User talk:Wdford

talk page notes - originally removed by vandals wanting to hide racist tactics heing used
You insert your content, but they remove it. You remove [blank]-ist dogma, they put it back. You have no choice but to perform on them what is called a revert. When other editors continue to remove your content, and you stand tall against them, you are in a revert war.

There will certainly be many users of the opposite ideology. Worse still are the "neutrals" (crypto-[blank]-ists in fact, even if they don't know it!). These users have an ideology even more extreme and yet more sinister than your ideological opposites: adherence to that nonsense, WP:NPOV. Those spoil-sports can be a real nuisance, as they can be harder to bait and harder to discredit. On the plus side, they are unlikely to care as much, so doggedness may be all you need here.

But don't worry, if you follow a few simple rules, you can prevail in most revert wars and in most editorial conflict, and thus spread the faith to your heart's content.

Basic strategy

 * 1) Know the editorial background and don't pick a fight you can never win. Sometimes you won't know which other users will have these pages on their watchlist. If too many users will object strongly, you can never win. In this case it's probably better not to fight in the first place. All you will gain is some unwanted fame and maybe a block or two.
 * 2) Do not violate WP:3RR, otherwise your opponent can have you blocked, and will thus be free to have his or her version of the particular page or pages for at least the length of your block. Being blocked also increases the chances of future admin intervention coming down against you.
 * 3) Be dogged. Persist as far as you can and never give up. If you persist longer than your opponent, you will win. Revert-war stamina will bring victory.

Intermediate tactics and gambits

 * 1) Know that the initiator has the advantage! Insertion of new content is not a revert. If your opponent inserts something first, this doesn't count as a revert. It goes like this: OPPONENTEDIT -> YOURREVERT1 -> OPPPONENTREVERT1 -> YOURREVERT2 -> OPPONENTREVERT2 -> YOURREVERT3 -> OPPONENTREVERT3 -> YOUR3RRVIOLATION. OPPONENT thus wins because OPPONENT moved first. SO then, if revert and counter-revert follow, your opponent will be emerge with an advantage. Your opponent will always win within any 24-hour cycle. If the reverting happens quickly, your daily allowance of reverts could be over in minutes. You must therefore pick your revert timing carefully. And know that the above rule can actually be used to your advantage. As WP:3RR concerns the reversion of any content, you can bleed your opponent's allowance away by insertion of different content. You can never violate WP:3RR by adding new content. Make an edit you know your opponent won't like. If he reverts it, you can add different content your opponent also won't like. If you do this three times and are reverted three times, your opponent is out of reverts for the day, and you can safely restore your preferred version.
 * 2) Buffer your reverts and make boring edits also count! After you've performed a major revert to your opponent, make a number of small basic edits improving the language or formatting of the article. Do as many of these as you can, preferably in separate edits. Then if your opponent reverts you, they will either have the added work of adding your small edits back or mass reverting you. I.e. you can either waste their time (more than you'll waste performing them) or make them look bad to any admin or commentator.
 * 3) Know your opponent's schedule. Most human beings sleep for around 8 hours each day. If you know when that will occur for your opponent, revert them just after their sleep probably begins, and you will have the whole sleep with the right version. Additionally, the opponent may have other regular hours he or she spends away from wikipedia. If you know those too, you'll be in an even better position.

Protecting yourself against forces of nature
Beware of RanSAI, random sanctimonious admininstrative intervention. This force of nature is unpredictable, and could come along at any time. As a result, you have to ensure you are as prepared as possible.


 * 1) Make an appearance of using the talk page now and then. This will ameliorate the bad appearance of "edit warring" in any random admin's eyes.
 * 2) Try to appear to follow wikipedia guidelines on editorial interaction, such as WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Serious violations of these are considered by many trigger-happy admins to be blockable offenses in their own right, and they also increase the chances of being blocked for edit warring by reducing the admin's sympathy for you.
 * 3) Be as subtley discourteous towards your opponent as possible. This may require detailed knowledge of the opponent's character, but if pulled off can be very rewarding. Causing your opponent offense and frustration without obviously doing so can make them violate WP:CIVIL with no loss to yourself. Your opponent will be discredited, and if blocked, you will be allowed to edit unopposed and retain your own preferred versions of pages for at least the length of the block.
 * 4) If a RanSAI does occur, try to get in the admin's good-books as quickly as you can. Appeal to the admin's self-righteousness. This may mean apologizing immediately for any offence you "may have caused". Try at least to seize the initiative, and if you see it coming, get to the admin before your opponent does. You can even, if your opponent has violated WP:CIVIL (or even if he hasn't), collect some diffs and bring it to the admin's attention. If new to the situation, the admin will probably take the view that things have just got heated, so you should say this before the admin does and suggest that you "probably need to cool down".
 * 5) Once RanSAI has occurred, it is likely that the intensity of your opponent's opposition will die down for a while. You should be very careful about how you take advantage of this, as the admin may still be watching. One approach in many cases is to bombard the admin with more info than he or she will be interested in reading or be able to process. This will at least discourage some other admins from fresh interference, and it may even cause the de facto end to the entire RanSAI, leaving you once again one-on-one.

