User talk:Alcherin/Archive 1

Zika Fever
Can you please use the tool you linked to with your template on Zika fever to actually edit this article rather than paste an ugly banner? Now the article has gone from one problem, bare links, to two problems, bare links and a banner. What is the point of that? Pgcudahy (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The network I am on restricts access to certain websites, including the website on which the reFill tool is hosted. The banner exists to indicate a legitimate problem. Besides, somebody has already come through and filled in the citations. Alcherin (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Citing works with many authors
I'm in the middle of citing an article that has 20+ authors, and it's taking a long time to copy/type their names all out into the citation template (I'm using the RefToolbar). Is it acceptable to drop off after a certain number of authors, and is there an automated way of getting the author names cited? Alcherin (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hrrm, I'm not actually sure on it being acceptable to drop a number of authors, but I can recommend the use of reFill to automatically fill in citations -- samtar talk or stalk 18:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the network I'm connected to blocks access to the website reFill is hosted on. Are there any alternatives available or am I left with manually adding citation details in? Alcherin (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah I see...I'll have a bit of a dig for you, but I think this is going to be one of those things you have to do manually (which will at least increase your non-automated edit count!) -- samtar talk or stalk 16:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Cleaning up citation formatting
I've noticed that users of VisualEditor have a tendency to leave behind functional but annoyingly-formatted inline citations like this, and I've occasionally noticed bots coming through and cleaning them up (removing line breaks and character spaces, changing date formatting and "Cite" from uppercase to lowercase etc.). What ways are there of semi-automatically and/or automatically doing this? Fixing them manually takes a while. Alcherin (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Auto Wiki Browser was essentially designed for what you're describing, but you do need to register first -- samtar talk or stalk 18:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Neo-progressivism
I did, most of it was citation from an essey, note [30], I didn't have time to clean up the rest, but neo-progressivism is a very powerful ideology today, I contemplating making a new article, but thought that it could just be added to the article of classical progressivism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rphb (talk • contribs) 14:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no reference marked as number 30 on progressivism, are you referring to the first book in the bibliography (America: A Narrative History)? Whatever sources you are using, you should add inline citations to specify which source content has been added from. I can provide assistance if necessary. Alcherin (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Fuck, someone flat out deleted the whole section, including my reference link, it should be in order again. But I am starting to lose faith in the whole concept of a wiki, as it seems to be inherently destructive when there are no editor.Rphb (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look now, but the person who deleted it has no contributions other than removing your section. They do seem to consider your section as violating WP:NPOV, so I'll read through and see what I think. Alcherin (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The text is copied from the essay you have cited. Not only does this violate WP:COPYVIO, but as an opinion essay it is inherently written to have a point of view. The text definitely contains assertions that are not neutral. Alcherin (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes most of it, especially the first part are direct quotations, but I found them quite apt at precisely describing the phenomenon. I fail to see how there are anything wrong with quoting someone.
 * The other thing is neutrality, it doesn't exist. It is always a view from somewhere. The best thing we can do is to illuminate a subject from different angles.
 * The safe space article that I have been interested in, are in no way neutral. My additions that makes references to censorship vs free speech, collectivism vs individualism is more neutral.
 * The idea behind "safe space" which is part of the PC movement, is an inherently collectivist idea. It is important to know where an idea is coming from to make people understand it.Rphb (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The essay is the intellectual property of the author. By directly quoting large portions of his writings, we are violating laws on copyright (in the United States, which Wikipedia abides by). Quotations are allowed, but only brief excerpts and not entire paragraphs, and only where they are very important in understanding a topic. The author and the essay have not received significant coverage, and while the essay does contain content that could be written into the article, it is not at all necessary to quote from the essay.
 * That's exactly what WP:NPOV is - "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". The essay is but one view on neo-progressivism and contains lots of biased conclusions - e.g. "As a result, citizens today have more, not less, freedom from government in the realm of sexual expression" is not a factual statement, but a judgement of the current situation that is open to individual interpretation. Further to this, the essay is an expression of political opinion, not a statement of fact. What is expressed within does not belong verbatim or in a similar style on Wikipedia - it needs to be rewritten to explain that it is viewed that way, not that it is necessarily that way. See WP:OPINION.
