Gerda Arendt (talk | contribs) →A butter tart: Precious |
MarchOrDie (talk | contribs) →Precious: thanks |
||
Line 178: | Line 178: | ||
--[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 07:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC) |
--[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 07:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC) |
||
</div></div> |
</div></div> |
||
:Thank you, that is very much appreciated. --[[User:MarchOrDie|MarchOrDie]] ([[User talk:MarchOrDie#top|talk]]) 14:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:06, 19 March 2013
MarchOrDie, you are invited to the Teahouse
Hi MarchOrDie! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC) |
A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, MarchOrDie. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Again, welcome! Mediran talk to me! 12:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, that is very kind of you. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help with Little Moreton Hall, which I've now nominated for GA. I'd really like one day to get it to FA, but I know that's a big step up. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- You're very welcome, it's been a pleasure and has taught me a lot about the subject. Thanks to you too for all the work you've done on it. --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Fritz Joubert Duquesne
Please clarify your changes to the article. You can clarify here or in the talk section of the article itself. The changes you have made seem to be conjecture to me and it would help if you would add some cites to the support your supposition. Ctatkinson (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- As you can see, my edit was pretty much a simple copyedit. What was it you didn't agree with? --MarchOrDie (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- My mistake. For some reason I thought it was more substantive, but your changes were indeed a copyedit. Thanks for the clarification. Ctatkinson (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
"however"
It's difficult to get people to reduce usage down to what Garner's and Chicago recommend; the WP:MOS page uses "however" 17 times, not counting the subsection on "however". If it's important to you, and if you plan to do more reviewing at FAC, I'll try a bit harder to make the case ... but, I've been making the case for years on Wikipedia and years before that, and ... it's not an easy battle to win. - Dank (push to talk) 01:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's a long battle for clarity and neutrality. It's more allowable in a MoS page or a discussion than it is on a mainspace aticle, in my opinion. The style guideline correctly reflects real-world good practice. Using "however" is one step up from using "fortunately" in an article. Have you seen the great (but so far unresolved) conversation I've been having about ambiguity here and here? --MarchOrDie (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- If a sentence can only reasonably mean one thing, then IMO it doesn't fit the dictionary definition of "ambiguous", though it might be bad style. If I understand right that you're interested in military history, you're more than welcome to copyedit our articles at A-class and FAC, and we'll see how it goes. - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I agree that ambiguity is bad style. I appreciate the invitation to copyedit. I'll see how I go. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- If a sentence can only reasonably mean one thing, then IMO it doesn't fit the dictionary definition of "ambiguous", though it might be bad style. If I understand right that you're interested in military history, you're more than welcome to copyedit our articles at A-class and FAC, and we'll see how it goes. - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Apologies
Hello, I've just removed a grouchy and unfair comment about your review of the F-4 article which I'd never meant to post. I apologise especially for the last bit, as it isn't the slightest bit true (and note that I always try to be totally fair in the reviews I post). The rest of the comments were a much ruder version of the feedback I was planning to provide to you at the conclusion of the review (in short, please don't post 'oppose' votes which aren't simultaneously accompanied by actionable concerns or which relate to material which can be easily fixed by the nominator). I very much appreciate your comments, and think that they've resulted in a stronger article, but the way you've presented them is quite frustrating due to your decision to post an 'oppose' vote for what are minor issues. Again, I'm very sorry for accidentally posting my stress-relieving vent, and apologise for the offense I've caused. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Saw this after I posted above. Two and three years ago, it was quite common to see opposes in Milhist FACs, sometimes over minor issues. Delegates often promoted when there were opposes, too. It may be you're just following your previous FAC experience, MarchOrDie ... just be aware it's not always going to play well these days, but of course, feel free to march to your own drummer. - Dank (push to talk) 03:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- No worries Nick. Peer review is stressful and I've seen a lot worse, believe me. I understand we are all just here to improve the article and that tempers can get raised when people disagree about something they are passionate about. Really, really, no hard feelings at all from my side. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. At very least I owe you a pre-FAC nomination copy edit/informal review; please drop me a note on my talk page at any stage if you'd like to take that up. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, I'll keep that in mind. I'm also sorry if I caused you any stress by the way I reviewed the article. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. At very least I owe you a pre-FAC nomination copy edit/informal review; please drop me a note on my talk page at any stage if you'd like to take that up. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- No worries Nick. Peer review is stressful and I've seen a lot worse, believe me. I understand we are all just here to improve the article and that tempers can get raised when people disagree about something they are passionate about. Really, really, no hard feelings at all from my side. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
.338 Lapua Magnum
You removed information regarding restrictions of civil use of the .338 Lapua Magnum chambering that was and is backed by Wikipedia articles which were internally referenced to.
