→Request for comment at Dunkirk evacuation: new section |
Thewolfchild (talk | contribs) →Looking for comments: new section |
||
Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
Hi all. I have opened a request for comment at [[Talk:Dunkirk evacuation#Request for comment|Talk:Dunkirk evacuation]], as to whether additional background information should be added to the article. Interested users are invited to participate. — [[User:Diannaa|Diannaa]] ([[User talk:Diannaa|talk]]) 00:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC) |
Hi all. I have opened a request for comment at [[Talk:Dunkirk evacuation#Request for comment|Talk:Dunkirk evacuation]], as to whether additional background information should be added to the article. Interested users are invited to participate. — [[User:Diannaa|Diannaa]] ([[User talk:Diannaa|talk]]) 00:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC) |
||
== Looking for comments == |
|||
In regards to recent edits made to '''the "List of Engagements" in the infoboxes''' for '''[[United States Armed Forces]]''' and '''[[Military history of the United States]]'''. |
|||
*On the '''US Armed Forces''' page, an editor (only one I believe, though they seems to have a habit of editing while logged out) made a series of IP edits, starting with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Armed_Forces&diff=703744534&oldid=703525376 this], and ending with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Armed_Forces&diff=703755639&oldid=703754888 this]. |
|||
*They were [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Armed_Forces&diff=703787804&oldid=703755639 reverted] by another editor. |
|||
*They then promptly [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Armed_Forces&diff=703833347&oldid=703791217 reverted] their changes back in, with the edit summary comment; {{tq|reverting because a simple revert back to a disorganized list simply won't cut it}}. |
|||
*I then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Armed_Forces&diff=703840844&oldid=703833347 reverted] them with the comment; {{tq| You've already been reverted. Go to talk page. per WP:BRD}}. |
|||
*They then apparently signed in and immediately reverted again, with the comment; {{tq|undoing the revert after signing in. My edit is to a superior version, so let's discuss if a change is not liked}} |
|||
*On the '''Military history of the US''' page, the same IP editor made a series of edits, beginning with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_history_of_the_United_States&diff=703745871&oldid=701387250 this] (comment: {{tq|altering list to make it less 20th century-centric}}) and ending with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_history_of_the_United_States&diff=703755590&oldid=703755040 this]. |
|||
*They were again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_history_of_the_United_States&diff=703788023&oldid=703755590 reverted] by another editor, with the comment; {{tq|Reverted unnecessary additions - keep it simple}}. |
|||
*They immediately [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_history_of_the_United_States&diff=703833966&oldid=703788023 reverted] their changes back in again, with the comment; {{tq|added back a few of the wars that are featured prominently in the article, perhaps this is a better compromise}}. |
|||
*I then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_history_of_the_United_States&diff=703841368&oldid=703833966 reverted] them with the comment: {{tq|once reverted, go to talk page per WP:BRD}}. |
|||
*Once again, they suddenly sign into their account and revert their edits back in again with the comment: {{tq|reverting a second time, as BRD is inapplicable and NOT policy}}. |
|||
Now, there are the same (or similar) '''"lists of engagements" in the infoboxes''' on the pages for; |
|||
* [[United States Marine Corps]], |
|||
* [[United States Army]], |
|||
* [[United States Navy]], |
|||
* [[United States Air Force]] and |
|||
* [[United States Coast Guard]]. |
|||
These are long-standing, well-written and widely accepted pages. There are likely similar '''lists''' on countless other related pages, such as for Flag-rank officers, armies, corps, navies, divisions, etc., etc. I happen to agree with the other reverting editor in that these changes to these two pages noted above are unnecessary, they make the lists look somewhat cluttered and crowded with all the dates added. There were also additional engagements/battles/wars added and it may be debatable whether they actually belong. |
|||
I also don't care for this editing style of adding in mass edits as an IP, then once they're reverted, suddenly signing in to revert them back, and continually reverting, to ram them in despite any objections, and refusing to discuss the matter on the talk page, especially when repeatedly requested to do so. Nor are the "my way is better" and "I don't need to discuss this" comments very collegial. |
|||
I would ask that the community review the list of engagements found in the infoboxes of these two pages, both before and after the mass changes, as well as reviewing the lists in all seven articles mentioned for comparison, to see if we can have a consensus as to which version is preferable. If anyone from the community, including any passing admins, would like to offer some advice or guidance to this user in regards to his editing style, that would be good too. Thanks - ''[[User: Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]'' 05:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:17, 13 February 2016
Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
|
Reliability
How reliable is Warfare History Network? DS (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- I welcome other input but based on a quick look I'd say not very. I didn't see anything that suggested peer-reviewed or cited content. My quick search of WP turned up only one occurrence, so it doesn't have much of a track record here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Pity - they've got a rather detailed article about Oreste Pinto. Think it's usable as a source anyway, or better not? DS (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Try WP:RSN. - theWOLFchild 01:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Pity - they've got a rather detailed article about Oreste Pinto. Think it's usable as a source anyway, or better not? DS (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Israel Palestine - A plea for a 100 year narrative
Given the importance of the conflict articles to WP:IPCOLL, I had hoped for more feedback at this RFC, but I think I overcomplicated the description. Some editors may also be thinking "we've been just fine for 10 years so is there really a problem here that needs solving"? I would like to encourage more editors to contribute.
