User talk:Qwirkle/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Amistade

What is your justification for reverting to errors in the plot?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I haven't, but you seem to be, regularly, and under more than one persona; the (false) number "54" keeps creeping into the article. Anmccaff (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

There were 54 Africans imprisoned, and one died so the statement there were 53 is an error.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Then you should be able to support that with good cites, right? (Didn't think so...) Anmccaff (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

.... Anmccaff (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

And as for the allegation of being a sock puppet. I sign on to the sight and the number changes on its own. I have no control over it because WP system is not properly programed.18:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk)

No. It appears instead that you are not signing in at all, or at least not successfully. Anmccaff (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

My IP would not be used if I was signing in? I go to the site and the number changes but always as the first sets of sequence. That is attempting to hide my identity? You really have conspiracy on your mind.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Correct, your IP would not be used (publicly) if you signed in to an account. Anmccaff (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

You are incorrect. an IP is perfectly fine according to WP policy to use with registering a username. If you do not know this then you should. If you do know this then you have conspiracy on your mind.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

...which, predictably, has absolutely nothing to with what I wrote, Sockie. What I wrote was that signing in to an account will hide the Ip from all but a few admin types. The reason why your IP shows is you have not signed in. Anmccaff (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@IP2605: Apart from misunderstanding what Anmccaff said, which was correct, our username policy specifically lists usernames which resemble IP addresses as inappropriate, see WP:MISLEADNAME. Sam Sailor 20:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC) (talk page watcher)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Anmccaff. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Armored Troop Carrier (LCM), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phonetic alphabet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Negro Fort, you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Now, now, @Malik Shabazz:, just because you find yourself incapable of reading the sources already in the article... Qwirkle (talk) 04:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Whaleboat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lifeboat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

List of disasters in the United States by death toll

I would like to point out that everything I added was listed under their respective "201X disasters in the United States" categories and met all other requirements of the page (at least 15 fatalities, not being an epidemic, etc.). However, if there are stricter requirements for inclusion than those listed on the page itself, please let me know.--Buddy 3.14 (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Buddy 3.14:, I think those just list the minimums for inclusion, but the first threshold is that the event be a disaster, and not just, say, a fatal accident. There’s a separate list...well, an overlapping list, actually, for them, right? Qwirkle (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Qwirkle:, I was simply going by the Wikipedia categories' definition of a disaster (Category:Disasters in the United States by year) because I don't believe there is a separate list for "accidents" specifically in the U.S., at least none that I can find.--Buddy 3.14 (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Buddy 3.14:, where do you see a definition on that page? Qwirkle (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Qwirkle:, There is not one explicitly listed on the page. By "definition", I meant the implicit requirements for the inclusion of those pages in their respective categories which I felt was enough to warrant their addition to the overall list provided they met the additional explicit requirements..--Buddy 3.14 (talk) 05:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Fort Gadsden

What are your sources for saing Negro Fort was smaller than Fort Gadsden? My understanding has always been that it was built within the former walls of Negro Fort. deisenbe (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Aside from reading the ones in the article, you mean? Qwirkle (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Which ones specifically? deisenbe (talk) 10:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Let’s start with Gadsden’s map...Qwirkle (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

a note

When I go back to previous posts to get diffs for foamers and fanboyz there will be signature problems. I don't need, but can deal with, them. I don't know if it matters but a heads-up seemed like a common courtesy (for somebody who has called me a liar). Feel free to delete this. I'm done for now, later. Sammy D III (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Spanish peso

Do you have a reference supporting saying that it is approx the same value as the U.S. dollar? deisenbe (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Given it’s well-known accuracy and reliability problems, I seldom say “just look in Wiki”, but this might be the place for an exception... Qwirkle (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Your correction

Would you please explain what your problem is with the following:

The magazine area of the fort, estimated to be 40 feet (12 m) by 24 feet (7.3 m),[19]:16 was located about 500 feet (150 m) from the river bank, and consisted of an octagonal earthwork holding the principal magazine. This was surrounded by an extensive rectangular enclosure covering about 7 acres (2.8 ha); on the eastern corners (those most vulnerable to attack) were bastions with parapets 15 feet (4.6 m) high and 18 feet (5.5 m) thick.[11]:18[34][4]

When you undo my edita, at least look at the complete edit, as your undo spelling corrections I made. deisenbe (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

First, why is this here, rather than on the article’s talk page?

As you have, I hope noticed, there was a real disagreement in the sources as to what, exactly, was meant by the fort, with many using it to describe the octagonal strongpoint rather than the whole area enclosed by the breastworks. Only the octagonal structure had the robust wall dimensions. Next, this may have been the octagonal work’s magazine, but the amount of powder remaining after the blast strongly suggests it wasn’t the only one within the enclosure; it may not even have been the principal magazine. The separate water battery surely had its own, also. Next, the size of the enclosure seems a little out of line with the best of the sources. We have a map, and aerials, you know. Next, earthworks does not mean what you appear to think it does, the octagon was a timber structure with earth infill, two giant concentric octagonal log cabins, much like oversized Navajo Hogan walls, with the space between them filled with dirt. The information about the bastions seems suspect, also. Qwirkle (talk) 12:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

"Current" discussions

The OP said their concerns were addressed over a month ago. There has been no point to that thread other than sniping and that bizarre argument you insisted on having (which you're still wrong about) since then. So no, it's not a "current" discussion. If you want to start a discussion based on some tangent of that argument, start a new section. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

LOL You're unbelievable. Have fun arguing with yourself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Alaska Shipwrecks

Re: "Looking at a few of its boats, I dunno how much trust I’d put in any particular listing. It seems usually accurate, and it’s obviously an excellent starting point, but I dunno if I’d take it as the final word. Qwirkle (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)": That's fine. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and if anyone finds out new, better, different, contrary, or additional information, they should add it. Meanwhile, I think this source should be given the benefit of the doubt. It cites its sources for every entry, including official lists or reports of incidents, contemporary press reporting, etc., and it also makes clear when the site's author has made an assumption and what that assumption is. I differ from you in thinking that it is untrustworthy; on the contrary, the author seems to use authoritative sources and to be diligent in listing them. What more do you want for (as you say) a starting point? Pending further research anyone cares to do that would debunk the source, I'd put a lot of trust in every listing. The source is doing exactly what Wikipedians are supposed to do.Mdnavman (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)mdnavman

Hmmm. If the source is doing ‘’exactly’’ what Wikipedians are supposed to do, then it is, like Wikipedia itself, unreliable.