From Gun politics in Mexico - Type of firearms permitted: High-powered rifles, of repeating or semi-automatic function, non-convertible to full-auto, with the exception of .30 caliber carbines, rifles, moskets and carbines caliber .223, 7 and 7.62mm, and Garand rifles caliber .30.
From Gun politics in Italy - Limitations: Italian gun laws pose restrictions to the kind of firearms and calibers available to civilians. Full-automatic/select-fire firearms (machineguns), grenade launchers, destructive devices and all other kinds of military weapons are forbidden; a prohibited caliber is expressly the 9mm Parabellum, and as a matter of fact all military ammunition (such as 5.7x28mm, 4.6x30mm, .50-BMG and up) are not available to the public. On the other hand, standard military calibers such as 5.56x45mm NATO and 7.62x51mm NATO are available in civilian loads and with civilian denominations (such as .223 Remington, .308 Winchester). Semi-automatic firearms can be bought by licensees without additional restrictions.
I did not write these gun politics articles and what you or I think regarding such gun politics and their limitations is irrelevant for the lawmakers in these jurisdictions.
I assumed you removed the internally referenced information in good faith.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's right, I removed it under the provisions of WP:V which requires that anything liable to be challenged needs to be cited to reliable external sources. A Wikipedia article would not qualify. My preference is to leave the information there but with a {{cn}} tag, to see if someone can find a proper source we can cite. If this cannot be done, we need to remove it as unverifiable. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Would this (http://www.earmi.it/diritto/faq/Sintesi%202012-A4.pdf) suffice as an external reference for Italy?--Francis Flinch (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, ideally it would be an English language source and one with some sort of established reputation for fact-checking. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've now raised this in article talk and perhaps we can continue this conversation there. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Non English law
Laws are generally written in the official language(s) of the jurisdiction. It is not reasonable to expect that laws are translated into English when English is not an official language of that jurisdiction. Gun and hunting laws in jurisdictions that pose severe limitations (Europe is full of them) are also of no interest to many local citizens, since they are not allowed to own and use guns anyhow. So traveling with guns and ammunition to other jurisdictions in real life means one has to pay attention in general and doing homework to avoid problems.--Francis Flinch (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- No doubt. Does the English-language Wikipedia really need to carry information that is only available on a foreign-language primary resource? Truly notable things tend to get translated and recorded in proper secondary English-language sources. And your weak sources only relate to Italy, not Mexico or any other country. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
7part/whales/seealsos
Hey, would you please be sure to engage with 7part before modifying any more of his edits en-masse? thanks!! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- No. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- March, come on. Please be patient. 7part seems willing to discuss; please try to deescalate here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- This constitutes the engagement. I can't believe you just accused me of "edit-warring" for modifying the mass additions this editor made which you acknowledged were inappropriate. Please reconsider your involvement here and try to refocus it in a more competent and considered way. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't accuse you of edit warring? "constitutes the engagement"—yes, it was! I'm just asking you (I already asked 7part) to not edit any more in this narrow area until consensus can be determined, a-la WP:BRD/etc. Any further edits along these lines from either of you probably would be considered edit warring, and I doubt it would be tolerated.
