User talk:GreenMeansGo/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello, Timothyjosephwood, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Border Bowl, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Randykitty (talk) 09:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Thomas Sullivan (Medal of Honor, 1890)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Thomas Sullivan (Medal of Honor, 1890), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Thomas Sullivan (Medal of Honor, 1869). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Sullivans
I said that about Sullivan (1869) only because the dates on his article were identical to those on the date of the other. I don't have any further evidence one way or another, but it looked to me that he was the one with the incorrect dates based on internal evidence in the articles as given. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It's strange how similar they are sometimes. The Army definitely cites two different Sullivans getting the award for the Indian Campaigns. However, I've literally been able to find nothing on the Kentucky born Sullivan and it seems like a whole heck of a lot of sources confound the two and mix their stories.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Historical examples of flanking maneuvers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xerxes. 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) 13:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: 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.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Reduction (military)
 * added a link pointing to Surrender


 * Relief (military)
 * added a link pointing to Surrender

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: 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.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015
03:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC) This is regarding to your edits at Sexism and the associated Talk page. 03:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The "here" link just goes to an unrelated page about gamer gate. Someone uninvolved should visit the article. Honest attempts to improve the article based on sources is being completely blocked. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As a result of the GamerGate arbitration case, articles that cover a "gender-related dispute or controversy" are subject to Discretionary Sanctions, and Sexism is such an article. The article Talk page already has a notification about this.  This notification ensures that you are aware of this, and allows uninvolved administrators to review the relevant logs to see that you have been properly notified before taking any Discretionary Sanctions action.   13:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flanking maneuver, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flank. 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) 09:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Collapse
You can collapse stuff on talk pages using at the top and  which, when implemented, might look like this:


 * stuff 1
 * stuff 2
 * etc

Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Wot no citations
You've just sprinkled throughout WW1. Please check WP:Verifiability. Cites are needed for any material challenged or likely to be challenged. So you are declaring that you believe that, for instance, 'tens of thousands of horses were killed' is a fact likely to be challenged. And maybe you think that the war did not increase female employment? Get real and get specific.

I suggest that you delete all of your cn additions, read a bit of background about WW1, and when you know more, challenge any particular statement that you have difficulty with.

Gravuritas (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * @ Gravuritas Just because you and I have done our reading doesn't mean that you can have, at times, three to four paragraph stretches without a single citation. This article is too important for that. Yes, I agree that theses claims are accepted by anyone who has studied The War. That doesn't mean that citations should be omitted; it means they will be easy to find. I intend to do this in good time, and replace the tags I have added with inline citations. The first step toward doing this is a thorough read through to identify unsourced claims. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you can have 3-4 paras without a citation, particularly if the subject matter is an uncontroversial summary. If you accept that these statements are 'accepted by anyone who has studied the war' then they do not need citations. I've referred you to WP: Verifiability and you are making a statement which is directly contradicted by it. If you wish to add citations, you are free to do so, but in the meantime you are publicly casting doubt on statements that you admit to be true. Gravuritas (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * @ Gravuritas If my intention was to cast doubt, I would have tagged them as WP:DUBIOUS. These claims constitute common knowledge for those who are at least amateur subject matter experts, but amateur subject matter experts are not "everyone or nearly everyone". It is not akin to the example given in Template:Citation needed, that "the moon orbits the earth". If it requires someone to already be well familiar with the subject matter to accept the claim as common knowledge, then it is not common knowledge. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

So, in brief, you know better than the many editors who have edited WW1, and despite two replies you have not addressed my initial point. I give up. Gravuritas (talk) 04:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I have exactly addressed your initial point. I know better than the editor who cited the Romanovs falling following the war, which was in the article prior to my pointing out that they fell in 1917, well into the war. You have attested that these facts are common knowledge when they are not known the vast majority of people, but only to those who have studied the war. They therefore need citation per WP standards. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 05:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Biased and Sexist on the Sexism page
Protects position that did not prove its claim in TALK, without addressing the actual people warring. Remarkably unprofessional and unapologetically biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penelope37 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * @ Penelope37 Much the contrary, I am quite apologetically biased. I do believe the statement should be omitted, and if you actually read the talk page you would see that I proposed, and argued at length, for a complete reboot of the lead. If you feel that your edit is supported by WP:RS then present this evidence in the talk page. I have attempted to do this unsuccessfully. Perhaps you may do a better job. Regardless, this is a discussion to be had on the talk page and not in comments on edits made repeatedly.


 * There are a large number of users who follow this article and your edits on the lead will probably rarely remain for more than a few minutes. Regardless of whether your intention is to war over this phrase, everyone who follows the article will see what you are doing as edit warring. There are certain...political aspects to contentious articles that are simply part of collaboration among strangers.


