This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.
A few features that you might find helpful:
Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
If you have an idea for improving the project, we have a strategy think tank that provides a dedicated forum for discussing it.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Woody (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Otr500 (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
I do not know this person. I am Not on a shared computer or network. I am the only person on this computer and we live in the country. I do not know what the mix up is but would someone please unblock my account--check out the problem and let me know what the problem was? I am pretty sure that someone out side Wikipedia could not randomly guess or pick an 8 digit code utilizing numbers and letters--that includes capitals but if this could be remotely possible I will go to a 10 digit code. Again--I would like to know the possible reasons why or how this could happen and any solutions since I am pretty sure this Mr. "Tommy2010sucks" has no way--or should have no way--to access my IP address.
Sorry, no idea why you would have been hit with that autoblock. I've cleared that one. If it happens again we can make your account exempt to those kinds of blocks. Kuru(talk) 02:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I hope it doesn't happen again but if so it is good to know there are solutions.
Venting
ANI notice on Moses
Since you commented on earlier discussions of this subject, you can hopefully add some input to this ANI on Moses. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I would but I can't because it fell into an ANI black hole. Otr500 (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems that new topics eventually moved this one (see #35) off the main page. I think any new comments should be just added to talk:Moses. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I've replied to your question at ANI, but in case that disappears before you see it too I thought I'd paste it here:
There's a big search box at the top of this page that searches the ANI archives. Entering 'moses' gives this result. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Duplication
Reasons some should not edit
Below are examples of how not to have a NPOV;
)- This article should focus on the Trinitarian view, and summarize the other views in enough detail (doesn't have to be that much) that the reader knows the main issues of divergence. However, to avoid confusion and maintain WP:NPOV, this article should always make it clear, at least from the context, that it is referring to the Trinitarian view, and avoid endorsing Trinitarianism or assuming that it is the only view. 1:20 pm, 15 May 2009, Friday (1 year, 2 months, 6 days ago) (UTC−5)
2)- I disagree, I think it does give too much prominence to fairly small groups like Non-Trinitarian and Pentecostal sects. And while it is maybe okay to mention other religions like Judaism, Islam or Rastafarianism, their views are very similar to the non-Trinitarian groups that are not accepted within mainstream Trinitarian Christianity. The Catholic-Orthodox-Protestant Church should get the most space because it has 99 % of all Christian believers. 10:02 am, 15 May 2009, Friday (1 year, 2 months, 6 days ago) (UTC−5) -Otr500 (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
3)- I agree with ----- suggestion, assuming that we leave a sufficient summary in this article. There ought to be a Religious perspectives on the Holy Spirit article which would focus on the divergent views, and include both nontrinitarian and non-Christian views. This article should focus on the Trinitarian view, and summarize the other views in enough detail (doesn't have to be that much) that the reader knows the main issues of divergence. However, to avoid confusion and maintain WP:NPOV, this article should always make it clear, at least from the context, that it is referring to the Trinitarian view, and avoid endorsing Trinitarianism or assuming that it is the only view. ----- 1:20 pm, 15 May 2009, Friday (1 year, 2 months, 6 days ago) (UTC−5) Otr500 (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
ANI on Moses
Duplication
Hi. I noticed a fair amount of duplication in this post you made. Would you mind refactoring it? Thanks! — JeffG. ツ 17:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
A "fair amount" was sort of a nice understatement. Thank you. Otr500 (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
DYK for La. hwy 975
My take
I have my beliefs just as everyone else. I am passionate concerning how and why I believe the way I do. Although lacking in formal education I believe my informal education, being somewhat equal to the lower echelon of the adequately papered intellectuals, except maybe lacking a little finesse, to be at least rounded enough to sustain my need to search for knowledge. I try to be thorough in research and my quest to obtain knowledge is only matched by my intentions to be productive in life. I do have the propensity to appear "dry" in my discussions but, as I am lighthearted in person, I strive to be dedicated to factual information. Any perceived "dryness" is unintentional but I will not hasten to be bold when called for.
I probably differ from many in that I feel it is not my direction to try to discuss, and certainly not "preach" (and I am no preacher), to anyone not willing to listen. I also feel that it is not anyone's job description to determine, try to determine, or even think about the possibility of a persons direction in the afterlife. There is one judge and I will be satisfied (like there would be a choice) with the Judge's decision. I have taken a liking to Wikipedia and the idea so adding information when I can is rewarding.
Please be understanding if there is some delay in any responses. We recently lost almost everything in a house fire and by necessity changed towns and soon will begin a new job. It is a challenge to begin to gather things all over again but we were not home so no one was hurt. Otr500 (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Unblock
DYK for Louisiana Highway 975
On 2 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Louisiana Highway 975, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
In Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg you removed the {{fictionrefs}} tag. Whoever put that tag in did so incorrectly as it is only to be used in wikiarticles about works of fiction. The more appropriate tag to have used would have been {{In popular culture}}, which reads:
This "In popular culture" section may contain minor or trivial references. Please reorganize this content to explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances, and remove trivial references.
Do you think that, had that one been the one used, it might still apply? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 20:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
This tag is more appropriate so I included it,--Thanks. Otr500 (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I just noticed that. By the way, you should not cut and paste another editor’s actual signature with the colors, formatting, etc. It makes it look like they signed it. Usually one just types something like User:SpikeToronto to refer to another editor. Thanks Otr and have fun! — SpikeToronto 04:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the help and cooperation. Sorry about the unintended proxy signing. I wanted to credit you with the suggestion since there are issues, save a step we agree on, and learned about signatures (and unintended forgery) along the way. I am glad you realized it was a mistake. Learn every day right? I am looking into what can be done for improvements but this is a difficult section that I will steer away from on my articles for now. --Returns thanks. Otr500 (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
LSU Ambassador invitation
Wikipedia Campus Ambassadors wanted at LSU
Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you are listed as a Wikipedian in Louisiana. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors to help with Wikipedia assignments at Louisiana State University, which will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester. The role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.
Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).
If you live near Baton Rouge and you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador, or know someone else from the area who might be, please email me or leave a message on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the invitation but I live about 135 miles from Baton Rouge.
