straight up ignore the examples given (Flat Earth Theory) etc, and try to equate that with a theory proposed by reputable historians writing in their field, then I am done. I give up. I can't do any more here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I give you a counter-question. Why would Wikipedia say In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field? Why would Wikipedia say that, if you were right that fringe is only about pseudoscience and the extreme examples given? Again, it is not me equating equate that with a theory proposed by reputable historians writing in their field, it is Wikipedia's broad definition of fringe theory. Seriously, do you think the British/Canadian won does not depart [...] significantly from the prevailing views [...] in its particular field that it was a military stalemate? Yes or no?--Davide King (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for this, you missed my point. The point is that even those who say one side won, they still say it was a military stalemate. As was noted by Ironic Luck, Donald Hickey even stated that the war was fought to a military stalemate, but that the United States still "lost the war but won the peace" in his book. Please, read again this comment by Shakescene. The immediate and de facto result was a military stalemate. Some historians claim that, despite the de facto military stalemate, one side won. For example, they may claim that Canada won because they United States invaded their land, wanted to annex it and failed. Similarly, the Unites States may consider it a win because they got the British's blockade off and ended British's impressment. However, not every historian agree that the United States was going to annex Canada. For example, Donald Hickey argued that the United States wasn't going to annex Canada. Hickey's primary argument was that the United States lost due to issues of impressment. Again, [t]he minority of opinions (i.e. American or British victory) don't agree on the result (or even on how they won), but the majority that claim stalemate have a consistent consensus of stalemate by mutual exhaustion.

So as was well-explained by Ironic Luck, there wasn't one set and consistent answer with either side claiming victory as each side (on the minority) has a counter to the other, i.e. there is not agreement about why one side is said to have won. There are those who say Britain won because the United States was going to annex Canada and it failed; then there are those who say the United States was not going to annex Canada and that it lost for other reasons, etc. Please, read again this perfect summary of Ironic Luck:

[Military stalemate] seems to be the fact that is established in a wide majority of historical works. This included the majority of the authors you cited such as Marche, Hickey, and Stagg whom all acknowledge somewhere in their books or articles that this was a military stalemate. Now how the military stalemate is perceived from there depends entirely on the historian and how they interpreted the war results from that military stalemate. The majority of historians still see it as stalemate, but some (under the historiography section) will differ. Wikipedia's definition of Fringe would (probably) place "American victory," "British victory," "Canadian victory," etc. into that column.

I find it funny you accuse me of choos[ing] to ignore the examples given by Wikipedia policy itself, and just interpret it how you like when that is exactly what you did by ignoring the part where it states the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. I just do not see why we should remove Military stalemate, Treaty of Ghent, status quo ante bellum, defeat of Tecumseh's Confederacy when all those are uncontroversial and undisputed facts, as proven by the historians who claim a win for Canada, yet also saying it was fought to a military stalemate--Davide King (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, Davide King... as already mentioned if you are going to ignore the examples provided by Wikipedia itself, then you certainly won't be listening to anything I write here, so there seems little point. I think a third party needs to look at this and make an objective decision on the situation, you would probably agree this is going nowhere. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not ignoring them; it is you who is ignoring the part which states the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. I personally believe that the Canadian viewpoint is not pseudoscience and is not unreasonable, but it is fringe in the broad sense Wikipedia use. If Wikipedia defined fringe only as pseudoscience, then I would agree it would not be fringe; however, it clearly say that something that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field is fringe and I believe this is the case. Again, do you honestly think the British/Canadian won does not depart [...] significantly from the prevailing views [...] in its particular field that it was a military stalemate? Yes or no? Because to me the part I quoted to you is pretty clear; and you cannot ignore that wording. If you truly think that British/Canadian won does not depart [...] significantly from the prevailing view that it was a draw and/or military stalemate, then I do not know what more tell you and I agree this is going nowhere.--Davide King (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Hadrian's Wall and Hawkeye7 on the British military Op-ed: Nick-D on diversity and military history

reliable sources noticeboard this time. Elinruby (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know....Jesus, when will this ever end! I'll have a look. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

