User talk:SovalValtos/Archives/2020/April

Seriously?

Did you even bother to look at what you were doing here? Did you look at the link you deleted which takes you here? Well done on ensuring we have a duplicate set of information on two pages... - SchroCat (talk) 09:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Do some investigation before blindly reverting. Thanks Cassianto^Talk 09:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you SchroCat for coming to my talk page. Please can you tell us why you did not use the article talk page to explain your intention before deleting material in this edit[1]? The edit summary was rather uninformative saying simply "Moving" which in the lack of further explanation it was not unreasonable to think you were moving within the article to another section or some-such but had failed to do so as is the case so often here . You had given a longer and no more to the point summary in this edit which changed a capital T to a lower-case t saying "‎Second World War: Let's hope not everything gets reverted today - even though "Second World War" would have been consistent in the lead)" Do you understand the need for relevant communication rather than perhaps communicating your frustration? Simply responding to the questions: Yes, No, and thanks for well done??SovalValtos (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Should you not have been inquisitive enough to have found out where it was being moved to? Far easier to revert, isn't it. Cassianto^Talk 20:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

You need to look at the edits if you are going to revert. I moved the text (I didn't delete it) and said so; I added a link to the new location. Perhaps if you had looked rather than knee-jerk reverted things would have been better. - SchroCat (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

STG-44

I have started a conversation in/on DIYeditor page. I have no problem with you editing out my msg to him but I take issue with you removing the information provided as I take issue with it having been done so the first time. I am insulted by the fact that DIYeditor wants to smack me with an edit war when he is the one conducting said war. Now you wish to remove information. I respectfully ask that you return said information minus my msg to him. I am taking this issue seriously as it is an intellectual misrepresentation of the truth. I am sorry if it makes people unhappy, but history doesn't stop when people's feelings get hurt.

Thanks

Weaponcheck (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Weaponcheck You can add material yourself as long as it is WP:V.SovalValtos (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

IT IS, BY A DAMN WIKI ARTICLE, BUT IF YOU CAN'T READ BEFORE YOU DELETE, WHAT CAN WE EXPECT. You clearly don't have a understanding of history which means you have no business editing cause you clearly don't care.Weaponcheck (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Strong words by someone who obviously has no idea how to properly translate german to english. To use you example of Sturmtruppen - what do you think they were used for? To assault (stürmen) enemy positions. --Denniss (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

WeaponcheckPlease use the article talk page in future.SovalValtos (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea, lol, okay. Sorry it doesn't fit your political motivations. I know, its hard to except that words don't mean what you want them to. Instead of running your mouth, why don't you show us where the word sturm translates into assault. Furthermore, hey, use talk, you use talk, hey don't use talk. Here is an idea, make up your mind. Stop changing things, don't like it? Talk to that person and discuss it before you remove it. Okay, thanks. Weaponcheck (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

There is nowhere a 'Sturm' to translate (the hidden note is there for a reason). There is a 'Sturmgewehr' to translate. Cut a a to-translate word in parts, translate these parts and merge the translations together = guarantee for a mega-fail. BTW even 'Sturm' in military context is translated to assault. Sorry for hijacking your talk but this can't be left unanswered.--Denniss (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The Howard School

The staff were all advised of the change of Head a week ago. A citation will be added once the website is updated, but that shouldn't invalidate the change.

Deepak Tripathi/Woking

Dear SovalValtos,

Thank you for your kind message referring to the absence of source. You were right and belatedly I apologise.

I am a retired librarian, having worked for Surrey County Libraries and involved in buying books for various librarries for many years. We have Deepak Tripathi's books in our stock for several reasons, including the fact that he has been a Woking resident (with his family) since 1978.

Please note that on the Electoral Roll and the UK Passport etc, Deepak Tripathi's name has a prefix "Vishwa", a sort of title given at birth from his grandfather Vishwambhar Dayal Tripathi's name. Deepak has not used this prefix in his entire career, first as a BBC journalist, then a historian and academic. In effect, Deepak is his first name, much like many Muslim names have Mohammad or Syed.

I do have the following sources for the entry if it helps: https://www.192.com/atoz/people/tripathi/vishwa/gu22/2002571841/ (more recent, based on Electoral Roll and Companies House records) https://www.192.com/atoz/people/tripathi/deepak/gu21/94360137/ (previously)

The url I have included with his entry on the Woking page has a fault. I am not an IT expert, so if you find my contribution acceptable, please could you fix the fault?

If you do not find his entry acceptable on the Woking page, I shall leave this matter to you. I am able to contribute to Wikipedia only infrequently.

Many thanks, once again.

SurreyLibrarian1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurreyLibrarian1 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to Talk SurreyLibrarian1. The best talk page would have been Talk:Woking, the one for the subject under discussion, but as you have started here I am replying here. Please sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~. Neither of your proposed 192 sources look acceptable. How do we know they refer to the subject rather than someone else with the same name? Do you perhaps have some personal knowledge that he has been a Woking resident since 1978? Best wishes.SovalValtos (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)