User page error
Re: your userpage
Hi there. Just stumbled onto your page in my Wayward Wikipedia Wandering ;). I noticed in the section titled "Interests" you mention being a "WikiInfant" and that you "made these words up". I found this amusing because (and you may be surprised at the coincidence) there already existed a page which mentions these same words and describes them tongue-in-cheek as various 'stages' in a Wikipedian's 'editing career'. Have a look at Wikipedia:Seven Ages of Wikipedians and see which you best classify as. ;) -- Ϫ 14:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so very much and I absolutely did not know this so am surprised. I am also glad that you are a "Wayward Wikipedia Wanderer" and wonder if this name is mentioned somewhere. I will look at your observations and edit accordingly. Goes to show that I am new right? Otr500 (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
WPUS invitation
Invitation to join WikiProject United States
Hello, Otr500/Archive 1! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!
Welcome to the project. --Kumioko (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you but I will be going inactive for a while and maybe permanently. I dislike the direction that one has to take to continue good things and if the merits of argument can not be weighed fairly, and replies can not be offered using sound reasoning, then they are of no use. I think I will explore a more useful vehicle for my time. Thanks again. Otr500 (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Otr500. You have new messages at Talk:Claus von Stauffenberg. Message added 06:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi, I saw your notice that you were leaving but I am taking the chance that you will pop in to see this message. I was very impressed with your research and comments about this site. I have commented a couple times to what you have said but I would like to bring to your attentions specifically my last few comments here. I go on to suggest that we should go and try to have the site blacklisted. I am hoping you will see and be able to give some more input on what I am recommending. I hope to see you there and thank you for such a wonderful comments about what you found. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Although I din't agree that we shoudl eliminate the Find a grave site from WP I was also very impressed and grateful for the time you took in detailing that. Great job. --Kumioko (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I am just upset at things I see going on that seem to be allowed by process of time or by Wikilawyering. The whole idea of consensus is hampered when a few no more of how to work the system than a majority and use this to further an agenda.
I have added a lengthy comment on the page. I understand the intent of suggesting a blacklisting but the problem is that with a plan and consensus there can be a solution implemented to ensure Wikipedia integrity. I have poked around a little and think the idea of links that might provide other areas of research not detrimental. The mention of pictures of graves does not seem bad. Propagating the creation of articles that are not sourced is a serious problem.
The whole Find a Grave project needs to be examined. There needs to be stringent guidelines, warnings not to use any of these sites as an only source, warnings concerning the possibility of linking to sites that might contain copyright infringements, and other such things to protect Wikipedia as well as new editors. Integrating copy right material is still copy right infringement even if by proxy. The point is that there is a problem (big) and any solutions have been hampered (by and for whatever reasons) so that it just continues.
Making a project page, that really serves no purpose except to appease some, and that will not actually change anything, is not a solution. It is a start but so not complete. A group of editors that realize there is a problem can find common ground that will benefit Wikipedia. If there are any that has another agenda they need to either leave or be ferreted out.
If some solution can not be found, and I hope all will await some outcome, then I will start tagging an enormous volume of articles with the intent of seeking AFD's. It would not take a rocket scientist to calculate that this would involve many articles. This is not my intention at present. It is also not my intent to make threats. I could simply have started a cowboy crusade that would be supported by policy and Wikipedia. I really do not want to do this and prefer a group (the more the merrier) to work up a solution with consensus. Consensus will not only solve the problem but will result in guidelines and/or policies that will prevent things like this from happening in the future. I am not experienced in wordings or the process that will garner support and pass review. I can tell the difference in feeble wording. I have not performed any edits or made suggestions for the project page because I must see that there is serious intent. I have also not edited any articles that involve Find A Grave (or the others) because if consensus can not be achieved I will simply concur that an alternative (maybe radical) plan is needed.
If there is an agenda to prevent this it will become obvious. In that case I will, after learning more or with help, change the way I approach things. Maybe I am an idealist but does this not seem fair? Otr500 (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The major problem I am seeing with process is being told there is no consensus, without a dif(s) unless I missed this, or being told that we are at the wrong location to attain a consensus. I have now asked again, I believe this has been asked before since I started this discussion, where this discussion should be held where editors wouldn't be accused of forun shopping. Like you, I am getting frustrated about this discussion. I can understand that editors have discussed this many times in the past are also tired of the discussion going on again. It's tiring to keep having the same discussion over and over again, at least that's my experience. That said, my experience has only been in article talk space or places like AN/i. I don't usually get involved in discussion at policy pages mainly because of the behaviors now seen though the behavior for the most part has been pretty polite which is nice. To be honest, I was going to unwatch this page after my question which got called, well you know so no need to say it again, got hatted. I was very upset by that and felt it wasn't worth it to be treated that way when I was polite and was trying to get a feel for how editors in the discussion felt about blacklisting. As seen, it apparently seriously backfired. :( I am open to changing my mind about Find a Grave and even imdb.com if someone(s), anyone could give a convincing reason for them. I do not feel that F-a-G should be used a source and from the discussion, I thought everyone agreed to this. I went to an article and removed it from an article that looked like it was expanded after the F-a-G was added as a source and to EL. I got reverted. I thought that WP:ELPEREN was allowable to use as a reason for removing this yet I was told that it wasn't a policy or a guideline (which I understand).
If you decide to go to what you call 'radical plans' please ping me because I would be happy to help you. I would like to get this resolve so, yes, count me in as someone who would like to help. I like you ideas and your thoughts are along the same as my own. I still think going to blacklist or even whitelist should be checked into to see if this is a way to go with this. I still do not understand where or when and who decided the Find a Grave and Imdb are acceptable. I remove Imdb as source and that I get support for but if you remove it from EL you will probably get reverted in quite quickly at that. If you check out different articles about actors/actresses you can't miss that imdb is in the EL. There are wiki project WP:Films and WP:Actor in case you are not aware of this. --CrohnieGalTalk 19:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I just want to bring this to your attentions so you don't miss it. Well it does explain why it's in so many articles EL section. Now I think is the time to remove the coutesy of putting it in so many articles since most editor are aware of the site by now. Thoughts? --CrohnieGalTalk 13:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I have a question for you if you don't mind, I hope you don't. :) With F-a-G and the research you are doing, do you have a subpage or something that you are working from that lists the different articles and things you have been discussing or are you going from memory to make the comments you have made at WP:ELPEREN? As you should know, I agree with what you are saying about the use of this site and would like to help where I can. Just so you know, we recently had a family member murdered so I will be on site very limited since I will be away from my computer starting later today. This has also caused a flare up of my Crohn's disease so I really have a lot going on in RL. That being said though, I find Wikipedia to be very helpful to me to forget about RL when I have something I believe in to work on, like this. I should be back to my computer either Monday or Tuesday. I work on WP usually every morning (est) for a few hours. So, now that you know what's going on with me, how can I help you? Seriously, I want to help and since the idea of blacklisting the site failed so far it will make the work in my opinion much more difficult. Blacklisting at least we could have asked for the aid of a bot to clean things up. I'm not sure if a bot could help with the clean up that is now being discussed though. This might be something worth checking into though. With thousands of articles the work is going to long and hard unless there are a large group of us willing to check every article and do what is needed to make sure everything in the article is in compliance with core policies. I have to admit my shock when I saw that the F-a-G link was put into articles as a kind of thank you. We also need to figure out I think the editors who are interested in keeping this site, why they want it. I think the same thing goes for the imdb.com site because I've seen editors admit that they are actors in minor rolls who want the imdb in so they are seen which brings us to WP:COI violations. I have to admit that when I brought my questions about these two site I did not expect what has happened with the long discussion and the disagreements. I thought my question was I guess kind of a 'slam dunk' situation meaning that it was easy to see that the two sites shouldn't be used the way they are being used. I have asked a couple of times now how it became policy to have these links put into EL, but I have yet to see an answer. Maybe it has been answered and I just missed it. (?) Well anyways, please let me know how I can help. aIf you wouldn't mind please ping me on my talk page (the talk back template is allowed on my talk page), also my email is enabled at my talk page, feel free to use it but keep in mind I am leaving late today. Thank you again for your research into all of this. I am very impressed, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Cronie Gal, I am sorry to hear of your loss. I do not have a place with things written. I just remember them (at least most) when I research. I have been working 12 hour days so will reply when I can. I will wait until you return and discuss things then.