Please reconsider your involvement here and try to refocus it in a more competent and considered way.
—pardon me, I can't parse this and I have no idea what you're talking about. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)- Oh? So what does this edit summary mean then? I went ahead and raised it in project talk like perhaps you should have done. I am sorry you have no idea what I am talking about. Perhaps if you were to think about your involvement here, particularly your edit here, and compare it with what I was doing, you may gain insight into why your involvement here (so far) does not look particularly clueful. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh? So what does this edit summary mean then?
—It means exactly what it says: I am hoping you two and others can come to some agreement before mass-editing articles again. Why are you so combative here? I made a big deal about it on 7part's talk page, and I was thinking it would be pretty frustrating for 7part if you continued any of these edits without discussion after I had said that and 7part had started trying to engage in a more constructive way—because of that I wanted to drop you a note here.Perhaps if you were to think about your involvement here
—I haven't forgotten my edit, but I still don't understand your point. If you have one that you are interested in getting across, please lay it out clearly. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)- No worries, I know you were only trying to help. You'll get more mileage when you mediate by not joining the dispute yourself, and by not using prejudicial words like "edit-war". Taking it to a central venue is another obvious thing you can do to resolve a dispute. Chiding someone for doing exactly the same thing you have done yourself looks... bad. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
You'll get more mileage when you mediate by not joining the dispute yourself
—I'm not trying to mediate anything, MarchOrDie. My only goal here was to try to get 7part to not make these edits again without getting everyone on board. In any case, though, I disagree—often the disputants are the ideal mediators; if things can be worked out among the editors involved that is usually best, I think.Chiding someone for doing exactly the same thing you have done yourself looks... bad
—Oh dear; what did I do? I chided 7part for making dozens of edits that he knew were controversial and I chided you for your belligerence and this, which is not an acceptable approach to editing here. What are you referring to? If I behaved poorly in all this I apologize and would certainly appreciate an explicit pointer; I'm having trouble reading between the lines here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)- You're apparently having trouble reading full stop. It's apparent to me at this point that it's more important to you to win the argument than it is to improve the articles, or to exercise intelligence and discretion as an administrator is supposed to. That's disappointing, but I don't want to seem, er, belligerent, so I'll leave you to get on with whatever it is you were doing. I think the content issue is safely taken care of, and thank you for your effort in trying to get involved. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Um, ok—you're welcome, I guess? Were we even having an argument? Well if I am doing something wrong or do in the future please don't hesitate to drop me a note/email/etc. thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- You're apparently having trouble reading full stop. It's apparent to me at this point that it's more important to you to win the argument than it is to improve the articles, or to exercise intelligence and discretion as an administrator is supposed to. That's disappointing, but I don't want to seem, er, belligerent, so I'll leave you to get on with whatever it is you were doing. I think the content issue is safely taken care of, and thank you for your effort in trying to get involved. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- No worries, I know you were only trying to help. You'll get more mileage when you mediate by not joining the dispute yourself, and by not using prejudicial words like "edit-war". Taking it to a central venue is another obvious thing you can do to resolve a dispute. Chiding someone for doing exactly the same thing you have done yourself looks... bad. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oh? So what does this edit summary mean then? I went ahead and raised it in project talk like perhaps you should have done. I am sorry you have no idea what I am talking about. Perhaps if you were to think about your involvement here, particularly your edit here, and compare it with what I was doing, you may gain insight into why your involvement here (so far) does not look particularly clueful. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't accuse you of edit warring? "constitutes the engagement"—yes, it was! I'm just asking you (I already asked 7part) to not edit any more in this narrow area until consensus can be determined, a-la WP:BRD/etc. Any further edits along these lines from either of you probably would be considered edit warring, and I doubt it would be tolerated.
A barnstar for you!