Wikiculture and dealing with neutral "experts"
The good news is that on wikipedia, despite being an encyclopedia, knowledge is egalitarian, discipline is not. This is one of your biggest advantages. The enforcers of wikipedia policy, its administrative class, are unlikely to be a big deal to you, as long as you aren't too clumsy. Admins enforce disciplinary policies, not encyclopedic policies. Yes WP:NPOV is in theory a policy, but they won't have any knowledge of your pet-topics or much interest in them, being primarily a collection of seasoned vandal-fighters and talk-loving, action-shy mandarins. The only policies taken seriously in general and in practice are policies concerning behaviour and discipline. With encyclopedic information, all you need to prevail are numbers! Thus, even if some "neutral" has more knowledge than you, you can still make him your bitch.
 * 1) When engaged in a revert-war with this "expert", bombard him with endless posts on the talk page. If he makes any arguments which are hard to refute, well, just skip over them in your response and they are as good as nullified (who else is reading, after all!). He then may do one of the following. 1) Get tired and go away ... good! 2) Ignore you and continue reverting ... in which case you can try to have him blocked for revert-warring without discussion. 3) Get frustrated and become "uncivil" ... again, have some champagne, you can get him blocked.
 * 2) Bog him down. The "expert" doesn't have a lot of time, and probably wants to do something else. With all the time you have,  with any luck you can drive him into the ground and away from your issues and perhaps from wikipedia.
 * 3) Tag sentences elsewhere. Staying with the theme of time-wasting, check out some of this "expert"'s other articles and see if they have many sentences in "need" of citations. Stick some tags on them, especially if the article in question was written long ago. Either your "expert" will need to find and write out a bunch of citations, killing loads of his time, or your "expert" will, knowing he can never prove you've only done this in bad faith, get frustrated, lose his restraint and perhaps get himself closer to that block or warning you're after.
 * 4) Find brothers-of-the-faith. With proper use of email, instant messenger, talk pages and "project pages", you can overwhelm with numbers. After all, it's all a numbers game, and three brothers alone will can nullify one "expert" in a revert war without performing more than one revert. With the recent advent of blind anti-"edit-warring" ideology in the admin community, he has no chance. If he continues to try to enforce WP:NPOV (even if he is an admin!), you can bust his sorry ass into blockville. You can revert, he must edit-war. He can spend all his wiki-time pouring his little heart and brain into the talk pages, and, as long as you or one of your friends "responds" occassionally, you can watch and laugh knowing your article is safe!
 * 5) If the above doesn't work, you can always create brothers-of-the-faith. This means creating sockpuppets, new usernames which you control. You can create, in theory, as many as you like. If you think this is wrong, then just remember it's merely a small wrong which you are using to overcome a greater wrong! Whenever you need a friend to add extra weight to a discussion, or just that one more revert, your new friend or friends will definitely be there for you. You can even close votes and create your own WP:Consensus from time to time, when the issue is important enough. The downside is that if you do this too often, you'll create suspicion which may lead to a checkuser discovering your holy misdemeanors. The upside on that is that if you are careful and use your new friends conservatively, it will take months, maybe even years, and a lot of work, to find you out. If you are careful enough, perhaps even never. And even if they do, you can start again from scratch!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim/How_to_win_a_revert_war Thatmanbolt (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I also kill puppies and kittens
You forgot that in your personal attacks. --Ari (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what this is in reference to.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * One of Ari's favourite ploys when his POV is opposed, is to create the false impression that his opposer is contravening WP:Uncivil. He repeats the lie over and over through the course of the talk page discussion, in the hopes that a less-than-diligent admin will get the impression from his own comments that he is being attacked. When I didn't bite this time, he tried to stir things up by posting this inflammatory heading and comment on my talk page. Sad, really. Wdford (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds sad. BTW what do you think of Talk:Christ_myth_theory?  As I point out if you go through the archive you see these points raised again and again by other editors and IMHO confusion abounds as to just what the Christ Myth Theory really is.  Another part of the problem is that on occasion the reliable sources totally flub it.  Schweitzer in 1931 including James George Frazer with John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith and Arthur Drews as well as nearly everybody except Van Voorst missing the boat regarding Wells post-Jesus Myth position are two main examples.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand your frustration re the definitions. However, there seems to be considerable consensus (although not unanimity) that the Christ Myth Theory holds that "The Jesus of the Gospels was not a historical person". This still allows for the possibility that there may have been arbitrary other holy men named Jesus in the area around that time (Jesus was after all a common name, and being a holy man was a common occupation). The CMT also allows for the possibility that various historical events and actions may have been falsely ascribed to the Mythical Jesus by various subsequent writers for various reasons. Lastly, we need to guard against allowing the definition of the CMT to be fudged by the possibly-ulterior writings of an uninformed/biased writer who may have been deliberately trying to muddy the waters. Wdford (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually there seems to ambiguity in the Christ Myth Theory regarding "the possibility that there may have been arbitrary other holy men named Jesus in the area around that time". In the three sources that break up the historical Jesus spectrum into four categorizes (Remsburg, Dan Barker, and Boyd-Eddy) we have what I called "The Gospel Jesus is a "pure myth" ie a total fiction with no more historical basis than Osiris or Zeus" position that after going through the "The Gospel Jesus story is so mythologized that all trace of an actual man has been lost (Jesus agnosticism)" position turns into the minimalist position (ie a first century Jesus existed but the connection to the Gospels is basically nil).


 * The problem as best demonstrated by Remsburg is that some minimalists will use the exact same arguments the "pure" Christ Myth theorists use with the only difference being that the minimalists say that odds are there was a flesh and blood 1st century teacher involved. It is clear that the various definitions we have don't agree and that some were created to strawman more mainstream argument that the Gospels are largely mythical and only a small portion of them is historical.  Personally I agree with those editors that feel the whole article is big WP:CFORK and should be merged with either Quest for the historical Jesus or Historicity of Jesus if only to end the endless politicking that has gone on with the article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh on a side note I am creating a new FAQ User:BruceGrubb/CMT_Material/FAQ to try and help the article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Wdford, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Wdford. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Please slow down
Bill the Cat 7's Talk page is not a reliable source. You're adding a ton material to Historicity of Jesus at a very fast pace, and not much of it is discussed. Can you reply to my concerns about your edits to the Gospels section? Noloop (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you mean that you don't consider them reliable sources.  Wikipedia does.  There are even quotes in the list on my page that are from proponents of the CMT.  Are they not reliable sources to you too?  LOL.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wdford. You have said on the HoJ talk page that the reliability of the NT is questionable and the reader should be informed. I totally agree. Do you think it would be enough to say that the established view on Jesus is a hypothesis? Bertil Ablrektson, an Old Testament scholar has said this. I would rather like to see what you suggest.- Civilized education talk  11:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Wdford. Best regards. The gospels look like fairy tales with impossible contradictions. I know of this from Bart Ehrman. There are videos of him on his website in which he debates someone and asserts that the gospels are not historically reliable documents. Do you think this could be useful? There are some more videos on You Tube.- Civilized education  talk  16:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I am quite amazed by your explaination of "when analyzed critically". Actually I too find this phrase irritating. I couldn't quite crystallize the reasons for my irritation. Maybe because I couldn't see what it means and maybe because it hints that I am a layman who couldn't possibly understand the intricacies of the issues involved and should simply accept what (biased) scholars say. This left me unsatisfied. Your explanation has provided many answers to me.- Civilized education talk  03:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Great work simplifying the lead by the way. Thank you, Vesal (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, | it was removed quite fast.- Civilized education talk  16:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Great Sphinx of Giza, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Early Dynastic Period (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ancient Egyptian race controversy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Arab Egypt