I think you are misunderstanding what was said. I can't speak for why other editors where adding the link but I believe most editors including myself were not putting it there as a thank you but as an acknowledgment that the site has additional information relating to the individual. With that said I still believe that to not allow the site to be used for specfic information is a major mistake as it will make it difficult to find information on certain Notable biographical articles which will thereby extend a disservice to our readers. --Kumioko (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying. My problems are still with the use as an EL when it is an only link. My concerns are still that there are copyright issues. I have a serious issue as to why all articles that are on a Find a Grave list needs to be linked back to that site in articles. If I had an issue with Find a Grave period I would seek a different direction. I have not advocated removal at all, but there are issues that must be resolved. Otr500 (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Personally I agree that not all need the link especially for such people like Albert Einstein, Douglas MacArthur and the like whose lives have been documented in great detail. However the site does offer information in most cases that is not otherwise available on most other notable biographies including images of the grave or details (or links to the Find a grave articles) about family or relationships that either aren't allowed or are innapropriate to be placed here. Good examples are, as I have mentioned before, Medal of Honor recipients, Victoria cross recipients, other military personnel, actors, politicians and sports figures, etc who meet wikipedias general notability requirements but whose lives have not been documented in as great of detail. I also believe that although there may be copyright or other issues with some of the Find a grave entries it is fairly rare and much of the discussions that would state that this represents the majority is unfair and an assumption of bad faith. I also believe that the arguments that this site shouldn't be used due to being a commercial site are irrelevent. --Kumioko (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Taken off talk page
}}
New WikiProject United States Newsletter: February 2011 edition
Starting with the February 2011 issueWikiProject United States has established a newsletter to inform anyone interested in United States related topics of the latest changes. This newsletter will not only discuss issues relating to WikiProject United States but also:
and changes to Wikipolicy, events and other things that may be of interest to you.
You may read or assist in writing the newsletter, subscribe, unsubscribe or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following this link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page or the Newsletters talk page.
--Kumioko (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Good spot! That's probably been sitting there a while! GedUK 11:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Mileva Maric
Mileva Maric Talk page: Notes and references
Otr500: I appreciate the point you make in the new section "Notes and references" on the Mileva Maric Talk page, but it involves quite a lot of work, especially for someone who has no idea (without researching the appropriate Wikipedia instructions) how to set about condensing repeated citations. Anyway, from a personal point of view, although I have contributed to the Mileva Maric page, at the moment I am too busy to take on this task. If you can't do it, we can only hope someone else will notice your new comment and take the appropriate action. Esterson (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
So we are quite clear and there is no misunderstanding, I did WP:undo one of your prior versions, but I never "WP:reverted" it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Well thank you I guess. I did not know there was a difference. I read, "The MediaWiki software sometimes enables editors to easily revert (or "undo"), so what is the main difference? Otr500 (talk) 11:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Leaking spam
Please consider what your statements about the intent of people really mean...
Taking this off the discussion page....
WP:NPA is a pretty important policy. You have made statements about the intent of people working on the Find-A-Grave project, claiming - just about - that they intend to do harm to Wikipedia. It'pretty hard to not read you as making statements about my intentions when I'm a major contributor on that project - statements that I feel are attacks on my integrity as a Wikipedian.
Please - think carefully about what you're saying. And if it's what you intend to say .... we have a problem. --Alvestrand (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea to what you are referring. I did not know that you were a major contributor to the Find a Grave project, in no way was making personal attacks directed at you or any particular editor, and certainly did not attempt to attack your integrity. I only looked up your user name because of your comments here. I also noticed what seems to me (my opinion is allowed) to be back door comments from other editors. The comments you removed (I looked up trying to see what I said to offend you) as being stated in anger includes, "I see statements (that I think are from you)", and I wonder why you didn't ask for clarification. I am fairly new to Wikipedia, state this regularly, and as in this case, I feel you may have read more into my ability (or inability) than I am deserving of. I learn pretty fast, feel I have a decent education, and strive for 100% fairness, but outside of reading the policies a few hundred times I can get lost concerning Wikipedia fairly easy. I can just as easily make an inadvertent statement, although I try to proof read to help ensure the unlikeliness, I can and do make mistakes. With that said I feel it would have been far more productive for you to comment on concerns before taking arms.
I am seriously hurt that you issued a warning comment, that also carries what I perceive as a threat (And if it's what you intend to say .... we have a problem) since I have no idea to what you are referring to be able to know if it is actually what I intended to say. Your warning includes (as justification) the words, claiming - just about -. I have no idea to what you are referring but yet you chose to feel I attacked you, hence the warning, and not assuming good faith and just asking for clarification. Guessing (especially the claiming - just about - part) and making serious unfounded (in my opinion) accusations do not help the project or Wikipedia. I would point out that the above mentioned WP:NPA includes, The appropriate response to an inflammatory statement is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy. Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack. Because you use "Please consider" before what I feel is serious accusations does not make it any less serious just polite. Surmising and hypothesis are not justification for accusations and not providing the instances that provoked your comments do not help. I can not explain or defend something without knowing what is being referred to.
