User talk:Mediatech492

Sulla - unsourced
I notice you removed my small sentence on his cultural barbarism as unsourced. You appear to have left the rest of the section however which is also unsourced. May I ask why? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.223.184.11 (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, both unsourced edits should have been removed. My mistake. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks but I meant the section, Sulla's legacy section only has one reference - the rest can be removed, no? Will you back me up to delete the whole section except the sentence that is referenced? Otherwise, we are simply choosing which un-referenced sections we like? I think about 50% of the article - looking at - and most wikipedia articles can be deleted - because very few have proper references to everything stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.223.184.11 (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Jean Valjean
Thanks for your edit; I'm definitely not knowledgeable about the book. When I added the 24601 note to the lede, I considered that it was likely the book didn't place the same emphasis on the number, but decided it was OK (either way) because of the hatnote, "This article is about the character in Victor Hugo's novel Les Misérables and its musical adaptation." Given that, do you still think it's information that should be relegated to a bullet at the bottom of the article? What if the note in the lede clarified it was specific to the musical? In any event, it's much better now than before. This edit started as a discussion with some colleagues who had forgotten the number and looked at the Wikipedia page and were surprised it did not help them. jhawkinson (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As I stated, the number only appears twice in the book, both time in offhand reference and has no real significance to the storyline. Likewise it is either not mentioned or only casually referenced in any of the movies based on the book, except for the musical. It is only in the musical that it has any real significance, and for that reason the notation belongs in the section specific to the musical. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would argue that because it is such a significant part of the character in the musical, then IF indeed the article is about both the musical and the book, it deserves to be in the lede. If the article were different (e.g. it had a different hatnote), I'd feel othewise. It sounds like you disagree with this argument, but I don't quite understand why. Can you help me understanding your reasoning? jhawkinson (talk) 06:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've already stated my position and the reason for it, I see no reason to reiterate it. Mediatech492 (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

WHAT THE
Please discuss. The edit was non-consensus and the discussion is ongoing Quite a DICK move. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You have so far offered no basis for you assertion other than your own POV. Just offer one RS to support you assertion and the discussion is ended.
 * I have offered no POV. I am neutral. I have stated that the previous version should stay until a new consensus is reached. You're disruptive, but that's OK. It will work itself out in the end.
 * You have given an assertion that has been refuted by RS, but have no offered no RS to support your assertion therefore you assertion can only be POV. Mediatech492 (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canada&curid=5042916&diff=582620772&oldid=582614368# The previous edit was exactly the same. Apparently you don't honour WP:BRD equally or is it just me that you act hypocritically toward? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No hypocrisy, you have no basis for your edit, so it is reverted as any baseless edit would be. Mediatech492 (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Humour
Obviously you don't appreciate my sense of humour. I was being ironic. I understood my comment was childish. It wasn't sarcasm. Felis Read  (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As per [WP:NOTFORUM] the talk page is for constructive discussion of the article, not as a platform for commedy. If you wish to use irony to reinforce a point then that is acceptable. As it was your comment was not constructive (and neither was it particularly funny). Mediatech492 (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OK. Hope you enjoy the rest of your day.  Felis Read   (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I accept your admonition. It was certainly less than constructive. I can't say it won't happen again, but I can say your removal was in good faith. Thank you for defusing the situation.  Felis Read   (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Mediatech492, normally I would welcome your intervention. However, if you look at the talk page, you will see that the person previously just known anonymously as the IP editor, and now FelisRead has been a disruptive and aggressive editor since his arrival on the page over a month ago. He has already been blocked once from the page for edit warring. Now another dispute resolution is underway - see Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. The reason I reinstated the remark of FelisRead that you deleted was that I felt that it should be present and visible during the dispute resolution process. It is a good reflection of the difficulty that I and all other editors have had attempting to deal with him. By deleting his comment, you have inadvertently done him a favour that he does not deserve. --Camerojo (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I cannot agree with your premise Camerojo. By restoring a maliciious edit you do him more of a favour than you claim he gains by removal. Resoultion does not require malicious edits to remain in place, they can be recovered for review without having to leave them as a disruptive element. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The dispute resolution is over - and we received some good guidance. However one of the comments made by the volunteer mediator was "All participants have behaved well under the pressure of long debate and have remained, commendably civil." I think that is true of all other editors but not FelisRead. I think it would have been easier for the volunteer to have made a more accurate assessment if FelisRead's comments had been left in place. I fear that FelisRead may be encouraged by the volunteer's comment to continue his aggressive and uncivil (he would claim humorous) attitude. I would encourage you to continue monitoring this page. --Camerojo (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If you both agree, undo the removal. I don't consider it a personal favour. I consider it an act of diplomacy.  Felis Read   (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Minor edit on Nero article
I can't find any sources which refer to the young Nero as 'Marcus Domitius Ahenobarbus', that is, before he was renamed in with a Julio-Claudian title. All of the sources refer to him as Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus.