he is supposed to notify. Elinruby (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What’s the name of that editor whose name starts with y ? The one who also wants to delete the infobox? Will you ping him? And anyone else you think? I will get shakescene, Davide King and Rjenson Elinruby (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its Ykraps - Yeah, I've just notified him - all good. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think they closed that because the RFC was still open. They said you can re-file it Elinruby (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This one? She's still open - no one has assigned themsevles to it yet, I don't blame them! Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

my mistake then. It must have been some other noticeboard. And yeah, did some work for a while at RS and NPOV and sometimes the only reaction is stunned silence. Incidentally, did you see that somebody came back at Fringe theories and said it doesn't make sense to use the policy that way? Elinruby (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will you help me run through and verify the ones that are there? Just a few at a time. Concentrate on the ones that don't have links; I can do the others. I found like four more last night where the page number is wrong, or something. Let's let them work on those.

meanwhile, are you ok with this back cover thing? I suppose that's verifiable, but it raises questions of authorship, and this is supposedly the consensus of historians. Thanks for any thoughts. Elinruby (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He claims he took the back cover reference out FYI; I haven't checked yet. Elinruby (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've only got the e copy, not the hardcopy, so can't see it, but I suppose if he actually wrote it, and its on the backcover, that counts...so we have to accept it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to let it go if it hadn't been for all the braying about how this was the consensus of historians. It's a crummy source for something that is supposed to be obvious. We don't know is it's a quote from the author, in which case why not use the page number from inside, or just a summary written by the marketing people. It was verifiable in the sense that we could obtain the book, probably, through inter-library loan, but this was supposed to be so blindingly obvious that it didn't even need a reference. In any event, he says he has removed it. I will check. FYI for my own mental health I have had to mute Davide King. This doesn't mean I won't see him, just that I won't be notifief every time he pastes in a wall of text. Have he and TFD been here this whole time? Elinruby (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elinruby Ok, yeah that source was a bit concerning. TFD has been around for a long time, and always takes a very Pro US stance, and I find hard to work with because he takes one stance, and won't move from it... and wikipedia is about working with other editors and compromiseing on things. I'd never seen Davide King up until a month or so ago, I have no idea where he came from... he seemed to appear when I was debating with TFD about things. He's an Italian editor, according to his page. Yes, best to think of your mental health, working on wikipedia nd dealing with frustrating editors can be very stressful! Keep up the good work. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could be an expat born there maybe. His English is extremely fluent. But fine; I just question his grasp of the concept sometimes, looks at all this stuff about obviousness. Elinruby (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree - there has been some obvious wikipedia policy (like around what fringe theory is) which he has ignored. I just gave up arguing, and agreed to dissagree. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the references in the outcome section (constitution museum) is complaining that it's been defined twice. Pretty sure it was there before you added some more, so it's probably been added again in the body somewhere, but since the article talk page is awash in acrimony, I thought I'd just mention it to you, since I can't research this at the moment. Elinruby (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I have been meaning to say, I added this article to the Trade War category, because, well, it was. So there is plenty of room to expand on the embargo and its effects if you are interested in that aspect. I know the article is really long but I've discovered that the spinoff articles are essentially identical to the sections of the article that supposedly summarize them, so there is plenty of cruft we can cut. Elinruby (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, yes it certainly fits in with that category Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	E pur si muove Elinruby (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously pressed for time but:

• I can't tell where the change is without doing split-screen, ie not on my phone or not now.
• Why is the stuff about national honor still in there because n wikivoice? Elinruby (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah National honour. I think I am not the person to change it, as I'm seen as being pro canadian - Rjensen wanted it, but Tirronan and others don't. The texts do talk about it. I mean, I think they percieved their national honour was being insulted. I think I've sorted out the leded, its no big deal. Not something I care about too much. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have the time for this article, especially if you are getting some cooperation from them, so I am asking. It looks to me like they are simply ignoring the talk page and the noticeboards, and it might be time to ask for consequences. But you are deep in this and I don't want to be, so I am asking you. Elinruby (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They snuck some stuff in but I took it out, but overall it isn't too bad. Davide king keeps making changes without consulting, and I think really isn't respecting consensus. Its all good though, I can keep at it - I'll ask for your help if I need it - thanks for all your work on the page, nice one! Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, what is your problem with that wording? Regarding this, As the war does not have a clear winner is literally a shorthand for some say that either british or US forces won as you wrote. It does not say the war does not have a clear winner, it says the war does not have a clear winner, meaning that some say one side won and others say the other side won. Also you really need to stop to make it weasel as you did there, by adding every time that when we say while there are (most) historians who says the war was a draw, there a (few) historians who say one side won; it is already stated in Popular views and elsewhere, no need to repeat that every single time.