I don't understand what it is you are looking for instead. Wikipedians are supposed to cite sources for their information, and most do. Moreover, the point of Wikipedia is to construct better and better article over time as different contributors bring their particular interests and souurces and expertise to bear. Over time, each article gets more and more accurate. For that matter, "unreliable" compared to what? If you read through scholarly works, you will find that even scholars make mistakes and disagree with one another. We all want Wikipedia articles to be as "reliable" as possible, and no one of is is the single authority for whether it is or not. We all work together to expand article and make them better over time as we find more and more information to add. Mdnavman (talk) 01:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)mdnavman

This is wrong on so many levels that it is difficult to know where to start. To begin with, the constant improvement model of articles going from bad to workable to good isn’t a goal, it’s a consequence of amateur writers and researchers. It’s a far better service to the reader to have the stuff start out accurate in the first place. Next, outside of the normal use of reliable, Wiki has its own ideas about “reliable”, and “self published” clashes with them. By definition, this source is unreliable until proven otherwise. Qwirkle (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

In the particular case that drew my attention, the author appears to be claiming that a ship described as making port under her own power was shipwrecked, and that this occurred a couple blocks inland in Kodiak town, despite the descriptions in the sources. Qwirkle (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

In my view, you are making way too much of that one entry, and confusing a different interpretation you have of what a "wreck" is compared to that of the source with actual "unreliability." Apparently, the source looked at HIS sources, and they conveyed damage to the vessel as having wrecked her (a reasonable view, based on the description of what happened to her at sea). My guess is that she was not repaired, and perhaps was declared a constructive total loss. In any event, I don't think your difference of opinion regarding the source's interpretation of that one event merits dismissal of the rest of his work, especially given the understandable nature of his interpretation as well as yours. You seem to be missing the forest (i.e., all the sources he cites, which are similar to most of the sources cited in the Wikipedia "List of shipwrecks" articles and just as valid) for the sake of one tree (a minor disagreement over the precisie definition of a wreck in one instance.) And, by the way, my entry you reverted made it clear that the vessel made it to port, and was not in any way misleading or "unrealiable" because it opnely stated that the vessel had made it to port. Again, I don't understand what more you are looking for in terms of "reliability." Mdnavman (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)mdnavman

M60 Patton photo

Well, it was a higher-resolution photo. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

american politics

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

In context, @Galobtter:, this is little more than trollery on your part. Qwirkle (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

You are free to make assumptions of bad faith, but no, I regularly alert people to the sanctions and saw that you had not been formally alerted (and were obviously editing in relation to the American politics area) Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

So, you are conceding that the “Wasted” article is essentially political, and thus a coatrack. Kewl. Qwirkle (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Have one on me

I appreciate your willingness to admit error. I was too quick to judge your intent. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

No prob. Qwirkle (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Qwirkle. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

WT:ERRORS

You had some questions and wanted to see some part of the discussion, so the whole thing was copied to WT:ERRORS ... do you still need to look at the text? If so, which part? We don't generally archive discussions at WP:ERRORS. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Wait, I just saw your edit summary: "Then move the long stuff, selectively" ... okay, I'll action that, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 19:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:Rose1913. Thank you. Home Lander (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense, @Home Lander:. In a remarkably short time Rose1913 and Rose 1996A have created enough small nonsense edits to strongly suggest something is badly wrong there. Why do you see this sort of vandalism as worth protecting? Qwirkle (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I see a misguided new editor who probably needs a pointer, not a deliberate unconstructive editor, which is what the template you left is intended for. Furthermore, disruptive editing is not vandalism, and assuming good faith has nothing to do with "protecting" it. Home Lander (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

We’ll have to leave it at that, then, the signs and stigmata of misconduct are so glaring there it would be pointless to discuss them with someone who does not see them, and I’m sure there are other socks, COI editors, and trolls who need your help elswhere. Qwirkle (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

January 2019

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia talk:Spam. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia talk:Spam. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could support this with examples, @Drmies:?

Never mind, saw it on the talk page. Better addressed there. Qwirkle (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

A question that might belong here and elsewhere, though, @Drmies:, is how you justify invoking admin powers in a thread you yourself are participating in. Qwirkle (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

It says "you may be blocked". It doesn't say "I will block you". So, you posed yet another loaded question dripping with bad faith. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Given that this began with a mistaken description of a good editor as a spammer, and of good edits as spam, the less you natter about bad faith the better you look. “Better”, mind you. Not “good.” Qwirkle (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

22

February 2019

Warning: You have damaged a citation in Cancer (astrology). Read and understand Help:Shortened footnotes before editing this article.

In addition to damaging the markup syntax of the article, you have incorrectly assumed that all self-published works are unacceptable. Please read WP:RSSELF and then discuss on the article talk page whether or not the author is an expert in the field, and whether the source is appropriate for the claim it supports.