The core issue behind the RFC question is that most readers know very little about the conflict and therefore need one single summary article to read and begin their journey, and we need that single summary article to broadly match the picture that the 1,000s of books summarizing this conflict take. Instead we have sat for many years with three primary articles (IPC since 48, AIC since 48 and ICMP 20-48) which are fine but are missing something above them to thread them together into the 100-year-narrative of the conflict presented by the vast majority of books on the topic.
I recognize that many editors may find the question is a little more dry and boring than many of the debates around the IP space, but its importance to the average Wikipedia reader can hardly be overstated.
Oncenawhile (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- You're right but an article like that will be sabotaged, because it will inevitably demonstrate that the zionist occupation has no legitimacy.Keith-264 (talk) 11:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Geez.. don't hold back. Tell us all how you really feel... - theWOLFchild 17:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- I would kindly request all editors interested in this initiative to avoid inflammatory remarks. Wars often don't happen when right meets wrong, but when right meets right, and there are significant elements of that in the Israeli-Palestine conflict (1917: Israel: we were here 2000 years ago; Arabs: we're here *now!*). @Oncenawhile:, I wish you every success. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. This is not the place for any inflammatory or anti-Semitic comments. - theWOLFchild 05:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- See what I mean? Please keep it civil.Keith-264 (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Is that supposed to be funny? - theWOLFchild 18:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Civility Keith-264 (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Far be it for me to try to do this, but I have to call both of you, Keith-264 and WOLFchild, out. Keith: commission. The first thing you said was inflammatory. User:Oncenawhile and his collaborators are going to try to walk a very fine line, and using inflammatory language immediately was not helpful. If you wish to use this language in regard to this conflict, stay off this site!! WOLFchild, less severe, but omission: anti-Palestinian or anti-Arabic language is just as damaging to the prospects of either creating this projected article, or in the halls of diplomacy, moving to Final Status negotiations. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- I would kindly request all editors interested in this initiative to avoid inflammatory remarks. Wars often don't happen when right meets wrong, but when right meets right, and there are significant elements of that in the Israeli-Palestine conflict (1917: Israel: we were here 2000 years ago; Arabs: we're here *now!*). @Oncenawhile:, I wish you every success. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's an opinion, not a fact and my comment was a fact, not an opinion. I commend Wikipedia:Civility Keith-264 (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Antizionism is the opposite of antisemitism but as I pointed out, bad faith will out. I've had my say but will reply with Wikipedia:Civility to any more false allegations.Keith-264 (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- As we have ably demonstrated in a few short exchanges, this is not an area to be trodden lightly. If there is a stable consensus which allows the situation to be covered at all, is it wise to destabilise it? Also, is this the place to discuss it? While the Israel/Palestine issue has generated lots of military activity, it is much wider than military history. Monstrelet (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Aren't these topics effectively being controlled by Arbcom anyway? - theWOLFchild 18:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Restraining the behavior of editors, perhaps, but Arbcom does not directly control the content. Parsecboy (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- My apologies to @Thewolfchild:. It seems finger trouble on my part inadvertently removed an earlier comment of his, which I was responding to even as I accidentally deleted it!! I'm sorry. I would continue to encourage editors, including User:Keith-264, to avoid saying things that are inflammatory regarding this topic. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- No problem-o Buckshot, I agree with you, I found Keith's comment disconcerting. - theWOLFchild 21:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- My apologies to @Thewolfchild:. It seems finger trouble on my part inadvertently removed an earlier comment of his, which I was responding to even as I accidentally deleted it!! I'm sorry. I would continue to encourage editors, including User:Keith-264, to avoid saying things that are inflammatory regarding this topic. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Restraining the behavior of editors, perhaps, but Arbcom does not directly control the content. Parsecboy (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Aren't these topics effectively being controlled by Arbcom anyway? - theWOLFchild 18:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- As we have ably demonstrated in a few short exchanges, this is not an area to be trodden lightly. If there is a stable consensus which allows the situation to be covered at all, is it wise to destabilise it? Also, is this the place to discuss it? While the Israel/Palestine issue has generated lots of military activity, it is much wider than military history. Monstrelet (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Geez.. don't hold back. Tell us all how you really feel... - theWOLFchild 17:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Civility Try owning your opinionKeith-264 (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep quoting WP:Civil all you like, but maybe you should have a look at WP:INDENT. And MOS:TALK while you're at it. - theWOLFchild 00:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Civility Try owning your opinionKeith-264 (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
(←) Thanks very much, I wondered why some comments crabbed back to the margin like that. Keith-264 (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, I see now... it's deliberate. - theWOLFchild 16:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Military insignia project
A few years ago I embarked on a goal to organize and improve Department of the Navy graphics (mainly medals, ribbons, and decorations for now) on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, school and life got in the way so the project was put on hold. I now have some free time to attempt to start this up again and I was wondering if this project would fall under the realm of this WikiProject. If not, do you have any recommendations on where a better place would be? Evan.oltmanns (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- This would be within our scope, although I do not think that we have a dedicated task force for this...yet. That having been said, the project would also probably be of interest to the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab, so you make wanna work with them if you are going to start up on this again. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Also, it might worth hooking up with the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals too. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- I wish you luck with it Evan, I'll be looking forward to whatever you're able to produce. Wish I had the time (and graphical capabilities) to contribute. Any plans to produce a graphic of the lapel pin versions for civil service members of units awarded unit awards (ie the Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation lapel pin). Gecko G (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Flags in lists of shipwrecks
A discussion is being held at WT:SHIPS#Flags in lists of shipwrecks re the use of ship registry flags in the various lists of shipwrecks (some of which come under the remit of this WP). Please join in the discussion over there. Mjroots (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Germany, Nazi Germany and the Third Reich on Military articles - Oh my!