We cannot keep the wording from the Routledge Handbook of the War of 1812 and remove the one you do not like it. You obviously like when it says and as a result historians have debated the conflict's outcome for nearly two centuries but before that it literally states The War of 1812 does not have a clear winner, saying that it is because the war does not have a clear winner that historians have debated it for centuries, hence my proposal to say As the war does not have a clear winner. So yeah, we should state both things, not just the part you like. By the way, this seems to be yet another misunderstanding on your part because you think that wording implies that it was a draw, when it does not! Clear makes it clear that it is just a shorthand for some say that either british or US forces won as you wrote, hence no clear winner. Davide King (talk) 08:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've told you, that is in wikipedia's voice "The war does not have a clear winner" - is obvously stating, thatn in wikipedia's opinion, there was no winner of the war. We can't write that, because some historians say there was no clear winner, others state there was a winner. The statement is ambiguous - I know what you are trying to say, but you are writing it in the way that makes wikipedia saying there was no clear winner, rather than saying, *historians can't agree on who the winner was. These are two different things! By stating, "The war does not have a clear winner", you are supporting one viewpoint of historians against another - wikipedia needs to take a neutral stance, and express both sides, under NPOV. We need to state what historians say. I am not using weazelwords, you are repeatedly mentioning draw, without the counterpoint argument. Just stop mentiong draw all the time in the text. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense. For one, we are supposed to report what the source says; and if the source says that, we report it. Second, you are misrepresenting it, it does not say or imply that! It is saying there is not a clear winner because some say one side won and other says the other side won! Davide King (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are meant to report ALL significant views - that's what NPOV states. YES include what Routledge says, but the others need to be included as well. OK, I'll put it this way Source A says ( Routledge) there was no clear winner Source (B) (various historians) says Canada won Source (C) (various historians) 'says America won... we can't just write there is no clear winner, as that only covers viewpoint A (there was no clear winner) and the view that either America :::won, or Canada won is not put forward.

If we write "There was no clear winner" that is only representing the viewpoint of Source A. NPOV policy says "which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.". All significant views, not just the view represented in the Routledge book. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are all for balance and NPOV, but you do not seem to have a proper understand of weight and end up engaging in original research and synthesis due to it. What you fail to realise is that maybe, just maybe, if that is not mentioned in the Routledge Handbook of the War of 1812 is just one further proof that one side's victory over the other is not as significant as you make it out to be. Note that the hanbook does mention the both sides won and the both sides lost viewpoints. There is no mention of the one side won over the other viewpoint, perhaps because it lacks weight or it is undue. Davide King (talk) 09:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep talkign about routledge? Its just one source written by one person, do we even know who wrote it? Why does their writing overule any other Scholar? I'm not trying to change balance, I'm trying to include ALL viewpoints. If you just state one viewpoint, and leave the other viewpoints out, you are OMITTING other viewpoints. You can't just put in some viewpoitns, and leave out others, that's against NPOV. Thats what you are doing here, you are only mentioning one viewpoint, and leaving the others out. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is helpful in establishing weight and which historians mentions, etc. If it mentions those who say both sides won, for example, that establish that it is due to be mentioned; it helps us understand how much that is significant, if it is significant, etc. Davide King (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, it is not stating, in wikipedia's voice, that equivocally, there was no winner, as you claim; there is a big difference in saying there was no winner and there was not a clear winner; and the fact some sources say there clearly was a winner and others say that there clearly was not is exactly what my wording is implying. When some sources say there clearly was a winner and others that there clearly was not a winner... *gasp* ... the result is that there is not a clear winner because sources disagree! Because some say there was a clear winner while others say there is not, it is just a shorten way to say that. Funny you talk about compromises when I have been more willing to do that and you just reluctantly accepted them. Davide King (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it is stating, in wikipedia;s voice THERE WAS NO CLEAR WINNER. There are other sources that state that THERE WAS A CLEAR WINNER. You can't ignore those viewpoints, and its ambiguous. I have given you all manner of variations, and you still insist on that ambiguous phrase. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is stating that there was no clear winner because sources disagree! That is the whole point. Davide King (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Davide KingOK your current version is pretty good, as it makes clear the connection between "no clear winner" and the differing views of who won. I'm happy with that, it seems we have a compromise!!!! "As the war does not have a clear winner,[318] with some pointing to a British victory[303][325] and others to an American victory,[326] historians disagree on who won the War of 1812 and have debated its outcome for nearly two centuries.[318][327] " Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point of correction. The Routledge Handbook of the War of 1812 is not just one source written by one person. It's a collection of articles written by experts in the War of 1812 and actually edited by two people. The purpose of the Routledge Handbooks is not to give the views of one person but to provide a full range on significant views, which are typically summarized by the editors in the introduction. Ironically, the contributors include Donald Hickey (one of the editors), Carl Benn, JCA Stagg, and Andrew Lambert, all of whom have been used to argue there is no consensus in the outcome of the war. TFD (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TFD If they contributed to the book, then I guess their opinions on who won the war must be notable, and should be taken into account, shouldn't they? on the one hand you seem to be holding up this book as something of note, but then relegating the opinions of who wrote it to the dustbin as non mainstream views - isn't that a bit contradictory? Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC) Its a collection of chapters written by different people - so that chapter that is referenced would only be written be one person - so its still just one writers opinion balanced against others - Yeah, I knew Hickey was one of the editors.Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term notable in Wikipedia refers to article topics. I think you mean noteworthy or signficant. Comments by notable people are not necessarily noteworthy, even when they are experts in their field. The editors of this book and the authors themselves decided that their views on who won the war were not signficantly noteworthy to mention in a basic textbook about the war. Regardless, they are mentioned in the Wikipedia article. If editors had only put into the article what experts considered to be important, they might not be mentioned at all. But just because views are significant does not mean that they challenge the consensus.

