User talk:N0TABENE/Archive 1

Reference errors on 15 April
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * On the 12th Armored Division (United States) page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=656677872 your edit] caused a missing references list (help | help with group references) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F656677872%7C12th Armored Division (United States)%5D%5D Ask for help])

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Hellcat News (April 25)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tokyogirl79 was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Hellcat News and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:The_Hellcat_News Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tokyogirl79&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:The_Hellcat_News reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 12th Armored Division (United States), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages 3rd Infantry Division, 4th Infantry Division and 42nd Infantry Division. 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) 10:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * FixedN0TABENE (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

12th Armored Division (United States)
If so, just put the same references to the parts that have none as wikipedia is no academic journal, then its B.--Catlemur (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Herrlisheim, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Canton and Moder. 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) 09:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Edits
These are placed in the wrong spot. Also be careful about reverting more than 3 times. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! You always remember your first .... N0TABENE (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

thanks
Yeah I replied on the talk pages. Actually, the first revert was by Str1977 as I was just restoring something that was deleted by error by someone else. There is a clear precedent with the comparable Charlie Hebdo case. Indeed, there should be a lot more than just a see also link, I just don't know enough about the topic to know what should be there. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

List of Pakistani photographers
Hello

I have added some references to the article and if you still think it should be deleted then you can ask an admin to delete it. And here is the list of articles I have created User:Musa Raza/Articles. You can nominate any of my article for deletion.

Thank You-- Musa  Talk 18:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You referred me to a list you created which not only lacked references, it was a duplicate of an existing Wikipedia list, and it contained non-notable, non-verifiable and self-promotional entries from commercial businesses purporting to be notable Pakistani still photographers. I clearly explicated my concerns, including the non-standard method of alphabetizing according to first name instead of by surname. I explicated my rationale for deletion of this specific list insofar as I am a member of the Wikipedia Photography Project and the History of Photography Project. I have no knowledge about other lists you created and have no intention of challenging the veracity or notability for the sake of challenge. It is up to the Administrators to ascertain whether your List or other entries, meet Wikipedia standards. N0TABENE (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Meghan Maiwald, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Jose. 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) 09:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg and Joe Rosenthal
First, and most simply, the image lacks a rationale for use on Joe Rosenthal. This is a direct violation of WP:NFCC #10c. I could remove it on those grounds alone. Of course, an editor such as yourself would likely dutiful place a rationale on the image description page for that use. That's been done before, and removed. Our policy on the use of non-free images asks us to limit non-free image use. The guideline, which helps describe acceptable use, specifically disallows the use you are attempting. See Non-free_content #6 for inappropriate use, which says "an image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)}}". There really is no wiggle room on this. The image clearly has an article dedicated to that image at Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. Therefore, the only place the image can be used is on that article. Any other use of the image is not permitted. Instead, as per the guideline a link to that article must be used instead. If you have questions about this, ask. Simply restoring against guideline and policy is not an option. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:The Hellcat News concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:The Hellcat News, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

"Photographic film" edits and reversions
Hello N.B., I am the party responsible for several recent edits to the Photographic film article, two of which you have reverted, but I neglected to log in and am listed in the edit history as IP 66.81.223.176.

The revert-involved paragraph was mostly written by me in the course of an overhaul and considerable expansion of the history section several years ago. That does not give me any ownership of it, of course, but it does make me the world's foremost authority on what it was designed to accomplish, which is to interestingly but concisely inform the uninitiated that there were several forms of photography, using various substrates, before the existence of "photographic film" as that term is properly defined in the first sentence of the article's lede. I named three usual supports -- silver-plated copper, paper and glass -- but kept it simple by limiting the catalog to those and particularly omitting experimental ones such as Niépce's lithographic stones and pewter.

A crucial part of the art of Wikipedia editing, it seems to me, is cultivating objective judgement about what not to include. Simply cramming in more facts can do a disservice to readers by distracting their focus from the main subject at hand, and pairs of eyes blindsided and bewildered by technical digressions can quickly glaze over. IMO, shoehorning photochemical details about pre-film processes into this paragraph runs those risks, and very needlessly, too: in addition to the main "History of photography" article hatnoted immediately above the paragraph, the linked "daguerreotype", "calotype" and "photographic plate" articles are just one click away, ready to supply such information to any reader who is interested.