I may have a problem with some of your actions but I do not have a problem with any editor. Unless you can point to comments directed at you I will politely ask you to refrain from unsubstantiated accusations as it is too easy to ask for clarification and then you can have the opportunity to know if there is a problem.
I still have issues with the Find a Grave project instructions (listed on the essay) as well as Find a Grave being used as a source or reference. I have actually supported the use of Find a Grave as an external link even though having issues. It is my opinion that Find a Grave used as a source or reference does harm to Wikipedia. It is also my opinion that certain instructions (Find a Grave project) are worded to cause confusion and are conflicting. I do not feel either action was by intent of harm by any editor. I also feel that it is my right as an editor, in good faith, to comment on these things. If we have a problem because of this then let me know and we can seek appropriate measures to alleviate the problem or exculpate one of us. I had chosen to ignore your comments but decided I must reply to the accusations. I ascribe to staying cool and can let water run under the bridge unless this is not possible. I am open to comments but please be civil in any response. Otr500 (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Preference changes
Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.
On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.
For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.
Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I have chosen to abstain for a short time to see if others thought I was doing anything wrong. It is apparent that there is pronounced fairness and research before comments from editors that have replied. Otr500 (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I just read the comment you made that WhatamIdoing mentions above. I also noticed your concerns about an editor saying that AN/i should be used when the links are removed or moved. Do not worry about this since the work you do you utilize the talk page and the edit summary showing the policies and guideline that you are going by to make your changes. If you end up at AN/i though please ping me at my talk page to let me know because I would definitely be interested in making a comment about whatever is being said esp. I would think that it would be a major point violation to bring anyone to AN/i who is making edits in regards to policies and guidelines with assumption of good faith being ignored. I find your arguments to be very solid and your use of the proper policies and guidelines makes it even stronger to argue against what you are saying which is part of the problem I think some editors are having in trying to debate you. When an editor argues with the proper policies and guidelines backing them up it can get very frustrating to debate that editor. I know of another editor who uses policies and guidelines when he makes his arguments and he also gets a lot of heat from editors who disagree but don't know how to counter what he said with other policies to back them up. Like I've said before, but it's worth repeating I think, if you need any help please do not hesitate to ping me. I will try to give a fair and honest answer to whatever it is you would like another opinion about. I am not saying I will agree with you or disagree with you, only that I will try to give my opinions on any given situation. With the way things keep spirilling lately, I am about to take the time to read about WP:Whitelist and WP:BLACKLIST to see if this is route to take already. Also, I don't know if it would be forum shopping if we were to take a couple of articles that uses the Find a Grave and other external links that are just automatically dropped into EL's without any concern for anything, like policies and guidelines. I am thinking that maybe we could try for a consensus at either reliable source noticeboard or maybe this could go to WP:Village pump. I'm not sure which would be best to go to try to get a consensus on this already. Maybe I'll ask around to some of the editors and/or administrators that have been here a long time to see what suggestions I get. Would you be up to doing something like this if I can find where to go to? The reason I ask is you make your arguments much clearer and precise than I do so I was hoping that if I can find the right location that you would be willing to make the first comment with me following after you. Thanks again for all your hard work. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your support. It is amazing how one can be attacked on so many different levels and for nothing more than doing the right thing. I have not replied to the MFD yet and my suspicions have been verified that Wikipedia, as with all things in life having flaws, but the idea envisioned by the founder is validated in instances such as this. I have seen fairness, attention to facts, and the ability of others to see through smoke that is astounding. I do not fear an ANI and only had some apprehension about a nomination to delete that I actually was certain to be forthcoming. Your support and acknowledgment of my intentions and actions are appreciated.
Ignored concerns: What is ironic is that my concerns, that have been repeatedly ignored by members involved that support Find a Grave, are not only justified but will continue to be an issue until resolved. I have a problem understanding why my comments about concerns of the Find a Grave project instructions have been ignored. If this is not addressed I feel that those pages involved should be presented to the community for examination. In the end I feel it will be determined that instructions from a project that violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines are detrimental. Instructions that are worded to be vague, thus inviting errors, as well as instructions that are self-contradictory and confusing are not exempt.
I felt with certainty, even while continually asking for collaboration and involvement for consensus before action, that my beliefs and subsequent actions are supported by Wikipedia. It is amazing that for unknown reasons my comments, concerning my intentions lacking constructive involvement, was ignored. It also did not surprise me that someone would attempt a fishing expedition with something such as an ANI comment. If others saw any violations and commented there would be justification to proceed. I do feel that such comments, totally unfounded, are unnecessary personal attacks and by comments, " I still think the solution is to take editors involved to ANI for their actions ", even (plural being editors) includes you. ::ANI comments: The (ANI) comments are amazing since there is no evidence of wrong doing or any actions that are in violation of any Wikipedia policies and guidelines or actions not in good faith. The good news is, as this certainly would be an option, I feel such unwarranted action would backfire and I would, lacking any evidence, advise against it. Of course my opinions have not seemed to matter before now so who knows right! I feel the Wikipedia community will take serious exceptions to editors using any unfounded tactics to disrupt Wikipedia.
My involvement from the beginning has been that external links are inappropriately used on Wikipedia. The evidence I presented also includes the use of Find a Grave as a source or reference, that is clearly against consensus, the Find a Grave project instructions, and the many mentioned policies and guidelines. Repeated calls for discussions and corrections have gone unheeded. Repeated comments concerning the Find a Grave project instructions have been ignored. I feel that this will not have a positive outcome for Find a Grave as any link in the future. It makes me wonder if my lack of experience on Wikipedia could have been confused with something akin to ignorance, inability to follow established policies and guidelines, or ability to research and be thorough. I am just stating that my many concerns and comments referencing observed violations to these policies and guidelines, what I perceive as serious issues with the Find a Grave project guidelines, lack of comments or corrections, and what I perceive as hostilities and obvious decisions to ignore me, surely had to have a beginning. I felt I was clear, showing that I want to be fair, but that issues need to be corrected. There was an edit to make some changes to the instructions but I feel that consensus will ultimately prove this to be feeble and inadequate.
The MFD: I feel that a consensus of editors will see the immense benefits of this essay as an important part of Wikipedia. I would sincerely like to see more neutrally involved editors to gain a wider community consensus so that external link issues could be resolved now and in the future.