In Book XI of Annals, Tacitus states: ' ''While Claudius sat to witness the games of the circus, some of the young nobility acted on horseback the battle of Troy. Among them was Britannicus, the emperor's son, and Lucius Domitius, who became soon afterwards by adoption heir to the empire with the surname of Nero.'' '

In the Chapter on Nero in Suetonius' The Twelve Caesars, he states: ' ''Two celebrated families, the Calvini and Aenobarbi, sprung from the race of the Domitii. The Aenobarbi derive both their extraction and their cognomen from one Lucius Domitius, ' [an ancestor of Nero's] ' of whom we have this tradition... This family had the honour of seven consulships, one triumph, and two censorships and being admitted into the patrician order, they continued the use of the same cognomen, with no other praenomina than those of Cneius and Lucius.'' ' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saint.clare (talk • contribs) 17:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I reverted the edit because it was unsourced. Include verifiable sourcing with the edit and it can stand. An unsourced edit is always inherently suspect and subject to deletion per Editing policy Mediatech492 (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Richard III
Hi, I'm fairly new to this so don't even know if this is where I'm meant to be talking to you but here goes anyway! I edited 'sun of York' to 'son of York' because I think that's what Shakespeare wrote. What's your evidence to the contrary please? Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawthornbush (talk • contribs) 21:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have checked many Reliable Sources on this, including written text and online text. Every RS I have found uses "sun". I have not found any that say "son". Mediatech492 (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It's really interesting - I always took it as read that it was 'Son' and was surprised to find so many references to 'sun' - both online and printed. All I would suggest is looking at the (apparent!) original text linked to from this page:-	"Wikisource has original text related to this article: The Tragedy of Richard the Third" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawthornbush (talk • contribs) 22:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Remembrance poppy and Flanders
Hello, Mediatech492; I saw your revert of my edit on Remembrance poppy. The thing is, your revert doesn't match your edit summary; since you say (rightly) that French Flanders was (!) an historical region of Flanders, but it isn't anymore nowadays (and neither was it in WWI). The article Flanders links to the current region of Flanders (i.e. the northernmost part of Belgium), and not to French Flanders, which was originally a part of the County of Flanders, but was never part of the current region of Flanders (the latter name has been generalized to suit the whole northernmost part of Belgium, and not just the historical region of the County of Flanders). In WWI, there was fighting across this border between France and Belgium, of course, but to say that Flanders [is] a region of Europe that overlies parts of Belgium and France is plainly wrong. That is why I tried to rewrite the sentence to explain myself better; apparently I didn't succeed. Could you please explain what you think should be done? Because now the sentence is still just wrong. Sincerely, Kthoelen (talk) 09:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry but you are wrong. Flanders is a geographically defined region, not a political entity with borders. The French people to this day still use the term "Flanders" in reference to that part of the region in their own territory. Belgian Flanders and French Flanders combine to form the totality of the geographic region. The Belgians officially refer to their portion of Flanders as "the Flemish Region" and the French divide their portion into two areas called "French Westhoek" and "Lilloise Flanders". These are terms atha are currently in use in addition to being historically relevant. So my edit was correct. Cheers! Mediatech492 (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Very well, I'm Flemish, and although I've never heard the regional names, I'll believe you. The thing is, the link still refers to Flanders, and not to French Flanders, which is more correct. It doesn't matter if the French call it this or that, the statement that "Flanders is a region of Europe that overlies parts of Belgium and France" is officially wrong, since the official name for that region in France is Nord (which also includes French Hainaut), and the official designation of Flanders is the northern federated state of Belgium with Brussels as its capital. The Flemish Region (which we don't use, as it's called "Vlaamse Gemeenschap" or "Flemish Community") you talk about, is purely a political entity (which you say correctly), and doesn't define the geography, although Flanders does. Even as a Belgian I had to think that one through; stupid politicians... - Kthoelen (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Augustus
I changed the named to 'Octavian' because, as you see, under the section in the article where I made the change, the name 'Octavian' is still used. However, if the section where I made the change states and depicts occurrences that happened in 20 BC, you are correct because by 20 BC he was already 'Augustus', a cognomen that was used after the First Settlement in 27 BC. But the article, while well written, is confusing because most of the info in the article that comes after this section in the article where I made the change is "prior" to 27 BC, and even the actual name change in the article is below this section in the article where I made the name change to 'Octavian'. What I am saying is that the article is not written completely chronologically, and that confused me.