My specific objections to your additions are several:


 * "... techniques, such as Nicéphore Niépce's heliograph ...": the least of my worries, but as your edit summary for the reversion correctly states, the product is a heliograph and the process (or "method" or "technique") is heliography, so no need to pipe the link -- "heliography" is the correct form in your context.


 * "The light-sensitive chemicals were exposed directly to light ..." makes me scratch my head and try to think of any processes in which such chemicals were not "exposed directly to light". The only one that comes to mind was commercialized as Carbro, in which light-sensitive dichromated pigmented gelatin is squeegeed into intimate contact with an uncoated bromide print, rather than exposed to light, to effect the differential hardening of the pigmented gelatin. But that's not likely what you had in mind when writing.


 * "... chemically transformed into visible images, which in the case of daguerreotypes, is as a result of deposition of insoluble silver halide salts formed on the surface ...": I've checked pages 27-30 of your cit, courtesy of Google Books (but must otherwise beg off your unhelpful "pages=28 et. seq.", which could require combing through the entire remainder of the book), and find nothing that would explain the genesis of your description, which might most charitably be described as "unclear". The silver halides ("silver halide salts" is an unorthodox and rather redundant construction -- it's normally either "silver halides" or "silver salts"; the latter also encompasses some non-halide salts) were formed in situ by fuming the bare silver surface with iodine, and usually also bromine and/or chlorine, prior to the exposure. The "visible images", however, consist of microscopic globules of a silver-mercury amalgam (if produced by the usual mercurial development), not of deposited "insoluble" sliver halides. The whole purpose of the subsequent fixing step is to entirely remove all of the remaining silver halides, which most certainly are soluble in "hypo" and some other chemicals.

My overarching general objection is that this is the proverbial camel's nose under the tent: daguerreotype details are added by one editor, then another comes along, feels that Talbot is being slighted and inserts some details about the calotype, then the tintype gets a mention, and so on until we have yet another potted technical history of early processes -- of which there must be a score in Wikipedia already -- instead of a bit of easily readable enlightenment that chemical photography is not necessarily synonymous with "film" and was around long before it.

I occasionally look in on this and other photography articles I've worked on and discharge my share of a duty, as I see it, to help police them by correcting any erroneous changes or additions and curing any distracting tangential digressions which have appeared, which is what I am attempting to do in this instance. AVarchaeologist (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I had a nice vacation. Thanks for asking. Before we start, please read Ownership of content, Citation of references, Reliable sources and reaching consensus.
 * I had a nice vacation. Thanks for asking. Before we start, please read Ownership of content, Citation of references, Reliable sources and reaching consensus.

1. ''... extensive rationale posted on N0TABENE's talk page, so again removing distracting and partially erroneous tangential additions. Other adjustments.''

Your rationale was irrational. You reverted edits that were made clear as to the reason why they were made. This discussion belongs on the Photographic Film talk page, not my user talk page. The historical precedents for photographic film are not “extraneous and distracting” and because you do not understand basic level chemistry does not make something a “partially erroneous tangential discussion”. What does “partially erroneous” mean? Either it’s wrong and should be corrected, or it’s not wrong. It is your subjective opinion that it is tangential to the article.

2. particularly omitting experimental ones such as Niépce's lithographic stones and pewter.

Niépce’s process is recognized historically as the first image to use the photographic process as defined by Herschel, not a lithographic process. While he did start with pewter and stone, he ended up with silver on a polished copper plate (sounds like Daguerre’s “invention”?) I noticed that you similarly removed references to Niépce in the past from this article, with no discussion other than your own opinion that it didn’t belong there.

3. "... techniques, such as Nicéphore Niepce’s heliograph ...": the least of my worries, but as your edit summary for the reversion correctly states, the product is a heliograph and the process (or "method" or "technique") is heliography, so no need to pipe the link -- "heliography" is the correct form in your context."