The reality is that few even historians who agree with you do not consider who won to be as important as you do.

The quote from the Handbook was indeed written by one author. But he is not expressing his own opinion but summarizing the opinion of scholars in the field, which is clear from his text.[ https://books.google.ca/books?id=hjyvCgAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA103#v=onepage&q&f=false] He mentions this as part of background information before going into the main topic of his article.

TFD (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I used to work on AFD and "notable" is used for people as well see: Wikipedia:Notability_(people). As for the handbook summarising the opinion of scholars in the field, other writers have done that as well, including Hickey. The handbook isn't the only source that does that, it is still only the opinion of one author, so it still has to be considered with other like sources - nothing in wikipedia guidelines makes it any more authorative than any other source. In fact, in Academia, it could come down to how authoritative is the person wrote it - and I have no idea who wrote that section of the handbook (I have purchased one, its in the mail, as it gets referenced here a lot, and I feel a bit blind talking about it wihtout a copy). Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Nick-D on 1945

The infobox title matches the article title.

Three separate Requests for comment have decided on this title. You disagree and have tried to change it several times (either in the article title, infoboxes or in various ways in article text), Several times you've been asked to either drop it or start a fourth Rfc to see if the consensus has changed to favor your opinion.

Please take the hint. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry SummerPhD^v2.0 I didn't realise the infobox title has to match the article title - all good, I thought it had to reflect the official title. It's been RFC'd enough, no need for another one - all good. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Per the notice you received above, a tag had been placed on Steve Kaufmann requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. Please note that after review, I have removed the deletion request so you do not need to worry about this page being speedily deleted. However, speedy deletion is not the only deletion processes on Wikipedia; my removal does not prevent users from invoking other, longer term deletion methods, such as for an article, proposing its deletion or nominating it at articles for deletion. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

could you please explain these nonsensical edits to multiple afds? [4][5][6] Praxidicae (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that question. "Keep No independant RS for this film." A delete call for all but bolded keep. Wat up? duffbeerforme (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae - duffbeerforme Sorry clearly its late and I should have called it a day already! I actually meant those three to be delete, not keep - I've changed them now and added more detail Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review Essay: Nick-D on the Historical Aircraft Restoration Society