Thanks for the help and the edit. It is great to 'meet' a Classics and European medieval-Renaissance history buff as I am!

Leecorp1 (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree the article needs a great deal of work. I wish I had more time to work on it myself. Cheers! Mediatech492 (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Seven Oaks
There is, in fact, evidence of the Selkirk colonists leaving the settlement. From Gerald Friesen's The Canadian Prairies: A History page 80:

"On the morrow of the clash, the settlers, broken by the loss of family and friends and by the sight of the mutilated bodies, hastened to collect their belongings and depart. Cuthbert Grant, once more a clerk rather than a war captain, took an inventory of the goods left behind, signed the lists of thousands of items for hours on end, and, then, after two days of these last details, he watched the colonists sail northward, leaving his metis once more in command of the forks."

I need to edit an article as part of an assignment for my class, so I will be adding this information with the citation. Thank you for your revisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justo Mendoza (talk • contribs) 17:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Quadium
You beat me to it. I was just about to restore that. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You might want to review WP:BRD. You boldly added material, I reverted it, and then in theory you should have started a discussion. Your persistent re-insertion of the material, especially when a discussion has been initiated at the article's Talk page, is neither good faith nor in keeping with what is generally considered best practice. I might also recommend that you review WP:3RR, which you're in danger of violating. DonIago (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Correction. I added easily verifiable sourced material that is valid according to the established parameters of the article. You have disputed it on the grounds of notability which you have the right to do. I have fulfilled the requirements of WP:Policy. The onus is therefore on you to prove you assertion that the information is somehow inapropriate. As for being in violation of WP:3RR, you started the reversion war, not me. Peace. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you'll find that in most cases regarding disputed content, the onus is in fact on the person who wishes the material to be included to satisfy the concerns regarding whether it should be included (WP:BURDEN comes to mind), and that 3RR can be found to apply regardless of who "started" it. DonIago (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I have satisfied the burden of evidence. The matter is closed. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Relevance
Please do not pass by and revert an edit by an established user without explanation. You are held to the same standards as everyone else. All that aside, I am doubtful that that plane could be anything other than a Boeing 747. The most "dubious" part about it is the Japanese Airlines part. Dustin ( talk ) 16:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

My main issue is that you did not leave an edit summary. Perhaps I am jumping to conclusions too easily, but you can often expect to be reverted if you just revert long-established users' good faith edits with no reason given. Dustin ( talk ) 16:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The edit was unsourced, and completely irrelevant to the article in any case. There is absolutely no reason for its inclusion. Peace. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know
If you see any user or IP that starts complaining about "Pete is a wolf" or "Why is Pete a cat? He's a wolf" don't engage it, and, instead revert literally all of the editor's/IP's recent edits, and, if it is a user, get that account blocked immediately for block evasion. It's a long-term vandal who, for several years, is obsessed with inserting its WP:original research opinion into various articles, and, from my own personal experience with it over the years, is physically incapable of discussing or interacting with other editors beyond whining that "Pete is a wolf" and edit-warring to protect its original research nonsense. I just want to let you know to save you a lot of angst and frustration.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a note to this effect should be left on the talk page for the articles being attacked. Mediatech492 (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

HMS Avenger
Why did you revert my edits to the page? These are vessels that will never have an article. I cannot understand why you would patrol wikipedia looking for opportunities to throw away information in a quest for neatness. Please undo your destructive editing. Acad Ronin (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The purpose of a list page is only to provide links to related articles. If you have a subpject that you think deserves further coverage then you need to create an article for it. No one is blocking you from adding an article with all relevant informations; however, list pages are not for that purpose. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. Frequently I come across information that would be of interest to people in the area. A list page can be a place to park it, especially when there is not enough info to warrant all but a stubby article that would be no longer than the material you destroyed. Your actions privilege form over substance. If you are so concerned, why don't you create the article? I realise creation is more difficult than destruction, but still.Acad Ronin (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You do realize tha in the time you've spent ranting matter here, you could already have created the article and resolved the issue. Peace. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I am trying to discourage you from engaging in drive-by destruction. I may not succeed, but it is a worthy task.Acad Ronin (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm following Wikipedia policy, if you don't like it talk to an administrator. I'm done. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Patriation
Your expertise is needed at Patriation. Major changes recently that have the wording all messed up.--Moxy (talk) 07:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll look in on it, time permitting. Thanks. Mediatech492 (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

'Original text of the creed has the word "Deum" (God), capitalized'
No:

1) The original text has the word "Θεόν" (God).