It does not make sense to refer to Niepce’s technique while referring to Daguerre’s image. Either use heliography and daguereotypy PROCESS, or heliograph and daguerreotype IMAGE, but to mix a process for one inventor and then immediately follow it by the resultant image makes no sense and is linguistically and editorially incongruous.

4.'' "The light-sensitive chemicals were exposed directly to light ..." makes me scratch my head and try to think of any processes in which such chemicals were not "exposed directly to light".''

Prior to exposure to light, the chemicals are light sensitive. After exposure and before development, the image is referred to as a latent image, which becomes visible after development. I see nothing confusing about light-sensitive materials being exposed to light. Perhaps the word “directly” should be omitted. What you have changed the text to read now infers that LIGHT SENSITIVE material are deposited on the plate and result in the visible image. This is wrong. Furthermore, you left my original reference in place, which does not support your incorrect content edit.

5. "... chemically transformed into visible images, which in the case of daguerreotypes, is as a result of deposition of insoluble silver halide salts formed on the surface ...": I've checked pages 27-30 of your citThe, courtesy of Google Books (but must otherwise beg off your unhelpful "pages=28 et. seq.",

I find your comment rather amusing, as I cited a long section of a recognized standard reference book on the topic that you did not have access to, as “unhelpful”. In your years of multiple edits and deletions to this article, you have never referenced a single source or footnoted any added content. Wikipedia is not a term paper, and your “contributions” are more akin to personal opinions or “original research” than contributions to an encyclopedic article. Your “contributions” have in part been responsible for the lack of citations tag on this article that other editors have attempted to correct. Each of your edits has only contributed to the lack of referenced material, and your continual ignoring of WP:CITE and WP:verifiable sourcing guidelines is an abrogation of basic Wikipedia tenets. May I suggest that you read and have access to recognized reference texts in the field before you decide to edit an article?

6. The silver halides ("silver halide salts" is an unorthodox and rather redundant construction -- it's normally either "silver halides" or "silver salts"; the latter also encompasses some non-halide salts)

The term halide salt is not redundant as you seem to infer – you can have a halogen that is not a salt and a salt that is not a halide. The common photo processes were developed based upon the silver halide salts. I don’t see what your complaint is. This is basic high school level chemistry. Besides, now you’re getting into the realm of picayune grammar policing.

7. "...it does make me the world's foremost authority on what it was designed to accomplish, which is to interestingly but concisely inform the uninitiated …"

I do not remember seeing that definition of what Wikipedia is intended to accomplish. I do believe it is actually a digital encyclopedia Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This “interesting but concise [article for] the uninitiated” is entirely your own construct. Who are "the uninitiated" to whom you refer?


 * "A crucial part of the art of Wikipedia editing, it seems to me, is cultivating objective judgement about what not to include. Simply cramming in more facts can do a disservice to readers by distracting their focus from the main subject at hand, and pairs of eyes blindsided and bewildered by technical digressions can quickly glaze over. IMO, shoehorning …"
 * "My overarching general objection is that this is the proverbial camel's nose under the tent:"
 * ''"...and find nothing that would explain the genesis of your description, which might most charitably be described as "unclear"".


 * actually,


 * Wikipedia is not for unverifiable material,


 * Wikipedia is not a place to publish your opinions,
 * Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own ideas.

What I most object to is your non-cooperative editing style, with a total lack of reference to any standard verifiable reference, deleting content and moving sections without any attempt at consensus, as if you are the sole arbiter. Please remember Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, not your personal domain. Your multiple reverts and lack of references tread dangerously close to disruptive editing. And furthermore, I don't need your charity.

