User talk:Coltsfan

[[File:GNU Smalltalk logo.svg|200px|center|thumbnail|Say what you will, and say what you might! But don't ignore who it's for at the end of the night...

So, what do you have to say?]]

Photo
Hey, That photo of Bolnosaro is recent (from this week), and while it isn't an official portrait it is an official photo of the President of Brazil, and thus not misleading or inappropriate, and more importantly not "Vandalism". It is his likeness, undoctored, isn't it? There is no requirement for those in office to be portrayed with their official photographs, is there? I thought Wikipedia was objective, and not a PR outlet, or am I mistaken?

Here is an example from South Africa - the Deputy President's image shows him giving a speech, in the same way Bolsonaro's does. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mabuza)

Can you justify the inconsistency?

Cbass.cpt (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Gaugamela
Hi, I'm HalfdanRagnarsson, and this concerns your undoing of my edit on the page about the Battle of Gaugamela (no hard feelings). I'd added Diodorus Siculus' account of the Persian rout - it was important, as he admitted that Darius did not flee at first sight but was forced to because of the flight of the guards, thus corroborating (to an extent) the Astronomical Diary's account of Darius' army being demoralized. I did use a reliable source, livius.org (a Dutch historian's blog, perfectly WP:RS) - you will find it cited all over wiki history articles. However, you said that it was not reliable. Could you articulate why, and can I re-insert that part? HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , please read WP:USERG. So no, that source is not, by any means, realiable. But fine, keep it there. I also advice you to use sources suchs "i heard from a guy in a bar". Just as reliable as this "blog". Cheers. Coltsfan (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - It is used quite often, but if you say there is a problem, I will not use that source. But it is an accepted fact that Diodorus gives this description of the battle. How about these translations?  HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * the preference is for academic sources (books, essays, all that good stuff). Journalistic sources in a historical article is not always accurate. Blogs and websites, even those maintained by historians, should not be taken at face value (due mainly to the lack of peer-reviewing). And that article already have sources like that, which is not so good. I recommend that you read WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Coltsfan (talk) 03:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - Yes, I am not pressing Livius any further. I am talking about these translations -  was it all right that I used them? Thanks, HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Pure OR, I've removed and warned. Doug Weller  talk 11:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Roadkill etc.
I get extremely cautious and - I admit freely - suspicious after this. Especially the edits on the sandbox gives me shivers. The Banner talk 17:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alerts: AP and BLP
FYI. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  12:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Your re-revert at Trump
Hmmm. Let's parse your edit summary and see if we can make any sense of it. Never mind that you are edit-warring on that page, you need to self-revert because you have apparently completely misunderstood what you were reverting. A heading was inserted. NOTHING WAS REMOVED. Thank you. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  12:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * and you don't remove other people's opinions or positions without questioning the merit of the discussion;
 * Huh? Whose opinions or positions were removed?
 * if you think the topic is not worthy of discussing
 * Huh? Who said the topic is not worthy of discussing? I in fact already participated in discussing it.
 * then delete the whole thing not just the opinion you don't agree with
 * Again, who deleted anything?

I STAND SELF-CORRECTED. I didn't see that you added a new comment at the same time as removing the heading, so I inadvertently removed that comment when I reverted the heading removal. So self-revert and then re-add your comment. Not a big deal. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  12:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , It's ok. I'll assume good faith and assume it was just a mistake. Still, no need to self-revert. The section title is still there, as it was before. I just re-added my comment that was removed. just don't go rushing to press the "undo" button without actually checking out what is being removed. It happens. Coltsfan (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right, I misread the situation, not once but twice. My embarrassed apologies. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , no problemo friendo. Coltsfan (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -  (talk)  01:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

French invasion of Russia
Hi, you have created a citation error: Cite error: The named reference Lentz was invoked but never defined The article has been migrated to sfn citation. Ruedi33a (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Easily fixed. Coltsfan (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You have ignored the clean sfn structure. This citation was and is very imprecise: Zamoyski 2005, p. 536 — note this includes deaths of prisoners during captivity. The captivity of the French soldiers did not end in 1812 with the end of the Russian campaign. This number should not be usedRuedi33a (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not quite. It isn't a matter of one author is right and the other is wrong. Different researchers find different results, but the sources that are currently backing those numbers, are also being used in multiple other articles, and it has been so for years at this point. Now, if you claim that these numbers are "imprecise", you gonna have to find a direct source that mentions that, otherwise is just your opinion based on the opinion of author X or Y. Coltsfan (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Michelle Bolsonaro
Hello! Thank you for making the change to Michelle Bolsonaro page. I noticed in her personal life section, her marriage date is still noted as 2013, so I just wanted to bring that to your attention also. Didn’t want to make the change since I don’t have any sources. Thanks! Spf121188 (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * change done! Coltsfan (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thylacine edits
Coltsfan,

I am curious as to why you do not consider the changes I made to the Thylacine article justifiable. I believe the edits made were constructive. I await your reply.

Chumzwumz68 (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thylacine is a featured article,meaning the quality of its content was voted and approved by the community as a whole. And you are making changes to the lead section, no less. Why change those words? It makes no sense. The current vocab is appropriate and the lead section is well written. No need for a change, unless there is something inaccurate there. Coltsfan (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

You seem to think I am promoting the Military Criminal Code of Brazil
Would you mind explaining what gives you that idea? By the way, re your other tag, yes, this four-hour-old article does not yet have a lede. I would not have guessed that. Thank you for telling me.

I take it NPP has fully embraced automated tagging. You're the third so far.Elinruby (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Gettysburg
Hello Coltsfan. Thank you for your interest in the Battle of Gettysburg. I noticed that you changed some information in the InfoBox "information on casualties was removed cuz it had no sources". Per the MOS "References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere". See MOS here. I believe that person that put the information in the InfoBox has written numerous articles about the American Civil War, and discussed the relevant figures in the text. I recommend that you revert your edit. TwoScars (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * , not quite. First, if you look at the section "Casualties" you will see that there are quite a few data regarding the number of casualties, and the figures vary a lot. Second, and most importantly, the numbers on the infobox don't match the sources (at least, not at first glance). Busey and Martin, for instance, list the confederate KIA to be around 3k, approaching 4k. The numbers do match the second source, however, the book itself, The War of the Rebellion, states that those numbers could quite inaccurate and, thus, it's doubtful that they should be taken at face value. So, with the numbers varying greatly between sources, why those in particular were singled out? I went to the talk page and all i found is users discussing and disagreeing about what numbers to use. If there was a consensus that i missed regarding those numbers being the most accurate (according to official historiography of the battle), ok, then i yield, but i couldn't find anything of the sort. Quite the contrary, actually. Coltsfan (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue too much, and I won't revert anything myself. Just consider this: What I liked about the previous version is that it had the number reported (the low numbers), and then estimates that are probably more accurate. After your change, it is using estimates as if they are "official". The 20,451 matches Footnote 9. Without both reported and estimates in the InfoBox, someone may eventually replace the estimated (and probably more accurate) numbers with the reported numbers. TwoScars (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * well, so do i, i'm not gonna start a EW if someone reverts that. I just think that a change like this, specially in a featured article, should be done after discussion, with a consensus, which is the opposite here. whenever the topic was discussed, it always brought further confusion. i'll leave it as it is. if someone wants to revert it, it's fine, i'll just make a case in the talk page. Coltsfan (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)