2) Lower case letters hadn't been invented when the creed was formulated, so in the original text there couldn't be a concept of a capital letter.

Nonetheless, your changes happen to conform to Wikipedia's Manual Of Style (MOS).

Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Capitalisation is irrelevant in any case. Christianity is a monotheistic religion. The concept of God, and the person of God are indistinguishable. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * True, and I have no disagreements with that statement. However, your reasoning in the edit summary for your revision at 15:27, 5 March 2017 of Christianity is incorrect, which is what I noted above as pedantic but meaningful points of fact; the original text is in a different language than you quoted and capitalision does not apply in the context of the original. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * All of which is still irrelevant. Have a good day. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

MacBeth
So what do you know about MacBeth ? what do you mean comments not constructive ? you have obviously no local knowledge on the subject. here MacBeth is still considered a great Scottish king tared by Shakespeare pandering to King James and the majority  you, still thinking he murdered Duncan its nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 21st century pict (talk • contribs) 01:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on the content of your edits. They were reverted because they were not properly sourced. According to Wikipedia policy all edits must be supported with source references. Edits without sources can and will be removed. Use the article's Talk Page if you want to discuss content further. Peace. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Summary
Did you not read what I said? And you reported me at WAI but I am no IP hopping vandal. And Pete indeed is a bear. 2600:1:F146:8438:45F:B6B1:E96D:7AC6 (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Article on Pete and official Disney sources say the character of Pete is a cat. The bear in the Alice shorts may have a similarity to Pete but that does not mean they are the same character. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Cat
I reverted you on cat. My changes were based on a request, a request I agreed with and made, and the discussion is on the talk page. The sources and claims were weak, not reliable and original research. It is a bit rude to just revert without giving an explanation or without checking the talk page for a related discussion, then explaining there. At the very least, have the courtesy to use a summary that explains why you are reverting someone with what is obviously a good faith edit based on talk page discussions. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what you think of the old material, the material you added had no supporting sources at all. Therefore it was not an improvement, reversion in that case is mandatory and no explanation is required. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Being an admin, I'm pretty up on policy and you are as wrong as it comes. You reverted back material that has bad sources and is original research.  I REMOVED material for the most part.  You need to self revert.  If you have a question about any extra part I added, remove that part only and use the talk page, since there is an ongoing discussion.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * nm, I've handled it on the talk page there, which is where the discussion should be anyway. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You claim to be up on policy but you give no reason to say how I am wrong which makes me question your authority on this or any other matter. I don't need to involve myself in the discussion, because it is irrelevant. No source = Reversion, regardless of what is happening on the talk page. There was an obvious discrepancy and so I reverted it. It is not my responsibility to prove anything. it is the responsibility of the original editor to show the information they provide is right; otherwise they (and you) are wrong. Enough said. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, you need to actually read WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD. Revert again, and I drag you back to AN3.  I'm tired of explaining to someone who won't listen or actually read the policy.  Your interpretation is not consensus at Wikipedia.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * DO what you think you must, I do know the policies quite well and I have done nothing wrong. Consensus is irrelevant when there are no sources. Your threats are starting to amount to harassment and if it continues any further will be reported. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed material. You don't need sources to remove material.  And WP:ANI -> is that way.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * so you are saying I was right in the first place. Thank you and have a good day.Mediatech492 (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