8. ''I occasionally look in on this and other photography articles I've worked on and discharge my share of a duty, as I see it, to help police them by correcting any erroneous changes or additions and curing any distracting tangential digressions which have appeared, which is what I am attempting to do in this instance. AVarchaeologist (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)''

Thank you for “looking in”. What was left when I and several other editors found this article was an essentially unreferenced, very general discussion, which was being vandalized by an inexperienced editor who was subsequently blocked from further editing. It would have been helpful for you to have provided references for the material that you added, instead of making people either find the sources of your content, or re-write it with references. I suggest you start with reviewing WP:REFBEGIN to help you understand the concept. When you came by, and I checked that your IP address had NO PRIOR EDITS, and provided no references, but did make some rather condescending remarks explaining you edits (““disruptive”, “incorrect usage….”), there was a low threshold to revert your unhelpful edits. If you want to contribute, then contribute referenced reliable and verifiable content, not your opinions and chest-beating (“it does make me the world's foremost authority on what it was designed to accomplish, which is to interestingly but concisely inform the uninitiated …”). Your rationales were rather insulting (“wrong usage” which you subsequently admitted was correct usage, but deleted anyway), and frankly, irrational. Your self-appointed “policing” and personal opinions should be omitted from editing on Wikipedia. N0TABENE (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:The Hellcat News


Hello, N0TABENE. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "The Hellcat News".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the  or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.  samtar { t } 08:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks!!! N0TABENE (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm very impressed. You managed to get out there and take a picture of it, just like that!  Well done. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * @Steve Summit Thanks! I happened to be visiting the area and knew the location well. I thought it was a shame that there wasn't an article on it, and what is is an article without a photo? N0TABENE (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Holocaust France
Hi, I reverted three edits of yours at Template:Holocaust France which removed the functionality which Template Interlanguage link is intended to provide. Please feel free to reply-to me here if you need further details. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 06:14, 9 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 Monochrome photography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sepia. 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) 13:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Montgomery Cunningham Meigs
Hi N0TABENE, I've gone ahead and deleted the Montgomery Cunningham Meigs now I understand that you want to move the draft article to that title. Hopefully, all will go smoothly from here! :) Kind regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait! Please see my comments at Malcolmxl5's talk page. N0TABENE, your draft is indeed very good, but its subject doesn't meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC compared to the other very notable people of that name. It should have a disambiguated title. --BDD (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Malcolmxl5. BDD, I DID create a disambiguation page, which unfortunately, another user already deleted the reference to the World War 2 commander, because of the redirect link. What do you suggest I call it? Does The Civil War General, who went by the name Montgomery C. Meigs, or M.C. Meigs, as in the USS General M. C. Meigs (AP-116) ship, also need to be called Montgomery Cunningham Meigs? I understand the notability of the other Meigs, but how do you suggest that the article be titled? The World War 2 commander was known as Montgomery Cunningham "Mont" Meigs. NotaBene 18:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Goodale house
The windows of the Goodale House are not First Period. In fact, the exterior of the house, like most 300 year old houses, is almost entirely the result of repair or restoration. Originally the house probably had banks of diamond paned windows, centered in each front room; current fenestration suggests sliding sash, which, of course, every house from the First Period acquired at some point, most by the late 1700s. It's a great house, clearly First Period; but the windows themselves are not early, and the fenestration is conjectural. To say the windows are First Period is innacuate and intentionally misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old houses (talk • contribs) 02:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Old houses: You provide no source or citation for your assertions; you refer to cited information as “innacuate (sic) and intentionally misleading”, yet provide no reference for this or any of your other edits. Nowhere in the article does it state the windows are original, nor that the windows are First Period (The House is First Period, according to the Ipswich Historical Commission http://www.historicipswich.org/ipswich-historical-commission/1st-period-houses/, not all of the individual elements). However, the sources cited in the article do state that original 17th century windows were located when the house was moved from Salem to Ipswich in 1928, and were used to reproduce the other windows in the house. Referenced material was added accordingly. NOTE: You have made 5 edits to 4 articles in the 6 days since your account was created, and have provided no verifiable sources for any of your edits. Please refer to Wikipedia guidelines on citing sources, and providing sources for all content. Wikipedia is not intended for personal opinions, unsubstantiated claims or original research. Furthermore, although I did not add the content in question, where do you make the assertion that the text was "intentionally misleading"? I suggest you change the tone of your comments. Thank you. NotaBene 06:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This preceding comment is clearly a personal attack.Old houses (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The above is comment I made is a statement of fact, and the remarks were directed at your edits. I also commented on the tone of your comments since you began editing on Wikipedia just 2 months ago, which has been less than cordial. You have not maintained a modicum of collaboration in editing, instead choosing to demean other editors' referenced contributions personally, and failed to discuss any of your edits per Wikipedia guidance. You have repeatedly deleted and added text providing references only when repeated warned and the edits tagged, as has been pointed out numerous times. Your comment above that a referenced edit was "intentionally misleading", and your comment that my "interest goes beyond objectivity", constitute personal attacks which are not tolerated. NotaBene 鹰百利  Talk