 * Taurids (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Tunguska

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Sphinx water erosion hypothesis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NOVA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Use of proper sources per policy
Please do not add sources to Wikipedia that run against WP:V. This source you added does not relate to the subject and is a product spec. The same applies to this source. These are clearly not discussing the topic, and your reliance on them runs against WP:V, for you are arguing for "truth". Please read WP:V "Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth". Please self-revert and remove those improper sources now. History2007 (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I noted that you again edited the page and kept the product specifications and referred to truth/falsehood. You have no references for your edit and are clearly, clearly running against WP:V. That is clear. You need to delete those product specifications. And again, you need to read WP:V about the use of sources. History2007 (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, now you deleted the specs, but deleted sources and added unsourced content! You need to read WP:RS now then correct the situation. History2007 (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit war avoidance
Please avoid an edit war by repeatedly changing sentences around while the subject is bing discussed. You are adding unsourced items, deleting sourced items, and adding statements that are not supported by the sources. I have not reverted you to avoid an edit war. Do not invite an edit war, for I will not take part in it but will seek other suitable remedies. History2007 (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources that fail verification
I am sorry, but I am getting tired of telling you about the proper use of sources. Now you have added sources that clearly fail to support the statements being made by you. This type of source addition needs to stop. History2007 (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

DRN discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

AE race controversy
Started a discussion at WP:NPOVN, quoted you there but I'll remove that if you wish. Dougweller (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Bismarck
The sentence is about the destruction of the ship, not the forces arrayed against it. The paragraph already makes clear that the British assigned considerable forces to hunt down and destroy Bismarck. More detail is unnecessary for the introduction. As for the "capture" bit, having it there unqualified in any way gives the false impression that the British intended on capturing the ship, and fully explaining the issue requires too much space and does not belong in the lead section. Please stop edit-warring and discuss the issue, either here or on the article talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

After the tough slog that it was, I think this is in order:


 * Thank you - this is most unexpected. Wdford (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not one for grudges - think we should close the DRN thread? I don't know the exact procedure, but it doesn't look like we're going to need their help. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I have no idea how it works either, but I assume that if all parties say they are working smoothly again then nobody up there will argue? Wdford (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd guess so. I already left a note saying we were working on a compromise solution, so you might want to confirm that everything is worked out. I think we can then leave it to them to archive or delete the section as they see fit. Parsecboy (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It's done. Wdford (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, by the way, I realized that we hadn't done anything with the Wreckage section yet, so I went ahead and made some changes. I didn't add much, just collected the relevant statements into one paragraph at the end. See if that looks good to you. Parsecboy (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Black Egyptian Hypothesis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Typological (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

DRN discussion 2
You are cordially invited to comment here. Parsecboy (talk) 12:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Lütjens
Would you be so kind as to review the section Günther Lütjens for me? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have done my best, and I have moved the film para to the top because of chronological sequence. However its not clear to me the sequence of events around the christening scandal, and Schroeder's comments. Please recheck that I have done it correctly? Wdford (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the exact sequence is impossible to derive from the Spiegel article. It looks good as it stands now. Thanks againMisterBee1966 (talk) 09:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

SILVER SOL
hello, silver sol is a variant of colloidal silver. Thats how the company which invented it refers to it in their approved us patent. I have seen some editor removed excessive repetition of the side effects, however the edit was reverted. This is due to personal opinion of vsmith, who believes that cs is not effective and harmful. Thats why the article looks excessively biased. For some reason he believes that he knows about the subject more than fda which approved the cs containing asap gel. He is even willing not to follow wp:medrs which was designed specifically for medicines. He rules undue weight, yet in my opinion the first ever cs which got fda approval shall have a section on the cs and other forms of silver usage page. You are right, that bandages and external use of silver is already established. So this is precisely the innovation, for using cs allows actually to considerably decrease the amount of silver which is applied or comes in contact with the wound. Ryanspir (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

Edit your entry on talk page
if its ok, please edit your entry on the talk page, so that the people who are reading it will not be misinformed. Silver sol is a variant of cs, produced by american biotech labs. They produce the gel which is fda approved and which exclusively contains the silver sol as the active substance. If you cannot find the link to their patent to verify what i'm saying, kindly go to history, see my removed edit, and follow the link to the first patent. Ryanspir (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

Lusitania
I don't really care one way or another about the section title, but someone had mentioned on the talk page that Depth charges would not work well to damage a ship on the sea floor. The article and sources also mention Hedgehog (weapon) contact mines in the area. The source mentions damage by depth charges as well as 'Swiss cheese' damage that seems more like the damage a hedgehog would do.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It was probably me that raised that concern. I agree that using depth-charges on a target on the sea-floor is improbable, but that's what the source claimed to have seen. I also agree that hedgehogs are a much more likely weapon to use for bombarding a target on the sea-bed. However my objective is to distinguish the deliberate bombardment of the wreck from "other explosives", such as the alleged gun-cotton etc that she was apparently carrying on her final voyage. I am open to any alternative title that makes that distinction. How about the more generic "British anti-submarine weapons" - although maybe that is a bit lengthy? Wdford (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good now. Thanks for helping improve it. I am wondering if it was bombarded before the 50's as it seems the hedgehogs were replaced in 1943. Without sources it can't be added but there may yet surface more info on it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Cs in vitro
hello, you have previously said that everyones agree that cs is effective for external application and as disinfectant. So i have removed a faulty study made in botswana which contradicts fda, epa, and reliable studies for external application. What do you think about it?Ryanspir (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If you are sure that it was faulty, then fine. Wdford (talk) 10:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

faulty study
yes, i'm sure. Both of us agree that cs is effective externally and as disinfectant. Could you please remove this study?Ryanspir (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In the section "hospital surface disinfectant" you have written: "Thanks. Nobody disagrees about using silver as an external disinfectant,..". It's understood that Botswana study directly contradicts this, because it says cs is ineffective in vitro. Thus cs cannot be effective as a disinfectant. That's why I have asked you if you could remove this faulty study.