 * Your other text was not written in a way that described the viewpoints, but instead reiterated them - e.g. "Political Correctness is the sword that Neo-Progressives uses to enforce this collectivist agenda on society" is not a statement that provides a balanced viewpoint written in an encyclopedic style and tone, especially the bolded words, which read more like a political speech at a rally than an encyclopedia article. Indeed, the word "collectivism" in the context of neo-progressivism itself is something that needs to be reliably sourced, as just saying that safe space is "an inherently collectivist idea" is WP:Original research. Alcherin (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you got anything to add to this discussion? The text in question can be found in this diff, of which the first few paragraphs were copied from this essay. Alcherin (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Having had a good look over this, you've hit the nail on the head and I don't think the discussion can be furthered with anymore policy discussion. It's now up to editors to work together on the article and discuss between themselves and the community any further ideas or concerns. One point I will mention that if someone contacts you on your talk page regarding an article, by all means continue to discuss the specific point with them, but if the topic begins to sway to the article on general it is a good idea to kindly suggest continuing the discussion on the article's talk page, so other interested editors can weigh in -- samtar talk or stalk 07:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Checking in
Hi there! How's it going? -- samtar talk or stalk 09:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey, welcome back from your wikibreak - I'd taken one myself over the Easter but am back in business. I haven't really come across anything of note, but I'm considering joining a few Wikiprojects around topics I'm interested in. Alcherin (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * and just like that I've instantly got something to ask. Editors on Mother's Day have consistently been removing Palestine from the Dates around the world section, even though other non-state entities are represented on there. This is obviously a contentious issue - is there documentation on how to deal with representation of Palestine on Wikipedia? Alcherin (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Good to hear it's going well - in regards to anything to do with Palestine, please make yourself aware of the current ArbCom sanctions. The editing you described does not seem to fall under any current sanctions, but I would recommend asking the Israel Palestine Collaboration WikiProject if this constant removal seems to be related. I notice the page has now been protected which may help sort a couple of things out -- samtar talk or stalk 12:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

CSD redirects by you know who
I don't mind the WP:G6 concession that neelix redirects can be speedily reverted and so on. But the other editor either is a normal user like me or is not and that queers the pitch. If that user is an admin then the user/admin can decline the CSD of course if that user is not an admin then they cannot but why do they have admin rights to decline a CSD then? I am sorry but it don't square with me something is iffy. Not being an admin nor wanting to be I can't give you an example but about ninety percent of the time I am right with the CSD for the Neelix redirects ten percent are declined by admins whose names I know and trust about ten percent I take to RfD if I am in any doubt. The ones I take to CSD the only ones that have been refused are by this admin/user. There is something iffy going on here, I don't mind being declined or refused but even then relisting at RfD my explanation gets reverted and so on. Si Trew (talk)
 * As per User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's explanation: "Any editor may decline a speedy deletion nomination except the article creator, and no exception was made for the temporary Neelix criterion." They don't have to be an admin to decline a CSD. His rationale for declining the CSD has been stated back on RfD. Alcherin (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: Battle of Caporetto statistics
Hey, in answer to your message on my talk page asking where the numbers are from. The article itself says that there were 265k prisoners and 350k stragglers; which already far outnumber the 400k given as strength in the infobox and therefore make clear that something is wrong. Which is the original reason why I searched for other numbers of the total forces (where it isn´t relevant if they were lost of withdrawn) and took the numbers from the Italian casualties section in the respective German wikipedia article which gives the strength for the 2nd Army as ca. 667k and for the 1st as 207k; that section itself taking the numbers from the contemporary Austrian analysis reports. ....GELongstreet (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Is there a clear source for those numbers that can be put into a citation for the English article? Alcherin (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * As the German wiki has a different system for its sources I have neither name nor pages or said report; though it is noted that the losses also come from the post-war Österreich-Ungarns letzter Krieg 1914–1918 (Vol. 6). ...GELongstreet (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Franco-Prussian War
>For the Franco-Prussian War article, do you have a source for the information you added in this edit? See Wikipedia:Citing sources for more details. Alcherin (talk) 21:14, 23

>January 2017 (UTC)

>Also, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions so far! Alcherin (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for your welcome message. Actually, I am French and I am a frequent (but small) contributor to Wikipedia in French.