I disagree with your interpretation of what is expected of contributors. I believe correct information is preferable to incorrect information that has been stated by someone else, somewhere else. If any architectural historian has ever seen the windows, then their report would say that they are reproductions, since all such windows are reproductions. I guess I'll have to find a source, any source, and you'll allow my miniscule, factual edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old houses (talk • contribs) 06:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Old houses I see from your vast experience of exactly 6 days editing on Wikipedia that you disagree with what is expected of editors. Finding "a source, any source" is not the purpose of a citation. If it is a fact as you state, then you need to provide a verifiable reference for the alleged "fact", otherwise it is considered original research under Wikipedia guidelines. These are not my interpretations as you wrongly imply - there are clearly explicated in the Wikipedia Core Content Policies. I strongly suggest you read the following articles before editing and making assumptions: WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:NOR and Help:Referencing for beginners. Thank you. NotaBene 07:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Goodale house
You have improved the Goodale House entry, thank you. However, you are ignoring Wikipedia's expectation of "reliability" when citing that convenient family legend regarding the windows. There is no question this is a first period house; the exposed framing makes that clear. The story about the windows is simply not reliable. Find a reliable source that says those windows are original, then relate the romantic story about the doctor rushing up from Boston to protect his heritage. Amateur genealogy is often a hindrance to basic architectural history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old houses (talk • contribs) 19:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * For the record, the information concerning the restoration of the house by a descendant was not some family legend as you wrongly and arrogantly claim. It came from the First Period Survey of the house submitted by the renowned early American architectural expert, Prof. Ann Grady at Boston University who submitted the information as part of the official survey prepared for the application submitted to the Massachusetts Historical Commission. I reviewed and cited that information as a source; you on the other hand, provided no source other than your own original research, hypotheses and syntheses, preferring instead to hurl invectives and tossing around your vast experience consisting of less than one week editing on Wikipedia. NotaBene 鹰百利  Talk

You cited a genealogy site, not the architecture report on the MHC website. That report says "new windows."Old houses (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old houses (talk • contribs) 19:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Original text deleted by User:Old houses after being warned about personal attacking other editors:

You cited a genealogy site, one that appears to have no respect for American or architectural history, not the architecture report on the MHC website. That report says "new windows." Nothing personal. I can't imagine why someone would want a house to be older than it is or appears to be, but it would appear that your interest goes beyond objectivity. Old houses (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old houses (talk • contribs) 19:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a site that discusses architectural history. You deleted it simply because it disagreed with your edit, and rather than account for that, you simply deleted any reference that did not support your own thesis. That violates WP:NPOV. You really need to be familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and policies before editing, and perhaps be more cordial in your communications. You also need to learn how to sign your posts and how to use edit summaries. I've made an attempt to direct you to the appropriate guidances, but you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. NotaBene 鹰百利 Talk

You are a wikibully, and are guilty of countless personal attacks against this user/editor. Please desist. Impugning my newness, for example, is explicitly forbidden by wikipedia policy. Please review wikipedia policy.Old houses (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old houses (talk • contribs) 03:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The above constitutes another personal attack, for which you have previously cautioned. You deleted a further warning, and then violated the 3-revert rule. Regarding your newness, I have I have discussed your content edits and tried to point you toward actual WP guidelines and policies, despite you telling me that these are merely my "opinions", and your response on your talk page was to again refer to me as a "wikibully" (sic) who is “pathetic merely cherry-picking rules to fit their warped, screen-induced insanity.” Your response is part of your page history, and constitutes a pattern of WP:OWN and personal attacks, and has been reported to Administrators. NotaBene 鹰百利  Talk


