User talk:John "Hannibal" Smith/Archive 3

Suck-you-byes relation to On Stranger Tides
As noted, the fourth Pirates of the Caribbean movie uses elements from Tim Power's book On Stranger Tides. There is a reference to the "brief mermaid reference", but none on what they were actually referred to. In the book, they were not referred to as "mermaids" but "suck-you-byes". Taken from the book itself. Rather not mislead the readers with the un-referenced mermaids. 71.30.30.122 (talk) 12:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You need to cite a reliable source, not just add a Wikilink, and explain the reasoning for your edit in the edit summary. Edits need to improve the overall article, not just add information. Tie it all together. Hannibal Smith   ❯❯❯  12:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the book itself count as a reliable source? If not, it doesn't make sense. I'm not making this up, I'm only pointing out what was in the original book. Nothing less. If there is a better way, can you explain? 71.30.30.122 (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If your edit is using information in an already cited source, then clearly explain that in the edit summary. If you don't have enough space, then take it to the article Talk Page to go into more detail. If another editor reverts your edit, unless it's blatant vandalism, don't just go and revert their edit...that is the beginning of edit warring. Discuss differences on the article's Talk Page, and reach consensus with other editors. (You've already explained more here than you did in the article.) Even with the proper sources, your edit doesn't add much to the article. It needs to be expanded a bit more to really make sense and flow with the article. Hannibal Smith   ❯❯❯  13:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So putting it where I edited last, would the sentences below work? Or would I need an opinion on the Talk Page?
 * The duo decided to employ another sea myth alluded in the previous episodes: mermaids, which are briefly referenced in the book. Although Tim Powers stated mermaids weren't in the novel, there was a brief reference to "suck-you-byes" as "female demons that weirdly and erotically occupied the last hours of men marooned on barren islands". In the film, mermaids appear to be siren-like; succubus took the form of a siren in real-world folklore.
 * Thank you for bearing with me and I apologize for any offense. 71.30.30.122 (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I'd recommend posting your proposed changes on the article talk page, and getting some feedback from other editors. Don't worry, there's no offense. :) Hannibal Smith   ❯❯❯  13:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

✅

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, . :) Always glad to help! We won't let the vandals win. Hannibal Smith   ❯❯❯  17:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hanay (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

La Sierra University
Really? You are reverting my unsourced American English slang term, in use for well over two centuries, with an unsourced made-up nonsense word "Tubit" which has never been used in any dictionary? "Tubit" isn't the name of any person who has lived or worked near there, it doesn't refer to any historical figure, it isn't derived from some indigenous name, and it does not serve to describe the hill. "Two-Bit," on the other hand, is a commonly used colloquial adjective for something small and insignificant, such as a hill too small and insignificant to warrant an actual USGS-registered name. In lieu of an official name for the small, insignificant hill in question, its unofficial name is quite descriptive.

I live close to the hill in question; I know what it's called by locals and why. The USGS registry does not list an official name of the small, insignificant hill located to the west of La Sierra University. Most of the locals speak English; some are native Spanish speakers, but believe me, they didn't name it "Tubit" either, as "Tubit" is also not a word in Spanish.

I speak English, Mr. Smith. An English dictionary is my source. Is your source better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.14.46.66 (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * First off, read the 3 rules above. You need to be civil. The bottom line is that you are deleting content without a valid reason. No matter your personal experience, it does not qualify as a reliable source. To make edits, you need to cite a reliable source. You are simply edit warring, and you need to stop. Hannibal Smith   ❯❯❯  02:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

✅

Pioneer Sergent allowed beard
178.157.249.245 (talk) 07:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC) Addede reference - howver not the Army Order

and by the way: Happy New Year - I hope you had a Merry Yule-Tide (a.k.a. Christmas)


 * I saw that! I was going to thank you for the edit, but the system doesn't allow sending thanks to IP users, so I posted a welcome message on your talk page with some helpful links. I encourage you to create an account, so you can get better credit for you work, and it provides a bit more flexibility/privileges. The article you referenced was extremely interesting, and I learned some new things. Keep up the good work. Happy Holidays to you as well! Feel free to ask for help if you ever need it. Hannibal Smith   ❯❯❯  07:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

✅

Welcome to Milhist!
 Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: WPMILHIST Announcements.
 * Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
 * If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hannibal Smith  ❯❯❯  09:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello
Hi you left a message on my talk page, my name is saatvik, thank you for reminding me and i wish you a happy new year :).