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deathlibrarian, you created the Victorian Mounted Police article in June of last year. The name of the Victoria Police unit is the Mounted Branch.^[1] An old webpage on the Victoria Police website stated "The establishment of Victoria Police in 1853 brought several mounted units together under the banner of the Mounted Branch".^[2] The article could be re-titled using Mounted Branch for example Victoria Police Mounted Branch similar to Metropolitan Police Mounted Branch. --Melbguy05 (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote the article, I had a look at historic newspapers, and they don't refer to them as the mounted branch....that term doesn't seem to be used. The Newspapers all refer to them as "the victorian mounted police" or early on "the victorian gold mounted police". IN fact there are adverts placed by the police themselves, looking for vet and troopers, and that's how they refer to themselves as that. See this article from 1856 and later in 1965. Even if you look at the caption from the picture, from 1875, the caption for it reads "victorian mounted police force". Deathlibrarian (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the caption, "victorian mounted police force" by that time 1875 the name of the police was the Victoria Police (1853). If the caption was correct it would mean it was be a separate police force as it doesn't use "Victoria Police". The 1856 article was a South Australian newspaper and could have been referring to pre-1853 and the 1865 was to a Tasmanian newspaper referring to 1854 around time of merger written by a member. Victorian articles used Mounted Branch in 1862, 1871, 1879 and 1897. 1882 article about recuits for Mounted Branch. Later Victorian articles in 1914, 1931 and 1951. Another old webpage from the Victoria Police website mentions that the Victoria Mounted Police was established in 1836 assisted by three ex-members from the New South Wales Mounted Branch.^[3] The article is predominantly post-1853. Today the "Mounted Branch" is the WP:COMMONNAME. Post-1853 the WP:OFFICIAL of the unit was the "Mounted Branch".--Melbguy05 (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are two books that have information on Mounted. Police in Victoria 1836-1980 has a chapter on "Mounted Police" (don't have access to book).^[4] The People's Force which has a limited view on Google books mentions the formation of the "Mounted Police Fifth Division" c. 1839 after a detachment was posted in 1838.^[5] Haldane has the same info on the Fifth in another source but also mentions the formation of a quasi-military mounted patrol modelled on the Irish Constabulary in 1853 as firemen.^[6]--Melbguy05 (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yes Melbguy05 upon reflaction, I agree with you, looking at the historical articles on Trove, they seem to me to use "Victorian mounted police" as the official term Like this if you sort by date, the common use of the name changed after 1950s. However, I agree with you, looking at GHITS, Mounted Branch is definitely the common name used to refer to them currently so WP:COMMONNAME...so based on that, the name should be changed to reflect current use. The history going back to 1839 is interesting! Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Charm of Others has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites and other wikis.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donaldd23 yes, this is a bona fide release, but it hasn't got any reviews in English that I can find. However, the director (Ryûtarô Ninomiya) is relatively known, and perhaps for "The Naked Director" and "Sweating the Small Stuff". I can't find mush on it, so no probs if it is deleted. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Charm of Others is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Charm of Others until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Franklin Roosevelt in World War II and Hog Farm on the Battle of Chancellorsville

Have you seen your sourcing? You are an experienced editor and you think it’s ok? Bare url for a start. The article would get tagged for leaving it like that. To source an article, click on templates, use the appropriate cite (web, news, book etc.), then insert. Gabriella MNT (talk) 03:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you are coming across so aggressive? I did ask about the revert on your talk page, all you needed to do was explain your issues with it and I'm happy to correct. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D & Hawkeye7 look at two aspects of 20th Century warfare Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Unknown Soldiers

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 Wikipedia 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 2020 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) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Northern Independence is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Independence until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the war in Ukraine

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks Australian artillery in World War I Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on no-win scenarios

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Works on the Gallipoli Campaign, Battle of Perryville and US 1st Infantry Division

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Works on the Gallipoli Campaign, Battle of Perryville and US 1st Infantry Division

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Talk:Types of motorcycles, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on female computers, Nick-D on the Israeli Defence Forces

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Montgomery's doctrine and Nick-D on Mussolini's wars

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Motosakura Castle is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motosakura Castle until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Robby (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you on behalf of Wikipedia and Star Trek fans for being a part of the Star Trek project. In case you did not see the article alert, Martok was put up for AFD today here. Lets try to avoid a repeat of Weyoun, which was deleted with one vote! Starspotter (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added a comment to the AFD. Its sad when deletions go through without proper consultation. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick- D and Hawkeye7 look at intelligence gathering, doctrine and strategy

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Hipal (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dowsing. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Hipal (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[7][8] [9] [10] --Hipal (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You responded: [11] --Hipal (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hipal. I believe I am reverting the lede section to the establish stable version, until consensus is reached - as per WP:CON There are changes being made to it without discussion or agreement, as its being discussed on the relevant section in the talk page. This is standard Wikipedia policy. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you reread CON and EW. You're heading for a block if you continue. --Hipal (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did - I suggest you read it as well "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion" - please see WP:CON Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's being done.