The essay: I find it strange that I would be accused of using the essay, as if it were policy, as reasons to "mass delete" Find a Grave links when my actions, noticed and noted by other editors, proved the accusations false. I have not even edited the essay because there was such animosity that I felt it would be yet another battle that would only be a distraction from my serious concerns.
Possible future actions: With the lack of willingness to examine, let alone admit there are errors, no attempts to correct these errors, editors attempts (this is my opinion which includes the MFD, circular discussions with no intended solution, what I perceive as talk page attacks, and comments concerning ANI) to disrupt Wikipedia. I feel that I will have to admit that all the stated good in Find a Grave as an external link, at this time, is far outweighed by what I feel is the current and future damage to Wikipedia. If there is some consensus involving two or more editors, that this route is necessary I would participate. It would take editors, especially some of those involved with the Find a Grave project, to be open to discussions concerning correcting the instructions, assistance to correct the multitude of errors in articles, and this would include a willingness to compromise, that I also believe will be difficult. I will not take any actions until the conclusion of the MFD. If there is a consensus to keep then I will be prepared to make more informed decisions. This does not mean I will stop my edits to correct errors in articles and with that I would appreciate help. Otr500 (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The only problem with the very long discussion here is that yourself and a couple of the other users would not be satisfied unless those of us that do use the find a grave website agree that it be banned and stripped from all articles. Since that isn't likely to happen there is no reason to have the discussion you are speaking of. The find a grave website has continuously received consensus or at least deleting it couldn' get consensus and continuing to submit it every month is just wasting people time. Deleting this site and banning it from WP would lead to large chunks of vital information such as birth, death and burial informaton to be deleted from articles, likely leading to the article itself being deleted due to the non availability of any meaningful content. That would be a far greater detriment to WP than allowing the link to be used. --Kumioko (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
You are absolutely 100% wrong and my comments have shown this over and over again even recently. I am now so utterly amazed at your statement that it just boggles my mind. I am asking in a nice way if you make these statements to pick fights or just do not actually read comments. I will post this in the best English I can; I have had no intentions now or from the beginning to have Find a Grave deleted from Wikipedia. If there is no plan, as you have so plainly stated are your intentions not to be part of, to work on correcting obvious problems then, and I have plainly stated this, I will look at other options. I have had two editors enter tentative dialog to address concerns and am willing to discuss these. So it will be perfectly clear; I have had no intentions to have Find a Grave banned or deleted from Wikipedia. Surely I do not need to type this again. If you or anyone else has grievances with the fact that Find a Grave is not acceptable as a source or reference then I am not the one you should be addressing. I was not involved in the discussions to form the consensus. I have plainly stated my issues and just recently was told that repeating them would not make them more serious. This is actually amusing as now you make me look back to see what would make you post these comments. I assume it is because you have taken a position that you are right about something (not sure what) and that you have no plans to compromise. I would also not be so secure that consensus can not ever change and that there may be more willing to step up to the plate than you think. If you have gotten the just of my comments now then possibly you can move on from the deletion thoughts to improving Wikipedia. If not then have a nice day. Otr500 (talk) 03:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like to have the editors posting here, along with the others, to see my comment here. I checked into the VA and a couple of others that S. Rich said was dumping a large amounts in the the Find a Grave data base. What I found was that individuals were adding that bunch of inforamtion to the F-a-G site. Now I couldn't find where to search for the VA account there so if the VA and the other sites mentioned by S. Rich have an account please post it for all to see so it can be researched. Also, I don't know if I was one of the editors mentioned that was said should be taken to AN/i. That being said, when I removed the Find a Grave site from the body of an article it was done because I believe a consensus was reached stating that site was not a reliable site. When I removed it from the external links, it was because another site was used in the body of the article that was a reliable source which would make the Find a Grave link not needed. I used the WP:PEREN in my edit summary. I know this esay is not policy or a guideline. My mistake was not saying essay in my edit summary. I don't believe that there are anyone just removing Find a Grave from articles. I really believe that Otr500 and of course myself are doing the research necessay to make an educate decision. If there are other editors removing this site from articles I not aware of it. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Suggested articles to edit
Welcome
Hello, Otr500! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Marlith User_Talk:Marlith|T]]/C 20:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Otr500 (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[[
Hello, Otr500, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
If you are interested, there is already a community of users who are roadfans or who edit articles about roads, just like you! Stop by any of these WikiProjects — WP:HWY (worldwide), WP:CRWP (Canada), WP:INR (India), WP:UKRD (United Kingdom), or WP:USRD (United States) — and contribute. There is a wealth of information and resources for creating a great article. If you have questions about any of these WikiProjects, you can ask on each project's talk page, or you can ask me!
If you like communicating through IRC, feel free to ask questions at #wikipedia-en-roads as well. Here, there are several editors who are willing to answer your questions. For more information, see WP:HWY/IRC.
Again, welcome! Rschen7754 18:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry I did not reply earlier and don't know why I didn't. I read the welcome and though, "Wow! this is cool", but read it again and wondered why I didn't acknowledge the welcome. With all that said, thank you for the welcome, and I hope I have been (and will be) adding information of importance. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Edits to this page
I would like to ask that comments to this page conform to the following style as examples;
First person to comment with no indentions.
Second person to comment like this.
Third person to comment like this.
Fourth person to comment like this.
Second person with additional comments.
Fourth person with additional comments.
This provides a better flow in comments and extended comments do not end up against the right side. Otr500 (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
My take
Recent Find a Grave edits
I just wanted to let you know that I reverted a couple of your recent edits of removing Find a Grave entries. The only ones I reverted either:
The edit you made broke the link to Find a Grave and the link was creating an error (there are a lot more of these)
A picture of the grave with the sourced information clearly visible is available on the Find a Grave entry validating the information.
Medal of Honor recipients whose information cannot so far be gained from any other source without using original research.
I also noticed a couple were B class or better and I will attempt to find a reference. If I cannot I will have to downgrade the articles due to a lack of sourcing of the information. Also, the link you provided on the External links talk page showed a list of articles with the Find a Grave link but there are a lot of images on that list as well. Is it your intention to submit these images for deletion since they are derived from what you perceive to be an "unreliable source"? Surprising as this might be I do not think we should be using images from Find a Grave so if that is your intention I might support you on that one. --Kumioko (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I looked at your user page today and was surprised. I estimate you would have to stop editing on Wikipedia about 10 years for me to catch up with you. This would also depend on me winning the lottery so I wouldn't be working 70 to 90 hours a week. These facts also perplexes me at times concerning some of your comments. Since I do not plan on getting into an edit war with you, but have absolutely no plans to ignore clear violations of Wikipedia policy, then I guess the next step is necessary. I left a comment on one of the edits you reverted and if you really feel you are right then we will have to pursue Wikipedia remedies for a solution. This saddens me as I really, really, really, do not want to to argue against something that I actually like. A problem with a part of your statement that I perceive to be an unreliable source, that I have provided policies to back up, are supported by consensus and many edits.
