User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad/Archives/2015/May

A beer for you!

 * Thanks! GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome (and more tips)
Hi, GeneralizationsAreBad. You might want to bookmark MOS:ABBR. While it's fine that you changed the subheader "US Military" to "U.S. Military" in the Rape during the occupation of Germany article, it wasn't necessary. The main thing to check on in an article is the consistency of use. If there are other instances of the use of "US" in the body of the article, it's only important that the formats agree with each other. This applies to date formats, etc.

Welcome, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * My mistake if it was unnecessary. I saw two other instances where "U.S." was used, so I wanted to be consistent. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a problem! If you need any assistance, or have any queries, please feel free to ask me. The Wikipedia learning curve is a bit steep early on in the piece. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

You rock!
Funny userpage images and captions. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! :) GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

NGR
What are your specific concerns with the article? WeldNeck (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Very good question, and I appreciate you asking. I have read through the talk archives, and I am glad to see that the current article seems to be stable. My concerns just revolve around sourcing, since much of the research into NGR has been recent, and thus some of the scholarship may be outdated. (For example: the Kuehl thesis does not include the new revelations and freshly discovered documents.) As Wikimedes noted, there may be over-reliance on primary sources, so interpretation of said sources by historians/scholars would be great. In general, the two diametrically-opposed viewpoints presented by each side are hard to reconcile, but a "middle ground" seems to have been reached.

I'm really not trying to radically revise the article or slant it dramatically. I'm just interested in the subject and want to improve it in any way I can.

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright. If the No Gun Ri Massacre dispute does not calm down, I am prepared to go through dispute resolution or just disengage entirely and leave. That would be a real shame, since I want to help improve this article, but the situation there is becoming hostile. The personal attacks are getting out of hand, and deletion of talk pages is totally unacceptable. Rant complete.

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Controversy
What are your thoughts on simply giving Weld free reign in a "controversy" section and leaving it at that? There does seem to be a minority dissenting opinion on the topic. I'm not totally convinced that it isn't WP:FRINGE, but it might solve a lot of WP:UNDUE arguments in the lead and main body if we include the dissenters but confine them to a clearly marked cantonment area.

My immediate thought is "wow that's a bad idea", and I envision the controversy section becoming longer than the article. Then we get protracted discussions about a WP:POVFORK when it becomes clear that the controversy section is big enough to be it's own article.

On the other hand I fully expect that it will be warfare for inches the whole way through, unless one or another editor decides they're going to do what they want, and gets banned for warring. Perhaps it only delays the consensus on whether a the dissenters are noteworthy. It is tempting to find a quick fix though. The ANI attracted a lot of attention to the article, and I wonder how long that patience will last. Realistically, this could take months. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking me, this would have some very far-reaching consequences. To be brutally honest, I fear that you may have answered your own question. It might be a "quick fix" to do what you suggest and partition the two editors, but I do think creating a POV fork would lead to some serious contradictions that would leave any reader scratching their head. It also might just encourage Cjhanley to try and one-up WeldNeck by disparaging his sources and content, thus escalating the conflict. I'm not sure if I have the patience/endurance/sanity for a real battle of attrition. I am prepared to go to ANI again and ask for some kind of probationary sanctions to keep as leverage, since there is a wealth of damaging material against both editors. As I do not purport to be an expert in this subject matter, I can't say about WeldNeck's sources, but I agree that some discussion of the controversy is necessary.


 * On an unrelated and positive note, I have aggregated some sources at User:GeneralizationsAreBad/NoGunRi. Maybe we can put in a bit about the legal aspect or something without any serious debate.


 * Thanks for your great efforts on the page. Barnstars all around if this can be resolved.


 * GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)