See this RfC on which name to use in the infoboxes of military unit's active only during the Third Reich/Nazi Germany and leave a well-considered !Vote. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 06:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Category:Ukrainian American Veterans has been nominated for discussion
Category:Ukrainian American Veterans, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Imported scripts for bespoked-up edit functions question
- importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');
- importScript('User:Frietjes/findargdups.js');
- importScript('User:Ucucha/duplinks.js');
- importScript('Wikipedia:AutoEd/complete.js');
- importScript('User:Ohconfucius/script/EngvarB.js');
I have these but wonder if anyone knows of others that might be useful? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
"No." column in lists of military aircraft
The distinction between the column headings "In service" and "No." is not clear, as both are numbers. I have restarted the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Lists#No. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
SFN question
Is there a way to combine a web source which has several urls rather than duplicating the source each time in the references section? I'm having a dash at Convoy HG 76 here User talk:Keith-264/sandbox5 and want to combine each U-boat net citation (if possible). I've tried the advice pages with the usual blank. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware, you can't combine multiple pages from the same website. I tried playing around with how to do the citations here and had to break down and do individual reference entries. Parsecboy (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran a war crime?
This is the claim currently being made on the Allied war crimes during World War II article. The change was reverted yesterday with a request to come back with sources. The user has, although a quick glance at the sources used does not immediately seem to support the edits. Requesting a second set of eyes to vet this. Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Didn't a Crime against peace become one under the UN Charter after the war?Keith-264 (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Request for comment at Dunkirk evacuation
Hi all. I have opened a request for comment at Talk:Dunkirk evacuation, as to whether additional background information should be added to the article. Interested users are invited to participate. — Diannaa (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Looking for comments
In regards to recent edits made to the "List of Engagements" in the infoboxes for United States Armed Forces and Military history of the United States.
- On the US Armed Forces page, an editor (only one I believe, though they seems to have a habit of editing while logged out) made a series of IP edits, starting with this, and ending with this.
- They were reverted by another editor.
- They then promptly reverted their changes back in, with the edit summary comment;
reverting because a simple revert back to a disorganized list simply won't cut it
. - I then reverted them with the comment;
You've already been reverted. Go to talk page. per WP:BRD
. - They then apparently signed in and immediately reverted again, with the comment;
undoing the revert after signing in. My edit is to a superior version, so let's discuss if a change is not liked
- On the Military history of the US page, the same IP editor made a series of edits, beginning with this (comment:
altering list to make it less 20th century-centric
) and ending with this. - They were again reverted by another editor, with the comment;
Reverted unnecessary additions - keep it simple
. - They immediately reverted their changes back in again, with the comment;
added back a few of the wars that are featured prominently in the article, perhaps this is a better compromise
. - I then reverted them with the comment:
once reverted, go to talk page per WP:BRD
. - Once again, they suddenly sign into their account and revert their edits back in again with the comment:
reverting a second time, as BRD is inapplicable and NOT policy
.
Now, there are the same (or similar) "lists of engagements" in the infoboxes on the pages for;
- United States Marine Corps,
- United States Army,
- United States Navy,
- United States Air Force and
- United States Coast Guard.
These are long-standing, well-written and widely accepted pages. There are likely similar lists on countless other related pages, such as for Flag-rank officers, armies, corps, navies, divisions, etc., etc. I happen to agree with the other reverting editor in that these changes to these two pages noted above are unnecessary, they make the lists look somewhat cluttered and crowded with all the dates added. There were also additional engagements/battles/wars added and it may be debatable whether they actually belong.
I also don't care for this editing style of adding in mass edits as an IP, then once they're reverted, suddenly signing in to revert them back, and continually reverting, to ram them in despite any objections, and refusing to discuss the matter on the talk page, especially when repeatedly requested to do so. Nor are the "my way is better" and "I don't need to discuss this" comments very collegial.
I would ask that the community review the list of engagements found in the infoboxes of these two pages, both before and after the mass changes, as well as reviewing the lists in all seven articles mentioned for comparison, to see if we can have a consensus as to which version is preferable. If anyone from the community, including any passing admins, would like to offer some advice or guidance to this user in regards to his editing style, that would be good too. Thanks - theWOLFchild 05:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)