(106.66.138.202 (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC))


 * @ Hi Saatvik. Thank you. I hope you have a Happy New Year as well. :) Hannibal Smith   ❯❯❯  16:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

✅

Sugar Ray Seales
Hello John,

I entered the information regarding my Uncle Edward Garner and his work to help Sugar Ray Seales.Uncle Ed's Concerts that he put together with Sammy Davis Jr. and Willy Nelson. I last saw Sugar Ray at my Uncle Ed's memorial service where Sugar Ray spoke at some length about their times together in some of Sugar Ray's most desperate time's at the end of his career. Feel free to email me at mpjones1@earthlink.net or call (360)202-1236. I have never entered anything on Wikipedia before but I felt this information was important and interesting. Thank you for your consideration.

Mike Jones, Anacortes, Wa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.238.214 (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * @ Hi Mike. I just posted a welcome message to your talk page, with some helpful links on the basics of Wikipedia. Please review these. When adding material to Wikipedia, editors need to cite a reliable source, not use personal experience or knowledge. Information has to be verifiable by third parties. Hannibal Smith   ❯❯❯  16:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

✅

Loham
You misunderstood and reverted an edit I made in good faith. By this edit, I did not made any extra contributions, it was the last stable version of the article, you can cross check it with the revision when it was awarded the GA, nothing has changed much other than the disruptive edits, which is still not undone. So kindly re-revert the edit you made to its original revision before disruption.--2405:204:D10D:AEB7:7CFC:B22C:19B0:C7CF (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi @ Wikipedia requires that edits cite a reliable source. You're claiming that a version from over three months ago is the last stable version. The bottom line is that you're not following the rules. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's editing policies, and abide by them. Hannibal Smith   ❯❯❯  18:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

✅

" burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material"
burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material 2601:281:8900:7A22:ACF3:F2BB:2A8C:46EB (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * @ You are misusing the verifiability rule. It means that when an editor adds or deletes content, it needs to be verifiable by any third party, and this is done by citing a reliable source. It's talking about the burden being on the editor making the current edit (not past edits), so it applies to you as well! You are cherry-picking one rule, taking it out of context, and then breaking other rules. The WP:PRESERVE rule states that existing content should be preserved. Fix the issue...don't delete good content that needs citations. WP:CAUTIOUS states that you should be cautious about making major edits. These contradict your actions. You need to stop making these types of edits, and learn the right way to do things. Hannibal Smith   ❯❯❯  19:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Sockpuppet of blocked user:  Hannibal Smith   ❯❯❯  21:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

✅

Algebraic numbers
A discussion chapter has been created on page "algebraic numbers" to talk about last edition insertion/removal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.70.40 (talk) 09:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hannibal Smith  ❯❯❯  09:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Weboob
Hello,

I've added Weboob on the Web scrapping page, and you reverted it as vandalism. As I know the name is ambiguous, this is a real project, packaged into most Linux distributions, and related to the subject.

2A01:E34:EC2D:C5F0:6DC8:81:AA31:B353 (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * @ You added a Wikilink to a non-existent article. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's editing guidelines. When making edits, the changes need to improve the article. You need to cite a reliable source, and explain your edits in the edit summary. New articles added to Wikipedia have to meet notability guidelines, and unfortunately Weboob doesn't meet these, so right now there should not be an article created for it. (I see that there is an article for it on the FR Wiki, but this should be deleted for these reasons.) If it eventually does become notable, this may change. You mentioned that it is "packaged into most Linux distributions", but that isn't true. (I'm not sure if this is a language/translation issue.) It seems to have packages available for most Linux distributions, but it's not packaged with them. Also, be aware that if you are associated with the project, there is a conflict of interest, and you should not be editing, adding, or linking to information about it.  Hannibal Smith   ❯❯❯  11:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

