User talk:EyeTruth/Archive 1

Talk:Schutzstaffel
Your opinion is requested. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 23:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Terminological exactitude
Thanks for taking the trouble to consider my views on the B talk page, I haven't had the chance to air them for ages, your attention has been most helpful. I'm trying to finish Le Transloy and then I want to add something to the article rather than meander through the talk page. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Population history of Egypt
No, the citation isn't for the entire sentence. It was added here by a pov editor whose twice added claiming two people are Moors who don't seem to be and uses quora.com as a source. I doubt they read the Cline article and it certainly isn't cited correctly. Doug Weller (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry - forgot to say "strong evidence" is just pov/OR, although obviously if it were in an attributed quote we might use it - although 22 years is a long time ago in this age of genetic research. Doug Weller (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The source is here - I need to convert it to text to search it, but as I said, it's old. Doug Weller (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Didn't have to convert it. Having skimmed it, I think the editor must have read something someone else wrote. In any case, I'm not sure the point of the pdf is reflected in the statement that a group from Upper Egypt are related to people from that area. 18:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

Doug Weller, thanks for these. I skimmed through the paper, and indeed "strong evidence" was completely the editor's original synthesis. The paper does assert that the Naqada group is related to the succeeding Egyptian cultures and the surrounding Somalian, Nubian and South Asian (Indian subcontinental) groups. The researchers based their assessment almost entirely on osteological analysis, and not on genetic evidence; so the "22 years" you talked about is not even relevant to begin with. If the editor had simply summarized what the source actually says, then his contribution would've been suitable. (More). EyeTruth (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

(Cont'd). "Not fully understood" is a very vague phrase that conveys no useful information. Very few demographic histories, if any, are fully understood in the complete sense of the word "fully". The editor that added that line may have wanted to say "largely unknown" or "mostly not understood", which are both far more definite descriptions than "not fully understood" but carry different meanings. They are descriptions that, if they are indeed the case, can be verified in current literature. But I can't think for another editor. My suggestion is a rewrite to reflect what the researcher were actually trying to say, and also get rid of the phrase "not fully understood" unless there will be further explanation in that regards. EyeTruth (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I've concluded that the whole sentence is misplaced in a short section simply defining the Predynastic. Other sections discuss in much more detail various studies on the population, including the one in question. So I deleted the sentence. Doug Weller (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that another section already talks about Brace's paper, although it doesn't mention about the Naqada group. EyeTruth (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Russian State Film and Photo Archive, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Krasnogorsk. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/GeneralizationsAreBad
Please vote! :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 23:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did something wrong the first time. The error has been corrected. Please vote now! :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 09:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Too bad I missed the event. Lately, I've been very scarce on here. EyeTruth (talk) 06:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Operation Barbarossa
Greetings EyeTruth. There's been some editorial work going on at the Operation Barbarossa page that could stand another set of fresh eyes. I've been trying to clean up all the TV doc references and add academic substantiation where I can. Pretty soon, I will be less present on Wiki due to co-authoring part of a textbook and I've got a post-Grad research project requiring my attention for the next couple years (atop my full-time job). You've done the lion's share of the heavy lifting on the Barbarossa page and I've tried where possible to assist over the last year or so -- whenever the urge hits me or I read something noteworthy. There's a new Cambridge University Press book coming out soon that you'll want and which will likely prove eminently useful for this subject: https://www.amazon.com/Red-Army-Second-World-Armies/dp/1107020794/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1482296028&sr=1-2&keywords=red+army Take advantage of purchasing it early as the cost will probably skyrocket soon. Nonetheless, it would be a good idea for you to take a look at the recent edits to the page and clean-up/delete/add where necessary. Mach's gut. --Obenritter (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't had much time these past few weeks. I couldn't even finish the FAC for Battle of Prokhorovka that I started in Nov. I'll see if I get the chance this coming holidays to take a close look at Barbarossa. You've done wonderful job with the article. In fact, I had taken my eyes off it for sometime now, knowing that you and others, who have been contributing a lot to it lately, have your eyes on it. EyeTruth (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries - this is a team effort thankfully. What I have done lately is try to fill in gaps that existed in the chronology, atop getting rid of specious citations. Hopefully you'll get back to this article and the others (when life gives you a break otherwise). For your listening/concentrating pleasure when editing, try either of the following albums: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrFED9hgsSI&list=PLg4XAY1NVwostWLO1nlOdJ8bUNsPRHU1x&index=6 OR  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyxSkRFUrL8&index=7&list=PLg4XAY1NVwostWLO1nlOdJ8bUNsPRHU1x  Be well and have a Merry Christmas (Fröhliche Weihnachten) and a good "slide" into the new year (Guten Rutsch ins neue Jahr).