I have always heard there is more than one way to skin a cat, and glad to learn it was a metaphor, but here would be an example that did not take a lot of work and just might be one solution for your Medal of Honor recipient concerns;
Julius A. R. Wilke (a Medal of Honor recipient), found here on Find a Grave, lists Arlington National Cemetery as the place of burial. This is contrary to the Find a Grave entry so I researched a little. I have an emailed copy of a letter from the Department of the Army, Arlington National Cemetery, that states they have no information on the man named in the Wikipedia article. I also have an email from the man that claims to have visited "2,800 sites or 99% of the known recipients (Medal of Honor) graves in the United States", and is a member of the Medal of Honor Historical Society of the US. It is also listed that he has taken 3,014 Photos. This individual is willing to release pictures he has taken, to conform to Wikipedia GNU Free Documentation License, and help in any way he can. I would think this could be an important thing, especially concerning Medal of Honor recipients (lack of reliable sources) and the picture issue (two of your numbered concerns), where information is rare. Since this is not an area I am familiar with I would think it would be of interest to someone such as yourself. If this is so then let me know and we can proceed from there. This will not solve your concern of broken links so this is something you will have to work on because, no matter how much it is desired, Find a Grave can not be used as a reliable source. Otr500 (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I saw the entry you made and replaced the information with the information available although it was via Find a Grave. I also appreciate you doing that research on the Medal of Honor recipients and getting the images of the graves would be great and it would be good to get them and add them to the articles but it still doesn't fix the sourcing problem. We can't, as far as I know, use an image as a source although we can use it as corroboration when we link to a site or source that contains the image. Even if we could I am not sure that it wouldn't breach the original research criteria. Adding it to the find a Grave site gets around that just as if an author added Original research to a book. --Kumioko (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
A grave marker could be cited as a reliable source (for its contents), just like you could cite a billboard or historical plaque. Their contents are 'available to the public' and thus the signs are 'published', even though the medium is typically stone or metal rather than paper. See {{cite sign}} for one standard format. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Thats interesting I never knew about that one that might be an option. I'm not sure if everyone would interpret it that way and I'm still not sure it wouldn't constitute original research but its worth looking into thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind I altered the format. I read this is an option (see above) to the indenting that ends up against the far right side on long discussion so I am experimenting.
If a picture was not considered a reliable source it could not be used in the body of an article. As far as I understand OR would take place if additional comments were offered that was not supported by the picture or another reliable source. To state what is in the picture would not be OR.
Kumioko, I do not have the ease of use of Wikipedia, nor the time, to undertake collecting pictures and all it entails to have them uploaded to commons. If you are interested in this then you can go straight to the horses mouth. If you are only interested in Medal of Honor recipients then possibly there is another editor with Find a Grave interests that is interested. Otr500 (talk) 08:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Anthony T. Kahoʻohanohano
I noticed the cite check flag you dropped. could I ask which reference you are questioning so I can fix it? --Kumioko (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I left a message on the talk page. Let me know if what you find is consistent with what I found. Otr500 (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I see what you mean. I added a couple of links under external links but I don't have to fix them all right now Ill go back and do it later. --Kumioko (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
April 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
The April 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
The May 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
I noticed that you removed Find a Grave from a couple of articles that were on my watchlist and wanted to let you know I just reverted a couple. If there is a better reference of the information then I agree, by all means replace the find a grave link but removing it from articles with only 2 links or causing an article to be unreferenced (though by it a weak reference) is not, IMO, a good way to improve the pedia. --Kumioko (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
:I have been correcting articles that I will follow up on (placed on my watch list), have stated my intentions, have followed up on some (a large task), and I have explained what I am doing and asked for assistance.
Through many edits where policies and guidelines were disregarded articles have been created. Those that created many are long gone and the articles just sit taking up space. If a person is only notable for one thing and there are no (or even one) reliable sources or references then notability is an issue. I had no current plans to even consider seeking removal of articles but the Find a Grave project has no plans to correct problems that now exist. You can not seem to decide about retiring but seem to have no plans to edit. You have stated that you reverted articles and I will review this. If you reverted good faith edits against Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and consensus I will issue a warning on your retired talk page.
I have undertaken a monumental task of correcting articles that have improper references and have Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and consensus to back up my edits. I also plan to (and currently do so) revisit articles at a point to seek improvements. I have recently done this (Willard Brown) as a direct result of my project concerning Find a Grave. I will not be daunted by setbacks as the Find a Grave project was allowed a few years to create unacceptable articles. Some members or proponents have weighed in on keeping the "status quo" with no plans for any corrections.
I have chosen to use what I feel is an exemption to use Find a Grave as an external link (compromise) even though there are many that are against it. Those that are have not raised any objections so I continue to do so. It is not my job to stop what I am doing to correct links so if one is constructed to require a lot of work I have deleted it. You had the option to place the link under an external links section.
Reverting and placing back as a reference is against long established policies, guidelines, and consensus and thus I must act accordingly. Please be advised again (as many times before) that Find a Grave is not considered reliable as a reference not even, "though by (I assume be) it a weak reference ". This has been established beyond controversy, reaffirmed more than once, and you choose to continually ignore this. I have stated that I do not support banning Find a Grave, as long as it is not detrimental to Wikipedia, just fixing the errors and mistakes. You have stated that this has been tried before but I was not involved and I feel I can prove the Wikipedia project, without corrections to follow Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and certainly consensus, is more harmful than good to Wikipedia. I have repeatedly taken the path to avoid such a confrontation but actions in defiance of Wikipedia standards will leave me no choice.
I really do not care if an articles will be lacking if Find a Grave has to be used as a weak reference to prevent not having references. Since Find a Grave can not be used as a reference without violating policies, guidelines, consensus, and even the Find a Grave project instructions, then an article probably does not meet the criteria for space on Wikipedia. Correcting the articles places them in the proper category for eventual work or removal. If you want these articles then find references that are out there. This will be a little more work than creating unreferenced articles but will be worth it in the long run.