✅

Vandalism Accusation
Thank you for accusing me of making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, 'appearing to constitute vandalism' and threatening the loss of editing privileges. I added 3 links to the see also section and you've proposed the page for deletion, Do you feel I am not assuming good faith? May I ask if you'd deign to elaborate any opinions the 'edits' were unconstructive? Thanks for your invaluable assistance and attentions. I also especially commend you on your deletionary zeal. You sir, are a true artist. - 55378008a (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * First off, you need to relax. I'm going to ignore the sarcasm. All editors need to be civil to each other. It's not a personal insult if someone reverts your edits, and no one is accusing you. Everyone has their edits reverted from time to time, and we're all frustrated when it happens. Don't take it personally. It just was not a constructive edit. Your edits seemed to have no relevance to the article, and seemed like a prank edit. If it wasn't intended that way, then I apologize if you felt bad about it. There's a process that counter-vandalism editors have to follow, and it involves placing a a warning on user talk pages after a revert. That was only a level 2 warning (out of 4), so if you weren't vandalizing on purpose, then don't stress, just try to do better next time. Like I said, don't take anything here personally. One huge red flag for edits is to not cite a reliable source, and another is to not leave an good explanation in the edit summary. Do that and you are far less likely to get your edits reverted. Even if your edits are reverted, they will seem more like good faith edits. After reviewing your edits, I went further and reviewed the article, and proposed it for deletion, as it's just a mess and offers little value to readers. Hannibal Smith   ❯❯❯  19:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. I'm not being sarcastic, I really think you're the greatest.  I thought I was being civil, and I'm not even going to acuse you of incivility either.  The reversion didn't bother me- perhaps you don't realize how strongly worded the template was. I do appreciate the 'I only drowned two of your puppies, not four' -type comment. Lots of things seem or don't seem like things, it's still civil to post a 'I dont understand this' before reverting, as some time is warrented per WP:VOL.  I didn't take it personally.  No see also section in this quadrant has a cite.  If you know of one feel free to point me to it.  The cites are in the linked articles.  The whole selling point of chemical castration is that it (supposedly) "doesn't lead to death" but if it does you are conceding it keeps people from coming in to work or doing any of the other things being blacklisted is supposed to prevent them from doing, other than entering the cemetery or having their ashes spread somewhere, like the white only fountain for example.  Zersetzungs the same thing, the whole 'this is better than killing you, just wouldnt want you to get hurt yourself' shtik is the whole selling point.  Even Ku (poison)ing isnt necessarily fatal.  So actually none of those three have anything to do with death.  Though they all prevent things prevented by blacklisting, as stated above.  When they work, that is, thats the drawback:  antidote.  That I admit is off topic but then I didnt add that to the page.  Problem with good edit summaries is theyre only as good as the understanding of the person that reads them.  Somebody already removed your proposal, you can look there.  As for the explanation of the edit, you can look on the talk page of the article for that, if you like.  Im sure youre very busy. - Cheerio! 55378008a (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No worries. That's why we talk things out. It gives other editors a chance to see what you're thinking. If I can encourage one thing, it's to communicate well with other editors. It really makes a difference if people can get a better idea of what you're thinking when you make the edit. Perhaps I just have a dark sense of humor (I'm a Tarantino fan), but I took the edit as someone trying to be funny. And, it kind of was. :) I see a lot of high-schoolers making very similar edits as pranks/vandalism. I also deal with a lot of vandals who don't stop even when they get a level 4, and then they usually get blocked. The templates may seem strongly worded to some, and too weak to others. (The templates seem too weakly worded to me.) Either way, don't take them personally...just learn from them. (If you get involved with counter-vandalism, they won't seem strongly worded to you anymore, trust me.) Honestly, most people here are good people, and want to help. Hey, if you can help improve that page, please do. I hear you on the edit summaries being too short. Here's how to deal with situation where you need more room that what the edit summary allows: Use the article Talk Page to explain your edit, and then refer to the Talk Page topic in your edit summary. Boom. Easy. Yes, I checked the reason for the Deletion proposal being removed. Another editor has hope for that article, and mentioned that even though it's in really bad shape, it's an important topic. So, again, maybe that's something you can help fix. If you have questions, or need help in the future, please do not hesitate to ask.  Hannibal Smith   ❯❯❯  20:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. My apologies for the misunderstanding. - 55378008a (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. No worries at all. Hannibal Smith   ❯❯❯  21:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