Further reasoning: If its ineffective in vitro, obviously it's ineffective in vivo. Altogether, it would mean that FDA cleared a compound which is absolutely ineffective and EPA approved in 2003, reapproved in 2006 and reapproved again in 2009 a cs disinfectant which doesn't kill germs. Thus putting lives of patients at direct risk of acquiring infection due to ineffective disinfection. It would also invalidate all the references which are already on the article, such as http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18069039 with a reference #63 that says: "results show that CS solutions with an ionic silver concentration of 30 ppm or higher are strong enough to destroy S. aureus.". According to wiki policy, a study which disapproves everything previously known considered extraordinary and it must come from extraordinary source to be accepted per medrs. I don't see a study in Botswana as an extraordinary. I'll post it on the talk page as well I'll remove it.Ryanspir (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

edit conflict
Hi. I hope that I didn't walk all over your addition to History in Med Uses of Silver as I was rearranging the sections into what I consider a more logical progression at the same time, I think. If I screwed up your stuff, I am sorry.Desoto10 (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I went back and checked and it looks as though your new stuff is intact, but please do check. Thanks, Desoto10 (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, everything looks fine. Separate question - do we really need to have a detailed explanation here of argyria - it is linked to the main Argyria article already? We really seem to mention it a lot of times, considering its such a small part of the topic. Maybe we could rationalise the adverse effects and regulations material to remove duplications? Wdford (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * We should probably move this conversation over to the article talk page, but yes, I was wondering the same thing. To the best of my understanding, the medical consensus is that the exact amount of silver and the timeframe over which someone is exposed to silver that causes argyria is unclear.  The EPA and other "toxic exposure" regulatory bodies seem to use the old 1935 data where people were injected with silver in pretty large doses to get their minimum "safe" amounts.  Since there are currently no legitimate medicines for ingestion that contain silver we cannot use these high doses to rationalize the validity of the nutritional supplements that contain smaller amounts of silver.  One problem with editing this article is that there seems to be a lack of knowledge about the differences between drugs, devices, and supplements and how the FDA, NIH, EPA, CDC are involved.  I'll move this conversation now.Desoto10 (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Disinfectant
I have put my attention that someone removed the link to epa and instead posted some unknown reference without a link for a context that you have added some time ago. I wouldn't like to revert 3rd time, so i'm asking you to do the undo. Ryanspir (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited DNA history of Ancient Egypt, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Early Dynastic and Arab Egypt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

3RR
Looks like you have reverted a good 4 times in less than 24 hrs. Probably a good idea to revert your last edit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

note to self re referencing
Hi, the "manual" way is to use Template:Cite journal, filling in as many fields as possible, but it's much easier to find the article's DOI and then use &#x7b;{cite doi|put-the-doi-here}}, as Wikipedia will then (usually!) auto-expand the reference for you. There's a free utility from CrossRef for finding article DOIs here.

note to self re referencing
Hi, the "manual" way is to use Template:Cite journal, filling in as many fields as possible, but it's much easier to find the article's DOI and then use &#x7b;{cite doi|put-the-doi-here}}, as Wikipedia will then (usually!) auto-expand the reference for you. There's a free utility from CrossRef for finding article DOIs here.

Disambiguation link notification for February 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited DNA history of Egypt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Early Dynastic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 00:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Your edit summaries
Passing along this useful info from DougWeller. Please keep your edit summaries neutral - as they stand you are using them as commentary on editors, authors, etc. This isn't occasional, it seems to be your standard way of using edit summaries. WP:Edit summaries says "Avoid inappropriate summaries. Editors should explain their edits, but not be overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause tension or bad feelings, which makes collaboration more difficult. Explain what you changed, and cite the relevant policies, guidelines or principles of good writing, but try not to target or to single out others in a way that may come across as an attack or an insult" and "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved."Rod (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Kingdom of Aksum
Same issues really. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Three and a bit years later....
You made this contribution to Argyria in November 2009 and amazingly no-one has since asked you who Lansdown is. Can you add details. Moriori (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Dr Alan BG Lansdown was a founder member of the British Society for Developmental Pathology. He has published more than 250 scientific papers and book chapters and lectured widely. Although presently retired, he holds the position of Honorary Senior Research Fellow and Senior Lecturer in Chemical Pathology, Clinical Chemistry, Investigative Sciences, Charing Cross Campus, Imperial College Faculty of Medicine, London. He is a toxicological consultant with special interests in the microbial efficacy and safety of silver and zinc, but writes on the toxicology of metals in the environment. See and . How much of this do you want to add? Wdford (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Enough to make the article encyclopedic and complete. We can't attribute quotes to someone without giving him initials/christian name and explaining who/what he is. Moriori (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin
Sir, nowhere in the articles did they state that the scientist believes that the pieces of linen used in the experiments were of apocryphal origin, and it only hurts Wikipedia's credibility when the context is presented in such a manner. If you have a source that suggests that the scientist obtained inauthentic fibers of linen, than please post it and I won't have the problem adding "he believes" to the source. If not, I believe the fairest and most impartial text should state that the linen fibers were used in the earlier Carbon Dating.

Regards,

As you have added a source that the fibers may not be authentic, I have no problem with the addition now.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.215.8.245 (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Last battle of the battleship Bismarck incomplete reference
Several years ago, you inserted at Last battle of the battleship Bismarck references to ‘Bercuson Herwig, p. 293. ^ Gaack Carr, pp. 80–81. ^ Zetterling Tamelander, p. 281.’ without any details. Would you please fill up the required information? Thanks in advance.
 * ―Lgfcd (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=571800213 your edit] to Historical Jesus may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * in the name of God'' ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285 Robert M. Price (an atheist  who denies the existence of Jesus) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the

Ancient Egyptian race controversy
An IP has just posted on WP:AN regarding this article - you seem to be involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Your views about history
I have been trying for a while to try and understand what exactly goes on the Historicity page and other related pages, but not having read much myself on this historiographical status of the subject, and this not being so far one of my main field of inquiries, I just keep peeping in here and there, and postponing any major reading on the subject that would be required before I may decide to dive into the WP debates on the subject.

However, I just read this contribution by you, and I liked very much what you have to say about the purported accuracy of history as a "science." I liked your Churchill example very much, since I've thought a lot about recemt similar examples and how they compare to historical figures that are older, even early modern figures. But your way of explaining it, by comparing the available historiographical record of a specific historical figure to the existing historiographical record of older figures was, in my view, pretty original, and actually very good. It was actually much better than anything I have thought along the years about this matter, without being able myself to ever articulate it the way you did. So now, as I continue trying to catch on on the subject matter, I know where you stand and I will keep following your arguments as closely as I can. Kudos! warshy¥¥ 18:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Herodotus article
I notice that you are working on the Herodotus article, and I just thought I should let you know that after your remarks on Herodotus on the Historicity of Jesus talk page, I have requested editors at the Classical Greece and Rome Wikiproject to help in revising the article. You can see what I wrote here - .Smeat75 (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Black Egyptian Hypothesis
Without counting, you are close to or at 3RR. I've given the other editor the templated statement but I'm assuming you know the ins and outs of WP:3RR. Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Black people". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --MrScorch6200 (t c) 20:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!
Your superior knowledge of the black Egyptian "controversy," as well as your articulation of several important points in the debate, is extraordinary! I have no bone to pick with either side of the debate, but I'm really irked by militant afrocentrism (or any other forms of ultra-nationalism for that matter). I'm humbled by your ability to call BS on many claims made on the talkpage that could've otherwise flown under the radar. Thanks buddy! &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 02:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