 * Another personal attack by Old houses, in violation of the WP:NPA policy. Copied from Talk:List of the oldest buildings in the United States:

It doesn't matter what is "appropriate", what matters is wikipedia editing policy and deleting unsourced material is always "appropriate." Your opinion is of no consequence in matters of wikipedia policy. What you are saying is that unsourced material cannot be deleted, a statement which does not conform to wikipedia editing policy. Please refrain from pushing your own personal agenda; an editor can delete unsourced material and preventing an editor's freedom is explicitly forbidden by wikipedia policy.Old houses (talk) 04:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC) (emphasis added).

NotaBene 鹰百利 Talk 06:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Both of you need to simmer down and quit taking everything so damn personally. While "List of..." articles (when they aren't WP:BLPs) have some leeway in that entries can be included based on sources in the article they link to, if there's any contention about their inclusion one should cite sources from the entry's article in the list.  Starting off with a level 4 warning was excessive.  Users are perfectly entitled to remove warnings from their talk pages and edit any of their own comments that have not been responded to yet (and even then still so long as meaning is unchanged).  Also, if someone removes information from a list as "unsourced," and there's a source in that entry's article, cite it again in the list article instead of just reverting.  Ian.thomson (talk) 09:05, 18 May 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! Anotherclown (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Lansing (actor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Big Story. 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) 11:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roderick R. Allen, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Third Armored Division and 9th Infantry Division. 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) 10:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Douglass T. Greene has been accepted
 Douglass T. Greene, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!  Onel 5969  TT me 16:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Douglass_T._Greene help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Carlos B. Brewer has been accepted
 Carlos B. Brewer, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Hermera34 (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Carlos_B._Brewer help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Disambiguation link notification for March 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Douglass T. Greene, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 21st Infantry Division. 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) 12:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Hans-Joachim Lang
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Well done! Thanks for letting me work with you. --Prairieplant (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It was a pleasure! Hope to work together again!! NotaBene 鹰百利  Talk

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Vielen Dank! NotaBene 鹰百利 Talk

Bosco
All citations state that the inventor is unknown, however it was my grandfather who invented Bosco. So please explain to me how or why you feel this information should not be included in the information, and why you are the best person to make that determination. Just because there are deficient publications in the public domain which do not reference the inventor, does not invalidate the information which I have provided.DaleMClayton (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Because the information you repeatedly added violates several Wikipedia guidelines, all of which I provided to you in the warnings and reversions. Please read Wikipedia guidelines on: No original research, use of verifiable sources, use of reliable sources and not using primary and unpublished sources. Your family lore is not a reliable source for an online encyclopedia. In fact, the lack of verifiable references from secondary sources (i.e., if you go out and publish a book "How My Grandpa Invented Bosco", that is a primary source and needs secondary verification) does indeed, invalidate the edit you made. Please read the aforementioned links to wikipedia guidelines and if you still have questions I would be more than happy to discuss further with you. NotaBene 鹰百利 Talk

DYK for Carlos Brewer
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Douglass T. Greene
Hello! Your submission of Douglass T. Greene at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Howicus (Did I mess up?) 01:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for all your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old houses (talk • contribs) 22:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. NotaBene 鹰百利  Talk

A Dobos torte for you!

 * Merci beaucoup!! NotaBene 鹰百利  Talk

DYK for Douglass T. Greene
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler's bodyguard
I had the user in question blocked as an offensive username too. Meters (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * - I see you had him indefinitely blocked. Well done!! NotaBene 鹰百利  Talk 18:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jacques Cavallier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yves Saint Laurent. 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) 09:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Jacques Cavallier
Hello! Your submission of Jacques Cavallier at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)