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
For contributing 1,095 diverse Wikispace edits faster than any new user I have ever seen (just 44 days)! Quite an impressive accomplishment, well done! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC) |
- Thank you. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
"Put to work" versus "put to labour"
Doesn't one normally talk about prisoners being "put to labour" rather than "put to work"? CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 07:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- "Put to labor" is fairly common in American English, but it has a legalistic flavour there. "Put to labour" is unknown in British English and sounds downright funny to a British ear. "Put to work" seems to mean the same thing for fewer syllables and gives more universal comprehensibility for our mixed audience. I'd be open to alternatives like "forced to work". One other reason I dislike "put to labor" is that it is principally used in a legal context and what was done to Jews and other victims of the Holocaust was the epitome of illegality. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm Canadian, and spell like one when I'm not editing American articles. "Put to labour" would definitely be the Canadian way to say it, and "put to work" definitely sounds strange to my ears. I'll change it to "forced to work". CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 22:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- "Forced to work" is definitely better. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm Canadian, and spell like one when I'm not editing American articles. "Put to labour" would definitely be the Canadian way to say it, and "put to work" definitely sounds strange to my ears. I'll change it to "forced to work". CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 22:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Star Wars and Indiana Jones connection
Hello, I overhauled Star Wars and Indiana Jones connection by removing much of the trivia (for which I could not find reliable sources) and adding a "Shared themes" section. I think the article is in much better shape. While it is more sparse, I think there is a stronger case for having a stand-alone article as long as the standard is maintained. Please let me know at the AfD discussion what you think. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree it does look better now, but I regretfully still think it should be deleted. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Your edit summary at Bath School disaster
I actually don't disagree with your removal of that somewhat purple prose but I wish you would have just deleted the unsourced content if you wished and then perhaps stated an edit summary along the lines of 'deleted redundant/unneeded text' but not included that particular opinion. Shearonink (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I tell it like it is. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- So far as I know, keeping edit summaries as dispassionate as possible isn't against some Wikipedia guideline. Shearonink (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Absolutely, but only as dispassionate as possible. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- So far as I know, keeping edit summaries as dispassionate as possible isn't against some Wikipedia guideline. Shearonink (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Little Moreton Hall
Just to let you know that I've picked this for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 12, 2013. Hope this is OK. If you want to tweak the blurb before it appears on the main page, please do. Congratulations on a lovely article! Regards, BencherliteTalk 11:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- I see you doing great copy-editing on TFAs. Could you go over Messiah (Handel) (and related articles Messiah structure, I II III) before it goes to the Main page, please? - (translator of - part of LMH to German) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for asking. I will be happy to have a look. I should be able to do this later today. --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Take your time, 23 March is the day, please be easy on the Main article, two great authors to respect. I was the only one for the others, and English is not my first language. - Belated (I missed you as co-author, don't miss the stats):
SG for Little Moreton Hall
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
another constellation.....
I am buffing Canis Minor and have it listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/Canis Minor/archive1 - all input helpful as I'm feeling a little blocked on this one.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- I took a quick pass. It's another nice article. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Checking facts with sources
I saw your work on 2013 meat adulteration scandal. I think the article 2013 Russian meteor event need some sanity check when it comes to what the article says and the sources backs. I found "1000 ton" when three sources immediately specified "10 ton" despite the correct answer (from NASA) was 1000 ton. So I suspect there's other mismatches between facts and sources in the article. Electron9 (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- NASA are saying 10 000 ton. The 10 ton figure is more widely reported but is incorrect. -- 79.70.229.101 (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. --MarchOrDie (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Correct 10 000 ton ;-) .. still the article needs some serious sanity check. Electron9 (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
A butter tart
- That's very kind of you. I enjoyed working with you and I think the end result was a good one. --MarchOrDie (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Precious
Little Moreton Hall
Thank you for reading a lot and then improving even the best of articles ("remove "in fact"; this is an encyclopedia and it should be safe to assume that everything here is factual"), such as Little Moreton Hall, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, that is very much appreciated. --MarchOrDie (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)