To be more precise, I have not added information, I have changed one piece, that was false and I have removed another one, that was totally imagination. And naturally, this information was not sourced! And naturally I've sources, for instance, Milza, l'Année Terrible (I).

Regards, Vlfr496 (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * An inline citation for the source would be useful though, since the article is currently missing many of them. (Milza, l'Année Terrible has already been cited in the Causes section of the article). Alcherin (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Lookup in "Where the Iron Crosses Grow"
Greetings. I'm wondering if you could help me add some info to Aleksei Aleksandrovich Grechkin. Google books tells me there is info in the above book at page 282 relevant to General Grechkin's entrance to the Crimea. I've seen that you've referenced the book and thought maybe you have it. Would you be willing to add some info to the Grechkin article from that reference? I'd sure appreciate the help. Much appreciation. Trilotat (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't actually have the book, unfortunately - like you I used Google Books to read the book and reference it. You might have some luck trying WP:RX though. Alcherin (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Columbine
Just left a reply on my talk page. Regards. --Kieronoldham (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Amiral Murgescu
Hello there. I took a photo of the side view of the Romanian minelayer NMS Amiral Murgescu, as the only photo of her available on the Wiki is a littlely-descriptive one of only her rear. This is a wall painting of her side I photographed at the Zalău County Museum. It is my own work, so should be under fair use. This is my submission, if you can accept it, please do so. Otherwise please help me have it accepted. 79.115.42.242 (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: I already took care of it, made an account on Commons and uploaded it. I only hope I did what was necessary for the to not be removed. 79.115.42.242 (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Over on the file page there's a notice waiting for your attention, about giving proper consent for free use. Alcherin (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Soviet-Romanian naval battles
Greetings, I made a new section about the Soviet-Romanian naval battles of WW2 on the Military History of Romania article. I do not expect it to stay, but please, I would be unspeakably grateful if you would take my edit and make an article out of it. It's the only thing I really want on the Wiki, I've been working hard to find the sources, all I ask is you take it before deleting it and copy it in a new article, with the liberty of correcting any writing errors you find fitting. 82.79.204.128 (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, and welcome to ! Just a small note, this type of discussion really belongs on the talk page of Military history of Romania rather than on my talk page, but I'll address you here for now. There is in fact an article on the Soviet-Romanian naval engagements (Black Sea campaigns (1941–44)), where your contribution would be far more useful (since the naval engagements are only a part of Romanian military history in WW2). Some of the information in your edits is already on the Black Sea Campaign page, but certain details could be migrated from your section to it. I'm pretty busy at the moment in real life and haven't got the time to tackle this right now, and you're more informed on the topic than I am, so perhaps you could add to the Black Sea campaigns (1941–44) article? As for the source citations, they look great! "Jonathan Trigg, Death on the Don: The Destruction of Germany's Allies on the Eastern Front, Chapter 3" could use a page (range), but you've already got everything usually needed for a citation.
 * Although I'll remove your edit from the Military history of Romania article, I've placed your edit as a userspace draft located here for now. feel free to edit the draft, since it's your text anyway. Generally, editors try to rescue any helpful edits rather than deleting them outright, particularly referenced and informative contributions like yours. Alcherin (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Alcherin Thankyou for your kind words about my work. I am well aware of the Black Sea Campaigns article, however there are two reasons I made this draft: first of, the Black Sea Campaigns...were in the Black Sea. Yet much happened on the Danube as well, as you could see, 3 actions, including a fairly large one, that one on 23 June. And secondly, the Black Sea Campaigns provides a general cover on the war in the Black Sea, with many navies, and many non-naval battle actions. It is akin to the Pacific War article for Japan. I saw some articles from categories such as "Naval battles of World War II involving Japan/Germany/Italy" but eventually it hit me: "...Wasn't Romania an Axis too?" And it seems Romania is the last Axis country to not have it's naval battles broken down in detail. Bulgaria did not have naval battles, Hungary did not because landlocked, Yugoslavia did not because 3-day membership and Thailand had one. The rest were either puppets or clients. I do believe Romania should have it's share, but also, I concentrated all in a single article. I guess I could make something like: "Soviet raid on Constanța" for the main one on 26 June, or "Soviet attack on Tulcea" for the very first action, and I guess the 5 submarine sinkings could be "Actions", i.e. "Action of 9 July 1941", but it's much more comfortable to have it all in one article. It's not even all there actually, it's "creme de la creme", so to speak, as in only the actions that resulted in sinkings. There were way more minor skirmishes, some of which even resulting in damaged ships, and I even found two bombardments of Romanian monitors against a Soviet Danube port and several more battles in which ships were used by only one side, but, as I said, "creme de la creme", ship-on-ship actions resulting in sinkings. 82.79.204.128 (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The Romanian naval effort in World War II was simply not on the scale of the three main Axis members - there's far more to talk about in terms of major naval engagements (with significant losses) for Germany, Italy and Japan than for Romania. Having taken a more detailed look, the section on the Danube is already partially covered on Operation München - more detail could be added there instead. The Black Sea campaigns article is certainly not akin to the Pacific War article; it's really more like Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II, i.e. a specific snapshot of a side campaign of the war. The primary focus of the Black Sea article is on the naval engagements, with land actions only mentioned to provide context.