DNA history of Egypt
These new edits bother me and I've moved them to the talk page, see Talk:DNA history of Egypt. Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

AN You May Have Interest In
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

ArbComm
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

Hello, we are still awaiting statements for you regarding Ancient Egyptian Long-Term Editor Misconduct as you are a party, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Please trim your statement at arbitration case requests
Hi, Wdford. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 04:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources and the Hawass article
I think you also misunderstand how we should use sources. See for instance WP:VRS - sources should directly discuss the subject. And of course WP:SYN. The Hawass article clearly doesn't discuss the subject of all the articles it's being added to - it doesn't discuss Black Egyptians, for instance. In fact it's not about genetic origins. Then there is WP:SYN - adding another source to someone make a point. That's why 3 editors have been removing it entirely. Dougweller (talk) 07:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Can I draw your attention...
to this? BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Move request at Central East Africa
Now who do you think this new editor is who started the move request (I've move-locked the page, by the way). Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, missed the post above. No surprise there, eh? Dougweller (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yep. It was to be expected though. We will just need to be extra alert is all. Wdford (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin
Remember you are now at 3RR. I've reported the other editor as he is at 4RR and I warned him a couple of weeks ago. Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to remind you that while 3RR is a bright line, users can still be blocked for edit warring without going over 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. Instead of continually reverting disruptive material, consider reporting the user to administrators instead. Tiptoety  talk 18:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have reported it to User talk:Dougweller. Wdford (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

CMT Definition
Thanks for your support for v9b, Wdford. You probably gave up more than anyone else with the compromises. Please note that after you posted support, I made a change to the last sentence regarding Jesus agnosticism which is the position of Thompson, Verenna and Davies, and I expect it will be a major theme in Carrier's new book. Hope you agree. Radath (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Will you removal the POV tag if I can get consensus that "Jesus of Nazareth as described in the gospels" back into the definition? Radath (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hoping you will support the compromise I have proposed. Radath (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Please support v9g, Wdford. We get just about everything we have asked for. Radath (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Christ myth theory". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Noah's ark
Can you please take a look at the talk page bottom about citations. Some of this is your edit  but no sources were added. Mixing citation styles can create problems, and although I love Harvard referencing it's hard to move from page to page. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Dougweller, I have copied over all the detailed references. All the citations linked up automatically except the Stewart citation, which won't link to the reference. I don't know what I'm doing wrong. Please assist? Wdford (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Belated thanks. Try the WP:Help desk as I'm not sure what the problem is. (Didn't notice this, best to ping me next time). Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!--IseeEwe (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus
I've got no problem at all with you putting the extended discussion of historicity (and probably historical Jesus, since the need to be contrasted) in its own section. Seems like a good idea.

The discussion in the Lead should be tightened up, consistent with the extended discussion discussion.

Thanks. You're one of the few editors who has done really substantive and thoughtful work on the article recently. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

John Carter (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I hope it got through this second time. John Carter (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Uh... you wanna take a look at this edit again? I'm not exactly sure what happened, but it looks like an honest mistake. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much. Wdford (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=627957778 your edit] to Historical Jesus may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * the theories presented to fill the 15-18-year gap between the early life of Jesus and the start of his ministry have been supported by modern scholarship. Robert Van Voorst states that
 * they’re doing theology, albeit a theology that is indeed historically informed&amp;nbsp;..." cite web | url = http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Dec1997/feature3.asp | title = Finding

Dorje Shugden Controversy Page
Hi, I admire the work you have done on a controversial page Historicity of Jesus. I was wondering if you would be willing to look at a controversial page I have been involved in for a while Dorje Shugden Controversy and see if you could bring some wisdom there? Or if you know anyone on WP that is willing to be patient and deal with a variety of opposing views? Thanks. Prasangika37 (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Historical Jesus
 * added a link pointing to James Dunn


 * Historicity of Jesus
 * added a link pointing to James Dunn

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration, Historicity of Jesus
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Fearofreprisal (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Portraits of the historical Jesus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saviour. 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) 09:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus case opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 6, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee,  → Call me  Hahc  21  20:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus arbitration case - proposed decision posted
This is a courtesy message to inform you that the proposed decision has been posted for the Historicity of Jesus arbitration case. Constructive, relevant comments are welcome on the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)  Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk).

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC) (Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

Reference Errors on 20 January
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) 00:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Historicity of Jesus page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=643398486 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) and a cite error (help) . ([ 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%2F643398486%7CHistoricity of Jesus%5D%5D Ask for help])

Population history of Europe
The latest revert (ignoring my mistake) removes some text you added with but your source seems to have disappeared a while ago. Do you want to fix this? Dougweller (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

In passing
Having just briefly looked at your talk page I suggest that you remove the text copied from or one day it will be used against you at ANI.

But that is not the main reason for passing by. I was using the newsgroups long before Wikipedia was thought of, and I personally prefer the newsgroup method of interlacing replies. However many editors came to Wikipedia from using a style taken from and developed by Lotus Notes email where replies were always placed at the top of an email quoting the bits from the body of the previous text. Here on Wikipedia that style was kept with the exception of tagging the new comment on the bottom rather than the top.

This has recently been added to the talk page guideline WP:TALK (see here (just before I reverted the change)). A recent conversation about it can be found here: Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

-- PBS (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Zieten dithering
Hofschröer describes Zieten dithering:

Meanwhile, Zieten had returned to his vanguard and he continued to move towards Wellington's left flank. He was perturbed by what he saw in front of him: Wellington's line was crumbling, masses of wounded and stragglers were moving to the rear, and Zieten suspected the collapse of Wellington's army was imminent.He halted his movement and sent an officer to inspect the situation at close quarters, who returned with the news that it looked like Wellington had lost the battle. The sight of SaxeWeimar's Nassauers and Losthin's two battalions falling back from Smohain and Fichermont supported that view. (p. 50)