Have you read WP:EW yet?

Please review WP:EDITCON and WP:ONUS.

It would be a good idea to self-revert. There's no rush here. --Hipal (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm on 3Rs, so I can't make anymore, otherwise risk a block. I'll review WP:EDITCON and WP:ONUS but in this case I believe WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS is the issue here, as the edits were continuing to be made without discussion on the talk page. If perhaps you could review that. Cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you've made at least 4 reverts. You're in violation, and in an article under sanctions. Please self-revert. --Hipal (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I thought I was on 3? Allright, thanks for letting me know, will do. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've manually removed it, as there were intermediate edits. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I expect there will be response from the noticeboard that should help with determining what content we include. --Hipal (talk) 03:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Please consider joining the discussion. --Hipal (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your response at ANEW.

First, continuing to argue that you are reverting to a consensus version in my opinion completely misses what consensus is. Consensus should be based upon content policy, or it's nothing.

Second, I suggest you reread the definitions of what edit-warring means. Any further editing to the article in question, or even related articles, can be considered edit-warring when there's a clear dispute over the article contents. --Hipal (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of what is normally done is that you revert to the *previous stable version of the article*, *while* there is a talk section debate on the particular content (which includes that section, as its been part of the article for the last 5 months). I reverted it in line with that understanding. Then the change is made *after* the consensus achieved? That's certainly how I've seen similiar talk sections conducted. And it makes sense for anyone coming to the article to be involved in the discussion, to see the previous stable version, rather than a page that is constantly changing as people are making edits, so they can see what the issue is. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're wrong, and you could have been blocked for your edit-warring. Your continued insistence that your preferred version was "stable" is not based upon policy. If you don't understand these things, I suggest you steer far from any topic under sanctions. --Hipal (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, I've been looking, but not been able to find policy that supports it. However that's the common practice I've seen in situations like this. Also its not my "preferred" version, it was simply the most recent previous stable version of the page, for the last 6 months. It certainly makes sense to me to have a stable page that isn't changing, while the discussion about that page is taking place. I'll follow up on WP:VPP for their comments. Thanks again. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hipal I've raised this question on WP:VPP -- here for clarification, and a proposal for the practice to be included in the rules. Feel free to make a comment if it's of interest. In any case, thanks for being patient and the heads up about the 4RR. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. It looks like you got a good answer right away. --Hipal (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it looks like you and I weren't aware of where it said it in the policy, but according to the policy noticeboard peeps, reverting to the previous stable version *is* actually policy, I just couldn't find it. Its under WP:STATUSQUO Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are very few exceptions to repeated reverts (see WP:3RRNO), and reverting to a "good version" is still a revert and can result in a block.