I will revert your edit but indicated the statement is disputed. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

EL

Just pointing you to what Beetstra is on about, from WP:EL, "Links normally to be avoided". "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. Links for future improvement of the page can be placed on the article's talk page." This, of course, prohibits EL/FR that is actually informative about the article's subject, but would appear to permit topic overview material. I think it's ridiculous, but it is "codified". BTW, I cannot recall EVER seeing a suggested reference on a talk page. RobDuch (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I’m aware of that. Obviously, that’s part of what the fellow is on about now. That appears to change over time. Either way, what you did was not spamming, and its ridiculous to simply remove good references like that. In the future, you might want to add them to the talk page; or to a “general reference” section if they concur completely with what is in the article already. Lemme know if anything comes up in them that needs research; I’ve taken the articles in question off my watchlist.

My apologies for dropping you in all this, that was not my intent. Qwirkle (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

It's OK, I wanted to put it behind me. I did notice that things changed from "exclude Lewis" to "exclude Weaver", and now that I've read the dumbass policy I see why on the latter, though not the former. The policy seems to advocate keeping "good" references specific to the article's subject out of the EL/FR and I can't see the reason. I guess maybe somebody doesn't like a stub with 15 EL/FR's attached. For something closely related last month, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Military_history#External_links_section_removed . RobDuch (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Essentially, except when you annotate the bibliography, FR is betwixt-and-between. Some people add stuff there for further use in the article, having evaluated it as a source, and some add it not having evaluated it as a source, and not warning anybody. So, some “Further reading”s are essentially general references, which are supposed to be bulletproof unless you warn the reader of specific problems, or it’s a sole-source article like a lot of the old Britanica stuff; and some are essentially external “reader beware” links. (Either way, of course, they aren’t bookspam unless they are there for the book/author/editor/cause’s sake, rather than the reader’s.)

Me, I like annotated bibliographies, but a lot of other people here obviously don’t. Qwirkle (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

PS: BTW, I cannot recall EVER seeing a suggested reference on a talk page.

I did that on a rather contentious article quite a bit a few years ago.

(I was roundly denounced for it, of course.) Qwirkle (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Old Man & the Gun; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Note: content you added to the article was reverted out. Instead of going to the talk page per WP:BRD, you reverted again, and have continued to revert that content. You say is not always the final way. Instead of your continually disruptive, IDHT, IDLI and battleground mentality, you need to learn to discuss and collaborate. - wolf 05:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I was reading a sign high on the wall behind the bar:
ONLY GENUINE PRE-WAR AMERICAN AND 
BRITISH WHISKEYS SERVED HERE
I was trying to count how many lies could be found in those nine words, and had reached four, with promise of more... (The Continental Op, IMS)

Let’s see if we can outdo Mr Hammett’s friend here....

that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree.

One. Editors? No, that’s a plural. You are only one person.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes

Two. I’ve already raised this on the talk page. Perhap’s you should template yourself first?

Instead of going to the talk page per WP:BRD, you reverted again,

Do we count this, since it’s a repeat?

You say is not always the final way.

Delphic, that.

Instead of your continually disruptive, IDHT, IDLI and battleground mentality, you need to learn to discuss and collaborate.

Given that you haven’t answered directly any of the points raised in edit summaries or on the talk page, I don’t think you should be accusing anyone else of hearing problems. Qwirkle (talk) 06:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Don’t change your work after it’s been quoted, unless you want to ask to change the quoted section also. That’s what brackets are for. Qwirkle (talk) 06:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Coaches

Do you have a particular interest in horse-drawn coaches? I do. Sure they can be pulled by mules or donkeys or anything else strong enough that's much the same shape as a horse. So please regard horse-drawn as a broad-church category for animals of a horse-type design. Eddaido (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

This is completely irrelevant to the conversation going on elsewhere. Why are you building this straw man? Qwirkle (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

would you please read the article? it's completely redone

Lynching of Shedrick Thompson deisenbe (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn’t think it would be possible to make that worse, but you managed it. Congratulations. Qwirkle (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I have posted this on the Dispute resolution noticeboard. deisenbe (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

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

I want to contribute, but I am not sure how this works ...

Reverted good faith edits by Markworthen. Why is the info I posted wrong? -- I do not mean that in a confrontive way, I ask to improve my understanding of Wikipedia policies and procedures. Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

As I wrote on your talkpage, @Markworthen:, A hotbutton, over-crowded loonbait thread probably isn’t the best place to add a Wiki primer. A link to one in other content, maybe, just barely maybe. Qwirkle (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC) Qwirkle (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I was writing on your talk page when you were writing on mine. ;o) // I would think that a controversial thread is one of the best places to help out new-to-intermediate editors who want to contribute something meaningful but hesitate because they want to "get it right" and fear being reprimanded given the high emotionality and frequent vitriol they see. I'll post something on the Talk page as I am interested in other editors' perspective. Again, I'm not looking for a fight or anything of the sort. I want to understand, and asking questions is the best way to do that. Thank you.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, obviously, but that’s what makes horseraces. The hotbutton threads are often canvased, as this one was, and often bring in folks on both sides of whatever issue who are only here as advocates and polemicists. They are also naturely very, very crowded.

That said, @Markworthen:, I may be wrong on this, and your guide seems a useful intro. Why not write it up in userspace and link to it in a shorter message? That’ll cover your goals and my objections to how they were expressed, and leave you with something to add elsewhere, and to refine over time. It’s got the makings of a good essay in it. Qwirkle (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I like that idea. And I very much appreciate your civil, helpful reply. :O) All the best -   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I had posted something on the Talk page but now I cannot edit it. Don't know if it's a glitch or what, but I'll either delete it or modify it based on our discussion. Maybe we don't want Talk pages for MfD? Anyway, I wanted you to know I wasn't saying one thing and doing another. (I also misspelled your username which I wanted to fix.)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

No prob. The attempt to integrate different server’s versions of things often create problems which go away over time. Qwirkle (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Warning: personal attack

Catching sight of your outrageous personal attack here, I've removed it. The Signpost and its comments are part of Wikipedia. Don't restore your post or you will be blocked. If I see anything similar from you in the future, you will also be blocked. Bishonen | talk 17:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC).