As Zieten was considering what to do next, a staff officer arrived from Blücher. The Prussian high command had determined that the possession of Plancenoit would decide the battle, so all available troops were ordered to advance on it. Bülow was making little headway and the Young Guard was consolidating its hold on Plancenoit, so Zieten was instructed to move to his left and link up with Bülow. Just as Zieten was commencing this movement, Reiche returned from a conference with Saxe-Weimar. The situation on Wellington's left had deteriorated further and Reiche had assured Saxe-Weimar that help was about to arrive. Zieten decided that the order from headquarters must be obeyed. His men turned their backs on Wellington and started to move towards Plancenoit.(p.51)

Müffling observed this and immediately galloped off towards Zieten. Words were exchanged and Müffling persuaded Zieten to change his mind and turn again, making for Wellington's left as quickly as possible. It was now nearly 7pm, and Ney had finally taken la Haye Sainte. ... (p. 51)

-- PBS (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Sinking of Bismarck
Take it to Talk:Last battle of the battleship Bismarck

Re: Flight thrust versus drag versus lift
You're using the terms incorrectly for this context. It's common to think that lift is always an upwards force, whereas in technical usage, lift, drag and thrust are considered distinct things and can point in any direction (but lift and drag are always perpendicular). Lift is always an aerodynamic force. For example, racing cars have their wings so that lift points downwards for extra grip: 'downforce'. An aircraft doing loop-the-loop has the lift pointing downwards at the top of the loop.

Usually drag and thrust are more or less in line, and it's easy to think they have to be, but they are not always closely aligned. If an aircraft stalls, the vehicle is moving somewhat downwards and, by definition, the drag vector is pointing somewhat upwards, at an angle, and the lift then is usually up, but somewhat forwards. In that situation often the nose will dip, but, depending on the aircraft's attitude, by pulling back on the stick, the thrust vector can still be kept precisely horizontal.

Also, some aircraft have thrust vectoring, including Harrier jump jets, they can vary the thrust direction, independent of everything else.

Concorde is another example, at low speeds the aircraft took up a nose up attitude, and is flying with the thrust pointing somewhat downwards, while it's flying sideways. But even then, with stable altitude/airspeed the drag vector is horizontal, and lift is vertical.GliderMaven (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Waterloo
Not everything I wrote was about you. I hold Bulow in great regard I think he made a mistake that day. My one point to you was that Wavre was a much longer battle. Also keep in mind that at that time all traffic was heading from Paris to Brussels so the very best roads went roughly north south. Peace out Tirronan (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

RVed talk post
FYI, my talk post in reply to your last post was RVed. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw that yes. Do you perhaps have a link where I can get the full talk/paper? Wdford (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Per Lataster, I have no further information. As a side note: Aaron Michael Adair, "Science, Scholarship and Bethlehem's Starry Night", Sky and Telescope, Dec. 2007. He debunked astronomical theories regarding Jesus. And has also noted—historical and mythical—Jesus problems. His 2013 slides for his presentation The Puzzling Figure of Jesus--Man, Myth, Messiah. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Wdford (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Topic banned editor?
See User talk:Dailey78 - I've asked Ed about it. Doug Weller talk 11:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Population history
It now again misrepresents Kemp. Will you fix this? Thanks. I hate it when the original edit gets so changed it no longer reflects the source. 11:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)
 * Hi Doug. I am reading through the material now. It seems that people read the table, and drew conclusions, which would be OR. I am going to extract comments made by Kemp. However its a big book, and so far I have not found Kemp's actual conclusions. Wdford (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah. That's why I was wondering if anyone has commented on it. Thanks. Oh, and looking at Early Back-to-Africa Migration into the Horn of Africa (available as a download) I'm not sure if it's represented correctly. I'm also guessing the IP has been around awhile. Doug Weller  talk 12:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Operation Overlord into Battle for Caen. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I was not aware of this requirement, but I will certainly keep this in mind in future editing. Wdford (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Caen
FYI, made a request here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history for opinion re ways and means. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history

(Copied here fyo)

To try to establish the semblance of consensus for the article, I would like opinions on the best way to combine the history of the fighting for Caen and the writing about it since. Are these really two articles rather than one? Should the description of events be more strictly segregated from explanation? Is it pointless to argue about the Aftermath without a Prelude? Are RS, NPOV, SYNTH and Manual_of_Style/Military_history (and any others) being adequately adhered to? NB I have an obvious potential conflict of interest, which is why I'm asking about objective matters here. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Third opinion see here for rq for a look at the citations noted in the talk page.Keith-264 (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Caen RfC
@ Wdford: Editorial POV-pushing, despite attempts by to persuade an editor to acknowledge the difference between an article conforming to the title and a Montgomery-bashing exercise.

Courtesy notification. Keith-264 (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Caen
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Keith-264 (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the ongoing debate on how best to develop the Battle for Caen article. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk: Battle for Caen".The discussion is about the topic Battle for Caen. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the ongoing debate on how best to develop the Battle for Caen article. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Battle for Caen". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI: I have pulled your previous statement from the archive, and taken the liberty to already post it on the DRN in order to save you some time. If you wish to change or update it, please do so. In addition, per discussion with a DRN moderator, you may want to put the page on your watchlist in order to keep notified when a response is posted.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Battle for Caen
During the moderated discussion of Battle for Caen at the dispute resolution noticeboard, I had to caution you twice about the use of language that appeared to be intended to close off or prejudge discussion. This is being noted here because the moderated discussion itself will be archived shortly. Please be aware that the use of non-neutral language does not help reach consensus, and the use of non-neutral language in a Request for Comments may even cause the RFC to be closed without action. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

March 2018
Your recent editing history at Shroud of Turin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Wdford, I've raised our dispute at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard with the following (rather long) link: Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. Cheers, Aarghdvaark (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Why undo my edits on the shroud of Turin
Hi, you undid my edit to the Shroud of Turin. I made a constructive edit, changing the language to support what is in the sources and to help promote a more neutral POV. In your revert, you say that "the challenges have actually been scientifically refuted", but I've read the sources behind that statement, and there was no scientific refutation of medieval material in the carbon dating sample. What the sources do have is plenty of conjectures regarding features of the C14 sample and why they believe it is valid. If there are actual scientific refutations in any of the sources in the class of the Raymond Rogers tests described in his 2005 paper, please point them out. Otherwise, your revert goes beyond your evidence. If you can't provide the actual scientific refutation, please do not revert my edit. Thanks Actuarialninja (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This edit?