✅

Nickie Antonio
I edited the page because its about me- I am not an atheist and I am married- I don't know who you let put in false information about me but it was not me- now how does this get fixed????Nickie J. Antonio there cant be any copy right to this information BECAUSE IT IS FALSE!!!!! Nickieantonio (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Yes, I figured that you either were the subject of the article, or someone closely associated. Unfortunately we don't have any way to verify any specific person's claim of identity, but it should be easy enough to fix the situation. Don't worry...slanderous/false statements won't stand. I'll be happy to help. If other users added unsourced information, it will be easy to remove.  Let me look into it for a few minutes, and I will update my response shortly.  Hannibal Smith   ❯❯❯  02:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I was able to verify about the marriage from an article in the Columbus Dispatch in 2013, and I corrected that information in the article. The edit introduced by a previous user about "Atheism" was not backed up by any sources, so I removed that. Please take a look at the updated article to review the updates. In the future, please be aware that Wikipedia has a very strict policies regarding conflict of interest and biographical edits. Please review these policies. Editors should not edit any articles where they have an association with the article subject, and this is especially true regarding autobiographical edits. In general, edits should cite a reliable source, and biographical edits (about anyone) have an even stricter standard. In the future, if you see an issue in an article about you, please see this: Problems in an article about you You can also for help at the Help desk, post a new discussion on the Article's Talk Page, or add the tag  to your user Talk Page and someone will respond. Hannibal Smith   ❯❯❯  02:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks-obviously this is new to me-2things-1) Jean's last name is spelled wrong-correct spelling is Kosmac. 2)now have a confirmation of my marriage-the label-domestic partner should be changed to spouse-thx Nickieantonio (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. No problem. Yes, you're absolutely correct about those two edits...It's all fixed now. BTW, I spent several good years living in Ohio (Columbus). Let me know if you ever need help again, or have any questions in the future.  Hannibal Smith   ❯❯❯  05:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much! Nickieantonio (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome! Hannibal Smith   ❯❯❯  14:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

✅

All Saints' Church Northampton
Good afternoon,

My apologies that my edits to All Saints' Northampton's page were done anonymously -- I hadn't realised I wasn't logged in.

I've tried to make three edits:


 * Firstly to add mention of changes to the location of Icons in the Church. They are no longer in the position they're said to be in.
 * Secondly to remove references to the opening hours of St. Peter's Church Northampton. Sadly, the building is no longer routinely open.
 * Thirdly, to remove mention of the resignation (there was no such resignation) of the former Priest in Charge, and of the arrival of myself.

The first two are factual inaccuracies; the third is really something we would like to move on from. It hardly seems edifying to include details of a controversy over a parish priest who was among the least controversial of any of the priests of this church, while no other is mentioned -- not even the famous Edward Reynolds, who's contribution to the fabric, ornaments, and worship of the Parish and the wider church are well-known.