 * I am not arguing, or reverting you, because I support inclusion of the phrase. I am arguing for productivity, and the only potentially productive course of action is to settle this on the talk page. Whether I revert you or not, the edit will be reverted. If you cannot be bothered to address this on the talk page then your time is best spent elsewhere where you can make meaningful and lasting contributions. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

re original work on sexism page
Hi, and apologies if this is the wrong way to reply to your comment on my talk page (please advise if it is).

The difficulty I'm having is that, for example, the sexism page posits several definitions of potential sexism which are contradictory to the very definition of sexism outlined at the beginning of the same page. The page as a whole is, in my humble opinion, of poor quality in that regard - in relation to several areas.

Is it unacceptable original work to point out inherent contradictions in the page, in the same way that it isn't really open to interpretation to point out that 2+2 cannot equal 4 while also equalling 5 at the same time?

Or is it just down to presentation? in which case perhaps with some effort the same can be achieved legitimately.

I.e in this particular case, the article starts by pointing out that sexism is a prejudice or discrimination based on a persons particular gender. This means that a thing can only be sexist if it applies exclusively (in a given context) to one particular gender and not the other. To then posit that objectification (without supposing that it's only acceptable towards one gender in particular in some given context - perhaps advertising?) is sexist is directly contradictory to the definition of sexism already established in the article.

If those contradictions are allowed to persist then the article serves as nothing more than an aggregation of statements that anyone might have ever made about sexism - i.e meaningless unless it is also noted that people are defining sexism in different and unstated ways. It seems that an encyclopedia should, while remaining neutral in subjective matters, at least attempt to maintain some coherence when it comes to objectively definable terminology.

I suppose what I'm saying is that while the reliability or expertness of sources is very subjective in nature, if the article is inherently self contradictory then something must be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsyBitsyTeenyWeenyBikini (talk • contribs) 21:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * @ItsyBitsyTeenyWeenyBikini Ok. There is a lot here but I'll try to explain. Yes, I agree that the article is quite poor and disorganized. Most of the content was added by an undergraduate class project, not Wikipedia editors. So the content is already there, which become important. According to Wikipedia standards, unless you can establish WP:CON(sensus), the default is usually to keep the page as it is.


 * It is not similar to 2+2, which is considered common knowledge, such as the moon revolves around the earth or Paris is the capital of France. Common knowledge is defined as something known by "everyone or nearly everyone". The nuanced philosophical argument that you are trying to put forth does not meet this standard, thus it requires citation in WP:RS.


 * Also, because this is a particularly contentious article, there is an elevated informal requirement to discuss an edit and achieve consensus on the talk page first. It's the same thing you'll find on something like abortion or creationism. Because it's controversial you have to meet a higher standard and make your case convincingly to the large number of people who watch sexism.


 * Hopefully that clears things up a little. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

So, do you think...
...it's time for Melee to be renominated for WP:AFD? Your information is quite convincing ... convincing enough for me to at least not vote "keep" again in a nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the article should be deleted. There's no question about that. Whether it should be renominated?.. I was concerned that insufficient time had passed to avoid accusations of serial submission to WP:AFD simply to get a desired outcome.


 * However, I do feel that the discussion was sidetracked on to unrelated argument about the word generally and not Melee (military) or Melee (tactic) which is what the page actually is (or tries to be). Melee (tourney) may be a perfectly legitimate topic, but it's not really relevant to the discussion. The AFD discussion fell into the same trap as the article itself: it became a discussion about a word and not a discussion about a thing.


 * Having said that, I'm not sure I'm exactly a disinterested party at this point. Perhaps if you wanted to nominate I could state the case there. I'm afraid it might seem like I am pushing an agenda if I nominate. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 05:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

NGR Background
If you are interested in reading some background on all of this, this paper from Dale C. Kuehl is quite good. He provides a most reasonable reconstruction of the events beginning on page 73 but the whole paper is worth a read if you are interested. WeldNeck (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This is going to sound odd, but I don't particularly care about gaining a comprehensive knowledge about the subject. Actually, the fact that I know basically nothing about it is a strength. It means that I am not biased by whatever I happen to have read or not read. I haven't even read the WP article beyond the lead.