 * The juxtaposition of "Some shroud researchers have challenged the dating" and "Other researchers maintain that the radiocarbon date is accurate" gives too much WP:WEIGHT to a WP:FRINGE theory. It's like saying "Some moon researchers say the moon is made out of green cheese" and ""Other researchers maintain that the moon consists of rocks and dirt". --Guy Macon (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Re: Raymond Rogers' 2005 paper, see Raymond Rogers: '''"A few months before his death, Rogers submitted an article describing his findings to a peer-reviewed journal and it was published less than two months before Raymond Rogers died. The essential conclusion of the article is that the radiocarbon datings were accurate, but because the samples were from cloth that was not part of the original Shroud, they are irrelevant regarding the age of the image area."


 * Also see: --Guy Macon (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello Guy Macon.
 * Yes, that is the edit.


 * For the matter of assigning weight, the whole issue hangs on which position you wish to relegate to the “fringe”. Unfortunately, I could find no comprehensive survey of Shroud researchers on the matter to help decide which view is fringe and which is not.


 * There are several lines of reasoning that would lead one to believe that changing to my preferred wording is not promoting fringe views:
 * I)	The best I could find was the opinions of individual STURP researchers. A good number of them believe the date of the Shroud is older than indicated by the 1988 carbon dating (I can provide a list and references if you want it [these are available readily enough online], for now, let’s keep this as brief as possible). These researchers have more direct hands-on experience examining the Shroud than anyone else. Put in terms of your moon analogy, these researchers are like the astronauts that actually visited the moon. Their findings and opinions should carry at least as much, if not more, weight than those who did not work as extensively (if at all) on the Shroud. This line of reasoning most definitely shows that questioning the C14 results is common (and not “fringe”) among many of those with actual, direct experience working on the Shroud.
 * II)	There are numerous decently mainstream outlets that reported on Rogers’ finding. For example, the BBC, National Geographic, The Telegraph, and so on. Note carefully that this doesn’t prove authenticity (and is not my argument), but it surely does lend support to the proposition that Rogers’ findings are not as fringe as you say they are (Please tell me, how many decently mainstream articles do you see seriously reporting on the idea that the moon is made of cheese? If you can produce some that are sincere [and not obvious satire], I should very much like to see them).


 * But we can also reverse the question: Please explain to me how it makes sense to assign more weight to this Joe Nickell fellow in your CFI reference (a former magician/teacher/private investigator) than to Ray Rogers (a professional chemist, who worked first-hand on the Shroud as part of STURP, and who based his findings on analysis of actual physical samples from the Shroud)? Rather, doesn’t it make a great deal more sense to give more benefit/weight to Rogers than Nickell?


 * With all of that said, if there are no objections, I would like to move forward with my edit.


 * P.S: I am going into a busy period at work and may take several days to respond if you post a follow-up. So please don’t take a few days silence as a sign of absence.
 * P.P.S: To possibly save some time down the road, I want to say outright that I don't want this to degenerate into yet another authenticity debate. It’s already been beaten to death countless times. Everyone has their opinion, and I can honestly say that I don't care very much about some other fellow’s take.
 * --Actuarialninja (talk) 04:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Nickel's point is merely that Ray Rogers DID NOT base his findings on analysis of actual physical samples from the Shroud – he was looking at two tiny fragments of threads that were sent to him in the mail, and whose true provenance he made no effort to assure. Rogers himself admits this in his own papers - Nickel is not adding "new science", he is merely pointing out the obvious. On the one side we have various experts with hands-on experience such as the entire Damon team, Jull, Ramsey, Jackson, Lemburg etc, who all state emphatically that there is no evidence of any repairs in that area. One the other side we have Rogers, whose tests on two tiny unverified threads found the opposite. How do we reconcile this? Did the Damon team check carefully that their sampled area was representative? Yes, they did. Did Jull, Ramsey, Jackson, Lemburg etc work with actual shroud material? Yes, they did. Did Rogers check carefully that his samples were representative? No, he did not. Did Rogers get his samples directly from the actual shroud itself? No, he received them in the mail, after they had been mailed back and forth for two decades, having apparently originated with a person who had no authority to possess original shroud material to begin with. Is it therefore possible that Rogers' samples were not in fact representative? Yes, quite possibly. Which side is more likely to be correct???
 * Please can we move this discussion to the article talk page, so that other people can also follow and participate, and so that all the discussion is in one central place? Wdford (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is probably best to move the discussion to the main talk page. Unfortunately, I am very much tied up with work at the moment, and will probably only have time to advance my best effort at a response on the weekend. --Actuarialninja (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Re:South African Border War
Howzit,

I normally do not cite books on the Border War written from the perspective of authors who worked directly with, or are members of, SWAPO/ANC/SACP/MPLA. This is due to the highly propagandastic nature of their language, which is good for communist political lectures but utterly useless for somebody researching the hard facts and figures of a military conflict.

That being said, Ellis and Sechaba's book is one of the exceptions I'm willing to make. This is for several reasons: I've read other works by Ellis in the past without detecting significant bias or divergence from the facts of the story, the book freely acknowledges that Cuito Cuanavale was not the great Cuban victory Castro said it was, its coverage of the individuals involved matches up to other sources (by all accounts, including his own memoirs, Malan led the clique which pushed for the expansion of Operation Moduler while Pik Botha opposed cross-border raids from the very beginning), and the book also makes no secret of the Soviet Union's instrumental participation in the tripartite talks - including pressuring its own allies to settle with the US and RSA, which authors sympathetic to the SWAPO, the MPLA, or Cuba usually downplay or omit altogether.

I tend to judge my sources on a variety of factors, and based on the aforementioned considerations I think Comrades against apartheid is sufficiently neutral and gets enough of the facts right that its material is cite-worthy. Hope that helps.

Thanks, -- Katan gais (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Howzit again Wdford.


 * I've noticed you keep changing the order in which this sentence ("Photographs of the parade ground taken by a Swedish reporter just prior to the raid depict children and women in civilian clothing, but also uniformed PLAN guerrillas and large numbers of young men of military age") appears in the section about Operation Reindeer. This is problematic because the readers aren't even told Cassinga had a parade ground until the following paragraph, which is why I keep moving it back. Your revision makes the chronology confusing to an uninformed reader.


 * I devoted an entire paragraph to the issue of the parade ground and trenches, because they form such a contentious issue with regards to the Cassinga account. I can see why moving the sentence to the paragraph above it might add to the coverage of the casualties, but the reader is going to get that information anyway if he scrolls down a little further. Better to keep all the information about the parade ground/trenches issue in one place.


 * I have removed the sentence from the article until we can agree on where exactly it needs to be.