 * Minor naval skirmishes and bombardments aren't particularly notable (see WikiProject Military history/Notability guide), and giving the Romanian naval effort an entire article seems superfluous given the limited impact of the naval engagements the Romanian navy was involved in. As a final note, the category Category:Naval battles of World War II involving Romania does actually exist, but whether the naval battles in this category are significant enough to deserve an article bringing together all of the detail is another matter. Alcherin (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I went through every article of Category:Naval battles of World War II involving Germany, I only found 9 Allied warships of the 5 main types (carriers/battleships/cruisers/destroyers/submarines) that were sunk by German surface ships, in battle, and for Romania there are 5 at least. So you see, the difference isn't really /that/ tremendous. Also, I don't think the notability is really a matter of debate here, given how for Germany we got 13 actions, including one that is pretty much exactly how one of the 5 submarine sinkings by the Romanian Navy would be like, except the US does it to Germany instead. Not to mention an article about an action that results in literally nothing, and which I'm pretty sure is less significant than any Romanian action I listed in my draft. I also can't put the Danube actions in OM because they happened before the operation even commenced. 82.79.204.128 (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * When I say notability, I mean WP:Notability as per guidelines. While one event may be similar to another that already has a wiki article, that doesn't necessarily mean it has the same notability to deserve an article on . Per WP:NRV: "there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources"
 * and WikiProject Military history/Notability guide: "In general, an event is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources."
 * The depth/significance of the coverage is my main concern here since you'll notice there's a lot of detail on the naval engagements the Germans/Italians were involved in, no matter the significance of the outcome. There doesn't seem to be nearly as much detail (i.e. significant coverage) on the Romanian naval engagements, although there's potential to create stubs for the battles, add detail to Black Sea campaigns (1941–44) and Romanian Naval Forces, and to add the Romanian navy to Naval history of World War II. Alcherin (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * So really it's about who does the action, and not what the action itself involves. That's what I'm getting out of this at least. 82.79.204.128 (talk)


 * No, it's about how much has been written about these events in reliable sources. Even when the outcome is nothing (as at Curacao), there has been detailed coverage of what occurred. There's simply no referenced in-depth detail about what happened in those naval engagements I could expand into a standalone article at the moment, so either some of the battles get a stub (in hopes of future expansion) or they are discussed on Black Sea campaigns (1941–44) and Romanian Naval Forces, or preferably both. Alcherin (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I would like to opt for the stubs, and I would appreciate your help. How we do, can you please take the actions and create the stubs, or should I put them in the usual place on Military History of Romania and you pick them afterwards? The main one on 26 June can be called Bombardment of Constanța, the 5 submarine sinkings can be "actions". 82.79.204.128 (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The question is, do the books you cited go into any detail about what happened during these naval engagements? An article just stating "one ship sank a submarine on x date" will get torn to pieces at Articles for creation/Articles for deletion, even with a cited source, and probably will have the text merged per WP:ATD-M. Alcherin (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I am confident enough I can keep the stubs stay. You just make them, and I'll take it away from there. Plus that I'll provide some backround and so on, clearly enough to keep them stay. Nine stubs, for the 5 subs, the bombardment of Constanta, and 3 for each of the Danube engagements. All except the bombardment are actions. 82.79.204.128 (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You can do so yourself at Article wizard, which also has the benefit of bringing other users to provide advice on how to further improve your article before it is submitted. Remember that your original text is still over at Alcherin (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Can't you just make the 9 stubs and make it a bit easier for me? Please, I would be unspeakably grateful. This really means a lot to me, I just need a page, a title and maybe a few words, and I'm good to go. Please. 