SMILE!! 31 JULY 2017
 Hello Mediatech492, Me-123567-Me has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC) Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Reverting unsupported edits
Hello, You have recently carried out 3 reversions without any discussion on Yellowknife. Just be aware that this is sometimes (though not always) grounds for complaint under WP:3RR. In this case, you reverted (your 2nd reversion) my edit without checking to see what the content was using the edit summary: Inaccurate, "Yellowknifes" is the correct name of the people group even though an inspection would have shown that this was not part of the content of previous or reverted content. [Also they are called Yellowknives.] You actually reverted only the formatting which I had clearly spelled out in my edit summary but which you failed to appreciate. Please be so good as to reinstate my edit, which had related to a previous editor's contribution. Sometimes reverting is unavoidable but Wikipedia is primarily about cooperation.--185.2.196.103 (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I reverted some edits. They were of a dubious nature and had no sourcing or explanation, so their reversion was perfectly justifiable. If you want the cooperation with other editors you need to communicate what you are doing. Also, if you want to be taken seriously as a WP editor you may want to register an account instead of just using an ISP. Peace. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes Minister
Suppose you don't know who Hacker is. Esszet (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hacker is the central character of the show. How could anyone know of this show and not know who he is? Regardless, the information is already in the article. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That’s a little presumptuous, you shouldn’t assume that only people who are familiar with the show to any extent will be reading the article. Esszet (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No presumption at all. The information is readily available in the article, the reader only needs to read it. This is an encyclopedia, not a kindergarten. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Holy crap, you think I’m trying to turn this into a kindergarten? I know you can just keep reading, but it’s a little clearer with it included. Esszet (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not a little clearer, in fact it is grammatically poor, and presumes the average reader is a moron. Furthermore I'm done discussing it. Have a good day. Mediatech492 (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Horatio Hornblower
Hi

You reverted my edit on Horatio Hornblower's nickname. Why? It's from a line in, IRC, Lord Hornblower. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If there is a source for your assertion, then you need to source it. Peace. Mediatech492 (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking there is no source given for his other nickname in the infobox but you seem happy with that: H & the Atropos since you ask :-)  Now I am going to have to read the books again to find the other one… Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Highlander: The Source article reversion
Thanks for fixing my gaffe, misread a source and didn't get to fix that error in editing.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for enlightening me
Thank you for enlightening me about when Stirling gained city status on the talk page of the article on Stirling. Also, thank you for the other interesting information you put there in response to my query. Vorbee (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The Stone of Scone article
Artifact is spelled with an I, not an E. Did you revert it back because it's the British spelling for a British ARTIFACT? Wikifan128 (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "Artefact" is the correct spelling in British English for the word that Americans spell "Artifact". Per WP:ENGVAR since the article is on a subject with a "strong national tie" to the United Kingdom, then British English spelling is retained. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

"POV Edits"
Can you please explain to me exactly how I'm "violating" NPOV by citing sourced historical facts? Was it by including Paul von Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff that apparently violated a neutral point of view? I don't seem to see why you have such a problem including them in the infobox when, quote: "Hindenburg was also appointed as Supreme War Commander of the armies of the Central Powers, with nominal control of six million men". {cite book|last1=Beach|first1=Jim|title=Haig's intelligence. GHQ and the German Army, 1916–1918|date=2013|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge|page=212}} I'd also like to point out that Nicholas II was killed over a year after he abdicated and was no longer in power, he was not executed while he was the reigning Emperor, and Alexander Kerensky only held leadership between the months of July and November 1917, so I don't understand why documenting those facts in notes, citing Nicholas II's abdication date as the end of his involvement in the war and removing the execution link, and specifying Kerensky's time in office, is in violation of anything. Likewise, the Arab Revolt was a crucial aspect of the war and Hussein I effectively led the Arab Revolt as part of the Allies, making him at the very least equal in importance to a leader such as Ferdinand I of Romania, who IS included. Finally, what would be the issue with including each of the individual Three Pashas, Talaat Pasha, Enver Pasha, and Djemal Pasha, rather than just using what is in effect a disambiguation link? Considering how much larger the Allied side of the infobox is, it isn't as if it makes it any more bloated or overly long. Can you please explain to me what the major issues are, which individual edits were in "violation" and how to work around them? Thank you. Salociin (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your POV is that "it is your own opinion" that they should be included there. That list as it stands has been developed as an ongoing process by the consensus of multiple editors, who have has multiple discussions about it over several years. IF you want to reopen this discussion on the the talk page then you may do so. If the editors come to a consensus to include them then they may be added. Follow the correct process please. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The Yukon
From the first sentence of our article on the subject: "River]]]] Yukon (also commonly called the Yukon)" It's a very commn way to refer to the entire territory (and in fact is shorthand for the Yukon Territory). Beeblebrox (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but "Yukon" is the formal and more correct in this context. Mediatech492 (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Vinland
A base is not a settlement. See this "Birgitta Wallace from Parks Canada has persuasively argued that the site was a transit station and ship repair site at the entrance to the region of Vinland, the southern and western reaches of the Gulf of St. Lawrence." That's the current consensus. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Semantic nonsense. You presume to know what was in the minds of the Vinland settlers based on non-existent evidence. We can only surmise the purpose of the site based on the archaeological data. The fact that they build permanent structures indicted that they intended to live there on a long term basis. If they were people living there, then it was a settlement. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * You should know that we go by what reliable sources say. If most of the recent ones say settlement/colony, fine. But I don't think that's the case. Doug Weller  talk 07:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The original was based on reliable sources. You've only provided a single source with questionable wording written by someone who has no archaeological qualifications. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