Yeah, the only way you can make some things look good is to censor accurate criticism. Qwirkle (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• What Bishonen says. And more: if I had seen that "enablers" comment I would have blocked you for that. I did you the courtesy of removing it. This BS about censorship is plenty indicative of how desperate your defense is; don't push the point. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, we can certainly agree there is no end of bullshit surrounding this matter, and given your willingness to invoke admin tools rather than adress legitimate questions, I suppose I’ll have to agree to disagree on the major source of it. Qwirkle (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Unnecessary dabs

I'm sure you've noticed that someone has done a bunch of page moves to remove the appellation "(United States)" where it's an unnecessary dab. Of course, once somebody gets hot on another army that uses our unit naming system the pages will have to be moved back. Awesome how the Wiki allows people to pursue their own crusades. RobDuch (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Please explain

Forgive what probably seems to you like a piddling intellectual exercise, but I'm having a difficult time understanding your comment here. Are you suggesting the EnigmaMan ArbCom request is a conspiratorial response to the outcome of the RexxS crat chat? And if so, on what evidence are you basing this? --WaltCip (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you actually believe in subconscious conspiracies? Qwirkle (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Qwirkle. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 20:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Honey trapping

What else would it be if it’s not organized crime activity? Also why wouldn’t mobsters be behind it? (Hello Kitty the Cutie (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Hello Kitty the Cutie)

@Hello Kitty the Cutie:This question, if it belongs at all, belongs on the article’s talk page, not mine. Qwirkle (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

is it Rolfe or Sutton you object to?

Re lynching defenders. deisenbe (talk) 10:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest that you click on the names you added to the article. Qwirkle (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Raglan coat

I'm really not clear what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that there isn't such a thing as a raglan coat? The source, in Russian, says "меховой воротник реглана." "The fur collar of his raglan" Spokoyni (talk) 05:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Pretty much, @Spokoyni:, yup. Do an ngram for “raglan coat” vs. almost any actual broadly used term. Like this, for example. Qwirkle (talk) 05:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I see 119,000 google hits for "Raglan Coat", and numberous websites to prove it isn't some fevered dream, and its sourced in the article. Unless you have a better reason than not liking the term because you think its from a "zoolanderoid magazine", please self-revert, or this will be at ANI for deletion of sourced content. Spokoyni (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

See you at ANI, then. Qwirkle (talk) 05:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Spokoyni (talk) 05:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Donald Cameron of Lochiel

Thanks for the edits; I'm not convinced by the attribution of the picture but it appears on numerous Wikipedia pages. That doesn't make it right but presumably someone somewhere knows. I've added back the house but changed the caption; pictures make articles more appealing to readers but if you have alternative suggestions, let me know.

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

That’ll work nicely for the house, @Robinvp11:. If memory serves, and maybe it don’t, the stone end-wall and chimney of the old building still stand nearby the new place. I agree that pics of the subject would be good, but there apparently isn’t a contemporary portrait. The oldest one is from when he was 12 years dead. Putting it in, with a warning that it isn't from life, lower in the article might make for less Wiki-circular sources popping up. Qwirkle (talk) 03:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thanks very much! Get yourself a beer/coffee while you're at it  :) cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 16:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks.

If I can presume on that a bit, while I don’t think the other fellow’s objections were strong enough to justify summarily killing off that GA, the reorganization he suggested would make the article more accessible to a wider audience, and might be better to do now, even before a new review. Qwirkle (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

RE:Article length and fails vs. holds

It is inappropriate for a reviewer who believes an article can only meet the GAN by major restructuring to hold rather than fail the article, because holding in that circumstance at minimum privileges, and possibly holds the page hostage to, the reviewer's specific impression of how the restructuring should be done. This conflict is more acute for short pages, where article structure is very ad hoc, than for lengthier articles where the manuals of style and precedent are more deterministic. --erachima talk 21:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I think there is a bit of begging the question there. Qwirkle (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

To your very best of health. And your diplomacy  :) ——SerialNumber54129 17:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

You mislept “tend to correctly capitalize” above....

I see the pun but not the intent? Yes, I spell "ise". Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I feel the WP:MOS is both overly in favor of lower case, and too many wikiteurs take that a step even further. When you are disagreeing with the sources, that is never a good sign. Qwirkle (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Warning

I am also warning you to not edit war in the article, there were several reversions from you as well. Dispute resolution is available to anyone involved. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

If this is referring to the USS Cole bombing article, a glance at the talk page will show that this is an old chestnut, and that there is decade-old consensus against that user’s position. A glance at his edits over time suggests, frankly, competence issues. Qwirkle (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

...and, of course, @331dot:, we have another revert. Qwirkle (talk) 05:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Eyeballs on...baseballs?

...or, rather, baseball uniforms...or parts thereof. Raglan sleeves.