To claim that version had consensus misses what consensus is. --Hipal (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm just going with the advice from the Policy noticeboard, as it's protocol to check in there for clarification and I would assume they are the experts and know policy. By all means, feel free to follow up with them for any clarification if you wish to. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorance of policy is no excuse when it comes to articles under sanctions. --Hipal (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HipalSorry, I don't know why you are bringing up ignorance of policy. You were unaware of the practice & policy relating to reverting to a stable version of the page after the establishment of a talk section to discuss page content, which the noticeboard advised of under WP:STATUSQUO. I confirmed that with the policy noticeboard.Really, if you have an issue with it, you should take it up with them, or suggest making policy changes or clarification at WP:VPPOL. I don't make Wikipedia policy.Thanks Hipal, this has been a long discussion, but I'm not sure its achieving anything, so I don't wish to continue it. Have a great day, and thanks for your assistance once again. All the best. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was very much aware. You appear to be stuck in ignorance, hoping that you can find justification for your behavior. --Hipal (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "Your continued insistence that your preferred version was "stable" is not based upon policy". However, you didn't seem to be aware the practice of reverting to a stable version while changes are being discussed *is* a commonly accepted practice based on policy - its based on WP:STATUSQUO, apparently as well as WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS and Wikipedia:Silence and consensus - according to the advice from the policy noticeboard.Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this discussion, I believe you've clearly demonstrated that you outright ignore behavioral policy. This should be enough to result in your being blocked if you try to edit-war again. I hope you'll reconsider your position in the future. --Hipal (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You appeared to have not seen my comment. I believe you have indicated that you don't understand policy. You don't seem to have taken on board the clarification of the policy of reverting to a stable version during change discussions at WP:VPP. The editors there have gone to great trouble to discuss the policy, I think it would be good to go there and read that, and clarify with them what you don't understand, they should be able to assist. I would advice you to read WP:STATUSQUOWP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS and Wikipedia:Silence and consensus in the context of reverting to a stable version, before looking at ANEW again. Thanks once again.Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HipalPlease stop posting on my talk page. I don't believe this conversation is going anywhere and its probably more fruitful for us to be spending more time on other Wikipedia endeavours. Cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't promise that, but I'll certainly respect that this discussion is over at your request. --Hipal (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hipal, appreciated, cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Buffalo, New York on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service 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 18:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Your eyes tell (Film), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Chief Minister (Talk) 04:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chief Minister I've added references now, and linked to the spanish wiki article. Article is looking ok now, I think. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm 31.41.45.190. I noticed that you recently removed all content from A Long Goodbye. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. 31.41.45.190 (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, was just in the middle of making a new page and was going to redirect to it - I've done that now - all good! Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the future wait until after you've finished creating a page to do anything to redirects. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do - I've correctly re-directed it now to the new proper page. Cheers, thanks for the heads up. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Deathlibrarian I have added projects Japan, Film, to your article. You may wish to join them, check their to-do, and meet new people with interest in these topics. ( To reply click "edit" next to this section, and add your reply at the end. ) Cheers, --Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 03:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank you, I will - I've been doing quite a few movies lately, so I need to get involved with the general wiki projects in the area. Thanks for the heads up. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Flatiron Building on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service 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 22:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on RAAF aircraft, Hawkeye7 on mission command and nuclear secrecy

Your posts at Talk:Pentagon UFO videos appear to have degenerated into aspersions and bludgeoning, either of which could get you blocked or topic-banned. Going forward, if you must make additional posts there, I suggest that you not repeat the same points over and over, and comment only on content, not on other editors. Along those lines, unless you are willing to utilize the available mechamisms for your concerns (i.e., WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:AE), perhaps it would be best to avoid posts like this. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought my treatment on that discussion was absolutely disgusting, and I asked two editors (who shall remain nameless) twice each, (one on their talk page) to observe WP:civil, both of which they ignored. I was genuinely trying to improve the article, but they both made working on it such a misery I will no longer be touching the article at all. IN 15 years of working on Wikipedia, that was truly one of the low points. I like working on wikipedia, and I would have liked to have had contributed to the article (which seems to be largely ignoring the bulk of current mainstream RS), but frankly, I value my mental health more. That aside, I take your point, I but I had in fact already ceased posting on the RFC, but should have ceased before that point.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on World War I

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Al Jazeera Media Network on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service 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 15:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service 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 22:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Commonwealth armies and an Australian spy, Nick-D on the American Revolutionary War and RAAF mine laying Op-ed: RobDuch on United States coastal defenses