82.79.204.128 (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Bombardment of Constanța is up, the others are a bit more questionable though so I'll move them through articles for creation myself. Alcherin (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, I've just realized I can temporarily create those articles as drafts. I'll set a few up. Alcherin (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * alright, thankyou, looking forward to know about them. 82.79.204.128 (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Draft:Battles for the Danube is up (seemed appropriate to group them together since they only occurred a few days apart), as is Draft:Battle_off_Mangalia. Alcherin (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I see, I'm following your contributions. Over here is night, but tomorrow, I'll help with your drafts as well. Again, thankyou very much for what you do. 82.79.204.128 (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I've just discovered Horia Macellariu which has even more detail on the Romanian navy in WW2. Alcherin (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Raid on Constanța, Draft:Battles for the Danube, Draft:Battle_off_Mangalia, Draft:Battle of Cape Burnas (1941), Draft:Battle off the coast of Romania, Draft:Battle of Cape Burnas (1942), and Draft:Battle off the Crimean coast are all up now. Alcherin (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I see my old friend is back. You never have been able to comply with your block, have you? I have to say that I admire your energy and appreciate the fact that you're not a malicious editor, just an insistent one. All that aside, I have to agree that almost all of these articles in draft space are not notable and are best dealt with in articles on the participants. Forex the sinking of the GS U-210 is covered in the submarine's article and in the article on the ship that sank her.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Care to enlighten me about this? Alcherin (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See the Greetings section on my talk page, for a lengthy discussion with the fellow where I attempted to get him unblocked, but he sabotaged my attempt by continuing to edit via various IP addresses despite promising to stop editing until I could get the block lifted. I think that there are several other sections after that where he and I continued to chat about things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite the complex case we're dealing with here; it's a little beyond my knowledge of policies. Seeing as he's making an effort to keep his edits WP:NPOV for now, is there any issue with letting him continue working on the drafts in the hopes that he digs up the sources necessary to establish notability? Alcherin (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I WOULD cope with my block if it would be temporary, especially that time seems to fly so fast nowadays. Would you be able to cope with an indefinite block? Just make it be 6 months and I'm cool. Anyways, in all this meantime I concentrated my goals to be as limited as possible in article creating. All I want is Romania's naval battles to be recognized for what they are, like they did with Germany, with Italy, with Japan and so on. All I want is 4 more articles. That's right, 4. We need to scrap the first Battle off Cape Burnas and the Battle off the Crimean coast, as I could not even find more than one source to back them up, let alone details about them. The Danube battles, the Mangalia battle, and the Romanian coast battle (which should be renamed "Battle of Jibrieni")are all done, with sources, pictures, external links. Will do the 1942 Battle off Cape Burnas in a few hours, but 3 of the 4 articles I need are already done. 82.79.204.128 (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your initial block was a limited one, but you just couldn't abide by it, so don't give me any of that nonsense. That said I have neither time nor interest in purging your work with fire from, but I will hold you to the normal standards of notability, etc., and various sinkings of Soviet submarines, etc., are not inherently notable and should be covered in the articles on those ships like I did for Assinboine and U-210. Attempts to move articles that detail any such things into mainspace will be challenged via AFD and possibly even quick deleted by people other than me as fundamentally coming from a banned user; I urge you to reconsider your strategy and add that info to the ship articles in accordance with existing Wiki standards on how to handle such things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Umm...What are you talking about? I am no longer about just the sinkings of those soviet submarines. There are two left that I cannot provide neither multiple sources on, neither significant details on those actions, so they won't be published. If you look at the 3 I did so far, one is a small conglomerate of actions spreading over a few days that cannot really be put anywhere else as an attachment, one involves more Axis nations than just Romania, plus details and context and the other one also involves multiple Romanian warships and details about how the battle came to be, how the sub was spotted, how was sunk and so on. I am no longer making 1-row articles about a mere sinking, I am providing combat details, multiple sources, external links about things that are far from being related only to Romania. 