@RolandR: reverted a couple edits with the summary “removing nonsense”, which, frankly, does not seem to apply to half of his changes. It may be that major league baseball’s tee shirt preference is commonly known by diehard baseball fans, and thus seen as needing no cite, but the same is true for a good deal on wiki, and I saw no reason to accuse @Cullen328: of vandalism. I reverted with the question “I’m not sure a citation is needed, but how is your edit ”removing nonsense?”, upon which RolandR again reverted, with an expanation “Because the edit was obvious puerile vandalism.“ No, placing a “citation needed” tag isn’t puerile vandalism, but removing a good edit to get rid of a bad one borders on that, baby out with the bathwater. If RolandR objected merely to the redlinked section, perhaps he should have removed that alone, rather than triple-revert and template-bomb. Motes and beams, boyo. Qwirkle (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Quirkle. I have added a reference to a reliable source, specifically a book published by the Smithsonian Institution about baseball memorabilia, which verifies the claim in the article. Apparently RolandR thinks that saying a citation is needed is "puerile vandalism". Since I am an administrator, I am obligated to ignore such strange attacks on me and I will. I just hope that RolandR will not consider my addition of this refererence to be vandalism and will leave it be. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Nahh, I don’t think it was attack so much as overlooking, @Cullen:. He was probably so concentrated on a bad edit done by someone else, he didn’t even consider your edit. I didn’t notice the problematic edit, either, since I was trying to figure out why a “citation needed” was pure blue evil, and never read much further down, which I should have done before the second pass at it. Qwirkle (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Non-combat MoH list

I seem to be motivating other users by remote control, just by a talk page post. First somebody tries to go one direction (against my suggestion) by deleting the one item that isn't in peacetime, then the guy who doesn't know when to quit moves the article to what I think is a more useful title. I noticed you reverted three edits, was one of them the page move? Thinking of adding Hammerberg and McGunigal (and maybe I can dig up a couple others) if nothing more happens in the next couple of days. I realize this may not be the direction you'd like to go. RobDuch (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Me, I just want to see that we don’t have some yahoo telling the readers that Pearl redacting Harbor was “peacetime”. It’d be nice if the name for the article reflected both peacetime and outside of combat if both categories were included, I think. Qwirkle (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Unnecessary dabs

I'm sure you've noticed that someone has done a bunch of page moves to remove the appellation "(United States)" where it's an unnecessary dab. Of course, once somebody gets hot on another army that uses our unit naming system the pages will have to be moved back. Awesome how the Wiki allows people to pursue their own crusades. RobDuch (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

How to ensure your work remains obscure

• Active regular United States Army units with campaign credit for the War of 1812
• Army National Guard units with campaign credit for the War of 1812

I noticed these several months ago due to some of the few places they're linked at. They've existed since 2011. What I just did was link the units mentioned in them. Yes, their hard-working creator didn't know how a wiki works. Somehow the battles mentioned therein got linked, but those were about the only links in the whole of the articles. Dunno how anybody was supposed to know these articles existed. I'm not planning just yet to link them in the unit articles; think I've done enough for one day. RobDuch (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Is this editor doing a good job?

Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Members, see No. 6. What a difference seven years can make. RobDuch (talk) 04:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The terrible thing is they probably don’t realize they are doing anything against the cause; nor, I’d bet, do a great number of the others listed there.

Hell and good intentions. Qwirkle (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I poked around a little (didn't post anything), trying to get clarification on what I think is a counterintuitive policy, and found that those 3 guys have been policing external links and further reading for at least 2 years. RobDuch (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

MFD

Have you seen the mass portal deletions at MFD? With BHG vs. LP thrown in (near top of April 15th list), though both are deleting them. One nom that succeeded was for over 1,300 portals that were based solely on a single navbox each, as determined by BHG's bot apparently. Portal:Fortifications got caught in the blast radius; may have been one of many messed with by TTH. Just stunning to see the overswing in both directions the last few months. I don't actually use portals, but when I saw the attempt to remove them all fail I started linking to more. On the bright side I added "disappearing gun" to the Fortifications navbox; also "Rifling" and "Smoothbore" to template:Cannons. RobDuch (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

It is evident that this is the wrong fiscal year to make new portals (an additional 1,144 single-navbox portals nommed), so Portal:United States Army Coast Artillery Corps moves further towards the back burner. TBH it looks like portals are something that many want to have available but basically nobody is willing to carefully create or maintain. RobDuch (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Just thought I'd mention this discussion. Some portalfans decided this was the portalhill they would portaldie on. BHG is surprisingly spirited after 3 weeks of apparently 18x7 work nominating PfD at MfD and dealing with occasional objections prior to this flood. It's one of the longest discussions I've ever skimmed, with a couple of sections hidden. Of course I don't have a dog in this fight, but it seems to me that the demand that somebody commit to maintaining a portal conflicts with WP:OWN. RobDuch (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Proper names?

Q, in this edit you mention "quite clearly proper names". I'm wondering what you mean by that, for phrases that are most often not treated by sources as proper names. What is clear to you that I'm missing? Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

What do you think, for instance, the proper name of, say, the Peninsular Campaign is? Leave aside Wiki’s own usage, that’s a word or phrase widely used to refer to a particular thing. I would suggest that many of the examples are exactly parallel. They are words or phrases denoting a particular thing. Not uniquely, obviously, any more than the name John Smith is, and not exclusively, just as for john and smith. In the title of an article, though, there should be very, very little doubt that the phrase as a whole is a proper name. If it ain’t, the portion that is not should probably be in parentheses. Qwirkle (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

For that one, the n-grams evidence is less clear. In recent years it has gone from mostly lowercase to mostly uppercase. But the ones I'm moving are not like that. So why do you say it's clear that they are proper names? It seems clear that they are not. Dicklyon (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I just wanted to tell you that XXzoonamiXX has added the "terrorist attack" to the lead of USS Cole bombing. I am not sure but I think there is WP:NOTGETTINGIT issue with this editor. I think I might start an ANI discussion if this continues.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Aveling and Porter

This edit removes a references and leaves a "Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page)." on the page. Why are you editing warring to remove a legitimate reference and restore an error onto the page? That makes no sense. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Already fixed, possibly before you completed this.

why are you edit warring to restore inaccurate articles to wiki, without giving fair warning to the reader? Qwirkle (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abbot-Downing Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coach (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Why did you do this?