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the past few days your edits to Pentagon UFO videos have been dominated by WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, with the apparent 'citation' to an anonymous comment section of an article being an egregious violation of WP:RS. Although these edits were justified by you as a claimed need for "balance," they seem instead an attempt to push a pro-fringe, pro-pseudoscience POV that is inconsistent with WP:NPOV, and specifically the subsections therein WP:GEVAL and WP:PSCI. I further note that your two recent attempts to remove/suppress from the article mundane explanations/characterizations for UFO sightings via the RfC mechanism have not succeeded. Rather than proceeding further into WP:PACT territory perhaps you should, at least temporarily, follow your own advice here and work on articles outside the UFO topic. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect claim struck. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathlibrarian, my apologies for mistaking the citation was to the 'comments' section of the BU article. I have clarified the mistake here. Regarding JoJo Anthrax's comments above, I do agree your behavior in articles about UFOs has been concerning, as it seems your edits are intended to support an unspoken conclusion that the UFO reports can't be explained by anything other than some fantastic alien or extradimensional technology that defies the laws of physics. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quickly addressing this, LuckyLouie I am only adding RS material from different viewpoints to this page. For instance, a logical explanation would be that it is Chinese or Russian technology. I added sources from experts from some saying it is, and others saying it isn't. That's what the sources say, and they are all from noted experts published in RS sources. I am just adding it to the article. I personally believe the most *logical* explanation is that it Russian or Chinese technology, *however* but as per WP:NPOV and WP:Bal that's not going to make me exclude valid sources that say it isn't, and as a wikipedia editor I would assume you would expect that as well. As wikipedians, we should be including all viewpoints, from valid sources, and leaving it up to the reader to make up their mind. So please, I'd prefer not to be written off as some alien believing fringe nutjob, if that's ok. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JoJo Anthrax Mr Ollie - here has posted a particular point of view - introducing "Radar spoofing" as a potential explanation. I posted an opposing point of view, to counter that - referenced to RS. Mr Ollie has removed the opposing point of view. This is against WP:NPOV and WP:Bal "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.". Wikipedia needs to have all points of view represented in an article, considering due weight. There is nothing wrong with the post from the ODNI report. I suggest you go and read that policy, it's a blatant violation of it. I'll be asking for mediation or an Admin to look at this to ensure WP:NPOV is maintained. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for the accusation that I am posting WP:SYNTH that is unfounded, and seems to show a lack of understanding of the Synth policy. SYNTH is about combining sources to come up with an unwarranted conclusion. I have been adding edits to the page, largely from individual sources. The ODNI report reference was from an individual source, and was removed. I have absolutely no idea why you are referring to WP:OR...I've posted no material that could be classifed as that, if you'd like to point out where I have, please be my guest Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a minority view (and OR/Synth) to imply that statements in the report about all the studied objects (this physical objects bit you keep adding) apply to statements about unusual flight characteristics. The report specifically says those observations could be the result of spoofing, we can't twist wording to try to imply it says something else. MrOllie (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The report *clearly* states that there were physical objects there, because they were recorded by multiple types of sensors, and corroborated by eye witnesses. This is a direct counter to radar spoofing, which is the concept of fooling sensor with Electronic warfare. It's not twisting words, that's exactly what it states. And once again, SYNTH is the synthesis of multiple materials to come to a conclusion. I'm only referring to one source, the ODNI report, so please stop bringing up SYNTH. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding referring to WP:OR...I've posted no material that could be classifed as that, if you'd like to point out where I have, please be my guest, MrOllie has already done so, both here and at the article Talk page. Please reconsider my suggestion above concerning WP:PACT. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR"The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Stating that Radar Spoofing works on radar is not OR... it's friggin' obvious! I stated that on the talk page in my discussion with Mr Ollie. This has been used to block an RS addition to the article, and I have started a third party opinion process about this and the article being NPOV so let's see what they say about it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JoJo AnthraxNone of my material is pro-fringe, and I think you find that a convenient way to put down an editor - the fact that the ODNI report came to no conclusion as to what the UAPs are, and various experts have different (and sometimes conflicting) opinions, and I am simply including the RS for that in the article, doesn't make me pro fringe, and I would ask for you to strike that, or provide some evidence for it. If you seem to have such a beef with me working on this article, please begin the process to have me banned or my behaviour otherwise addressed. As part of that, I'd be happy to discuss some editors behaviour on the page, and your behaviour as part of that. As far as I am concerned, I am adding material to this article to make it more well rounded, provide expert opinion from different viewpoints (within the confines of WP:Bal) and adding material that is relevant to the page and of interest to the reader that was not here previously. I believe there is a POV issue with the article (and its very clear you have your own POV) which I have endeavoured to address by adding in other viewpoints - apparently you don't like that. I have largely worked with the editors and been polite to improve the page(which is more than I can say for some of them, though the people actually contributing to the page like LuckyLouie and MrOllie have always been polite). I have an interest in this topic, and would like to continue to work on the page and eventually submit it as consideration for (GA) status. If you continue to find my additions to the page bothersome to your point of view, and you aren't satisfied, Here's a convenient link for you to use Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]