User talk:Gwafton/Archive 5

Disambiguation link notification for January 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Meyer Turku, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rauma. 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) 09:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Gwafton (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stig H. Hästö, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Finlayson. 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) 13:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops again. Fixed Finlayson → Finlayson (company). //Gwafton (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Winter War
Re your edit summary at this diff. Would you please point to where this consensus was achieved? A cursory review of the talk page archives did not find it. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a repeating topic. You can look for example here. If you skip the semantics and focus on the military point of view, there is a large consensus that Winter War ended to Soviet victory. Although the theatre of operations did not quite follow the script of the Soviet military leadership, USSR however dictated the peace conditions. --Gwafton (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a repeating topic. I still don't see consensus. I dropped in at quite a number of points in the article's history as well; 21 March 2013, 18 December 2010, 6 July 2009, 14 October 2006...all of these are absent the "soviet victory" claim. Everything I've read online views the result equivocally. I don't see any consensus for claiming Finnish or Soviet victory. At beast, the article should be returned to referring to the result as the Moscow Peace Treaty, and then attempt to achieve consensus to include "Soviet victory". Given the monologue from historical references available, anything else seems to be lacking in cites to unequivocally support a Soviet victory claim. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And now the same IP as before has reverted you, and further modified it to say it was a Finnish victory. I don't agree with that stance either, as the result was equivocal. I would strongly encourage you to initiate a discussion on the talk page rather than revert, as this is rapidly descending into an edit war. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to avoid participating into a such discussion. I encourage you to share your views on the talk page but let me warn you that it is likely to lead to a complex, deadening discussion with high proportion of personal views and gut feeling. --Gwafton (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * All the more reason we should have the discussion, as it makes clear there is no consensus for including " victory" --Hammersoft (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a factual answer but if you regard all the irrelevant nuances as valid views, there will never be a consensus. --Gwafton (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah! Excellent! So there is an agreed upon historical authority that declared it a Soviet victory then and well founded historical documents cite that? Can you point me to that? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In your opinion, who would be a valid authority to declare the winner? There is the Moscow Peace Treaty document dictated by USSR. While both countries suffered significant losses, in terms of military success, Soviet Union was the only one which gained anything compared to the initial status quo. --Gwafton (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Scholarly resources perhaps from PhDs in European History? The Moscow Peace Treaty was indeed a result of the conflict. But, it's unfair to say that Finland got nothing they wanted. That's where this all breaks down. Presumption of Soviet victory is original research. Can you provide a cite to a reliable source or no? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Football match between Leicester and Liverpool ended 2—0. Which one of the teams was the winner? If I say that Leicester won, is it original research?


 * Such concepts as fairness, right and justice are irrelevant, war is all about strength. I am sure that someone of the article main contributors can provide better sources than me, so if you are prepared to a complex and rambling discussion, you can open the topic on the article talk page. --Gwafton (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sofia Zweygberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trader. 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) 11:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed: trader → merchant. --Gwafton (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Freiherr
If you feel that "Baron" is somehow incorrect, why not at least use the Swedish term "friherre"? --Hegvald (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The article about Freiherr / friherre / vapaaherra is titled as Freiherr in English Wikipedia. The difference between Baron and Freiherr is not based on my feeling but the titles are alternative (while equal to each other) in the Finnish House of Nobility. --Gwafton (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I find this gratuitious use of a German title for non-Germans odd. I think this needs to be discussed at WT:MOS. But I need to get up early, so it will have to wait for tomorrow. --Hegvald (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit reversion

 * On February 28, 2016, you reverted an edit to the glorified stub article BelAZ 75710 with the edit summary "Another model. Does not belong to this context". I would like to bring it to your attention that Wikipedia has had a long standing desire to tie articles together so that readers can easily navigate from one article to another that they may be interested in. There is actually policy to back this up and works better than using a "See also", "Main article", or external links section.
 * I would imagine you know these things but would like to suggest that in the future you could inquire before reverting a good edit. I might also suggest that instead of worrying about editors adding content that without a doubt can not hurt an article, because otherwise it will likely remain a wanna-a-be- start class and that does not help Wikipedia, you might want to follow your own line of thinking. A clear example of this can be found at Sisu S-21 that has the subsections Sisu S-22K and Vanaja V-48 that, according to your apparent line of thinking, does not belong in that article because they surely would be considered another model. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 11:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Tying articles is welcome as long as it doesn't happen through artificial transitions. BelAZ 7560 series is another product family and the particular sentence did not relate to the article topic anyhow.


 * Sisu S-21 / Sisu S-22 / Sisu S-22K / Vanaja V-48 is another story; the vehicles are technically similar. Although the V-48 has a different badge and many components are some flea market junk, each variant follows the same construction and continuum. --Gwafton (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not have a problem with your additions in that article just using it as an example to show why you reversion was uncalled for. Technically is not a qualifier to add what you like one place while subtracting what you do not like somewhere else. Technically I could use that line of thinking to cut half the crap in most articles.


 * What do you propose would be the definition of artificial transitions? Never mind.


 * I am not going to argue with your justification for reverting a good relevant edit. Hell just leave it out. You were wrong, I have pointed this out, and now you are just attempting to give lame reasoning using words that may be out of the scope of your understanding. Adding content concerning predecessors of a subject is good relevant (referenced) content. Surely you would not attempt to argue that the 600 series (75600 and 75601) are not predecessors of the 700 series and that improvements to the 700 series were made from the previous models? "IF" you agree then material concerning those would be relevant to an article about a model that was bigger and supposedly better because of such improvements. As relevant (if not far more relevant) as the aforementioned "technically similar" content in the articles I listed. You do actually already agree since the door was opened (created a relationship) to such content I added with article content "much more heavily built than the previous model, which was 240 tonnes".