Hey, why did you copy the entire Popular Culture section so it is now in the article twice? I removed the repeated section, and you blindly reverted me and added the repeated text back again. Can you fix the problem you created? All I did was remove text which had been copied and added exactly the same, twice, and all you did was return the error. Please fix that. Thanks. --Jayron32 20:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Damned if I know, Jayron32. Probably edit conflict that somehow slipped through. Fixed now? Qwirkle (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

That's probably it. It looks like we were editing at around the same time, and probably edit-conflicted over it. Whatever, it's all good now. Thanks for fixing it! --Jayron32 20:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

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

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The interested third party might look at the talk page, and count actual reversion edits, and ask why this person is not, instead, templating himself.... Qwirkle (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Since I used the template I am obviously aware of its content. Now you are too. Do not repeatedly try to repeat bad edits, inserting unsourced claims into Wikipedia. Also see the discretionary sanctions alert below. Alexbrn (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Bharatpur edits

Changes are made by me in Bharatpur state because all claims are based on one late 19th century gazetteer and its derivative sources that Sindh Pal and Bal Chand were Jadoun Bhatti Rajputs. Not a single source from Gaurid time exists which tells about Jadoun Bhatti Rajput. In fact wikipedia articles about rajput says that there was no consolidated rajput identity back then. This is a mischievous attempt by some vested interests to malign history of Bharatpur state. You will see a user named Alivardi just keep coming again and again on page in an obsessive manner. Thanking You. USGunner76

Thanks for your response, USGunner76 (talk · contribs). From an outside perspective, there seem to be a large number of seemingly new writers who nonetheless seem to show some history with each other; is this a spill-over from a different area? Qwirkle (talk) 05:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is related to propaganda war between two communities in India namely Jats and Rajputs. There were different Princely states which raised propaganda against each other by calling names. User Alivardi is changing many articles again and again for his own biases, supporting some peculiar sources over other sources. He has hijecked many of pages related to indian history. Is there any way by which we can restrict monopoly of some users who wants to propagate a peculiar weltanschauung ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by USGunner76 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

As you add to the message thread, USGunner76 (talk · contribs), drop another colon at the beginning of your new paragraph so it indents.

You might want to raise your concerns at Wikipedia talk:India. If you could, out of curiosity, why the water park edits? It’s a peculiar combination. Qwirkle (talk) 06:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has asked to improve that article, particularly grammatical mistakes. - USGunner76. Thank You for your suggestion. - USGunner76 — Preceding unsigned comment added by USGunner76 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Charles/MGH station

Qwirkle, your reverts here don't give any clear rationale for the capitalization, in light of the RM discussion that concluded that caps there are not necessary. Can you say more clearly why you are reverting my downcasing edit? Dicklyon (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Apparently not in a way that you would be likely to understand it. Qwirkle (talk) 06:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in complementary and alternative medicine. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Alexbrn (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

As a glance at the relevant talk page will show, this is, not surprisingly, somewhere between disingenuous and mendacious. The portion of the article I’ve edited is about the (dated) mainstream use of this procedure, not the modern fringe usage. Qwirkle (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Inserting unsourced fringe medical claims[1] into an article's lede is exactly the kind of thing which might fall afoul of these sanctions. So now you know. Alexbrn (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Which, as a glance at the article talk page will show, is, in fact sourced. The interested third party may ask why so many of your claims are what our equine friends would call “The thing which is not“. Qwirkle (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

BKFIP

• Apropos nothing, there's an AN/I open. Guess why. Nothing to bother about. ——SN54129 17:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring

Lacking any coherent argument for capitalization, or support for your position in talk, please stop reverting my simple case fix on Charles/MGH station. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That’s a classic example of begging the question, really. What makes you think your action is necessarily a “fix”? More importantly, you have left the question of what usage is prefered by experts unanswered on talk. Qwirkle (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Lacking any willingness to contribute in any substantive way to the articles, please stop picking fights about capitalization on MBTA articles. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I have nothing for or against MBTA articles. My style gnoming is more "horizontal" then "vertical", if you know what I mean. MBTA articles are not immune to WP:MOS guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

That, in a nutshell, is the problem, yet you see it as a Good Thing. A little flash mob of devotees of the minuscule suddenly assembling themselves in places they have no knowledge of, dead-set on upholding standards that some of them only vaguely understand themselves.

Ensuring fidelity to the better sources, e.g. Cudahy, is contributing substantially, I’d submit. Allowing blind, bot-like use of ngrams is hurting not just the article (albeit in a small way), but Wikipedia itself. Qwirkle (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I bought Cudahy's Change at Park Street Under : The Story of Boston's Subways a few weeks back. He doesn't cap these, if I recall correctly. I'm in the process of moving, so will have to find it again and re-check; let me know if I recall incorrecrtly. Dicklyon (talk) 06:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Now perhaps you should buy/borrow A century of Subways as well. The trend is suggestive. Qwirkle (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

In that one he even caps subway in "New York Subway". Nobody else does that. I can't see relying on that style as any kind of guidance for WP. Dicklyon (talk) 06:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Why not read it? (...and then ask yourself, if you can, if it is contextually appropriate.) Qwirkle (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I just ordered it; only seeing the front pages on Amazon so far. Perhaps you can quote something relevant? But I can't see how such a specialized pub will override the general literature and convince us to promote things to proper name status. Dicklyon (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I can see more on Google Books, like where he has Contract One subway uppercase and lowercase subway on the same page. He also has "Boston Subway" both ways. He doesn't seem to pay much attention to caps, but clearly likes them. Dicklyon (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, he understands when he is using a phrase as a proper name and when he is not, and perhaps we should emulate him. Qwirkle (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

If you see a difference of context in the one I linked, please do explain it; I'm not seeing it. Dicklyon (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Ummm, yeah. One is refering to the thing-as-a-whole, proper name; the other is to the tunnel at a particular point, not necessarily proper name. The second looks like a clipping, roughly, of COS subway tube/tunnel. Qwirkle (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that. Maybe you can quote the sentences and give a more explicit analysis of what you mean? Dicklyon (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

...and maybe I could go down by Fisherman’s Wharf, next time I’m by there, out pier 39, and talk with some literal sea lions....