The Reverend Oliver Coss [ragenerofnorthampton] Rector of All Saints' Church Northampton (on behalf of the Churchwardens & Parochial Church Council of All Saints' Church Northampton) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragenerofnorthampton (talk • contribs) 17:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Please see the welcome message I posted on your Talk Page, and review the links included. Please be aware that Wikipedia has a very strict policies regarding conflict of interest edits. Please review these policies. Editors should not edit any articles where they have an association with the article subject. In general, edits should cite a reliable source, and explain the edit in the edit summary. The main issue in your edits was the removal of content without sufficient reason, evidence, or explanation. Existing content should be preserved unless there is evidence to refute it. In the future, if you see an issue in an article about you (or your associated party), please see this: Problems in an article about you You can also for help at the Help desk, post a new discussion on the Article's Talk Page, or add the tag  to your user Talk Page and someone will respond.  Hannibal Smith   ❯❯❯  17:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Alien 3
Hey man, you didn't have to undo my edit about the character of Michael Bishop Weyland in Alien 3. If I said he is the same character of the game Aliens: Colonial Marines is true, is the same universe and fanchise about Alien. If I'm attack GreenC bot was because he makes me lost my patience. So I'm sorry. But please let my edition, it's truly veridic about this character. --190.157.103.182 (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I would recommend taking a short break from editing, and spend some time becoming familiar with Wikipedia's policies, especially its policy of no personal attacks, and being civil to other editors. You can start here and here. Hannibal Smith   ❯❯❯  17:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Rajput Barsar
Hi. Speedy deletion is only for obviously uncontroversial deletions, and once one has been contested it is clearly not uncontroversial and you should not reinstate it. The reason I declined your WP:A7 nomination in this case is that A7 only applies to "individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events", and not to social groupings like castes. If you believe the article should be deleted, please use the WP:PROD or WP:AFD process. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I was just leaving you a note on your page. I'm still going to have to disagree with you here, and I hope that you will consider my thoughts here. You removed A7 from this article, and said "It's about an Indian caste, so A7 would not appear to apply". That didn't make a lot of sense to me. It's not really about if a real group of people is important or not, but rather if there is an indication of importance in the article. There isn't any indication in the article. I don't think a simple claim of importance is the same as indication of importance.  To me, it seems like when a patient goes to a doctor and says "I'm really sick!", but after the exam, the doctor says to them, "there is no indication that you're sick. Go home." There's barely any content at all in the article, and none of it is based on sources. Notice in the guidelines for A7 it states "A7. No indication of importance" It goes on to say "This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event[8] that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions.[9] This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums (these may be covered by CSD A9), software, or other creative works." As of right now, everything in the article could be fiction because there are no reliable sources. There is no indication of why it's important. However, according to your reasoning, A7 would be a higher standard than notability', in contrast with what the guidelines explicitly state. The guideline mentions "people" and "organizations" and doesn't make any exception for people groups, so I'm curious where you're getting that from? Is there another, more in-depth version of this guideline that I'm not aware of? If so, point me to it, as I'm eager to learn. If not, IMO I'm not sure how it couldn't fall under A7. My apologies on re-adding it. I thought I had added two criteria and that you you had just removed one, not the entire deletion tag. If I had realized that you had deleted it altogether, I would not have re-added it. I've had a lot going on today, so that second part is definitely my bad.


 * Here's the real issue though. The article is a hot mess. The editor who created the article is creating a mess of every article they edit, and not basing anything on reliable sources. Being truly honest, though...you really truly believe that the article should not be deleted, and that Wikipedia is better off having this? If so, that would surprise me. Articles like this are creating a litter problem here, and do not contribute to this being a high-quality encyclopedia. Hannibal Smith   ❯❯❯  18:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Be that all as it may, A7 is *only* for "individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events". Is the Rajput Barsar caste an individual? No. Is it an animal? No. Is it an organization? There might be caste-based organizations, but the caste itself is not one. Is it web content? No. Is it an event? No. Therefore it is not eligible for A7, period. Please learn from the knowledge and experience of an admin who has been dealing with CSD nominations for years, and take it to WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * PS: No need to send me talkback messages, I'm watching this page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I hear you. I'm going to ask you to take a step back, and hear me out. Just consider this: You have twice used the quote, "individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events", but that is the phrase only appears in the section title, and is partly contradicted by the rest of the text. In the detailed explanation text that follows, it goes into more depth and says:


 * "This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves..."


 * Notice in this sentence, it says "people" but for animals, it makes the distinction "individual animals". It does not make the distinction of "individual" for "people", otherwise it would have said, "individual persons". The Rajput Barsar are people. Can you clarify how (being people) they would not qualify? I'm quoting the guidelines word for word. In other words, I'm citing a reliable source.  I understand you have been doing this for years, but how are the majority of users expected to have your exact interpretation of the guidelines, if the guidelines are contradictory or unclear? I'm happy to learn from your experience. However, if that is going to be treated as carrying the absolute weight of law with no room for interpretation or discussion, then the guidelines need to be clarified, because right now they partly contradict what you're saying.