 * What I care about is each individual edit and whether sources can be provided in favor of one version or the other. I have sufficient competency (see WP:CIR) on matters relating to war and genocide that I can evaluate the sources presented on both sides. I don't care about who is right in the grand philosophical scheme of things because that doesn't particularly help the article. What is important are the edits, and if all sides are willing, that's what we will explore. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Doesn't sound odd at all. A fresh look ... good idea. WeldNeck (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Great, in the meantime, I would greatly appreciate it if those involved, including yourself, would postpone any substantial edits to the page (more than spelling and grammar) until we can sort it out. It is very easy to create conflicts faster than you solve them. Creating is fast; solving is slow. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Strongly agree. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll offer edit

 * I've suggested at NGR Talk that we start editing from the top, which should make it easier to keep track of what's done, what's not. This is a wedding anniversary day for me, but I think I can put something together today, or certainly by tomorrow. Let's see if I can understand the technique you suggest at my Talk page. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 15:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)


 * Timothyjosephwood,, , since WeldNeck just pours out he draws from Bateman, I cannot keep up with and refute each one, and will not (which I'm sure makes you happy). However, if there's anything of his that you think I should address for your benefit, please ask. And I must say, the NGR story is 15 years and thousands of hours of research beyond the time of Bateman, the crank, vs. AP, the 160-year-old bedrock news organization of the U.S. I hope this article can address what's known about the massacre in 2015, not the mud that vindictive 7th Cav'ers (and that includes U.S. News's Galloway, Bateman's onetime roommate and 7th Cav association member) flung at honest journalists way back when. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 20:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit
Hello, I'm KoshVorlon. An edit that you recently made to Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the 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!  KoshVorlon   Rassekali ternii i mlechnye putiundefined  18:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * KoshVorlon, the edit was not a test. I have a mental disorder where I reference Hitler a lot. I'm on medication. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * err... I know at least one mental disorder where the individual vocalizes certain things, but I haven't heard of any that would make one type certain things.  KoshVorlon    Rassekali ternii i mlechnye putiundefined  20:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's called Nationalist Socialist Tourette's Syndrome. It's very closely tied with Godwin's Law.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh huh, just as I thought, not a real syndrome. No G-hits, no nothing on it.   Nice try though.   KoshVorlon    Rassekali ternii i mlechnye putiundefined  20:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's very rare. Something something vaccines. Mercury. Hitler. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.  KoshVorlon    Rassekali ternii i mlechnye putiundefined  21:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. Are you scolding me for vandalizing my own talk page? Also please refrain from removing my comments...from my own talk page...for some reason. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, another user got his talk page access removed and they got blocked for vandalizing their own talk page.  It's this guy right here . So, please stop, you can be blocked for it (not by me though, I'm not a sysop or anything like that )   KoshVorlon    Rassekali ternii i mlechnye putiundefined  21:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I am not making myself abundantly clear. Go away. I don't know why you thought my original edit at No Gun Ri was vandalism. If you had paid attention you would know we have had an ongoing debate there for about a week, which I am attempting to moderate. I don't know why you are repeatedly reverting my comments on my own talk page. Franky, I don't care. There is an easy solution to this: go away. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

No Gun Ri-documents
Thanks for your efforts thus far on No Gun Ri Massacre. At this point, because I sense some confusion, and a natural lack of background on the subject, I'm urging all who are taking a hand in this to, please, review the documents at the Wikimedia page Category:No Gun Ri Massacre, here []. It can be a quick run-through. I've just discovered there's no link at the WP page to this compilation. I can't remember how it was configured previously, whether someone deleted it etc. But this is really a must, since these are key documents mentioned in secondary sources. Thanks. Cjhanley (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * JoeSperrazza, yeah I got it. Already commented there. I follow that page for some reason. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Lulzy articles you might like to read, from Pete AU aka Shirt58bot
Hi Timothyjosephwood, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I can see you have only recently registered an account.

Here are some articles about ludicrous but nevertheless notable things you might like to read and have a chuckle about: Bro, you can't imagine how difficult it is to combine a manifestly over-active sense of humour with a role as a Wikipedia administrator. Nah, that was just said for rhetorical effect, I'm sure you can imagine it.
 * Parkes Elvis Festival
 * Csiromedusa
 * Ego Leonard
 * Hevisaurus
 * Alibi-ya
 * Undie Run
 * Mutant Giant Spider Dog
 * Theft of The Weeping Woman from the National Gallery of Victoria (My favourite: combines the Fine Arts and teh lulz in the city I may or may not live in.)
 * And many more...

Just quietly, it might be a good idea if you stopped posting on the Dramah Boards for a while, and concentrated on editing articles. Just sayin', is all.

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Nah, I've been around since I think 07 or 08. I've switched accounts around some and had a long period where I just did anon editing. Thanks for the suggestions. I'll give em a go. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Where did User:Irondome pop up from on the NGR massacre thread?