 * Thanks, -- Katan gais (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, I merged the paragraphs about the casualties and the parade ground/trenches to allow the information on the Swedish photographer to appear directly after the SADF narrative is introduced. I preceded it with the sentence describing the site in aerial reconnaissance so the reader would understand what parade ground is being discussed. -- Katan gais (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Cite errors at draft Fringe SoT
Hi Wdford,

Could you please have a look at this edit at Draft:Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin as it seems to have broken six citations (red errors in #References section). By the way, the lead is getting a lot better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Done, now; but can you please verify to see if these are the right ones? Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 04:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Cleopatra FAC
Hello! Judging by the talk page archives, I see that you have shown a strong interest for the article Cleopatra in the past. Would you be interested in reviewing it as a Featured Article Candidate? If so, please share your thoughts and critiques at Featured article candidates/Cleopatra/archive1. It would be most appreciated. Regards, Pericles of Athens  Talk 16:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Mistake on Ancient Egyptian race controversy
Hey,

You made a mistake in indicating that the greatest amount of sub-Saharan African ancestry held by any Ancient Egyptian is 15%. 15% was the greatest amount of SSA heritage found in a mummy from the big 2017 study of a number of mummies near Cairo (the mummies ranged from 6% to 15%, ironically making them all black under the one drop rule favored by racists who use this anachronistic fake "controversy" as a platform to claim black people are incapable of civilization, but that is neither here nor there).

The authors of the study themselves indicated that sub-Saharan African ancestry of Ancient Egyptians from Middle and Southern Egypt (e.g. from Thebes, the preeminent city of Ancient Egypt) are likely to be much greater than the amount detected in these mummies. (After all, southern Egyptians today have much more than do today's northern Egyptians.) So it is a mistake to imply, as you did, that no mummy from ancient Egypt has more than 15% SSA ancestry. Future studies of southern and middle Egyptians will likely be performed in the coming years, using the methodology employed here, and we will have more genetic data to add to the article.

Best,

Steele

Steeletrap (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Please stop distorting the evidence on this page or you will be blocked. The study clearly indicates that the mummies all had limited, but significant, sub-saharan African ancestry, and also emphasizes the fact that Upper Egyptians may have more ancestry. By using vague terms like African (when you know well that Ancient Egyptians were overwhelmingly African, just not sub-Saharan African) rather than sub-Saharan African you are distorting the article. Steeletrap (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Citing from Journals
Note to self - use this one in future:

and then use the citation gadget at the bottom of the edit screen

Wdford (talk) 07:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

edit war
You appear to be at 3rr too.Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Battle of Gazala. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. .Nigel Ish (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Quifangondo
Howzit, Wdford,

I just opened a peer review for Battle of Quifangondo, which I'm hoping to bump up to GA status in the near future. I thought that you, as a frequent fellow contributor to South African milhist-related articles, might be interested. Any thoughts and/or constructive criticism would be much appreciated! Thanks, -- Katan gais (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited British Empire in World War II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Statute of Westminster. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin
You didn't move the quotation by Pope Pius XII. That's one example. Knowing that tells me you didn't check very carefully. Others shouldn't have to do this for you. So before I have to go in and check every detail, please check again and move all of the deleted content into the article. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer
This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Seem plez  07:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Black Egyptian hypothesis for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Black Egyptian hypothesis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Black Egyptian hypothesis until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jps (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

April 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Shroud of Turin. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.  ——  Serial  14:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Christ myth theory §. Requested move
Per Talk:Christ myth theory §. Requested move 1 October 2021 your input would be appreciated. --2db (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Would you be interested in creating a Requests for comment per the issue of creating two disparate articles Christ myth theory (demythologization) (as endorsed by the Consensus of secular Biblical scholars) and Christ myth theory (mythicism) --2db (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * If you are following this here - I don't actually understand your choice of titles. I would like to pursue a distinction between Christ myth theory and Jesus myth theory. That would more closely follow the authors who "invented" the Theory in the first place. We should probably do it in the same article, because of the over-lap, but draw a more understandable distinction between the two "theories". What do you think? Wdford (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * OK with me, but I would expect a lot of push back to presenting the "Jesus Christ of the doctrine of the Two Natures" viewpoints of Schweitzer, Bultmann, etc. Per the WP article: "Bultmann relied on demythologization, an approach interpreting the mythological elements in the New Testament existentially."
 * --2db (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC) && 17:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

questions
Hello wdford,

How long (how many pages?) is the paper "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" by Robert M. Price? I assume you own your own copy? Would it be possible to get a copy of the paper from you? If not, where should I be able to get a copy of it? Thank you so much for any advice you may be able to provide on the subject. Sincerely, warshy (¥¥) 16:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Try here.   Price's essay starts at page 55. :)  Wdford (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've started reading. Regards, warshy (¥¥) 17:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's nice that with your link I was able to get the entire article (pp. 55-83; 29 pages, pretty long for an article.), plus the first 4 pages of John D. Crossan's reply to Price. As I continue reading, I feel I now have a much better foothold on the whole mess. Your contributions have been eye-opening for me so far. Thank you! warshy (¥¥) 17:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy Edits
This entry was moved to the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy where it belongs. Wdford (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

But
Khirbet Qeiyafa? Doug Weller talk 18:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Potatín5 (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Bismarck
Do you find it curious that Forrest, who hasn’t edited anything besides the Bismarck article and its talk page (and even then, not in several months), shows up exactly 24 hours to the minute after Khamba to agree with their post? Quite a coincidence that they logged in at the same exact time the next day to check their watchlist. Parsecboy (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. Apparently there are ways to check those potential relationships? Wdford (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Copying/moving content within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Clovis culture into Alternatives to the Clovis First theory. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Please don't use article talk pages as forums
I shouldn't have to ask you that. It's just making things worse. Doug Weller talk 14:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I just thought it was interesting. I agree that source is clearly not WP:RS. Wdford (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Possible plagiarism from your content
FYI: I added this to the upcoming issue of The Signpost. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The infobox on South African Border War
Hi Wdford,

Recently there's been a move to strike all supporting actors from the infoboxes of military conflicts. This has resulted in the removal of the Soviet Union and its client states from the infobox of South African Border War. Considering this was effectively a proxy war involving the Soviet Union at the highest level, I think eliminating references to Soviet involvement from the infobox is rather disingenuous. As you've been involved in discussions concerning the infobox before, I'd like to request your input on the talk page. Thanks! Katan gais (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Peninsular War veterans and Waterloo
Hi, I hope the talk page for the Waterloo article is of interest Talk:Battle of Waterloo Keith H99 (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I am a bit busy, but I am with you. :) Wdford (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)