 * This article states (in parenthesis) "with AC/AC diesel-electric transmission based on the ELFA inverters" that an editor taking interest in such an article "might" have intended to add content to clarify. When his edit to a glorified stub article is reverted with a lame edit summary, backed by more lame reasoning of justification, then this editor simply calls a bullshitter by name and doesn't worry about it. I will tell you, without a doubt, that these are reasons people that might become good steady editors just say "screw it" and go do other things. Instead of you admitting this you will likely try to reply with more verbiage which will still not help the article one little bit.


 * Following the thrown in content about the unexplained ELFA, that could stand for Elfa AB, European Law Faculties Association (ELFA), Elfa International AB, or ELFA Hybrid Drive (nobody needs to know what it stands for right?), is some OR about operating efficiency which does not mention regenerative braking but does mention (in another paragraph) fuel consumption. The article has the possibility of expansion so I hope that is your plan as owner.


 * Possible links:


 * 1- Diesel-electric transmission would be a good one,


 * 2- inverter another.


 * 3- Who knows, with some added content there might even be a connection to Variable-frequency drive.


 * The point of all this is that it would be better on a crappy glorified stub article that someone edits, to be patient and see where it leads. Another option would be to question the edit on the talk page. This "might" garner collaboration and article enhancement. Yet another option would be to look at some of the contributing editors other contributions and see if there might be incremental article improvements over time. A last option, that can not possibly help Wikipedia, would be to just revert an edit with a bullshit ownership type edit summary that might sound good at face value, and run editors off, create edit wars, or countless swapping of talk page innuendo that still does not help the article even a little.


 * In my case I will likely (unless you decide to add more) look at the article a year from now and it will still be a wanna-a-be start article, probably with little or no improvements, and that will likely be just fine with you. I find some of these type discussions are like arguing with a wall anyway. Out of all of this you will likely only remember the part about ownership and reply concerning that, but that is alright since I am pretty much done with this.


 * I will just change the wording of a song and say "You can take this stub and shove it". Have a nice day, Otr500 (talk) 11:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It certainly looks like I stabbed to your heart by reverting that edit.


 * It was just a loose sentence telling that the company also produces another series of vehicles, with no connection to the subject. If there was a reasoning to tell about it, such as the new model is based on the particular other one, it would be justified. Otherwise it is contextually something similar as telling about mating habits of deep-sea fish.


 * I naturally don't own the article, neither I am its major contributor. You are free and encouraged to improve the article with sourced, relevant information.


 * I'm sorry if I challenged your motivation to contribute Wikipedia by erasing 264 bytes of your work. I hope you will get over with it some day. Cheers, Gwafton (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

John Wickström
Okay so the article is currently a orphan (I had to change the links that linked to it) and was trying to find articles to link to John Wickström, though the only pages I can find are for Olympians in the 1950s, though this page might be the same guy: Wickström (granted not the greatest thing to link a article to, but it's something!) Wgolf (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would delete the whole article Wickström. I have no idea how the user who had started the article had intended to outline it (family name, engine brand, engine producer or what?). I tried to look up info about the Caloric cars and found this: Caloric (automobile). However, only the company name, location and approximate era seem to match. Might be also another company with the same name, as new producers came up like mushrooms at the turn of the 20th century.


 * I don't find anything where to link the article so let it remain orphan for now. --Gwafton (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Väinö Valve, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ladoga. 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) 09:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed: Ladoga → lake Ladoga. --Gwafton (talk) 09:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

William Crichton (engineer)
Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article William Crichton (engineer) has been completed.

You wrote that Crichton’s brothers attended the Royal Naval College at Camberley when it was actually located at Greenwich until 1998. The army’s college was located at Camberley. So I have corrected your text to read: "His older brothers Alexander and Edward studied at the Royal Naval College, Greenwich and were then employed by Scottish engineering companies." If this is incorrect you will have to change it.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The original source (in Finnish language) told generally about a "royal naval school" without mentioning the original name in English. I believe that your edit is correct.


 * The correct spelling for Crichton's company is W:m Crichton & C:o. Also other variants exist, but this spelling was used in the contemporary sources. Note that it was a Finnish company, so the English spelling rules don't apply in this case. The article name, however, uses the correct English spelling due to technical reasons. You can find a lengthy discussion about the topic here.


 * Thank you very much for your work, the article looks much more readable now. It relies largely on one source, but do you think that it

would have a chance to reach the GA status? --Gwafton (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome. Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria is an outline of GA criteria. I suspect it passes everything but I am not sure about citations. It would be helpful to have an additional source to cite. Failing that perhaps setting up the book's citation so that you can refer to the specific page numbers when you use it would be sufficient. Why not go ahead and nominate it and see what if anything the reviewer has to say? You have time to fix anything they take issue with. Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll have to consider what to do with the citations. The chapter is rather short and the font is large in the book I have used as a source, so I'm not sure if citations in page number level would be useful in verifiability point of view.


 * I have got access into the Finnish National Biography database and I could add that as an additional source. Their article about Crichton is short and doesn't give additional info. Anyway, it would work as an additional source.


 * Thank you for your feedback. I'll decide what to do with the article, make the changes and nominate it for GA review after. --Gwafton (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)