 * Hi Tim. I saw it on the MilHist discussion board, as a request for extra eyes, comment, so I just wandered over, as you do. It's a horribly complex longstanding issue, and I have been horribly busy with real life stuff over the past week so I have not given my best so far. Unsure about an interaction ban, I think the opposing POVs can be reconciled with strict adherence to WP guidelines and a bit of upskilling in WP procedures regarding at least one of the parties. Was sent a large amount of original documentation, and there is a lot of other material to digest. At this point I think the article should not be an appendage of the AP claims, although I think the circle can be squared on this. Respect for the good job you are doing in untangling this ancient mess. It appears to have been going on for over 2 years. Jeez. Simon a.k.a. Irondome (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone had brought up that Wikimedes had been canvassed to the page by Hanley. I was saying that GAB and I weren't and that I didn't know how you had come to the talk page. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Via MILHIST, nearly a week ago. I got a lot of documentation last night from CJHanley, but it seems everyone did who have been involved in the NGR thread. Irondome (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Irondome, I'm still trying to push for an edit-at-a-time approach precisely because there is so much documentation. It also establishes a clear record of consensus. Even if we all read everything and become complete experts, it doesn't help the article ten years from now if we all just know a lot of stuff and fix everything, but there isn't a detailed record of how the article got where it is. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Precisely, and I will be fully supporting your approach whenever or wherever it is required. It's the only way forward. Simon. Irondome (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Weegeerunner (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Unclear Path Forward for NGR
Hi,

Hope you're doing well. First off, thanks so much for your continuing efforts here. Unfortunately, it seems as if things may be taking a downturn with NGR after initial promising signs. If the ANI does indeed rule against Cjhanley, we're going to have to find a way to make it perfectly clear to WeldNeck that banning Cjhanley is not a mandate for the former to do what s/he likes with the article.

I am happy to work on content and proposed edits, but dispute resolution is not exactly my forte. What do you propose we do in the immediate present and in the future?

Once again, thanks for your time.

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate (and do) your input on the page but Hanley's behavior (OUTING, CANVASSING, Personal Attacks, etcetera) deserves a ban. WeldNeck (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If one of the parties gets banned we can just wait. I don't think anyone is talking about a perm. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Sturmabteilung name change discussion
The name change discussion was getting to be quite confusing as to who supported what, so I revamped the format and I'm asking all editors who already voted to return and recast their votes under the new format. Thanks, BMK (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Space Shuttle Programme
You are invited to join the discussion at Articles for deletion/Indian Space Shuttle Programme. Requesting you to add your opinion. Regards Thanks. M.srihari (talk) 07:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari

R. V. C. Bodley @ FAC
Hi Timothy. Thanks for commenting at the FAC for R. V. C. Bodley. I have addressed your concern. Do yo have any further comments? I wouldn't ask, except the nomination has been open for over a month, is well on its way to being closed, and it still unfortunately does not have enough votes of support. I'd be ok with the article not passing if it wasn't good enough, but i'm sure you can appreciate how frustrating it is that the article may not be passed simply because nobody is commenting on it. By all means, however, if you think the article is not good enough, please mention this at the nomination. My goal is to have the article as good as possible, not just rush it through FAC. Anyway don't feel obligated to add further comments. I won't bother you about this again regardless of whether you comment further or not. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Response
Thanks for contacting me. I think your course of action is correct -- strict scrutiny of these edits is necessary. It's tedious, to be sure, but it really is the only solution as long as WeldNeck and Cjhanley continue their feud. I'm not sure where the ANI is going, and I still don't know how I feel about a topic ban on Cjhanley; there is a definite COI problem, but he's calmed down considerably. Each editor needs a thorough briefing in WP:COATRACK, WP:OWN, WP:COI, WP:CIVIL, and WP:CON.

On an unrelated note, I was wondering about Counter 7. We have three votes for it. While I hate to bother you about this, I am not sure if we should go ahead and change it. It's well-sourced and fairly balanced. I hope that this situation can be worked out.

Best,

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * @ GeneralizationsAreBad, according to WP:EXTERNALREL, "subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute to articles in their areas of expertise, while making sure that their external relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia". The issue isn't that he's an expert, and being an expert doesn't automatically indicate a COI; the issue is ensuring that his relationship does not interfere. I think the biggest issue is that, as someone pointed out in the depths of ANI, he doesn't yet deeply understand the difference between an encyclopedia and hard hitting journalism. This is evidenced by things like my comment on "reeling", which is completely inappropriate, but is a small detail that is easily overlooked. The challenge is to channel his expertise and temper it with policy and guidelines.