I feel sad that you choose to take a cowboy position of no compromise, continued circular arguments, and what I consider a "do or die" stance with regard to your continued defiance. A good way to improve the pedia will be to provide sources and references for lacking articles, or to remove these from the site, not circumventing all that Wikipedia stands for to further a cause by blatantly disregarding policies, guidelines, and consensus, or by using unreliable sources and references while hiding them under an external link.
I would hope that you would not underestimate my determination in what I have undertaken and maybe you should not retire but stick around for the inevitable challenge that will be forth-coming. Otr500 (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Placed on hold at this time. Otr500 (talk) 05:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Problem edit
Hi, can you take another look at this edit it appears to have added some characters to the end of reference 3. Is it some code for the publication or just a slip of the finger? Keith D (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so very much. I am still laughing at that slip. I was getting my grandson something to eat and the only thing I can figure is that he wanted to help edit. Otr500 (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Guy Gabledon
I just noticed the edit you made to Guy Gabeldon removing the retrieved as dates from the external links. I am not going to revert it but I do not think that this edit was helpful. Regardless of what the "Standard" is for external links I have found that it is frequently helpful to have the retireved date on links (citation or otherwise) especially when those links are using the archiveurl parameters and the rules do allow it. I also think that the comment you left on the talk page was meant for another article. Cheers and happy editing. --Kumioko (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Have to agree with Kumioko on this one. In regard to PFC Guy Gabledon MoH nomination, I can't understand it either, I believe that it is all politics. I have worked with various organizations to have his medal upgraded to the MoH, I even recently wrote to Pre. Obama, but nothing so far. Another case that comes to mind is that of Maj. Herman Bottcher. I once spoke to two former soldiers who served in different units with him and they both agreed that Bottcher was the bravest man that they ever knew. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I can see your point Kumioko. Would I be correct that these dates would have no actual importance to the casual reader? Using archiveurl parameters while still having some form of article consistency, and at the same time following guidelines that appear to have consensus since not being contested, could be accomplished using "hidden comments" that would suffice to satisfy all. We can go this route, unless you and Tony have valid reasoning in having these dates visible on the article page, in which case we can seek a guideline change. I added back the dates per above, if I did it correctly, so tell me what you think? Otr500 (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I suppose that would be ok although I don't think I would invest much time in going through the articles to make the dates into hidden comments. They really don't harm anything by being there. --Kumioko (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
It is actually the first article that I recall seeing this on. I don't intend on looking for articles formatted as such but if I run across any I may do this. You are right and it probably doesn't really hurt anything ----but---- it is in the guidelines. I realize that this may not be that important to some but it is just the way I am.
When I make edits I look for potential improvements that will enhance the article. When there are guidelines I really try to observe them. Articles I start I have resolved to begin at start and not stub class when possible and I do not want to begin or even work on articles that I think are never going to be anything but a stub. This does not mean I will not make mistakes as that will be a given, but I really think, even though consensus can actually change daily, that some form of consistency does make a better encyclopedia. I do like "retrieval dates", and especially "access dates" that are somewhat current, as this means someone followed a link and this means it is obviously a good one. Otr500 (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The June 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
"African American" vs. "African-American" vs. "African–American"
The phrase "African American" (with no hyphen) is a noun. The phrase "African-American" (with a hyphen) is an adjective. In the past, there has been some confusion in terms of naming Wikipedia articles, but I think they've been straightened out for the most part.
Nobody should be confused by "African-American" (with a hyphen) into thinking it has anything to do with relations between Africa and America. That would be signified by "African–American" (with an en-dash).
If you have a problem with Wikipedia's long-standing naming convention concerning African Americans, please start a centralized discussion instead of leaving similar messages on the Talk pages of many articles. Thank you. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 03:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply and advice. I do not have a problem with any naming convention of course I really didn't know there was one concerning African Americans. I guess it just takes some figuring out; "African-American naming convention", and "the naming convention concerning African Americans". So where would African American Civil War Memorial place in all of this?
I have somewhat of a different view. I have Irish ancestry but regardless of that I am American. To me, no matter what the sentence placement, I prefer to use Irish-American when the need arises. Although only a vague hope it would be a monumental time when there would be less need (other than historic) to micro define ethnic groups, that are all considered American, and to eradicate ethnocentrism. Concerning your advice I will reply that there are several reasons I did what I did that is certainly acceptable by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I need not go any farther because your reply was sufficient to cover my questions and or concerns. There is a discussion going on at WP:Manual of Style#dash drafting. Otr500 (talk) 06:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
No solution
Just when someone makes sense of something and appears to know what is going on a bomb is dropped. I thought what Shabazz said was valid, although there was no reference as to where the information was obtained, so I referenced this (here);
Concerning titles please comment on these quotes;
"The phrase "African American" (with no hyphen) is a noun. The phrase "African-American" (with a hyphen) is an adjective. In the past, there has been some confusion in terms of naming Wikipedia articles, but I think they've been straightened out for the most part."
"Nobody should be confused by "African-American" (with a hyphen) into thinking it has anything to do with relations between Africa and America. That would be signified by "African–American" (with an en-dash)." Otr500 (talk) 8:54 am, 29 May 2011, Sunday (14 days ago) (UTC−5)
This actually made sense but a reply indicates that it is false meaning the whole discussion was flawed especially since it appears not one person has a real idea what should be, or is an appropriate us of hyphen, en-dashes, or en-dashes. The reply was;
Neither is discussing the English language as it actually exists anywhere. Both are efforts to create a dogmatic Newspeak, and if both are genuine quotes from our talk pages (neither shows up on searching), the editor responsible should be ignored until he goes to play on the Newspeak Wikipedia, with its much simpler Manual of Style: "Hyphens are ungood." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:44 pm, 29 May 2011, Sunday (13 days ago) (UTC−5)
So much for figuring things out and certainly for "...but I think they've been straightened out for the most part." Otr500 (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Would you like to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the National Archives and its incredible collection? This summer, the National Archives—which houses some of America's most important historical documents—is hosting me as its Wikipedian in Residence, and I have created WP:NARA to launch these efforts.