 * I'm going to say this simply to make a point: If you go back to the definition of "organization", Rajput Barsar would qualify as an organization, as they are both an "an organized body of people with a particular purpose", and they are a "society".


 * "an organized body of people with a particular purpose, especially a business, society, association, etc." 


 * Are the Rajput Barsar an organized body of people with a particular purpose? Yes. Are they a society? Yes. Therefore, "organization" does apply. Again, I'm saying this to make a point. Sometimes I think that admins need to take a minute to step back and hear the perspectives of good editors who are non-admins, to get a fresh perspective.


 * If I can make an honest observation...sometimes there is an element here of "I've been here longer so I'm right, end of story." When you say things like, "Therefore it is not eligible for A7, period." that's an example of this. If Wikipedia wants to retain quality editors, then please reconsider that, because it's likely to drive good editors away sooner or later. I've pointed out several ways that the actual text of the guideline contradicts you. (I understand that sometimes there are situations where the guidelines say one thing, and "the way things work here", doesn't quite match up. (I was in the Army...this happens in the military quite often.) But, if admins are saying things like, "I'm right, period...", then they either need to take a step back to hear other perspectives, or the guidelines need to be updated to be more precise. I make an effort to show respect, but I do feel the importance of pointing this out.


 * Isn't the bigger picture though to help improve Wikipedia? You mentioned: "take it to WP:PROD or WP:AFD." That was unnecessary to say. I already said, that I had thought you removed one of two tags, not the entire thing, and that I would not have reverted it if I had thought you removed the entire deletion tag. (I recently made a similar edit with multiple reasons.) Everyone makes a mistake from time to time, and that's what that was (and it's not common for me). However, I feel that the points I made regarding A7 were still valid, and important to consider. I spend a lot of time doing counter-vandalism, and doing grunt work trying to help improve Wikipedia.


 * I'm trying to understand here why you're putting more pressure on a good editor to split hairs over A7 (when I have solid reasons to back me up), instead of putting pressure on low-quality editors (who ignore the rules altogether). Going back to the WP:AGF principle, consider what I was trying to accomplish by placing the deletion tag on a garbage article: How are we expected to be able to do counter-vandalism tasks, if we're going to be second guessed by higher ups? Please review my track record if you have any questions about my contributions to Wikipedia. Hannibal Smith   ❯❯❯  20:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Take it to WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Over and out. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow. ...Ok. I was trying to have an honest conversation. "Being too quick to pointedly mention this essay may come across as dismissive and rude." Hannibal Smith   ❯❯❯  20:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

FYI
FYI --JustBerry (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

PMS issue
Hello again my friend. I trust you are aware of the issue I am responding to; please leave a note on my talk page if you need a refresher (your post is still there, as of this writing). Two issues well 3 I suppose leap immediately to mind - (1) not every sentence on Wikipedia has a citation, nor do I believe it should. I mean, that would look just tacky. (2) The sentence refers to the article being about the problem. The sentence you or your automated feature has reverted equates to "The problem with antidepressants is antidepressant discontinuation syndrome." Is your objection that you are uncertain the antidepressant discontinuation syndrome page is about antidepressant discontinuation syndrome? (3) I was looking for the cite when you reverted and sent me the message. If I wasn't engaged here now it would have been added by now already.

There are tons of pages that contain identical claims, but I am looking for the perfect one, something from nimh.gov perhaps? as I dont wish to clutter articles needlessly with little blue boxes. Perhaps you could state an opinion on whether you would be inclined to believe this action has violated WP:VOLUNTEER "There are various reasons why one cannot immediately edit one or more pages as they should be in order to enable it to meet certain standards, or even to prevent it from being deleted. If an editor states his/her intentions to make some improvement, but that more time is needed for any reason, this should very much be respected." Incidentally this same quote appears on my talk page maybe four times. (The emphasis is added by myself there and the quote is taken from that policy's page.) Please see that pages history for attribution. Thanks and hope you are well. - 55378008a (talk) 08:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Ahoy! It was at nih.gov not nihm.gov. The 'm' was what was holding me up.