Provding Sources
EyeTruth. I'm hoping talking to you here will help. I've given up trying to provide the required information regarding that SS insignia. However, I wanted to draw your attention to the fact that the one book cited in the original article carries no references at all. There is no way of verifying the author's claim at all, and yet this seems to be acceptable. I have provided some references pointing in other directions for the origins of the insignia including the name of the individual who actually designed the insignia and yet this is not enough. Why is it acceptable to use a book that carries no references, and yet when someone provides more information pointing in other direction it's not accepted. My only point all along has been to change one word - from Armanen runes to Germanic runes.Ayon707 (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * None of the sources you provided that I checked (i.e. the screenshots and Rune Might which is available online) laid out any clear claims about the origin of the SS insignia. And that's the problem here. It seemed to have required some level of original synthesis to deduce that conclusion from those sources. (More). EyeTruth (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * (Cont'd). As for Yenne's work, if no one has challenged a work before, then of course it will continued to be used. And also, lack of references, in the general sense, is not enough grounds for challenging the reliability of a source, because there are reliable sources that are known to not typically cite references (either because they are often original research or primary sources), like news articles, news special reports, essays, archival documents, biographies, etc. There is no hard-and-fast WP guideline or policy that discourages using sources that lack references. But in the case of this book, I believe lack of references can be enough ground to question its reliability. But to do that, you'll have to take the case to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where the case is expected to get more audience (but usually not). (More). EyeTruth (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * (Cont'd). But it's not only Yenne's work that says the SS insignia was based on List's runes. There is also Thomas Mees (going by what Diannaa posted). The problem is that you haven't provided any sources that support what you're claiming. And an email doesn't count as a reliable source because it is extremely hard to truly verify. EyeTruth (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Merge source?
Quick question: Where are you merging from on Belgorod-Khar'kov Offensive Operation? It is coming up as a copyright violation from a mail order bride website, which I find unlikely, but also need to check the source. Also, as an FYI, copying within Wikipedia requires attribution in an edit summary (Such as if I was merging into article Foo: Copied text from Article bar, please see edit history there for attribution.) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This article was merged into Belgorod-Khar'kov Offensive Operation. It was a poorly done merge, and it's still in poor shape with so much duplicate content. EyeTruth (talk) 04:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've done the neccesary attribution via dummy edit. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing was copied from the old article though. All the changes I made were just moving things around within the current article and completely deleting some duplicates. So no merging of articles was done. Just tried to clean up the shabby merge-work that was done 3 years ago. EyeTruth (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Sorry for misunderstanding. It should still be fine. I'll make another dummy edit clarifying to be safe. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Salient (military) into Pocket (military). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've taken note. EyeTruth (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Greetings
Hope you are well. Check out this character (Keith-264) and his unpleasant response here under the section SFN References: The changes I corrected were to the Operation Barbarossa page. Any suggestions on how to handle this nonsense aside from just ignoring it? He's combative and insulting as you'll note. --Obenritter (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I once ran into him/her before at the Blitzkrieg article. Definitely a difficult person to work with. Combative for absolutely no reasons. And will object for the sake of objecting, only to end up implementing the same suggestions later. EyeTruth (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. EyeTruth (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit to "National debt of the United States‬"
Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted an edit of mine to National debt of the United States. I actually made that edit deliberately per WP:NUMNOTES, as the number is at the beginning of a sentence, and should thus be written out. —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello . It's fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians
Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive
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 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) 10:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
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)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
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)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
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.

Have your say!
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)

Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
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)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
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)

Composition of the human body
In regard to body water mean in the entire population of adults, the fraction of body water in males is 58% and in women it is 48%, in reference 6. These are sample means. The "mean of means" or grand mean is then the average of these two numbers (the mean of means) which is the same as the mean of all the samples IF ONLY THE NUMBER OF MEN AND WOMEN IS EQUAL. Which is close enough to the truth to say that the mean of the population of 51% women and 49% men will indeed be quite close to (58+48)/2 =53%. That's just WP:CALC based on ref 6, and if you want a reference, see grand mean but this is very elementary statistics. I had put in ~53% but some editor took that out and said that if it was based on reference 6, it was "terrible math." On the contrary, it was perfectly legitimate math, and I challenge anybody to refute me. I'm gunna post this on the talk page of the editor (that's you, user:EyeTruth) who put in the note. S B Harris 07:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)