 * I'm alright with you adding #7. There's been no further dissent, discussion has stalled, and Weld has been unable or unwilling to meet the clearly outlined burden of minority views. It's perfectly possible. Not to beat a dead horse (but this was the last big issue I was a part of), and it took a while, but I myself successfully did this for the conscription section on Sexism. It took a lot of debate and a lot of compromise, but it is possible. If he wants to take his ball and go home, he is welcome to. The standard has been laid out, the challenge is waiting, and he can address it when he feels it is time.


 * I proposed the roll call, you make the change and I will support the consensus. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no doubt in my mind that Cjhanley's expertise and knowledge of this subject far surpasses my own. I'm not trying to boot him off the page, but I do think that he needs to realize that this is not the venue for "hard hitting journalism," as you made clear to him yourself. I will go ahead and put in #7 now. Once more, thanks for your time.
 * GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * GeneralizationsAreBad, make the edit. let's close this discussion and move on. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for dragging that conversation out. 7 has already been inserted. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

Sorry to turn your attention back to such a frustrating page, but I'd really appreciate any assistance with dispute resolution over at No Gun Ri Massacre. The incivility is going to have to end before any productive edits can be made. As I don't want another trip to ANI, I'm trying to keep things focused on edit proposals. In any event, any help would be great.

Thanks,

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , are you tied up with work or travel and unable for the moment to help clean up No Gun Ri Massacre, work you were instrumental in starting? There was no obvious reason for it to have bogged down. We were making progress, and to speed things up I've now proposed at Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre a simple, trimmed substitute for that section you thought was overdone. Let's discuss and move on to some meatier items, with the overall goal of trimming and simplifying to restore some sense for the reader. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 13:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

NGR, again
Just wanted to give you a heads-up that Iryna Harpy is reviewing the whole No Gun Ri dispute, and will (hopefully) be submitting to ANI in the near future. Lest I be accused of canvassing, I'll leave it at that. However, I think this is probably the best chance we have of resolving this situation.

Thanks for your help,

GAB (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems that we have an Arbcom case pending over No Gun Ri. I'd be honored to hear your input. GABHello! 22:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited League of Legends, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quadrants. 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) 16:41, 19 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] 05:21, 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) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Why did you change?
Like I told an editor before, it's like getting plastic surgery and no one being able to recognize you (by looks alone). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My wife asked me to. That's pretty much it. She already puts up with quite a bit of Wikipedia without much complaint, and she's pretty supportive overall. Didn't really feel like the right time to "make a stand", although it has been a bit of an inconvenience.  G M G  talk   20:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I suspect that keeping the link to the old username creates a worst-of-both-worlds; way less actual privacy, but still lots of confusion for good faith editors you aren't in contact with. Fortunately, the Lord of the Moai serves as a useful  pointer. Anmccaff (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose if you're experienced enough to put two and two together, then you're probably the kind of person I'd like to have a beer with at a wikimania one day anyway. Probably not the type of person she's worried about.  G M G  talk   21:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining. By "make a stand," did you mean challenging your wife or specifically going through with the change? And, Anmccaff, I didn't mean anything by the rest of the heading for this section, other than what it stated. If you removed it for sensitivity, I understand, especially if GreenMeansGo's wife was looking for privacy, but it's not really something that can be a secret on Wikipedia. I mean, it's clear by your above comment that this section is about usernames. But maybe you were considering less privacy in terms of a Google search? By this, I mean that the full heading would provide less privacy? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Please check Paolo Costagli article
Hi. Please check Draft:Paolo Costagli, I have started the AfC process for this article. I've also followed your advice and tried to make lead section as short as possible. What do you think? -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey Bbarmadillo. Well, the writing style is a bit choppy and difficult to read. If possible, I would recommend adding more prose, like you have in the first few paragraphs of the biography section, rather than a lot of Fact 1. Fact 2. Sub-fact 4, 5, & 6.. I'd probably also add that celebrity endorsement piece can maybe go altogether. It seems a lot like mostly empty name dropping, and is a bit misleading. They don't seem like actual endorsements so much as they just seem like factoids related to how many passing mentions he was able to get through two or three words here and there randomly in publications mostly about other subjects. So I'm not sure it's really necessary. Wikipedia doesn't really do "notability by proxy", where a lot of famous people liking you makes you in turn somehow important. We just judge importance by how much a person's been written about mostly.


 * This is probably a little generic as far as advise goes, but maybe it's helpful.  G M G  talk   19:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The articles it links to look like PR puff-pieces, and several have a strong smell of COI. It's a bad thing to source a bio to sales brochures like the Robb Report. Anmccaff (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * so which ones need to be removed? Robb Report is a well-known luxury magazine, and the 2007 article definitely looks like an editorial story, not like a PR placement. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)