Sounds like a kick; let me know when you're around and maybe I'll join you. Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Cudahy's Change at Park Street Under

I got moved, back to my book by your guy Cudahy, and can confirm that he consistently uses lowercase for subway in Tremont Street subway, Boylston Street subway, Cambridge subway, and such. And even the Ashmont–Mattapan "high speed" line doesn't need caps according to this Boston subway expert. Thanks for the tip. Dicklyon (talk) 05:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

...and what year is that book, and how does it compare with his more recent usage? Qwirkle (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The book also refers numerous times to the Public Gardens – a mistake that a Boston history expert like Cudahy would never have made – indicating an unfortunate level of misguided editorial intervention. It's no coincidence that it's the only major book/journal about the system since midcentury that doesn't treat them as proper names. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It’s also succeeded by a book by the same author, academically published, that does treat the subway names as proper. The coverage of Boston in A Century Years of Subways is extensive. Qwirkle (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hell, the BERy was consistently capitalizing by 1925. But sure, that one book from 1972 that you've never even bothered to actually add as a citation is totally the end-all-be-all of style. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I brought it up because Qwirkle suggested I look to Cudahy as an expert. So I did. In his newer book, he caps Subway everywhere, even in "New York Subway", which pretty much nobody else does. Dicklyon (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You still appear to believe that ngrams are an end point in research, rather than the first scratchings.

This is sad.

There should be more uses of the phrase with subway uncapped, since many uses will be things like “New York subway fares are higher (lower, the same as) those in London.” Qwirkle (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The n-grams do let you dig a little deeper. Your intuition is OK, but "fares" doesn't make the top 10 here. Dicklyon (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Why should [an] off-the cuff example make it into the top ten necessarily? And how would any of the linked bilge prove or disprove whether something could be a proper name?Qwirkle (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, the point is that "New York subway system" is far and away the most common context, and there are other contexts shown that you can look at to see if your general idea is supported or not. Pretty much it's not. Dicklyon (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

No. You have asserted this several times; [it] does not seem to be true. Qwirkle (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

If you throw in "City", it's not so different, too. We should really do something about that, don't you think? Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Why? there will be all sorts of examples of phrases which are not being used as proper nouns, and their capitalization will follow that. That doesn’t change what the usage should be for the phrase as a proper name. Qwirkle (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

By the way, if go back to a few years earlier you find a huge spike of "New York Subway Express", which you can track to Steinway ads like this one. Dicklyon (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Which nicely illustrates the pitfalls of blind googlr-dredging...so why do you keep doing that? Qwirkle (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

My point is that I'm not doing it blindly. I'm investigating. If I show you an n-grams plot, you are encouraged to investigate further, too. Dicklyon (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Why should someuse a blunt instrument like a google book dredge, when they can see what expert usage is? And why should you be posting this here in the first place? Qwirkle (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Use whatever tools you can. But keep in mind that we care more about general than about specialist usage; see WP:SSF. And when you do propose an expert to pay attention to, and then say never mind that book, pay attention to this other one he wrote, that just destroys your point about experts having anything useful to say about styling. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

No, twice. Wait, make that thrice. To begin with, that is an essay, not policy, and it is obviously one dear to the hearts of the Miniscule Cabal, but there is a far wider “we” around here. Next, this isn’t about obscure usage restricted to a small group of experts, real or self-styled, finally, and most importantly, when someone mentions two sources from an author, selecting the lesser one you like over the better, and then coming on to someone’s talk page to “thank” them, deserves the kind of response that begins “Redact you and the horse that rode in on you, his oversize stallionhood jammed to the hilt in your luetic...”, but then starts to get nasty. Qwirkle (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It was you suggested paying attention to Cudahy. It was you who deleted the ongoing discussion on your talk page. And as I said before, "keep in mind that we care more about general than about specialist usage". You're out of step with how WP works. Dicklyon (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

What “ongoing conversation” are you referring to? The one above, where you copped to Sealioning perchance?

Next, paying attention to an author does not mean cherry-picking what you prefer from them.

No. You are out of step with how much of Wikipedia works, regularly showing up with a POV-pushing flashmob to alter usage in areas you know little about. With some luck, you’ll get restricted again before you do too much more damage. Qwirkle (talk) 06:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that one, which you had removed in this edit. I didn't realize you restored it later. And I didn't know sealioning was a thing. Live and learn. Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be far better if you did both elsewhere. Goodbye. Qwirkle (talk) 06:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

John Garand

Hello,

This is to let you know that John Garand was never a Canadian citizen as the status was not created until 1947. There are concrete evidences that he was naturalized as a U.S citizen in 1920 and did not retain ties to Canada. As he spent his life in the U.S. and hold citizenship in that country, he is an American. Conditions of restoring Canadian citizenship can be found under the article Canadian nationality law.72.136.13.47 (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Please take this to the article’s talk page, not mine. Qwirkle (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Sara Roosevelt

Hi, I saw you edited my minor correction on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sara_Roosevelt&oldid=prev&diff=959003647 and I do not understand why. You say both work, but subsequently does not seem to work as well as consequently. Sara becoming Eleanor's mother-in-law happened as a consequence of her being FDR's mother. It didn't just happen to take place later (subsequently) to her giving birth.

I am not going to re-revert and start an edit war, I just don't understand the intention behind the revert. You state "Both work, but the (TW)". This is very confusing. (TW) links to a bot that helps users do automated edits, but it explains that the editor is ultimately responsible for any edits performed using this tool. This does not offer an explanation for the edit itself; if "both work", then a revert should have been unnecessary. Stian (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

One will always become a parent-in-law if one is living and one’s child marries. On the other hand, one can die before that. It isn’t always consequential. Qwirkle (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Your bag?