82.79.204.128 (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well good. I haven't looked at your latest changes, so I can't comment yet on them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Alcherin The Danube Battles, the Battle of Mangalia, Battle of Jibrieni and Battle of Cape Burnas (please delete the (1942) in the title, we're not doing the one in 1941 due to lack of multiple sources and details, same for the Battle off Crimean coast) are all ready to be published. Even though short, they have multiple references and external links and enough distinct content to pass as articles on their own, involving more Axis powers than only Romania, providing details about context and combat. So should be good. 82.79.204.128 (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You'll need to provide citations for the casualty numbers you've given in the infobox as well, and preferably also mention them in the text. Alcherin (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am going to adress the 3 submarine battles soon enough, but first I'd like to get the Danube Battles out of the way, so I'll make some more edits there first. Also, I think it would be better if, when the draft is done, you do not move it into the mainspace outright, but instead copy all the code into a brand new article, so my editing history on it is gone to prevent any future "concerns". 82.79.204.128 (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the draft now? Draft:Battles for the Danube Alcherin (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not too bad, if you fix the broken ref and fill out all the bibliographic info for the torpedo boat book. Still borderline on notability, IMO, until filled out with accounts of Soviet activities and likely to face a large hurdle once it reaches mainspace as mainly being the work of a banned user.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Re:being largely the work of a banned user, if i'm interpreting WP:EVASION and WP:BANREVERT correctly, helpful contributions that are verifiable are fine, as edits do not have to be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (and if the article existence itself is not a contentious issue, then WP:IAR could be invoked). On another note, I've just found a source that documents what the Soviet did in extensive detail so I'll flesh that out too. Alcherin (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the Danube Battles article is good enough, just copy the code into a new article to remove my contribution from the history (so we can prevent any problems). Also, does any of you guys know where I can find an online version of the Warship 2001-2002 book by Anthony Preston? It has 19 pages focused entirely on the Romanian Navy, but Google Books offers only paragraphs, so I would like a full version, mainly to check if there are any more surface engagements involving the Romanian Navy. Also, a note on my IP change: the IP changes to another nearby one everytime I unplug then plug back in the wireless router. I do this sometimes to check my Internet connection, and sometimes it's out of my control entirely, such as in the case of a blackout. I did not intentionally cause this volatile IP thing, it just happens. But, for obvious reasons, I consider myself fortunate to have it. 82.79.207.250 (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As I've posted on the talk page of the Danube Battles draft: "If you could add full bibliographic information for the sources you've used (Marina română in al doilea război mondial: 1944-1945 and Romanian navy torpedo boats), most importantly publisher name and date published, then that would be extremely useful." Alcherin (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Note

 * Comment -- I do not find this on-going cooperation to be a suitable course of action: "just copy the code into a new article to remove my contribution from the history (so we can prevent any problems)". I'm not confident in the sources being used in the articles; for example, I saw Suvorov (fringe source) being used. I suggest that the IP abide by their block, or edit another project (where he is not blocked) instead. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sigh I swear, you are one of the most one-note people I've ever met. First of, I was not the one coming up with Suvororv, all the sources come from books that deal with the subject, plus that Suvororv was already replaced. Both English books and Romanian books are used in my articles. Look, me being banned does not invalidate those sources in any way, it is completely irrelevant. You want confirmation? Check Google Books. Look, I've been banned over 14 months ago, for being angry, vulgar, and making unsourced persistent edits, but I've changed. I am no longer that same person, now I source everything I say using books, and more limitedly, external links. I am frankly sick and tired of obsessive identity politics, the Wiki rules are very clear: you do not have to delete a contribution by a banned user, you can do it, but it's not an obligation if it's a positive contribution. And no, I am not by any means going to abide by an INDEFINITE block. Finally, it's ultimately people like you who make me do this. You deal only with the "Big guys", you think Romania's history and contribution are nothing, I'm pretty sure you would rather make an article about an uneventful German bombardment than something actually meaningful like the Raid on Constanța. I wouldn't have to do any of this if people like you would have given a shred of care. I've worked long and hard to find those sources and write the content, so please, either let's talk about the actual content, or otherwise go play with your Nazis. 79.113.132.42 (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Go play with your Nazis" -- seriously? If this is how the IP editor demonstrates that he's a changed man, then colour me skeptical. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * IP, you're not really in a position to make demands, especially when you have zero leverage. You'll be blocked as long as you continue to demonstrate your inability to work with other editors and follow our policies. Parsecboy (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not intend to "copy the code" and remove the IP's contribution from the history at all, per WP:ATTREQ. Using Suvorov was a mistake on my part and was only used in the Background section as a source for the number of ships, article rather than to source the actual events that occurred; since you reverted me on the Danube Flotilla article, mentioning Suvorov was a fringe source, I've replaced it with a more reliable source on both that page and on the draft. Do you have any other examples of issues with source reliability? Alcherin (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all confident that the IP user can maintain a neutral point of view and use the sources, even if reliable, in a responsible manner. Quoting from above: You think Romania's history and contribution are nothing, You would rather make an article about an uneventful German bombardment and Go play with your Nazis. Earlier, I interacted with the editor at Talk:Black Sea campaigns (1941–44). The pattern is the same: personal attacks and POV edits. Do you not find this troubling? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly those things are an issue, but of the sources added by the IP used to support the text (Trigg, Koslinski, Crăciunoiu), one of them (Trigg) was available on Google Books; I've verified what the IP editor has added as well as observing that what he wrote fit other wiki policies (NPOV etc.). If necessary any text written by the IP not supported by sources we can verify could be removed, but much of the article would still be intact. At the end of the day, I'm really just trying to write an article on the topic, given that it is covered in reliable sources, with or without the IP editor's assistance and input. Alcherin (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Editors are topic banned for a reason; if you disagree with the community reasoning, I suggest you both file an appeal, instead of engaging in this collaborative editing, which seems problematic as well. Please also see: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Editors are topic-banned for a reason. Which is...? All I ever did lately, was adding sourced content to chronically underserved areas. In most cases, I used at least two sources to back a statement. I read the blocking policy, it says that the ban is not a punishment, but it's meant to protect Wikipedia, it's content and community, from malicious editors and vandals. Can you please explain to me how do I fall in either of these categories? Which part of my work exactly should Wikipedia be protected from? 86.123.126.168 (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear here, I'm dealing with this primarily in terms of article content; While I'm not sure exactly what evidence (apart from a CheckUser on a known dynamic IP?) established the IP editor/Romanian-and-proud as a sock of Iaaasi, and hence them being topic-banned, that's not what I'm really concerned about. As I've said above, I'm perfectly willing to remove all text added by the IP editor to the articles if necessary. And at the end of the day, these notable articles go some way towards ending their problematic editing/ban evasion. Alcherin (talk) 08:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This may be helpful for backgrouns: User_talk:Romanian-and-proud and User_talk:Romanian-and-proud. It looks like the user was initially blocked for POV pushing and attacking other editors. The sockpuppet investigation came later, I believe. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am perfectly aware of the circumstances leading to his ban, I was questioning the sockpuppet investigation, or lack thereof - all I've been able to dig up is one line from on ANI from User:GeneralizationsAreBad: "By the way: Romanian-and-proud = Iaaasi". There's no proper post in the SPI archives for Iaaasi containing a formal investigation. Regardless, I have no issue with Romanian-and-proud being banned, and I would much prefer to focus on the validity of the article content added by him. Alcherin (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This was in reference to that account's block log, which contains a CU-block by with an indication that the account was another incarnation of Iaaasi. GABgab 21:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well guess what: I am not. And quite frankly, to believe that out of a nation of 24 million people there can't be two who are similar is preposterous. I admit I made mistakes, I get there are consequences for that, but I still don't think I deserve to be framed like this. 86.120.125.255 (talk) 05:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Raid on Constanța


The article Raid on Constanța has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Created by Special:Contributions/82.79.204.128 which is an IP account of a banned user Special:Contributions/Romanian-and-proud in violation of his or her block.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing 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. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)