There are all sorts of tasks available for any type of editor, whether you're a writer, organizer, gnome, coder, or image guru. The National Archives is making its resources available to Wikipedia, so help us forge this important relationship! Please sign up and introduce yourself. Dominic·t 15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
List of United States Military Academy alumni (Union Army)
Thanks, sorry for the delay but worked 107 hours so have been busy. If not called out I will look at this tomorrow because I do see I also need to correct the box. Otr500 (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Done and repaired another while I was at it. Otr500 (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
When adding a stub tag to an article such as Populus heterophylla, please remember to put it at the end after everything except inter-wiki links (per WP:LAYOUT): it saves the time of the stub-sorter who otherwise has to move the tag to the right place while stub-sorting it. Thanks. PamD (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Otr500. I've replied on the talkpage of Luis Barbero regarding the issues you raised. Hope this helps! Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
...for updating the EOBR article. I was planning on expanding it but I started driving local and got burnt out on article editing and as you can see it has been sitting around for years with no work. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 00:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Well thank you. I plan to do more on several others but worked 89 hours last week. After 17 years I sort of went local, in the oilfield industry, but actually get paid more when I don't drive. Stand-by time, with oilfield exemptions and a 24 hour restart, make it nice. Otr500 (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to personally thank you for responding to my message on the reliable source noticeboard. I'm new to Wikipedia, and I'll take your suggestions to heart as I learn the ropes. I do contend that the value of International Futures is beyond a mere interesting bit of trivia. Policy is made through calculated analysis of potential futures, and this model is the largest integrated model in the world, spanning more issue areas than any other in the world. That being said, I appreciate your opinion. I do have one further question that you may be able to help with. As I mentioned in my first message, I was directed to the noticeboard to seek consensus at the suggestion of another seasoned veteran of Wikipedia. Ultimately, is there a listing of reliable sources if the source does achieve consensus? Is there a next step? Thanks again for taking the time to work with me. (Shredder2012 (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC))
Thank you for your comments. Our very lives are affected by International Futures. You are thinking about this a little backwards. I do not want to even think about creating a proverbial monster but spend some time just looking Wikipedia over.
You have added the link to the Angola article in December. The edit was not reverted nor did I see anything on the talk page. At this time (remember consensus can change) consensus already approves the addition, at least in this article. If the same applies to other articles you already have achieved consensus by silence there also. Being bold, as in your edit, is one thing encourage on Wikipedia. There is even a process referred to as bold, revert, discuss (BRD) as a way to improve articles. However, if the site is argued against on an article you may just have run into local opposition. This is why a good edit summary as well as possibly a prior link introduction on the talk page can be a good thing. Some editors (groups, cabals, whatever), seem to demand prior discussion (not in the "rules" I have read) and this brick wall will be very tall.
BRD would include adding content or the link (in this case), possible reversion (or deletion), and discussion on the talk page. PLEASE! Do not ever assume anything bad, or against you, or even the link. You have included the link in "External links" and you will find editors that do not want (will fight) external links (mare than two or three if any) in an article they are involved in. If the article is rated high enough with a certain number of major contributors, they will have broad consensus to effect control of content. This is not a bad thing as you will not want to see an article you helped get to WP:FA get demoted for such a reason.
I will make this very easy for you. As for as I know, and at this time without digging deeper, there is no reason that the site can not be used as a source for relevant material. I can also not see where the site, again where relevant, can not be used in a "See also" section. It can be used in an external links section because that is the nature of the section. However, one thing to remember is that content or links that can be used as a source or reference should be used and not simply placed in an "external links" or even a "See also" section.
You stated you are new to Wikipedia so I would like to welcome you and hope that you will be a contributor and not one that just adds links or references or templates and certainly in some mass form. I am a contributing editor but became involve in reference and external links by necessity of circumstances. It is an uphill "battle", if you will, and I have studied extensively on these areas and still yet that does not mean much. You will find articles are "protected" by individuals as well as groups. This in itself is not a bad thing, and you will learn this first hand especially when you are a major contributor to an article, but if the editors involve are not open to discussion or if they (one or more) exhibit ownership that goes beyond "protection" of an article, you will hit a brick wall. This does not mean progress can not be accomplished but that any progress will not be easy.
You will also find editors that have their own ideas this sometimes actually works to the detriment of expanding a great encyclopedia. If someone edits any article I am involved in I welcome this. If they "cowboy" in I would not be pleased but as long as article expansion with encyclopedic content is achieved I think this is a good thing. The editor that suggested you find out about the link you are concerned with (I haven't looked) is either supportive, objective, open to new ideas, or all three, but at any rate seems fair.
As an editor you should really not add links (you can but just a suggestion) that you are not actively editing or plan to edit. This prevents being labeled a "fly-by" editor or someone just adding frivolous links. This is why I suggested alternative methods of adding links. Unless there is reasons against you can add a link to a "See also" section and use this to keep track of the article for future reference. You can also seek input on the talk page which will give feedback as well as place the article in your "My contributions". You will learn a lot by trial and error but don't take things personally. That happened to me and it can be detrimental. I just decided I will do what I can, pick any "battles" I feel are worth fighting, and not worry about the rest. Remember that there are venues for seeking "outside help" and learn how to use these. Don't be too hard headed or hot tempered, always try to assume good faith even when it seems to the contrary, and seek resolution as apposed to extended, and sure be be circular, arguments.
Make good contributions, have fun, and remember that Wikipedia practices editorial reviews by consensus. You may be in the "majority", maybe not, and you just might not find a consensus (even if it appears to be a fantastic idea, thought, or contribution), might not materialize. Otr500 (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice and words of encouragement. The learning curve on Wikipedia can be a bit steep, as the rules of the road can sometimes be unclear. It's good to know that editors like you are welcoming. If I could, I'd like to get in touch with you if I encounter any bumps in the road. Cheers. (Shredder2012 (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC))
You can get in touch with me any time you want. I work erratic and sometimes long hours but I try to not miss a 2nd day in a row. While I have my opinions like everyone else, and like all but one person ever I can be wrong at times, I strive to be fair.
There are some that say we don't actually have "rules" as the idea that consensus can change means any "rules" can also. I consider that the only concrete rules we have are concerning WP:BLP's, WP:COPYVIO's, and WP:AGF. The first two are by necessity for legal reasons and the third is to keep peace considering Wikipedia is run by a consensus of editor-in-chiefs.
I have a pretty varied interest spectrum but my advise would be to focus on what you like to do that keeps you returning to Wikipedia. Otr500 (talk) 09:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for Feb 2012
Hi. When you recently edited Hualapai people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Hardy (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) 10:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
This edition is going out to all USRD WikiProject members (current, former, or potential) in addition to other subscribers as part of a roll call to update the participants list. Anyone that would like to continue to receive this newsletter in the future needs to update the subscription list if they are not already subscribed.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 28, 2012
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Transportation Security Administration, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Japanese and Federal (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) 13:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