Your bag?

Dude, I found this bag with your name on it in my Airbnb. Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (See here) --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:POLEMIC

I've removed the WP:POLEMIC material from this section. Glad to discuss if you don't understand. Toddst1 (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Understand the rule, @Toddst1:; obviously disagree that it applies. Qwirkle (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Toddst1:...going twice... Qwirkle (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

RJTJ

Thanks for the comments on my Sandbox article on Bob Joy. I was one of his History Fellows at USUHS, and Dale Smith has been feeding me info as well. I agree that it would be hard to find a citation for the weight control comment--although he's probably been vindicated, every time they get stuck with missing recruiting goals, they relax weight standards.

Well, except in the COVID epidemic--they've relaxed the PT test requirements, but required an immediate tape test of anybody who was on the weight control program, and "social distancing" be damned!

I'm hoping to finish the article up "enough" to take it live in the very near future. I work at the headquarters of the Defense Health Agency, and as you might imagine, we've been quite busy of late. So I started it shortly after his death was officially announced, then got stuck when the apocalypse started.

Now, if you happen to know anybody who would have a picture of Bob in jungle fatigues, toting an M-16, I'd pay good money for that. It's the holy grail.

Thanks again for your kind words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don.H.40 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, priorities. They get you every time. No, my best source for some picture like that joined RJTJ a little before his death was announced.

I dunno if you were there for it, but there was FedMed Follies that featured “ Me And Bobby J. T.”, a la Janis Joplin. Dunno how to work that into an article.

Again, thanks for the article, Don.H.40, and here’s to calmer times to finish it. Qwirkle (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Sock Drawer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/173.27.100.156

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2604:2D80:DE12:A900:2DCA:F2EE:5A91:C85B

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/52.56.109.198 HughD

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/52.56.111.224

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/173.27.99.140

World War

In 1914, it was the World War, or for some the Great War, - at the time, there was no other. - When we link to a concert hall we mention the name it had back then, not today's name, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the Great War is still reasonably fixed in current English as the 1914-18 business; the World War is not. It will more often be the first, but it may also be used for ‘39-45. Given that articles are not always strictly chronological, and readers are not always clueful, I think making it explicit was better. Qwirkle (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Gaelic

Hi Qwirkle. When I'm speaking English, I talk about the Irish language, same as I'd talk about French, not Francais, if that makes sense. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see that approach, but here are the problems I see. Depending on the age and background of the reader, “Irish” sometimes implies Anglo-Hibernian English. I got this, for example, from two grandparents for whom English was a second language. Next, the lady in question flourished before Jimmy planted Ulster with non-Gaelic speakers; before then, it was a more-or-less continuous string of variant dialects arcing off into Scotland. Now, this was also a time, of course, when Erse might be referred to as “Irish” in Scotland as well, but you see the catch here? This is beating usage from the present, and heavily slanted toward the Republic, into the past, with a bit of low-key jingoism that can attach to it. I’d rather use a term without that baggage. Qwirkle (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

No disrespect to your grandparents, obviously, but if they're wrong, they're wrong. Gaelic is an adjective, meaning "pertaining to the Gaels." See, e.g., what's said here about the name of the language. Or Article 8 of the Irish constitution: "The Irish language as the national language is the first official language." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

...Which might have remarkably little to do with Irish-born people who left before 1916. (How old, exactly, are you, whelp?)

“Irish” is equally an adjective, and one which simply did not apply, in Bessie-the-Ace’s day, to many, perhaps most, native speakers of the language family. Gaelic was spoken by Manxmen, Highlanders, and Islanders. It was, at this point still expanding geographically, although irrevocably intermingled with English. Norn was retreating before it in Sutherland, and outports off the Banks spoke good Munster and Highland. This wasn’t a peculiarly “Irish” language in the use the Republic makes of it. Qwirkle (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, me? I'm ancient! ;-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Time to rename “Did you know? …

…“that a former department store building in New York City was converted into a graduate school, publisher's offices, and research library?”

Me, I’d suggest “Do you care?”. Qwirkle (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--Drevolt (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Patricia Billings

Continued reinstatement of contentious BLP matters without consensus will earn you a block per WP:ONUS. Let the discussion at WP:BLPN come to a finish before thinking about putting it back in. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

As discussed on BLPN, this is..or rather was, by the look of it, cited to Forbes itself. Vol 173 no 3 february 5, 2001, page 70. Qwirkle (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Quirkle, at BLPN you have put your recent comment into the wrong section rather than into the Patricia Billings section. But even if the snarky piece by Fitch appeared in print, there are other objections to your repeated insertion of your own POV wording into the BLP, which others have made clear at WP:BLPN. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Not guilty. While I am capable such things, I now have technology to handle it for me...edit conflict software appears to have placed one edit in two places. Qwirkle (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:The Christian Science Monitor people

Re Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 10#Category:The Christian Science Monitor people, if I had noticed, I would have closed the discussion as invalid, or re-listed it, because the category talk page was tagged rather than the category page, and with the wrong template. This means that few people would have seen the discussion – in effect, only those who read CFD log pages.

If you want to re-nominate it, I think that it would be valid to hold a fresh discussion, on the above grounds. However, I would suggest that you make it a group nomination, along with the siblings that were mentioned. – Fayenatic London 21:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london:, what is your personal take on both its merits and its chances? I think those categories are all dubious grammar, and unnecessarily so. Qwirkle (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

IMHO it has merit, along with the siblings. As for the UK categories, people refer to "Guardian journalists", "Times leader writers" etc; but I would leave "The Economist" and "The Spectator". As for chances... I'm not at all confident of a change, but it might well be worth a try. It would be necessary to do it as a group, though, to take away the justification of consistency. – Fayenatic London 22:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)