WW1 Leades
First of all, i would like to apologize, I thought you were the same person who added Robert Nivelle (without consensus and going against the "highest leaders only") when you reverted and asked me to find consensus! Secondly, I did now add a talk section for the inclusion of Hussein bin Ali (King of Hejaz) at Talk:World_War_I--Havsjö (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Your revert on The Rolling Stones (novel)
Hi, I changed the The Rolling Stones article to flesh out a citation to a Benford essay, and to note that Heinlein didn't come up with the phrase "stranger in a strange land" on his own, since it is a quote from the Bible. I added a link to Exodus 2:22.

Your revert to my edits undid both the expanded citation and the reference to Exodus, and your edit comment noted that the reason for the revert was "Heinlein did not originate the phrase, it is a bible quote".

Was this in error?

Thanks, NapoliRoma (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * No it was not an error. Your edit did not produce the result on the article that you claim. I reviewed it carefully and reverted the inaccuracy. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * ...I think I see the confusion here, and it's my fault. When I made edit 883569037, where I added the reference to Exodus 2:22, I included the edit comment 'Hazel was quoting "stranger in a strange land" from a somewhat earlier work'". I was trying for humorous understatement there (the Bible being a much earlier work), and an edit comment is a bad place for that. My apologies.
 * It sounds like we both agree the article should note that this is a quote from Exodus, so I'm going to restore my edits (which will also restore the citation I'd filled in), with a minor edit for clarity and a better edit summary. Please check to make sure the resulting copy is accurate to your mind.
 * Thanks, NapoliRoma (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Statute of Westminster 1931
Hi there. Appreciate you've undone my change of "fully" to "largely". Respectfully, I have stetted this back to my change. My reasoning is that it's not accurate to describe the statute as creating a series of "fully sovereign nations in their own right". For instance, the issues of Imperial Parliamentary Sovereignty caused problems in certain jurisdictions - e.g. in the Dominion of Canada the Statute of Westminster was not sufficient to avoid a desire in Ottawa to advance things further - it is for this reason that Patriation in 1982 is held as the definitive sovereign moment, not the Balfour Declaration etc. There are other examples (many common across the ([former]) Dominions); for instance the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was the supreme court for the Dominions until each carved out a sovereign common law by abolishing appeals - in Australia that was 1975, in New Zealand as late as 2004 etc. Accordingly, I feel strongly it should be "largely", not fully. It was a step on the journey - it wasn't the destination.

Worth noting en passent that many dominions didn't even adopt the Statute of Westminster until later - it took the fall of Singapore to jolt Australia from its British identity, and in NZ it wasn't passed until 1947.

Very happy to discuss if you disagree!

(Apologies also if I have done this "talk" mechanism incorrectly - though I edit Wikipedia frequently I rarely engage in the talk feature).

Best

Lucius
 * There is a big difference between between sovereignty and independence. If I had more time I might indulge in a semantic discussion, but as such I request you familiarize yourself with the distinction. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

POV
" There is no such thing as a historical source that is not biased ..." - you know deep down that is rubbish. As a professional historian, I can point out many, many books that are written "by committee" to ensure both accuracy and remove biases. 50.111.44.55 (talk) 04:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Efforts to minimize bias often introduce additional bias. I've served on enough committee to know too that they can be as bad as, if not worse than individuals for courting bias. Mediatech492 (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

March 2024
Hello! Please see and use this talk page before (that's before) making any changes to that article re: what is being discussed. That's how all of us are supposed to act. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The edit you are advocating is literally complete nonsense, therefore must be considered test/vandalism edit and treated accordingly. Reverted without the need for discussion. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As the reverter without discussing, your opinion of your own behavior isn't that valuable. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Your edit was literally nonsense. Case closed. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)