 * I'm not going to continue to explain the same issues to you. You added a medical conclusion that is not backed up by evidence. This is a WP:NOR issue. Other editors have been trying to get the same point across to you. You keep using the same argument as to why you don't need to follow the rules. That's not what WP:VOLUNTEER is about. When you repeatedly keep ignoring the editing policies, it is disruptive. (As noted by other editors.) If you add content, especially if it is a concept or idea not previously included in the article, then you need to cite a reliable source. Hannibal Smith   ❯❯❯  13:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Layla's colloo club.

 * Thanks Layla! Sweet, I needed some ice cream today! You rock.  Hannibal Smith   ❯❯❯  17:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Sikh
I have added the reference links to the following section of Caste

Guru Nanak has mentioned in his first composition of Jup Ji Sahib which is recited daily by all practicing Sikhs that all souls are to be treated with care and respect as God is the Giver of all souls.

"The Guru has given me this one understanding: there is only the One, the Giver of all souls. May I never forget Him!", Guru Granth Sahib, 2 (hyperlinked)

Guru Nanak also said that blessings are rained down when the lowly person, regardless of any background are cared for.

"In that place where the lowly are cared for-there, the Blessings of Your Glance of Grace rain down." , Guru Granth Sahib, 15(hyperlinked)

Guru Nanak also has spoken we need to prize humility above all and thus caste is not an issue.

"One who takes pride in wealth and lands is a fool, blind and ignorant.

One whose heart is mercifully blessed with abiding humility,

O Nanak, is liberated here, and obtains peace hereafter." [Granth Sahib, 278](hyperlinked)

The hyperlinks will show the page where these quotes are imported. You many find and search the quote in these links.

Please let me know if you have any other questions.

Rupie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.63.241 (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * @ The issue is that you're not following Wikipedia's policy on citation. Please review the citation guidelines and follow them. Thank you. Hannibal Smith   ❯❯❯  01:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * @John "Hannibal" Smith
 * I have provided detail reference. Please let me know if anything additional is needed.  thank you!


 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.63.241 (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Much better. Hannibal Smith   ❯❯❯  01:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Rogue One
I see you edited my, well, edit on Rogue One. Please note that the edit was not influenced by my opinions, but merely by critics I have looked up that you have neglected to add to the "Critical response" section of the article. Thank you for understanding.

47.221.44.126 (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Me, not my name, just...me


 * Hi there, Please review Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. It's important to remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or magazine. The language added in your edit sounded more like a review from a periodical. You mentioned that what you added is echoing the words of critics, and not your own opinion, yet you did not cite any sources, so it would be impossible for others to know that. It's important to cite sources when you add/change content and provide a good explanation in the edit summary.  Hannibal Smith   ❯❯❯  07:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi John - I have noticed that someone has been trying to vandalise my page almost everyday - I appreciate your removing these comments. Is there anything that can be done to prevent that IP continuing to do this? I also have some idea of who it might be

Thanks Henry Hereford

henry@henryhereford.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.224.232.217 (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Source validation, and other help with a page you were recently on.
I beseech thy help as this article is in great disrepair. Talk:Macrophilia needs authoritative audit. It's littered with stereotyping (though not necessarily right or wrong) pov. Many people have come to the article to complain, some of them notable, but due to limited coverage by "traditional" sources progress remains stagnate. I would greatly appreciate a senior editor going over some of my proposed edits before I put them in the mainspace. Thanks ;P Eaterjolly (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:


 * tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
 * updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
 * creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other 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 military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello!
Hi , I just wanted to say that you have a super-handy user page. It's given me some great ideas for mine, and I may borrow some layout ideas from you. (Cited from: this entry) --Dandy Wendi (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi ,
 * Thank you...Awesome! I'm glad you found it useful! Feel free to borrow away.  Hannibal Smith   ❯❯❯  21:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting
As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 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) 10:53, 27 March 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)